Harrawood's, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 3, 1971

193 N.L.R.B. 1136 (N.L.R.B. 1971)

1136 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Harrawood 's, Inc ., and Harrawood Brothers , Inc. and
Construction , Building Material , Ice & Coal,
Laundry , Dry Cleaning and Industrial Laundry &
Dry Cleaning Drivers, Helpers, Warehousemen,
Yardmen & Allied Workers, Local Union No. 682,
affiliated with International Brotherhood of Team-
sters, Chauffeurs , Warehousemen & Helpers of
America and Congress of Independent Unions,
Local #99, Party to the Contract.
Congress of Independent Unions , and Congress of
Independent Unions, Local #99 and Construction,
Building Material, Ice & Coal, Laundry, Dry
Cleaning and Industrial Laundry & Dry Cleaning
Drivers, Helpers, Warehousemen, Yardmen & Al-
lied Workers, Local Union No. 682, affiliated with
International Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauf-
feurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America. Cases
14-CA-5756 and 14-CB-2099
wood's, Inc., and Harrawood Brothers, Inc., Ellisville,
Missouri, their officers, agents, successors, and
assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Trial
Examiner's recommended Order as so modified:
1. Substitute the following paragraph for para-
graph I (a)(5) of the recommended Order:
"(5) Withdrawing or withholding recognition from
Operating Engineers Local 513, Teamsters Local 682,
and Laborers Local 110, as the exclusive representa-
tives of its employees in the respective appropriate
units covered by the collective-bargaining agreements
of these Unions."
2. In paragraph l(b)(3) of the recommended
Order change the words "appropriate unit" to read
"appropriate units" and omit the words which follow:
"and, if an understanding is reached, embody such
understanding in a signed agreement."
3. Substitute the attached Appendix A for the
Trial Examiner's Appendix.
November 3, 1971
DECISION AND ORDER
By MEMBERS FANNING, JENKINS, AND
KENNEDY
On May 14, 1971, Trial Examiner Robert E. Mullin
issued his Decision in the above-entitled consolidated
proceeding, finding that Respondents had engaged in
certain unfair labor practices and recommending that
they cease and desist therefrom and take certain
affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial
Examiner's Decision.' Respondent Employers filed
joint exceptions to the said Decision and a brief in
support of exceptions.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
powers in connection with this proceeding to a three-
member panel.
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial
Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no
prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are
hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial
Examiner's Decision, the exceptions and brief, and
the entire record in this proceeding,2 and hereby
adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommenda-
tions of the Trial Examiner except as modified
herein.3
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board adopts as its Order the recommend-
ed Order of the Trial Examiner as modified below and
hereby orders that Respondent Employers, Harra-
i Local Union No. 513, International Union of Operating Engineers,
AFL-CIO, and Local Union Nos 42, 53, and 110 and the Eastern
Missouri Laborers District Council, Laborers International Union of North
America, AFL-CIO, were Intervenors herein
2 The Respc.sdents ' request for oral argument is denied because the
record, the exceptions , and the brief of Respondents adequately present the
issues and the positions of the parties
3 The Trial Examiner found that a Respondent Employer, through its
membership in the Site Improvement Association, had collective-
bargaining agreements with the Operating Engineers, Laborers, and
Teamsters in three appropriate units, but that in effect these separate
appropriate units constituted a composite unit made up of all employees of
the Respondent Employer engaged in asphalt paving work. The
Respondent Employer he found to be "the two Respondent corporations
collectively," that is, Harrawood 's, Inc., and Harrawood Brothers, Inc,
who by reason of interdependence , integrated operations , common
ownership of stock , and common labor policy are a single employer. He
found 8(a)(5) and ( 1) violations based on Respondent Employers' refusing
to recognize and bargain in good faith with the aforesaid Unions, whereas
it appears that the violation was one of withdrawing or withholding
recognition from said Unions incident to requiring employees to join the
CIU. We find that the separate units represented by the Operating
Engineers , Laborers , and Teamsters based on their respective collective-
bargaining agreements are appropriate , and shall modify the order to the
Respondent Employers and the notice to reflect that fact and the nature of
the 8 (a)(5) violation more specifically
APPENDIX A
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT give effect to our agreement dated
December 1, 1969, with Congress of Independent
Unions, Local #99, or to any extension, renewal,
modification, or supplement thereto, unless and
until the labor organization shall have demonstrat-
ed its exclusive majority representative status
among our employees in a Board-conducted
election.
WE WILL withdraw and withhold recognition
from Local #99, or any successor thereto, unless
193 NLRB No. 164
HARRAWOOD'S INC.
and until it shall have demonstrated its exclusive
majority representative status among our employ-
ees in a Board-conducted election.
WE WILL NOT contribute financial or other
support to any labor organization or, in any other
manner, interfere with, restrain, or coerce our
employees in the exercise of their statutory rights.
WE WILL NOT give effect to any checkoff cards,
heretofore executed by our employees, authorizing
deductions from their wages for remittance to the
aforesaid Union.
WE WILL refund to all our employees and
former employees from whose wages we have
deducted funds, for transmittal to the aforesaid
Union, the amounts deducted from their earnings
subsequent to February 19, 1970, to the end that
each employee shall be reimbursed for such
moneys so deducted.
WE WILL offer Ralph Helton and Newton
Russell immediate and full reinstatement to their
former jobs or, if those jobs no longer exist, to
substantially equivalent positions, without preju-
dice to their seniority or other rights and privileges.
WE WILL make whole Ralph Helton, Newton
Russell , Terry McDaniel, and Robert Riedy for
any loss of pay they may have suffered as a result
of discrimination against them.
WE WILL NOT discharge or otherwise discrimi-
nate against any employee because of membership
in, or activity on behalf of, any labor organization.
WE WILL NOT threaten employees with dis-
charge or other reprisals if they become, or remain,
members of any union.
WE WILL NOT coercively, or otherwise unlawful-
ly, interrogate employees as to their union activi-
ties or about the union activities of other employ-
ees.
WE WILL NOT create the impression of surveil-
lance to discourage membership in, or activity on
behalf of, any labor organization.
WE WILL NOT withdraw or withhold recognition
from Operating Engineers Local 513, Teamsters
Local 682, and Laborers Local 110 as the exclusive
representatives of all employees in the respective
appropriate units covered by the collective-bar-
gaining agreements of these Unions, and WE
WILL, upon request, bargain collectively in good
faith concerning wages, hours, and other terms or
conditions of employment with said Unions as the
exclusive representative of the employees in the
respective appropriate units.
I The charges in these cases were all filed during 1970 Thus, the
original charge in Case 14-CA-5756 was filed on August 19 Thereafter, a
first amended charge was filed on September 1, a second amended charge
on September 8, a third amended charge on October 21, a fourth amended
charge on October 23; and a fifth amended charge on October 28 The
1137
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere
with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise
of their right to self-organization, to form,join, or
assist any labor organization, to bargain collec-
tively through representatives of their own choos-
ing, or to engage in concerted activities for the
purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual
aid, or to refrain from any and all such activities,
except to the extent that this right may be affected
by agreements in conformity with Section 8(a)(3)
of the National Labor Relations Act.
Dated By
HARRAWOOD'S, INC.
(Employer)
(Representative) (Title)
HARRAWOOD BROTHERS,
INC.
(Employer)
Dated By
(Representative) (Title)
This is an official notice and must not be defaced by
anyone.
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive
days from the date of posting and must not be altered,
defaced, or covered by any other material.
Any questions concerning this notice or compliance
with its provisions may be directed to the Board's
Office, 210 North 12th Boulevard, Room 448, St.
Louis, Missouri 63101, Telephone 314-622-4167.
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
ROBERT E. MULLIN, Trial Examiner: The hearing in these
cases was held on January 14, 19, and 20, 1971, in St. Louis,
Missouri, pursuant to charges duly filed and served,' and
an order consolidating cases, a second amended complaint
and a notice of hearing issued on January 6, 1971. The
Respondent Employers filed separate answers, wherein
they conceded certain facts with respect to their business
operations, but denied all allegations that they had
committed any unfair labor practices. The answer of the
Respondent Unions, duly filed, likewise denied any
violations of the Act.
At the hearing all parties were represented by counsel. All
parties were given full opportunity to examine and cross-
examine witnesses , to introduce relevant evidence, and to
file briefs. The parties waived oral argument. A motion to
dismiss, made at the close of the hearing by the Respondent
original charge in Case 14-CB-2099 was filed on August 19 Thereafter, a
first amended charge in that case was filed on December 30. An original
order consolidating cases, complaint and notice of hearing was issued on
October 12, and thereafter , an amended complaint and notice of hearing
was issued on November 10.
1138 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Employers, was taken under advisement. It is disposed of as
appears hereinafter in this decision. On March 8, 1971, all
parties submitted able and comprehensive briefs.
Upon the entire record in the case, including the briefs of
counsel, and from his observation of the witnesses, the Trial
Examiner makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT EMPLOYERS
Harrawood's, Inc. (hereinafter "Harrawood"), and
Harrawood Brothers, Inc. (hereinafter "Brothers"), Mis-
souri corporations with their principal office at 1251 Vero
Lane, Ellisville, Missouri, and with a branch office on
Meramec Station Road in St . Louis County, are engaged in
the business of asphalt paving construction and of leasing
asphalt paving equipment. During the year ending
December 31, 1970, each corporation, in the course and
conduct of its business operations, purchased and caused to
be transported to its Missouri headquarters and to Missouri
construction sites, goods and materials valued in excess of
$50,000, of which amount goods and materials valued in
excess of $50,000 were transported and delivered to the
Missouri headquarters and to Missouri construction sites
directly from points located outside that State. Upon the
foregoing facts, the Respondent Employers concede, and
the Trial Examiner finds, that Harrawood's, Inc., and
Harrawood Brothers, Inc., are employers engaged in
commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7)
of the Act.
The General Counsel further contends that Harrawood
and Brothers are so closely related that, under the Act, they
must be considered as a single employer. The facts with
respect to that issue will now be considered.
All of the stock in both corporations is held, in equal
shares, by three Harrawood brothers, viz., Thurman Gayle,2
Edward A., and Thomas F. These same three individuals
constitute the directors and officers for both companies.
Gayle Harrawood is the secretary-treasurer for both
Harrawood and Brothers, and is responsible for the
management and supervision of the day-to-day operations
of both companies. He is in charge of the hiring and firing
of all personnel and it is he who makes the decision as to
which Company a new employee, or any employee, is
assigned . Edward A. Harrawood is the president of
Harrawood and the vice-president of Brothers. Thomas H.
Harrawood is the president of Brothers and the vice-
president of Harrawood. The principal office for both
corporations at 1251 Vero Lane is also the residence of
Gayle Harrawood. All payroll and other records for both
companies are handled by the same two clerical employees.
Thus, Darlene Harrawood, wife of Gayle Harrawood, is in
charge of the payrolls and Louise Lake is the sole secretary
in the office.
Gayle Harrawood testified that Harrawood was incorpo-
rated in 1964 and that it has been engaged since that time as
a general contractor in the business of asphalt paving. He
likewise testified that Brothers was incorporated in 1969 for
the purpose of leasing construction equipment and, where
the customer so desired, the necessary personnel to operate
the equipment. Although Gayle Harrawood testified that
Brothers did not do any paving work, he also testified that,
after being leased to customers, Brothers' equipment and
personnel are engaged in asphalt paving from 70 to 80
percent of the time. He likewise testified that about 15
percent of the equipment used by Harrawood is leased from
Brothers and that the two corporations have many common
customers.
Gayle Harrawood testified, credibly and without contra-
diction, that both Companies maintain separate corporate
books, have separate bank accounts, and file separate tax
returns . On the other hand, from the testimony of many
employees who had worked for both Harrawood and
Brothers, it is apparent that the employees could perceive
no distinction between the equipment used, the work
performed, or the supervisory personnel for one or the
other Company. In fact, for most of the employees the
name on their payroll checks constituted the only clear
indication as to which corporation was their employer.
In his brief, counsel for the Respondent Employers relies
heavily on such indicia as separate bank accounts,
corporate records, and tax returns to establish the
independence of each corporation. Under other statutes
these two companies may very well have preserved their
separate identities. On the facts set out above, however, it is
clear, and the Trial Examiner finds, that under the Act here
involved, Harrawood and Brothers constitute a single
employer. N. L. R. B. v. Stowe Spinning Co., 336 U.S. 226, 227
("Interlocking directorates and family ties make the four
[respondent mills] equal one for our purposes." Southport
Petroleum Company v. N.L.R.B., 315 U.S. 100, 106; Regal
Knitwear Co. v. N.L.R.B., 324 U.S. 9, 14-16; N.L.R.B. v.
Price Valley Lumber Co., 216 F.2d 212, 213-214 (C.A. 9),
certiorari denied 348 U.S. 212; Bethlehem Steel Co. v.
N.L.R.B., 120 F.2d 641, 650-651 (C.A.D.C.); N.L.R.B. v.
Concrete Haulers, Inc., 212 F.2d 477, 479 (C.A. 5). ("The
interdependence and integrated nature of the operations of
the respondents, the common ownership of stock, and the
fact that the same officer administers a common labor
policy, clearly indicate that there is only one employer for
the purposes of this Act.") N.L.R.B. v. National Garment
Co., 166 F.2d 233, 238 (C.A. 8). Hereinafter, where the term
"Harrawood, Inc.," or "Respondent Employer", appears it
will indicate the two Respondent corporations collectively,
whereas "Harrawood," or "Brothers" will be used when
necessary to refer to one or the other of the respective
corporate entities.
H. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
Construction, Building Material, Ice & Coal, Laundry,
Dry Cleaning and Industrial Laundry & Dry Cleaning
Drivers, Helpers, Warehousemen, Yardmen & Allied
Workers, Local Union No. 682, affiliated with Internation-
al Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen
& Helpers of America (hereinafter known as Teamsters, or
Teamsters Local 682); Local Union No. 513, International
Union of Operating Engineers, AFL-CIO (hereinafter
2 Throughout the hearing , and in the transcript , Thurman Gayle
Harrawood is referred to only as Gayle Harrawood.
HARRAWOOD'S INC.
known as Operators, or Operating Engineers Local 513);
Local Unions Nos. 42, 53, and 110 and the Eastern
Missouri Laborers District Council, Laborers International
Union of North America, AFL-CIO (hereinafter known as
Laborers, Laborers Local 42, 53, and 110, and District
Council, respectively); Congress of Independent Unions
(hereinafter known as CIU) and Congress of Independent
Unions, Local #99 (hereinafter known as CIU, Local 99),
are labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2(5)
of the Act.
111. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The Facts
In the period from 1967 to 1969, Harrawood had
contracts with the Operators and Laborers for appropriate
units of its employees which those unions traditionally
represent. These agreements expired on May 1, 1969. In the
fall of that year, Harrawood joined the Site Improvement
Association, (hereinafter known as SIA), an employer
organization engaged in collective bargaining with the
various craft unions which represented employees of its
members . In September 1969, Gayle Harrawood, as
secretary-treasurer, signed a power of attorney which
authorized David Birenbaum, industrial relations consult-
ant for SIA, to execute collective-bargaining contracts on
behalf of Harrawood. Birenbaum testified, credibly and
without contradiction, that shortly after September 17,
1969, pursuant to this authority, he signed contracts on
Harrawood's behalf with the Teamsters, Laborers, and
Operators, each of which agreements was effective from
May 1, 1969, to May 1, 1974.3
The central issues in this case arise out of certain
contractual negotiations and relations which Brothers
initiated with the CIU in December 1969 and which were
still in effect at the time of the hearing. Birenbaum testified,
credibly and without contradiction, that neither the Paving
Contractors' Association, nor the SIA, participated in any
such negotiations . He further testified that it was not until
the spring of 1970 that he learned of the corporate existence
of Brothers. According to Birenbaum, none of the three
unions , namely, Teamsters, Operators, or Laborers, has
sought to modify or terminate the agreements executed
3 Birenbaum testified that early in September 1969, Harrawood applied
for membership in the St Louis Paving Contractors' Association, one of
the four organizations which constitute the SIA He further testified that
this application was accepted at a meeting of the Paving Contractors'
Association on about September 10, and that on becoming a member of
that organization , Harrawood also became a member of SIA It was shortly
thereafter that Gayle Harrawood executed the power of attorney pursuant
to which Birenbaum signed the collective-bargaining agreements with the
Teamsters , Operators , and Laborers for Harrawood. Birenbaum further
testified that at all times since September 1969 the latter has maintained its
membership in the Paving Contractors' Association and the SIA.
Birenbaum 's testimony in this and in all other respects , was credible and
supported by numerous documents which he had at the time of his
appearance on the stand The Respondent Employer offered no evidence
that would tend to contradict any of the testimony which Birenbaum gave
Gayle Harrawood conceded that he executed the power of attorney in
question The Respondent made no effort to prove that it had ever been
modified or revoked
4 Throughout the hearing Edward A Harrawood was often referred to
as "Arnold Harrawood "
S The collective-bargaining agreement which the Harrawoods signed
with the CIU on this occasion is in the record It is a short four-page
1139
with Harrawood in 1969. As indicated earlier, by their
terms, these contracts are to remain in effect until May 1,
1974.
On about December 1, 1969, Edward A. Harrawood,4
vice-president of Brothers and president of Harrawood,
executed a contract between Brothers and CIU, Local 99.
On the day that this contract was signed, Gayle Harrawood
called five of the Harrawood employees to his office and
expressed dissatisfaction with the fact that a short while
earlier certain employees had filed grievances with the
Teamsters on the ground that operators and laborers were
doing Teamster work. Thereafter he told those present that
if they signed CIU authorization cards they could do
whatever work they wanted and havejobs all winter. At the
time, in addition to the five employees, there were four
Harrawoods present, namely, the three brothers, Gayle,
Thomas, and Edward, and their father, Frank Harrawood,
as well as Clark Libhart, executive vice-president of the
CIU.
Robert Riedy, an employee who was there, testified that
after hearing Gayle Harrawood, one of the employees
asked "In other words, if we don't sign this CIU card we go
home?" and that Edward A. Harrawood said, in response,
"That's pretty blunt, but that's the way it is." According to
Reedy, Gayle Harrawood added the following comment,
"Yeah, that's right, either you sign it [a CIU card] or we
can't use you, you will have to take a layoff." The five
employees present thereupon signed CIU cards and
checkoff authorizations. Libhart talked to the employees at
the time. Riedy testified that the CIU official "told us what
we could do, told us there was no benefits or anything of
that sort." 5 James Straatmann, another employee who was
present, testified that Gayle Harrawood told them they
would be taken from the Harrawood payroll and paid by
the Brothers corporation. Both Straatmann and Riedy were
credible witnesses as to this incident and their testimony
was in no way contradicted or denied .6
The initial charges in this case were not filed until August
1970. Obviously, therefore, all testimony as to events which
occurred in December of the prior year fall within the
proscription of the statute of limitations set forth in Section
10(b) of the Act, and no unfair labor practice findings can
be based upon such evidence. On the other hand, such
document with conventional clauses on recognition , union shop, hours of
work, holidays, and grievances. Its clause on wages merely provides a
minimum rate of $3 00 an hour for laborers , $3.50 for truckdrivers and
$4 00 for operators These were in sharp contrast with the provisions in the
contracts which the SIA had negotiated and which were in effect as to the
foregoing classifications in Harrawood 's employ Thus, the Laborers
agreement provided for a rate of $5.25 an hour in the relevant
classification , the Teamster scale for truckdnvers ranged from $4 87 to
$5 17 an hour , and the Operators scale from $5.97 to $6.97 an hour. All of
the last three contracts also provided for an annual wage increase in all
classifications, for each year of the 5-year term
6 During the cross-examination of Reedy by counsel for Harrawood, he
was asked whether, notwithstanding there having been no vote among the
employees as to affiliation with the CIU, the employees nevertheless agreed
upon the contract at this meeting His negative response and the
atmosphere at the scene are reflected in a revealing exchange , for, when
asked the following question , Reedy gave the answer which appears below:
Q. When they [the Harrawood brothers ] came back [to the room]
it was all agreed upon by this time [among the employees ] that it [the
CIU contract] was acceptable?
A. It was acceptable . . . when he said there would be no work
unless we signed it.
1140 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
testimony may be used as background to explain and give
meaning to what occurred subsequently.? That is the
situation here.
Several of the employees who were placed on the
Brothers' payroll in December 1969, and on various dates
thereafter, testified at the hearing. Included within this
number were employees James Straatman, Ralph Helton,
Robert Riedy, and Clifford Winistoerfer, all of whom had
worked for Harrawood prior to December 1969. The
testimony they gave as to their work and working
conditions in 1969 and 1970 provides further support for
the conclusion set forth earlier that the Harrawood family
operated the two companies here involved as one entity.
Thus, the foregoing named employees testified that after
being placed on the Brothers' payroll they continued to
perform the same kind of work in connection with asphalt
paving construction as they had while being paid by
Harrawood. They further testified that they continued to
have the same supervisors, namely, several of the Harra-
wood brothers, that they used the same equipment as
before, and that they had the same coworkers. One witness,
Terry McDaniel, was hired by Gayle Harrawood in June
1970. McDaniel testified that Harrawood told him at the
time that he had two companies and that he was undecided
as to which one he would assign McDaniel. According to
the latter, it was not until after he received his first
paycheck with Brothers' name on it that he knew which
Company it was for which he was working.
Although the employees who had been put on the
Brothers' payroll in December 1969 had been required to
sign CIU cards and checkoff authorizations, no dues were
deducted from their pay until August 1970. Early in the
latter month Gayle Harrawood called many of the
employees to his office for the purpose of securing new
signatures on CIU authorization cards and checkoffs. He
did not deny or contradict the testimony of employee
witnesses who told of his efforts to secure these cards from
them. According to Harrawood, he was compelled to take
this course of action when the CIU demanded that Brothers
comply with the union shop provisions of the collective-
bargaining agreement which it had executed the preceding
December. In support of this testimony, the Respondent
offered a letter from the CIU which listed seven employees
as being delinquent in dues payments. The letter was dated
June 20, 1970. It was not preemptory in tone, and merely
requested that the Respondent "Please take care of this
matter [the employee dues' delinquency] as soon as
possible." Gayle Harrawood conceded that although this
letter was received shortly after the date it bears, he did
nothing about the arrearage issue for some time. From
other testimony, however, it appears that Harrawood
disclosed another and more urgent need for action when he
summoned the employees to his office early in August.
Thus, according to employee Robert Riedy, on about
r See Local Lodge No 1424, 1 A M v NLRB, 326 U S 411, 416 "
earlier events may be utilized to shed light on the true character of matters
occurring within the limitations period , and for that purpose §10(b)
ordinarily does not bar such evidentiary use of anterior events"
8 In its letter of June 20, the CIU had listed only seven employees as
being delinquent in their dues obligations
6 Eg, Clifford Winistoerfer , a blade operator, testified that after he
signed the checkoff authorization in August , the Respondent Brothers
August 8, Gayle Harrawood called him and two other
employees for a conference. Riedy testified, credibly and
without contradiction, that at that time, the corporate
secretary-treasurer told them that the Respondent had
secured a $350,000 contract to pave a large parking lot for
the Chevrolet plant in St. Louis, that one of the
requirements was that all of the employees on the project be
union members and that he intended that this would be the
CIU, instead of the AFL-CIO, for all employees of
Brothers.
Harrawood himself testified as to the diligence with
which all of the Brothers' employees were required
thereafter to sign up with the CIU. According to him, early
in August the employment records were checked and all
employees who had been with Brothers over 30 days were
compelled to execute checkoff cards. He further testified
that thereafter dues for the CIU were withheld from the pay
of all employees and that the Company (Brothers) paid the
dues for three supervisors on the payroll. In a letter dated
August 7, 1970, Brothers sent the CIU a check for $788 to
cover initiation fees at $25 each for 16 employees, and to
cover the dues of 20 employees8 at $4 per month for any
period each of those individuals was on the payroll from
January through October 1970. Gayle Harrawood testified
that thereafter dues were withheld from the pay of all
employees except for that of three supervisors whose dues
the Respondent paid. The initiation fee of $25 for each
employee which the Respondent forwarded to the CIU on
August 7 was also withheld from the pay of some of the
employees, but whether this was done as to every employee
on the Brothers' payroll is not clear from the record .9
There was a considerable volume of testimony from
employees as to the manner in which Gayle Harrawood
sought to secure their signatures on the new CIU
authorization cards and checkoffs. Employee Clifford
Winistoerfer, a member in good standing of the Operators,
testified that, during the first part of August, when
Harrawood called him in and asked him to sign a CIU card
he asked whether there was any alternative and Harrawood
told him "either sign it [the card] or don't work." Employee
James Straatmann testified that about August 8 he, Riedy,
and Wilbur Hofstetter, another coworker, were called to
Harrawood's office and told by Harrawood that "We're
CIU and we're going to stay CIU," that even though they
had signed cards in that union during the winter, he wanted
them to sign new cards and that if they did not do so, he
would have to lay them off.10 According to Riedy, when
Hofstetter asked what would happen if he did not sign the
card, Harrawood told him "Well, don't be in on Monday."
Employee Ralph Helton, a member of Teamsters Local 682
since 1964, testified that when Gayle Harrawood called him
to the office during this period and told him that everyone
would have to be a union member, he protested that he was
already a member of the Teamsters. According to Helton,
withheld $37 from his pay. This was the precise amount which the
Respondent sent to the CIU on Wimstoerfer 's behalf in its letter of August
7
10 Riedy testified that although he had signed a CIU card the preceding
December he subsequently told Gayle Harrawood he wanted to cancel his
membership, so that in August 1970, having taken this action and having
paid no dues, he assumed that he was no longer a member.
HARRAWOOD'S INC 1141
Harrawood told him that was not the kind of union he
wanted and that Helton could eitherjoin the CIU or be laid
off. Helton testified that he thereupon signed a CIU card
because "I couldn't afford to lose myjob."
Not all of those whom Harrawood contacted about this
matter executed the requisite forms. One of those was
Newton Russell , a longtime member of Laborers Local 110.
He testified that Harrawood told him during this period
that he would have to join the CIU but that he ignored this
proposal and refused to do so. Subsequent developments
with respect to Russell are discussed later in this decision.
Terry McDaniel, a member of Laborers Local 110, was
another employee who did not execute the CIU card which
was proffered to him at this time According to McDaniel,
Gayle Harrawood told him on several occasions that he
would have to sign up with the CIU, notwithstanding his
protests that he was already a member of the Laborers.
McDaniel testified that during the latter part of August the
secretary in Harrawood's office told him that if he did not
sign the CIU authorization immediately he would be laid
off in 15 days. According to McDaniel, he thereafter asked
Gayle Harrawood to spare him the necessity of signing up
with the CIU by transferring him to the Harrawood
Company, but that Gayle Harrawood told him that this was
impossible because he already had all the men he needed on
the rolls of the latter corporation. The aftermath of
McDaniel's refusal to sign a CIU authorization is discussed
hereinafter.
Several of the employees who were disturbed about
having to join the CIU contacted representatives of the
Charging Parties and solicited their assistance. Among the
most active in initiating these contacts were employees
Helton, Riedy, and Hofstetter. As a result of their efforts,
on the evening of August 18 a meeting was held at the
union hall of Operators Local 513. About 20 to 22 men
from both the Harrawood and Brothers corporations were
present. This represented substantially all of the employees
for both companies.ii After a discussion of the grievances
which had arisen out of employee opposition to the
Respondent's campaign to secure members for the CIU,
representatives of the Charging Unions solicited their
membership. As a result, all of those employees present
who were not already members of the Operators, Team-
sters , or Laborers, signed authorization cards in one or the
other of those respective unions that night.
It was unden ►ed that the morning of August 19, Gayle
Harrawood engaged in extensive interrogation of the
employees who had attended the meeting. Thus, Ralph
Helton testified that when he reported for work that
morning, Gayle and Thomas Harrawood called him to the
office and told him they wanted to know what had
happened at the union hall. Helton testified that, in
response to their questions, he declared "We voted the CIU
out and wanted our rightful unions back in." According to
Helton , Gayle Harrawood thereupon terminated the
conversation with the statement that they were going to lay
him off because "[Helton] was a union instigator." Helton
was, in fact, terminated at this time, thereby raising an issue
which is considered more fully elsewhere in this decision.
Terry McDaniel testified that while he and others were
standing outside the office and waiting to go to work that
morning, Gayle Harrawood came out and told them that he
"had gotten rid of Ralph Helton and if we didn't like it we
could leave too." According to McDaniel, Harrawood
thereupon asked them if they intended to work that day
and all of them answered in the affirmative. They then left
for the construction site to which they were assigned that
week.
On that particular day the Respondent Employer's
paving crew was at work on a highway construction project
near St. Clair, Missouri. The asphalt paver, a very large and
expensive machine was being operated by Robert Riedy.
Sometime that morning, the paver broke down. Gayle
Harrawood testified that immediately upon hearing about
this occurrence he drove to the site. After effecting
temporary repairs on the machine, Harrawood talked with
the Brothers' employees on the crew. According to Riedy,
Harrawood asked each of the five or six employees present
as to who had been at the union meeting the night before
and what had been decided. Riedy testified that after the
interrogation of several individuals produced only noncom-
mittal answers, Harrawood then stated "I don't know if you
boys know it or not, but you're beat before you start ... .
You five have signed this back in December. . . . It was all
legal . . . . The CIU is here to stay until I die or go out of
business" Employee James Straatmann corroborated
Riedy's testimony as to this incident. According to
Straatmann, when Harrawood questioned him about the
meeting, he acknowledged having been there and thereafter
Harrawood stated that if the employees did not like the
CIU they could quit and that he and the rest of the
members of the Harrawood family would finish the job that
had been started. Straatmann further testified that Gayle
Harrawood told those present that the "CIU was there to
stay and that he would close the business down if it went
any other way." According to Straatmann, when there was
further discussion about the CIU, Harrawood volunteered
to arrange a meeting with the CIU for the employees.
At some time thereafter Gayle Harrawood contacted
Libhart and arranged an employee meeting with the CIU
representative which was held on August 22. Harrawood
testified that it was at Straatmann's request that he asked
Libhart to hold the meeting. Straatmann, however, when
called as a rebuttal witness, credibly denied having made
any request of Harrawood that he act on the employees'
behalf in requesting a meeting with the CIU.
Gayle Harrawood did not deny the testimony set out
above which attributed to him and his brother Thomas 12
the interrogation of employees about the union meeting of
August 18 and the extent of employee dissatisfaction with
the CIU. According to Gayle Harrawood his actions and
conduct on the morning of August 19 were dictated by a
concern that the Respondent's paving operations would be
brought to a halt by a work stoppage. Thus, he testified that
unidentified vandals had caused considerable damage to
the Respondent's equipment and property during the
summer of 1970 and he stated that on the morning of
August 19 he feared that further damage and a work
11 James Straatmann testified, credibly and without contradiction, that
at this time there were about 23 rank-and-file employees working for the
two corporations
12 Thomas Harrawood was not called as a witness.
1142 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
stoppage were about to materialize. According to Gayle
Harrawood, he interrogated the employees only because of
the problems which had arisen on the job and to ascertain
whether the employees planned to work the next day. At
the same time , he conceded that after the paver was
repaired on the afternoon and evening of August 19,
normal paving operations were resumed on the next day
and that the work continued thereafter without incident.
On August 22 the CIU held the meeting which Gayle
Harrawood had suggested to Libhart. The day before, a
notice of the scheduled time and place was posted on
Harrawood's office door. The next day Libhart presided at
the meeting which was held at a site known as the Valley
Mount Ranch. James Harrawood was present for a short
while before the meeting began. Employee Winistoerfer
testified that when he arrived at the scene the latter member
of the Harrawood family was engaged in setting up chairs
and arranging the meeting place, but that after this had
been done, Harrawood did not remain. There was credible,
undenied, testimony at the hearing that during this period
James Harrawood informed several of the employees that
he was the shop steward for the CIU.13
The meeting which ensued after Libhart opened the
discussion about the existing CIU contract was brief. From
the credible testimony of Straatmann, Winistoerfer, and
Riedy, it appears that it lasted for only 30 to 45 minutes and
that it was terminated abruptly when Libhart was unable to
satisfy the employees present with his answers to questions
about the benefits which membership in the CIU would
provide.
On August 24, the following Monday, employee Winis-
toerfer was interrogated by Gayle Harrawood, in the
presence of Edward and Thomas Harrawood. Winistoer-
fer's testimony was credible and it was not contradicted.
According to the employee, when he came to work that
morning Gayle Harrawood questioned him about the union
meeting which had been held on August 18 at the
Operators' Hall. Winistoerfer testified that Thomas Harra-
wood asked him whether he was "one of the instigators .. .
of that union meeting." After the employee denied that he
had been one of those who had arranged the meeting in
question , Harrawood dropped the subject.
B. Conclusions as to the Alleged Violations of
Section 8(a)(2) and (1)
On the findings set forth above, it is clear that in
September 1969, Harrawood, Inc., executed valid contracts
with the Operators, Teamsters, and Laborers which, by
their terms, would not expire until May 1974. At no time
13 Eg, the testimony of James Straatmann and Newton Russell. The
General Counsel alleged that James Harrawood was a supervisor in
support of this position , employees Straatmann and Helton testified that
James Harrawood was known to the employees as a foreman on the job
These same witnesses , however, conceded that they had never seen him
discipline anyone , nor hire or fire any employee The Trial Examiner
concludes that on the evidence in this record the General Counsel failed to
establish that James Harrawood is a supervisor On the other hand, it is
clear that as a brother of the three Harrawoods who are the officers,
directors , and sole shareholders of the Respondent corporations, James
Harrawood held a special status that substantially distinguished him from
the rank -and-file employees Straatmann credibly testified that James
Harrawood regularly drove a company truck to and from his home to the
job Gayle Harrawood testified that his brother James was also furnished
after the execution of these agreements did any of these
unions relinquish or abandon their representation of the
employees at Harrawood, Inc. Thus, the Respondent
Employer was under a continuing obligation, at all times
material herein, to adhere to the terms of those contracts
with the aforesaid unions. Consequently, the Employer was
not free to enter into a contract with the CIU covering
those same employees in December 1969, or at any time
thereafter.
As noted earlier, the contract between the Respondent
Employer and the CIU, effective on December 1, 1969, was
by its terms, to remain in force for 1 year and thereafter
from year to year until either party notified the other of any
changes desired. This agreement had a union-security
clause which required the discharge of any employee who
failed to maintain his membership in good standing. It is
significant that, notwithstanding this provision, Harra-
wood, Inc., made no deductions for dues from the wages of
any employees until August 7, 1970.14 Insofar as the record
discloses, the Respondent Employer made no effort to
adhere to the union shop provision of the CIU contract
until the latter part of the summer when it received a
substantial construction contract, in the performance of
which it would need to use union labor exclusively. As
found earlier, the CIU agreement provided merely
minimum rates of pay and these ranged from $3.00 to $4.00
per hour. All of the employees who testified at the hearing
were earning in excess of $6 per hour. There was no
evidence of any bargaining between the CIU and the
Respondent Employer, subsequent to December 1969,
about wage rates or any terms or conditions of employ-
ment. Nor was the union-security provision in the contract
enforced. In June 1970 a secretary in the office of Vice-
President Libhart of the CIU wrote a letter to Brothers
suggesting that it "take care" 15 of the delinquency in dues
that had accumulated from January to June. Not until
August when the Respondent Employer secured its large
asphalt paving contract, did it manifest any determination
to adhere to the CIU contract. As found earlier, at that
point, all employees of Brothers were told that they had to
sign authorization and checkoff cards, and some of those
who had signed such cards the preceding December were
told that they had to resign these cards. From the record
herein, it appears that for many months after its execution
the Respondent Employer allowed the contract with the
CIU to lay dormant. When a business venture materialized
that could be completed only if its employees were union
members, the Employer chose to revive the CIU contract,
announce to the employees that they would be compelled to
by the Brothers corporation with the same model Cadillac automobile as is
provided for each of the three officers and directors and for Frank
Harrawood, father of them all. In the circumstances present here , including
the fact that Harrawood, Inc , is a family enterprise , and in view of James
Harrawood' s close relationship with all the officers and directors of the
Respondent, the Trial Examiner concludes and finds that the employees
had reason to believe that he represented the management and that he was,
in fact , a management agent N LR B v. Fiore Brothers Oil Company, 317
F 2d 710, 711-712 (C.A. 2), Continental Motors, Inc, 145 NLRB 1073,
1076-1077
14 In February 1970, one payment of dues was made to the CIU out of
Harrawood funds However , none of this was deducted from the wages of
the employees then on the payroll until the following August.
15 The quotation is from the letter
HARRAWOOD'S INC. 1143
adhere to the union shop provision, and thereafter threaten
them with discharge if they failed to do so. In taking this
course, the Respondent Employer displayed its preference
and favoritism for the CIU, notwithstanding the fact that at
the same time it was bound by contracts with the Operators,
Teamsters, and Laborers covering these same employees.
By this assistance and support to the CIU, Harrawood,
Inc., violated Section 8(a)(2) and (1) of the Act. J. Howard
Jenks, d/b/a Glendora Plumbing, et al., 165 NLRB 101, 102.
In addition to the foregoing violation of Section 8(a)(2)
and (1), the Respondent further violated the same sections
of the Act, and accorded unlawful assistance to the CIU:
(1) By Gayle Harrawood's suggestion to the employees,
on August 19, that they have a meeting with the CIU and
thereafter arranging with CIU Representative Libhart that
such a meeting be held on August 22.
(2) By allowing James Harrawood, a management agent
within the terms of the Act, to serve as a CIU steward, and
in permitting James Harrawood to assist the CIU in
completing arrangements for the meeting with the employ-
ees on August 22. Coast Aluminum Company, 120 NLRB
1326, 1327.
(3) By applying the union shop provision to the
employees on August 7, and by making advance payments
at that time of their dues from August through October.
Dixie Bedding Manufacturing Company, 268 F.2d 901, 906
(C.A. 5).
C. Conclusions as to the Alleged Violations of
Section 8(a)(5)
engineer oilers; and the Teamsters represent a unit of all
teamsters and chauffeurs. 16
Gayle Harrawood testified that Brothers had no employ-
ees until December 1969. By August 1970, Brothers had
from 20 to 30 employees and Harrawood had from 12 to 15.
According to Gayle Harrawood, the determination as to
which company an employee was assigned was made on the
basis of the union to which he belonged.17 Earlier herein it
was found that the operations of the Harrawood and
Brothers companies were so entertwined that, within the
standards established by the Act, at all times material
herein they constituted a single family enterprise. The
collective-bargaining relationship which Harrawood estab-
lished with the three Charging Unions by the contracts of
September 1969 was still in effect when, early in August
1970, Gayle Harrawood revived the CIU contract and
began enforcing the terms of the latter agreement as to all
employees on the Brothers' payroll. This action constituted
a repudiation of the Respondent Employer's obligation to
recognize the Operators, Teamsters, and Laborers as the
exclusive representatives of the employees in the above
described appropriate units . Consequently, the Trial
Examiner concludes and finds that, since about August 1,
1970, by ignoring its obligation to recognize the Charging
Unions pursuant to the aforesaid contracts, by recognizing
the CIU, and by enforcing the CIU agreement as to all the
employees on the Brothers' payroll, the Respondent
Employer violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act. J.
Howard Jenks, d/b/a Glendora Plumbing, 165 NLRB 101,
102.
Harrawood has had contracts with the Operators,
Laborers, and Teamsters since September 1969. For 2 years
prior to that time it had contracts with the Operators and
the Laborers. The Respondent Employer did not contend
that these unions no longer represent the employees of
Harrawood. According to Gayle Harrawood, since the
execution of the foregoing contracts, the Respondent
Employer has continued to recognize these unions and has
made regular health, welfare, and pension payments to the
Laborers, Operators, and Teamsters on behalf of any card
carrying employee of Harrawood. None of these unions has
sought to modify, terminate, or abandon its agreement with
Harrawood and the SIA, or indicated any desire to take
such action. Pursuant to the foregoing collective-bargaining
agreements which have been in effect at all times material
herein, the employees are divided into three appropriate
units in each of which Harrawood has had employees. Of
these groupings, the Laborers represent a unit of all the
building and common laborers; the Operators represent a
unit of all operating engineer equipment operators,
operating engineer apprentices , operating engineer firemen,
operating engineer mechanics, operating engineer mechan-
ic trainees, operating engineer greasers , and operating
16 In effect, the appropriate units described above constitute a
composite unit made up of all employees of the Respondent Employer who
are engaged in asphalt paving work It i s so described later in this decision
17 At the hearing, when asked the following questions Gayle Harrawood
gave the answers which appear below
Q How was it determined which employees belonged in which
corporations9
A The employees working for Harrawood , inc., were card
D. The Alleged Violations of Section 8(a)(3) of the
Act,- Findings and Conclusions With Respect Thereto
The General Counsel alleged that the Respondent
Employer discriminatorily terminated employees Ralph
Helton , Newton Russell , Terry McDaniel , and Robert
Riedy. These allegations are denied by the Respondent in
their entirety . To the facts and issues in connection with
these cases we will now turn.
1. Ralph Helton
Helton testified, credibly, that he had been a member of
the Teamsters since 1964. In 1969 he went to work for
Harrawood as a mechanic. At some point in early 1970,
Helton noticed that his check stubs bore the name
Harrawood Brothers, rather than Harrawood's Inc., the
payer on all previous checks up to that time. Other than this
evidence, he never received any indication that he was on
the Brothers' payroll rather than Harrawood' s. Sometime
during the spring of 1970 he was assigned to drive a truck
and be continued at that job until his termination.
Earlier herein, it was found that Helton was one of those
who was most instrumental in organizing the meeting at the
carrying members of the various locals or unions that represented
Harrawoods, Inc. [Operators, Laborers and Teamsters]
Q Is your position that these [Harrawood and Brothers] are
separate companies and that the Laborers, Teamsters , and Operators
represent the employees of Harrawoods , Inc., and CIU or CIU Local
99 represents the employees of Harrawood Brothers, Inc
A. Yes.
1144 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Operators Hall on the night of August 18. It was further
found that the next morning Gayle and Thomas Harra-
wood called him to their office to question him as to what
had occurred at the meeting the night before, and that
Helton told them "We voted the CIU out and wanted our
rightful unions back in." Helton testified that Gayle
Harrawood thereupon told him that he was being laid off
for being "a union instigator." At the hearing, Gayle
Harrawood did not deny that he had interrogated Helton
about the meeting the night before, but he did deny that
Helton was fired. According to Harrawood, Helton told
him that everyone at the meeting had signed cards in the
Operators, the Teamsters, or the Laborers and that when he
asked why this had occurred, Helton declared that the
Harrawoods could not "shove any CIU down his throat"
and then stormed out of the office with the declaration that
he was quitting.
Harrawood's testimony that Helton had not been fired
but had quit of his own volition was not persuasive. It was
denied by Helton and it was also contradicted by the
credible testimony of Terry McDaniel, who, as has been
found earlier, testified that on the morning in question he
and several other employees were outside the company
office when Gayle Harrawood came out to them, asked
whether they intended to work that day and stated that he
had dust "gotten nd of Ralph Helton and if we didn't like it
we could leave too." McDaniel was a credible witness and
his testimony in this connection was not denied by Gayle
Harrawood.
Upon the foregoing facts, the Trial Examiner concludes
and finds that the Respondent Employer terminated
Helton on August 19, for being "a union instigator" and for
supporting the Charging Unions rather than the CIU. His
termination, therefore, constituted unlawful discrimination
and a violation of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act.19
2. Robert Riedy
Riedy started work with Harrawood as a mechanic. This
was in March 1968. Thereafter, he worked for Harrawood
until December 1969, when as found earlier, he was among
that group of employees whom Gayle Harrawood placed
on the Brothers' payroll. In the summer of 1969 Riedy
joined the Operators.
In the spring of 1970, the Respondent Employer
purchased a new, self-propelled asphalt paver. Riedy was
assigned to operate this machine. In making this assign-
ment , Gayle Harrawood told Riedy that thereafter he
would be on a salary of $200 a week, rather than the hourly
is The Respondent Employer contends that Helton was subsequently
offered reinstatement It appears that on about October 21, 1970, counsel
for the Employer sent Helton a letter wherein the employee was told that
he could return to his former or a substan tially equivalent position at
Harrawood Brothers , and that this offer would remain open until
November I Gayle Harrawood testified that the day after Helton received
this letter he reported to the company office and that at this time he told
Helton that all the crews had gone to work for the day and that to be
reemployed he would have to report back the next morning According to
Harrawood , later that day Helton telephoned to say that his lawyer advised
him that he did not have to return to work Harrawood testified that
thereafter he heard nothing further from Helton The latter, however, had a
substantially different account of his conversation with Gayle Harrawood
Thus, according to the employee, on the day that he went to Harrawood's
office, Gayle Harrawood told him that he would not put him back to work
wage of $6.42 an hour that he was then receiving. In
connection with his duties as the paver operator, Riedy
drove a pickup truck which he owned and in which he
carried tools and parts for the repair of the paver. At some
time dunng the spring, pursuant to an arrangement with
Riedy as to the use of his own vehicle on company business,
Gayle Harrawood had the company symbol painted on the
truck and reimbursed Riedy for expenses he incurred for
gas, insurance, and repairs while on duty.
Along with Helton, Riedy had been responsible for
arranging the union meeting at the Operators hall on
August 18 The following day he worked as usual, but the
next day he was off sick. During the course of the day he
drove to the company office with Helton when the latter
stopped there to pick up his terminal check. Edward
Harrawood was in the office at the time. According to
Riedy, when he entered the room Edward Harrawood
asked whether he was accompanying Helton and when
Riedy acknowledged that he was, Harrawood told him
"You might as well pack your [possessions ] and get out of
here, too." Riedy testified that when he asked why,
Harrawood told him "Because you are with Helton."
According to Riedy, when he remonstrated with Harra-
wood that he had been with the Company a long while and
that there was no reason to fire him, Harrawood ushered
him out with the declaration "I don't want to talk about it,
dust leave."
The Respondent Employer did not call Edward Harra-
wood as a witness. Riedy's testimony in connection with
this incident was credible and it was neither denied nor
contradicted by any witness for the Respondent Employer.
In fact, the latter did not contest the allegation that Riedy
was fired for union activities. Instead, the Employer
contends that Riedy was a supervisor and, on advice of
counsel, he was laid off for engaging in union activities.
Gayle Harrawood testified that Riedy was made a
supervisor when he was given a salary and assigned the
operation of the new paver in the spring of 1970. According
to Harrawood in carrying out his responsibilities with the
paver, Riedy was in full charge of the personnel required to
assist him and had the right to hire and fire. This testimony,
however, was contradicted by Riedy. The latter denied that
Harrawood told him either at the time he was put on salary,
or later, that he was being vested with supervisory
authority. According to Riedy, at various times prior
thereto, Edward Harrawood had told him that he had a
future with the Company and that eventually he would be
made a foreman. Riedy denied, however, that he was ever
told this after he started getting a salary. According to
as a truckdnver, but that he would have to work as a shovel operator
Helton further testified that Gayle told him that he would not have him
with his brothers "Tom or Ed Harrawood or they would kill me . " and
that "he didn ' t trust me, that he was going to put me shoveling" According
to Helton, he told Harrawood that he would refuse to come back to work
under such conditions Gayle Harrawood 's version of this exchange with
Helton was not convincing It is the conclusion of the Trial Examiner that,
upon a consideration of the conflicting accounts of these conversations, as
well as the demeanor of the witnesses at the time they were on the stand,
that the testimony of Helton more accurately reflects what was said by the
participants Consequently, it is the further conclusion of the Trial
Examiner that the offer of reinstatement made to Helton in the latter part
of October was not adequate and did not toll the running of backpay to
which a discnmmatee is entitled
HARRAWOOD'S INC. 1145
Riedy, whenever he worked on a paving job, someone else
was the foreman in charge and that about 90 percent of the
time this was Edward Harrawood. He conceded that on a
few occasions he was left alone with the crew while the
foreman was away, but he testified that this had occurred
on only a few occasions and then only for brief periods of
from 30 to 60 minutes and never for a whole day. Riedy
denied that he had ever attended supervisory meetings and
he testified that whenever he was in the office when the
Harrawoods were about to have such a meeting he was
asked to leave. Riedy testified that whereas it was true that
after he was placed on salary the Company paid for certain
health and life insurance , this had been the case earlier
when he was on an hourly wage and the Respondent
Employer had made health and welfare payments on his
behalf to the Operators Union.
The General Counsel contends that the primary motive
for the Employer's having placed Riedy on a salary was to
avoid overtime payments which extended operation of the
paver would entail , and that it was for this reason rather
than to give Riedy supervisory status that he was taken off
an hourly wage. On this record, that appears to have been
the case. In any event, it is the conclusion of the Trial
Examiner that Riedy was a credible witness in his
testimony to the effect that he had never been informed by
any of the management of the extensive supervisory
authority attributed to him by Gayle Harrawood at the
hearing . It is the further conclusion of the Trial Examiner
that whereas Riedy may, on occasion, have assumed
control of the crew for short periods when Edward
Harrawood, the foreman in charge, was absent momentari-
ly, that this occurred only infrequently and that at no time
had the Respondent employer vested him with such
authority as to make him a supervisor within the meaning
of the Act. Therefore, his discharge, admittedly for his
having been involved in the concerted activities on behalf
of the Charging Unions, was a violation of Section 8(a)(3).
3. Newton Russell
Russell started working for Harrawood in July 1969, and
remained with that Company until the end of the
construction season in December of that year. Thereafter,
he returned to work in the spring of 1970 at which time he
was classified as a laborer. During the ensuing months he
worked as a laborer and flagman 19 until about September
3.
Russell had been a member of the Laborers for many
years.20 He credibly testified that early in August 1970,
James Harrawood told him "You should join the CIU," but
that he said nothing at the time and ignored the suggestion.
Later that month and at the end of August, James
Harrawood brought up the subject again. According to
Russell, on this latter occasion, Harrawood told him that he
was the CIU steward and that if Russell did not join the
CIU he would not work for Harrawood's. Russell protested
that he could not leave the Laborers because of the accrued
benefits which his extended membership would provide
and that, for this reason, he did not want to join the CIU.
Russell's testimony was credible and it was not denied or
contradicted by any witness for the Respondent
Employer.21
Russell testified that only a few days after the last
conversation with James Harrawood about the CIU, the
Respondent Employer announced that there was no further
work for him. According to Russell, when he reported for
duty on about September 3, Gayle Harrawood told him
that he had nothing for him to do. Russell testified that on
several occasions thereafter he telephoned Gayle Harra-
wood to ask whether any work was available and that each
time Harrawood gave a negative response. According to
Russell, about 2 weeks after his last assignment, he
telephoned Harrawood again and, on being told that there
was no work for him, he questioned Harrawood as to
whether an injury which he had incurred on the job the
previous year was the reason for his layoff. Russell testified
that Gayle Harrawood's response to this question was
"Absolutely not," but that when he then asked whether his
layoff had anything to do with the Union, Harrawood did
not answer. According to Russell, the conversation was
concluded with Harrawood advising him to look for
another job and, in the meantime, apply for unemployment
benefits. Russell was a credible witness and Gayle
Harrawood did not contest the accuracy of his recollection
as to the conversations had during the period in question.
The Employer denied that there had been any discrimi-
nation as to Russell and averred that the sole reason for the
layoff was a lack of any work for flagmen. Thus, it offered
some testimony to the effect that a flagman was used on
only one occasion after Russell's termination and then only
on an emergency basis when a state highway inspector
required the temporary posting of a flagman on a job that
was almost finished. Russell was classified as a laborer and
in 1969 he had worked until December when cold weather
forced the Respondent Employer to cease work on its
construction projects. At the heanng the Employer offered
no evidence that subsequent to his layoff early in
September 1970, no job as a laborer was available for
Russell.
In view of the conversation which Russell had with James
Harrawood on the eve of his layoff to the effect that unless
Russell joined the CIU he could not continue working, the
further fact that James Harrawood, as found earlier herein,
was an agent of the management and such a declaration as
he made to Russell could not be treated as idle comment,
and, finally, the fact that throughout this period the
Employer displayed a strong antipathy to the Charging
Unions at the same time that it was assisting the CIU, it is
the conclusion of the Trial Examiner that Russell was laid
off for having failed to acquiesce in James Harrawood's
demand that he join the CIU. In so doing the Respondent
Employer violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act.
4. Terry McDaniel
McDaniel first worked for the Respondent Employer for
several months in 1968. As has been found earlier herein,
when McDaniel returned in 1970, Gayle Harrawood told
19 The flagman is responsible for the control of vehicular traffic on 20 At the hearing he testified that he had been a member for from 10 to
highway paving projects, a familiar sight to any one who has ever travelled 11 years
on a road that was under construction 21 James Harrawood was never called as a witness
1146 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
him that he could have a job, but because the Employer
then had two companies he would decide later as to which
one he would assign McDaniel. Eventually, McDaniel
learned that he had been placed on the Brothers' payroll.
Thereafter he worked with Newton Russell as a laborer.
In July, Gayle Harrawood called McDaniel to his office
and questioned him as to whether he belonged to a union.
McDaniel told him that he was a member of the Laborers.
Nothing further was said to him at that time, but about 3
weeks later, Louise Lake, secretary to Gayle Harrawood,
told the employee that he had to sign up with the CIU.
McDaniel declined on the ground that he was a member of
the Laborers. The next day, Gayle Harrawood told
McDaniel that he had to sign a CIU card within 15 days or
be laid off. It was at that time, as found earlier, McDaniel
requested, to no avail, that he be transferred from the
Brothers' payroll to that of Harrawood so that his longevity
with the Laborers would not be jeopardized.
McDaniel resisted all overtures that he sign up with the
CIU and nothing further happened until Friday, October
16. On that day, Gayle Harrawood called McDaniel to his
office, showed him a CIU authorization with McDaniel's
name on it and told him that he would have to sign the card
or be laid off. McDaniel still refused to execute the
authorization card. Later that day Thomas Harrawood
asked him whether he was going to sign up with the CIU
and McDaniel answered in the negative. McDaniel testified
that at no time during his tenure with Brothers did a
representative of the CIU ever ask him to sign a card in that
union.22
The following Monday morning, because of what the
Harrawoods had told him on Friday, McDaniel did not
return to work. Instead he went to the Laborers' union hall
and discussed his case with Virgil Dailey, a union
representative who assured him that his name would be
added to the unfair labor practice charges which had
already been filed against the Respondent Employer.23 On
October 22, Gayle Harrawood telephoned McDaniel and
told him that he could report for work the following
morning and that he could work until the Labor Board
made its decision.24
On the foregoing findings, it is clear that McDaniel :s
layoff resulted from his failure to accede to the Employer's
demand that he sign a CIU authorization. Since, as has
been found earlier herein, the CIU at that time was an
unlawfully-assisted union, the union-security provisions of
its contract with the Respondent Employer were unenforce-
able and McDaniel was under no lawful obligation to join
that union or sign its cards. The Employer's pressure on
McDaniel to accomplish that objective and the employee's
layoff were, therefore, discriminatory and constituted a
violation of Section 8(a)(3) and (1).
Finally, since Harrawood's maintenance of the union-
security clause in the CIU contract was a violation of
Section 8(a)(2), its enforcement of that clause in August
1970, and thereafter, constituted a further violation of
Section 8 (a)(3) and (1). Similarly, as a party to this
22 The findings in this section are based on the credible testimony of
McDaniel which was not denied or contradicted
23 In a third amended charge, filed by counsel for the Charging Unions
on October 21, it was alleged that McDaniel was discriminatorily
arrangement , the CIU violated Section 8(b)(2) and (1)(A) of
the Act.
E. Further Violations of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act proscribes conduct on the part
of an employer which interferes with, restrains, and coerces
his employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed by
Section 7. On the basis of the facts set forth earlier, the Trial
Examiner concludes and finds that, apart from the
violations already found, the Respondent Employer also
violated Section 8(a)(l) of the Act in the following
instances:
(a) By telling its employees that unless they joined the
CIU they would be discharged or laid off:
(1) Early in August when Gayle Harrawood summoned
employees Riedy, Straatmann, and Hofstetter to his office
and told them that they would have to join the CIU or face
a layoff, and further declared "We're CIU and we are going
to stay CIU."
(2) Early in August and later, in mid-October, when
Gayle Harrawood told employee McDaniel that unless he
joined the CIU he would be laid off.
(3) Early in August when Gayle Harrawood told
employee Winistoerfer that unless he signed a CIU card he
would not be able to work.
(4) Late in August when James Harrawood told Newton
Russell that unless he joined the CIU he would not be
permitted to work for Harrawood's.
(b) By interrogating its employees as to their union
activities and giving them the impression that their union
activities were being kept under surveillance:
(1) On August 19, when Gayle and Thomas Harrawood
questioned Ralph Helton as to what had occurred at the
union meeting which he had attended the night before; and
later that day when Gayle Harrawood questioned the
employees on the paving crew at St. Clair, Missouri, as to
whether they were at the union meeting the previous night
and as to what had happened there.
(2) On about August 24, when Gayle, Thomas, and
Edward Harrawood called employee Winistoerfer to the
office, told him that they had heard that he had been one of
the "instigators" of the union meeting and questioned him
as to his activities in connection with the meeting.
(c) By threatening to close the business if the employees
did not join the CIU when, on August 19, Gayle
Harrawood told the employees on the paving crew that the
"CIU was here to stay and there wasn 't nothing going to
stop it . . . that . . . if [the employees] didn't like the CIU
[they] could [leave], he had enough Harrawoods that could
finish the work . . . [that the] CIU was there to stay and
that he would close the business down if it went any other
way."
F. Findings and Conclusions as to the Respondent
CI U
On the facts set forth above, it is clear that during the
terminated on October 16
21 McDaniel testified that after being reemployed on October 23, he
remained at work until the onset of cold weather caused a shutdown of the
Harrawood paving operations
HARRAWOOD'S INC 1147
period from August 1970 and thereafter the Charging
Unions were the exclusive bargaining representatives of the
Harrawood employees and that valid collective-bargaining
contracts were in force with respect to the three appropriate
bargaining units for these employees. Notwithstanding
these contracts and without the support of an uncoerced
majority of the Harrawood employees, the CIU and CIU,
Local 99, received assistance and monies from the
employer, accepted recognition, and maintained a contract
with Harrawood covering these same employees. In so
doing, the Respondents CIU and CIU Local 99 violated
Section 8(b)(1)(A) and (2) of the Act. Hunter Outdoor
Products, Inc., 176 NLRB No. 58.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Respondent Employer is engaged in commerce
within the meaning of the Act.
2. The Unions here involved are labor organizations
within the meaning of the Act.
3. By maintaining and enforcing a contract containing
unlawful union-security provisions, thereby compelling
employees to become and remain members of the CIU,
Local 99, and submit to the involuntary checkoff of union
dues from their wages for payment to the aforesaid union,
the Respondent Employer has violated Section 8(a)(3) of
the Act and the Respondent Union, by causing the
Employer to discriminate with respect to the hire and
tenure of employees in violation of Section 8(a)(3), and has
engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of
Section 8(b)(2) of the Act.
4. By assisting the CIU and CIU, Local 99, and
contributing support thereto, the Respondent Employer has
engaged in , and is engaging in, unfair labor practices within
the meaning of Section 8(a)(2) of the Act.
5. By discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of
Ralph Helton, Robert Riedy, Terry McDaniel, and Newton
Russell , the Respondent Employer has engaged, and is
engaging , in unfair labor practices within the meaning of
Section 8(a)(3) of the Act.
6(a) All employees of the Respondent Employer engaged
in asphalt paving work, excluding office clericals, profes-
sional employees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the
Act, constitute an appropriate unit for the purposes of
collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of
the Act.
(b) At all times material , Laborers Local 110, Operating
Engineers Local 513 and Teamsters Local 682 have been
the exclusive representatives, for the purpose of collective
bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(a) of the Act, of
all the employees in the aforesaid appropriate unit.
(c) Since about August 1, 1970, by refusing to recognize
and to bargain in good faith with the aforesaid unions as
the representative of the employees in the aforedescribed
appropriate unit, the Respondent Employer has engaged in,
and is engaging in, unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 8 (a)(5) and (1) of the Act.
7. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing em-
ployees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7
of the Act, the Respondent Employer and the Respondent
CIU and CIU, Local 99, have engaged in, and are engaging
in, unfair labor practices, the former within the meaning of
Section 8(a)(1) and the latter within the meaning of Section
8(b)(I)(A) of the Act.
8. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor
practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section
2(6) and (7) of the Act.
THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondents have engaged in, and
are engaging in, unfair labor practices, it will be recom-
mended that they be ordered to cease and desist therefrom
and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate
the policies of the Act.
Having found that the Respondent Employer, in
violation of Section 8(a)(2) of the Act, unlawfully assisted
and contributed support to the Respondent Union, the
effects of this interference , as well as the Employer's
continued recognition of that union as the bargaining
representative of its employees, constitute a continuing
obstacle to the free exercise by its employees of their right
to self-organization and to bargain collectively through
representatives of their own choosing. Further, having
found that the Respondent Employer violated Section
8(a)(3) and (1) and that the Respondent Union violated
Section 8(b)(2) and (1)(A) of the Act by executing,
maintaining, and enforcing an agreement containing
unlawful union-security provisions, the terms of which have
frustrated self-organization and defeated genuine collective
bargaining by the employees, the Trial Examiner will
recommend that the Employer be ordered to withdraw
recognition from the CIU and CIU, Local 99, as the
representative of its employees and that the Employer cease
giving effect to the agreement dated December 1, 1969, or
to any modification, extension , supplement, or renewal
thereof, or any substitutes therefor, unless and until CIU,
Local 99, shall have demonstrated its exclusive majority
representative status pursuant to a Board conducted
election among the employees of the Respondent Employ-
er. Nothing contained herein , however, should be taken to
require the Employer to vary those wage, hour, and other
substantive features of its relations with the employees
themselves, if any, which the latter has established in the
performance of this agreement.
Having found that the Respondent Employer violated the
Act by coercing the employees to become and remain
members of the CIU and to authorize deduction of
initiation and membership dues from their wages, the
parties to the illegal agreement should be held equally
responsible for expunging the effect of their unfair labor
practices. The Trial Examiner, therefore, finds that it will
effectuate the policies of the Act to order the Respondent
Employer and the Respondent CIU, Local 99, jointly and
severally, to refund to the employees all of the amounts
deducted from their wages for that purpose from and after
a date 6 months prior to the filing of the charges herein.
Having found that the Respondent Employer discrimina-
1148 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
torily terminated Ralph Helton, Robert Riedy, Terry
McDaniel, and Newton Russell, the Trial Examiner will
recommend that the Respondent be ordered to make them
whole for any loss of earnings they may have suffered from
the time of their discharge to the date of the Respondent
Employer's offer of reinstatement . Since, at the time of the
hearing, Helton and Russell had not been reinstated25 the
Trial Examiner will recommend that the Respondent
Employer be ordered to offer both of these employees
immediate and full reinstatement without prejudice to their
seniority or other rights and privileges. The backpay for the
foregoing employees shall be computed in accordance with
the formula approved in F. W. Woolworth Co., 90 NLRB
289, with interest thereon computed in the manner and
amount prescribed in Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138
NLRB 716, 717-721. It will also be recommended that the
said Respondent Employer be required to preserve and
make available to the Board, or its agents, on request,
payroll and other records to facilitate the computation of
backpay due.
Upon the foregoing findings and conclusions and the
entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, the
Trial Examiner hereby issues the following recommended:
ORDER26
1. Respondents, Harrawood's Inc., and Harrawood
Brothers, Inc., their officers, agents, successors, and assigns,
shall:
(a) Cease and desist from:
(1) Assisting or contributing support to CIU, Local 99, or
to any other labor organization.
(2) Recognizing CIU, Local 99, or any successor thereto,
as the exclusive representative of their employees for the
purposes of collective bargaining, unless and until said
labor organization shall have demonstrated its exclusive
majority representative status among said employees in a
Board conducted election.
(3) Giving effect to the agreement with CIU, Local 99,
entered into in December 1969, or to any extension,
renewal , or modification thereof, between the Respondent
Employer and the said union which may now be in force.
(4) Giving effect to any checkoff cards authorizing the
deduction of periodic dues from wages for remittance to the
aforesaid Union, prior to the date of compliance with this
recommended Order.
(5) Refusing to recognize and to bargain collectively in
good faith concerning wages, hours, and other terms and
conditions of employment with Operating Engineers Local
513, Teamsters Local 682, and Laborers Local 110, as the
exclusive representatives of all employees in the following
appropriate unit:
All employees of the Respondent Employers engaged in
asphalt paving work, excluding office clericals, profes-
sional employees, guards, and supervisors.
(6) Discharging, or otherwise discriminating against, any
25 McDaniel and Riedy were reinstated before the heanng
Subsequently , and at some point after his reinstatement Riedy voluntarily
terminated his employment
26 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Section 102.46 of
the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the
findings, conclusions , and recommended Order herein shall, as provided in
employee because of membership in, or activity on behalf
of, any labor organization other than CIU, Local 99.
(7) Threatening employees with discharge or other
reprisals if they become, or remain, members of any union
other than CIU, Local 99.
(8) Coercively, or otherwise unlawfully, interrogating
employees as to their union activities.
(9) Creating the impression of surveillance to discourage
membership in, or activity on behalf of, any labor
organization.
(10) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or
coercing employees in the exercise of their right to self-
organization, to form, join, or assist any labor organization,
to bargain collectively through representatives of their own
choosing, or to engage in concerted activities for the
purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid, or to
refrain from any or all such activities.
(b) Take the following affirmative action which is
necessary to effectuate the purposes of the Act:
(1) Withdraw and withhold recognition from CIU, Local
99, or any successor labor organization, as the representa-
tive of their employees, unless and until said organization
shall have demonstrated its exclusive majority representa-
tive status in a Board conducted election.
(2) Jointly and severally with CIU, Local 99, make whole
the employees for all initiation fees and dues withheld from
their wages and paid to the aforesaid Union.27
(3) Upon request, bargain collectively with Operating
Engineers Local 513, Teamsters Local 682, and Laborers
Local 110, as the exclusive representatives of all the
employees in the appropriate unit, and, if an understanding
is reached, embody such understanding in a signed
agreement.
(4) Offer Ralph Helton and Newton Russell immediate
and full reinstatement to their former jobs, or if those jobs
no longer exist, to substantially equivalent positions,
without prejudice to their seniority or other rights and
privileges.
(5) Make whole Ralph Helton , Newton Russell, Terry
McDaniel, and Robert Riedy for any loss of pay they may
have suffered as a result of discrimination against them, in
the manner set forth in the section of this Decision entitled
"The Remedy."
(6) Preserve, and upon request, make available to the
Board, or its agents, for examination and copying, all
payroll records, social security payment records, timecards,
personnel records and reports, and all other records
necessary or appropriate to analyze the amount of backpay
due.
(7) Notify immediately the above-named individuals, if
presently serving in the Armed Forces of the United States,
of their right to full reinstatement, upon application, after
discharge from the Armed Forces, in accordance with the
Selective Service and the Universal Military Training and
Service Act.
Section 102 48 of the Rules and Regulations, be adopted by the Board and
become its findings, conclusions, and Order, and all objections thereto
shall be deemed waived for all purposes.
27 Such liability for reimbursement shall not extend to any amounts
deducted more than 6 months prior to the date of service of the respective
charges herein
HARRAWOOD'S INC. 1149
(8) Post at its office in Ellisville, Missouri, copies of the
attached notice marked "Appendix A.'128 Copies of the
notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for
Region 14, after being duly signed by the Respondents'
authorized representative, shall be posted for a period of 60
consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous ptaocs, 1-
1-d-ing all places where notices to employees are customarily
posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondents
to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or
covered by any other material.
(9) Notify the Regional Director for Region 14, in
writing, within 20 days from the date of the receipt of this
Decision, of the steps which have been taken to comply
herewith.29
2. Congress of Independent Unions, and Congress of
Independent Unions, Local 99, their respective officers,
agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
(a) Cease and desist from:
(1) Giving effect to the agreement dated December 1,
1969, with Harrawood Brothers, Inc., or to any extension,
renewal , modification, supplement, or other contract with
said Company, unless and until said labor organization
shall have demonstrated its exclusive majority representa-
tive status among the employees in a Board conducted
election.
(2) Restraining or coercing the employees of the
Company in the right to engage in, or refrain from engaging
in, any or all of the activities guaranteed by Section 7 of the
Act, except as such right may be affected by an agreement
executed as authorized by the Act.
(b) Take the following affirmative action, which is
necessary to effectuate the purposes of the Act:
(1) Jointly and severally, with the Company, make whole
the employees of the latter for all amounts deducted from
their wages and paid to Congress of Independent Unions,
Local 99.30
(2) Post at its business office in Alton, Illinois, copies of
the notice attached hereto and marked Appendix B.31
Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional
Director for Region 14, shall, after being duly signed by an
official representative of Congress of Independent Unions,
Local 99, be posted immediately upon receipt thereof and
be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in
conspicuous places, including all places where notices to
members are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be
taken to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or
covered by any other material.
(3) Mail to the Regional Director for Region 14, signed
copies of the notice attached hereto and marked Appendix
B, for posting at the Company's premises.
(4) Notify the Regional Director for Region 14, in
writing , within 20 days from the date of the receipt of this
decision , of the steps which have been taken to comply
herewith.32
28 In the event that the Board 's Order is enforced by a Judgment of a
United States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "POSTED
BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD"
shall be changed to read "POSTED PURSUANT TO A JUDGMENT OF
THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS ENFORCING AN
ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD."
29 In the event that this recommended Order is adopted by the Board
after exceptions have been filed, this provision shall be modified to read-
"Notify the Regional Director for Region 14, in writing, within 20 days
from the date or this Order , what steps the Respondents have taken to
comply herewith "
30 Subject to the limitation set out in In 27, supra
31 See In 28, supra
32 See In 29, supra
APPENDIX B
NOTICE To MEMBERS
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT give effect to our agreement dated
December 1, 1969, or to any other contract with
Harrawood Brothers, Inc., or Harrawood's, Inc., unless
and until we shall have demonstrated our majority
representative status with the employees of the
aforesaid Companies in a Board conducted election.
WE WILL refund to the employees and former
employees of Harrawood Brothers, Inc., such amounts
deducted from their earnings subsequent to February
19, 1970, which were paid to our union.
WE WILL NOT restrain or coerce the employees of
Harrawood Brothers, Inc., or Harrawood's, Inc., in the
right to engage in, or refrain from engaging in, any or all
the activities guaranteed by Section 7 of the National
Labor Relations Act, except to the extent that such right
may be affected by an agreement requiring membership
in a labor organization as a condition of employment,
executed in conformity with Section 8(a)(3) of the Act.
CONGRESS OF
INDEPENDENT
UNIONS, AND
CONGRESS OF
INDEPENDENT
UNIONS, LOCAL #99
(Labor Organization)
Dated By
(Representative) (Title)
This is an official notice and must not be defaced by
anyone.
This Notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days
from the date of posting and must not be altered, defaced,
or covered by any other material.
Any questions concerning this Notice or compliance with
its provisions, may be directed to the Board's Office, 210
North 12th Boulevard, Room 448, St. Louis, Missouri
63101, Telephone 314-622-4167.
* US GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 1973 0 -469-948