International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 30, 1969

177 N.L.R.B. 516 (N.L.R.B. 1969)

516 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
International Association of Machinists and
Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO; International
Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers,
AFL-CIO, Airline District 146 ; International
Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers,
AFL-CIO, Local Union No. 1698 and
Inter-Continental Engine Service, Inc. Case
23-CB-916
June 30, 1969
DECISION AND ORDER
By CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS
FANNING AND JENKINS
On March 10, 1969, Trial Examiner John P. von
Rohr issued his Decision in the above-entitled
proceeding, finding that Respondents had engaged in
and were engaging in certain unfair labor practices
within the meaning of the National Labor Relations
Act, as amended, and recommending that they cease
and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative
action, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's
Decision. Thereafter, Respondents filed exceptions
to the Decision and a supporting brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
Act, the National Labor Relations Board has
delegated its powers in connection with this case 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 case, and hereby adopts the
findings,' conclusions, and recommendations of the
Trial Examiner.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board adopts as its Order the
Recommended Order of the Trial Examiner, as
modified herein, and hereby orders that
'We reject Respondents ' contention that neither Local 1698 nor Airline
District 146 was a "party" to the contract within the meaning of Sec 8(d)
of the Act The contract was signed not only by a representative of the
International Union but also on behalf of District 146 by its General
Chairman , and by LeRoy Shirk , the eventual president of Local 1698 The
Local was founded within a month of the execution of the contract , and its
membership is limited to employees of the Employer. When negotiations
for a new contract began in May 1968, the Local participated in the
bargaining sessions with the Employer In addition to bearing the signature
of the District's General Chairman, the contract names the District as the
only union party to checkoff authorizations The District assigned its own
assistant general chairman to administer the contract His salary was paid
by the District and the International In sum, representatives of District
and the Local have taken part in the execution and administration of the
contract , and have participated in the bargaining relationship with the
Employer to an extent sufficient to warrant finding them parties within the
meaning of Sec 8(d)
Respondents , International Association of
Machinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO;
International Association of Machinists and
Aerospace Workers , AFL-CIO, Airline District 146;
International Association of Machinists and
Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO, Local Union No.
1698, their officers , agents, and representatives, shall
take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's
Recommended Order , as so modified.
In paragraph 1(a), substitute the words "any
collective-bargaining contract between them " for the
words "any collectively -bargaining contract between
it."
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASF
JOHN P. VON ROHR, Trial Examiner: Upon a charge
filed on November 19, 1968, the General Counsel of the
National Labor Relations Board, by the Regional
Director for Region 23 (Houston, Texas), issued a
complaint on November 26, 1968, against International
Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers,
AFL-CIO; International Association of Machinists and
Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO, Airline District 146; and
International Association of Machinists and Aerospace
Workers, AFL-CIO, Local Union No. 1698, herein called
the Respondents or the Unions, alleging that they have
engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of
Section 8(b)(3) of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended, 51 stat. 136, herein called the Act. The
Respondents' answer denies the allegations of unlawful
conduct alleged in the complaint.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held in Brownsville,
Texas, on December 19, 1968, before Trial Examiner John
P. von Rohr. All parties were represented by counsel and
were afforded opportunity to adduce evidence, to examine
and cross-examine witnesses and to file briefs. Briefs have
been received from the General Counsel and the
Respondents and they have been carefully considered.
Upon the entire record in this case and from my
observation of the witnesses, I hereby make the following:
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY
Inter-Continental Engine Service, Inc., herein called the
Company, is a Texas corporation with its principal office
and place of business located in Brownsville, Texas, where
it is engaged in the business of repairing , inspecting, and
overhauling aircraft engines.
During the 12 months preceding the hearing herein, the
Company purchased goods and materials valued in excess
of $50,000 from firms located in States other than the
State of Texas, which goods and materials were shipped
directly to the Company's plant at Brownsville, Texas
from points outside the State of Texas.
I find that the Company is an employer engaged in
commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of
the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
International Association of Machinists and Aerospace
Workers, AFL-CIO, International Association of
Machinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO, Airline
177 NLRB No. 60
MACHINISTS, AIRLINE DISTRICT 146 517
District 146 and International Association of Machinists
and Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO, Local Union No.
1698, are labor organizations within the meaning of
Section 2(5) of the Act.
Ill. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The Issues
The issue in this case is whether the Respondent Unions
committed unfair labor practices within the meaning of
Section 8(b)(3) of the Act by engaging in a strike without
complying with the requirements of Section 8(d)(3) and
(4) of the Act.'
B. The Facts and Conclusions
As indicated above , the Company is engaged in the
business of repairing , inspecting and overhauling aircraft
engines at its facility in Brownsville , Texas . At a date not
disclosed in the record , Respondent International
Association of Machinists , AFL-CIO, was certified by the
Board as bargaining agent for the Company ' s production
and maintenance employees in Case 23 -RC-2385. The
latest contract between the parties was effective from
October 18 , 1965, to October 18 , 1968.' Prior to the
expiration of said contract , and beginning about as early
as May 15, 1968 , the parties undertook negotiations
toward a new contract . Approximately 20 such bargaining
sessions took place , the last of which occurred on
November 1, 1968.
As detailed below , the Respondent Unions engaged in a
strike on November 4, 1968. It is undisputed that the
Union did not serve any notice upon the Federal
Mediation and Conciliation Service until October 14,
1968, at which time by letter of the same date it merely
advised the said Agency that the agreement between the
Union and the Company expired on October 18, 1968.'
Assuming without deciding that the substance of the union
notice met the requirements of Section 8(d)(3), it is clear,
'Sec 8 (d) of the Act provides in pertinent part as follows-
. . That where there is in effect a collective-bargaining contract
covering employees in an industry affecting commerce , the duty to
bargain collectively shall also mean that no party to such contract shall
terminate or modify such contract, unless the party desiring such
termination or modification -
(1) serves a written notice upon the other party to the contract of
the proposed termination or modification sixty days prior to the
expiration date thereof , or in the event such contract contains no
expiration date , sixty days prior to the time it is proposed to make
such termination or modification,
(2) offers to meet and confer with the other party for the purpose of
negotiating a new contract or a contract containing the proposed
modifications;
(3) notifies the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service within
thirty days after such notice of the existence of a dispute, and
simultaneously therewith notifies any State or Territorial agency
established to mediate and conciliate disputes within the State or
Territory where the dispute occurred , provided no agreement has been
reached by that time; and
(4) continues in full force and effect , without resorting to strike or
lockout , all the terms and conditions of the existing contract for a
period of sixty days after such notice is given or until the expiration
date of such contract , whichever occurs later
'Although the contract was entered into only with the International, it
was signed by a representative of District 146. An official of District 146 is
still assigned to administer the contract . Local Union No 146 was
established specifically to accomodate the employees of the Company I
find that each of the Respondent Unions is properly named as a
Party-Respondent in this proceeding.
and I find, that Respondents did not meet the requirement
of waiting for a 30-day period before engaging in a strike
under Section 8(d)(4) of the Act.'
Respondent's defense to the alleged unfair labor
practices herein is predicated upon its assertion that it did
not engage in a strike but rather that the cessation of
work on November 4 was the result of a lockout by the
Company of the employees in the bargaining unit. The
facts, as I find them below, reflect this assertion to be
without merit.
It is undisputed that on October 18, 1968, the union
membership voted that Joe Gaskin, the union
representative involved in this case,' be authorized to call
a strike whenever he deemed it appropriate. At a
bargaining meeting held on November 1, a Friday, the
Company presented a new contract proposal to the Union.
At a union meeting held on Sunday, November 3, the
membership voted to reject the Company's proposal.
According to the testimony of Gaskin, no vote was taken
to go out on strike but the membership agreed to go along
with his recommendation that negotiations be continued.'
There is a conflict in the testimony as between
Company and Respondent witnesses as to further events
on the evening of November 1. The Company's version is
as follows: William N. Stevens, vice president and general
counsel of the Company, testified that he received a call
from Gaskin about 7:30 p.m. According to Stevens,
Gaskin stated first that he could not reach Glenn Jarvis,
the Company's attorney who represented it in the contract
negotiations , because he did not have Jarvis' telephone
number . Stevens testified that Gaskin thereupon advised
him that he (Gaskin) had lost control of the membership
and that they had voted to go out on strike on Monday
morning , November 4, at 7:30 a.m. Stevens said that he
expressed surprise but advised Gaskin that he would call
Jarvis. Stevens testified that he did so following this
conversation. George E. Zarski, the company president,
testified that he was visiting at the home of his mother
when Charles G. Daley, the company comptroller, called
him and advised that it had been reported to him that the
bargaining unit was going out on strike at 7:30 a.m. the
next morning . At Zarski's request, Daley came over to the
house and they both spoke to Attorney Jarvis over the
telephone concerning the pending strike. Zarski testified
'After the close of the hearing , the Respondents on February 12, 1969,
filed a motion to reopen record for the purpose of receiving in evidence
two letters attached to the motion The General Counsel and the Charging
Party subsequently filed objections to the Motion on the ground that these
have not been shown to be newly discovered evidence and that they were
not available at the time of the hearing For these reasons I reject
Respondent' s Motion Should this ruling be reversed, I would hold that in
any event the attached letters do not establish that Respondents in effect
complied with Sec 8(d)(3) of the Act, as Respondents assert . In this
connection, it is noteworthy that the Federal Mediation and Conciliation
Service sent a telegram to the Charging Party advising that the Unions'
letter of October 14, 1968, was "the only notice received by us in this
situation " (Emphasis supplied)
'Thus, in Retail Clerks Assn v N.L R B (Carroll House of Belleville,
Inc) 265 F.2d 814 (C.A D.C ) the court held that it interpreted Sec
8(d)(3) as making two demands, viz "to require the giving of notice within
a 30-day period after the giving of notice under Section 8(d)(1), and to
require also a 30-day waiting period before a strike or lockout, under
Section 8(d)(4) "
'Gaskin is assistant general chairman of Respondent Airline District 146
He was assigned to administer the collective-bargaining agreement with the
Company in May 1967
`Louis Lucio, a committee chairman , also testified that a strike vote was
not taken at this meeting Assuming this to be so, this would not effect my
ultimate credibility findings herein As noted above , the membership had
previously given Gaskin authority to call a strike at his discretion
518 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
that about 9 p.m. he decided to call Gaskin.' He did so
while Daley was at his side.' Zarski's testimony
concerning the conversation which ensued is as follows:
Q. Would you describe that conversation to the Trial
Examiner?
A. It wasn't much to it, really. I said , "Hello, Joe."
He said, "Yeah."
I said, "Say, friend, in my capacity I don't often get
the opportunity to say, 'I told you so,' and that is what
I would like to do now, 'I told you so."'
He said, "Well, that's the way it goes," or
something, which I don't recall. He didn't really make
any statement.
And I said, "Well, Joe, like I told you, these people,
you just don't understand who you are dealing with.
They are emotional, and they are not stupid, but they
are trusting , and I told you that some day you are
going to lose control of them because you don't tell
them the truth." And I said, "In any event, your timing
is either excellent or mine , as usual , stinks."
He said, "What do you mean?"
I said, "Well, with the SBA loan application and Air
Force negotiations," I indicated something about,
"your illustrious union isn 't helping me too greatly, as I
see it."
And he said, "Well, George, I have always dealt very
fairly with you, and I didn't want a strike."
I said, "That is not the way I hear it, Joe."
Turning now to the testimony of Union Representative
Joe Gaskin, Gaskin testified that he called Stevens
between 7 and 9 p.m. on November 3 because he felt he
should keep the Company informed as to the status of the
negotiations . Gaskin said at this time he told Stevens that
the membership had rejected the Company's latest offer
that afternoon, that they were very upset, but that it was
his recommendation to them that they continue
negotiations . Gaskin denied that in this conversation he
told Stevens that the employees had voted to strike the
following morning.
Gaskin further testified that he received a call between
12 and I a.m. that night from Zarski. Gaskin's version of
this conversation is as follows:
Q. Tell us what Mr. Zarski said to you and what you
said to him.
A. Well, Mr. Zarski's first remarks was, "I don't
really think you would do this to me."
And I answered, "Well, we haven't done anything
yet. I don't really understand your question."
He said, "I understand there is going to be a strike
tomorrow morning."
I said , "No. There has been discussion of a strike or
a work stoppage during the meeting , but it was my
advice to the membership we not strike, and continue
negotiations."
He remarked to me, he said, "You know, I tried to
tell you a long time ago about what type people that
you are representing. You can't trust them. You can't
put any faith in them. I have picked them up out of
these orchards, canteloupe fields, and I have taught
them everything they know. They are really not
mechanics . And they are ignorant and low-class."
I said , "I certainly do not agree with that "
'Zarski credibly testified that on the previous Friday, Jarvis told him
that he (Jarvis) had just been reassured by Gaskin that there would be no
strike
'Dalev corroborated Zarski's part of this conversation
And Mr. Zarski remarked to me, "Well, I guess no
one has anymore to lose than I, but I reallydon't give-
I really don't care.
Q. That is what he said?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. All right. Go ahead.
A. "I really don't want them on my property."
I said, "All right, sir, if that is the case, then we will
retrieve our tools tomorrow morning."
From my observation of the witnesses, and upon the
entire record in this case, I credit the testimony of Stevens
and Zarski over that of Gaskin. The company officials
impressed me as honest and reliable witnesses and I
believe they were telling the truth concerning their
respective conversations with Gaskin on the evening of
November 3.' However, aside from my observation of the
witnesses , there is further evidence to support the
testimony of Stevens and Zarski. Thus, Henry A.
Hollingsworth, a local newsman, testified that he
telephoned LeRoy Shirk, president of the local union,
about 6:30 a.m. on November 4 to inquire about rumors
concerning a possible strike at the Company. According
to Hollingsworth, a neutral and objective witness whose
testimony I credit, Shirk advised him that the employees
would walk out at 7 30 a.m. that morning, and further,
that the reason for the strike was to obtain higher wages,
better working conditions and additional fringe benefits '°
This testimony of Hollingsworth not only supports the
plausibility of the testimony given by Stevens and Zarski,
but it is incredible to believe that if the true reason for the
employees leaving the plant on 7:30 a.m. on Monday was
due to a lockout by the Company, the press would not
have been so advised. In addition, it is noteworthy that
beginning on the morning of November 4 the picket signs
bore the legend "IAM, AFL-CIO, LOCAL 1698, ON
STRIKE." It was not until November 20 that the signs
were changed to read "IAM, AFL-CIO, LOCAL 1698
LOCKED OUT." Significantly, the changes herein were
filed on November 19. The foregoing change in the picket
signs was made on November 20 when a Board agent
appeared at the plant premises to investigage the charges.
Upon the basis of the foregoing credible evidence, I
find and conclude that the Company did not lock out the
employees on November 1, as asserted by Respondents,
but rather that the Respondents themselves engaged in a
strike. However, even assuming that on the evening of
November 3 Zarski did tell Gaskin that he "really did not
want the employees on my property," I am persuaded that
the facts in this case still would not warrant a finding that
the Comanv locked out - or intended to lock out - the
employees. Thus, it is undisputed that the employees, as
was their custom, assembled inside the plant between 7
and 7:30 a.m. in readiness to report to work at the 7:30
a.m. starting time. Between 7 and 7:30, Shirk and the
shop stewards passed word among the employees that they
'Gaskin also testified as to a conversation he had with Attorney Jarvis
on the evening of November 3 Jarvis, who represented the Company at
the hearing, indicated on the record that he would not testify for ethical
reasons However, it was obvious from Jarvis' cross-examination of Gaskin
that he did not agree with Gaskin 's version of this conversation From my
observation of the witnesses in this entire proceeding, I am constrained to
place no reliance on Gaskin's testimony concerning his conversation with
Jarvis in reaching my findings herein
"Additionally, Shirk told Hollingsworth that all possible avenues of
settlement had been exhausted and that "all possible efforts would be made
to avoid any unpleasantness during the course of the strike " A news
release concerning Hollingsworth 's interview with Shirk was read over a
television broadcast by Hollingsworth at 7 30 a m on November 4
MACHINISTS, AIRLINE DISTRICT 146
were to walk out of the plant at 7:30. In accordance with
these instructions , approximately 170 employees walked
out at this time. It is undisputed, however, that
approximately 66 employees did not go out on strike but
went to work that morning and have remained at their
jobs ever since . The fact that they were permitted to do so
hardly bespeaks of a lockout by their employer.
Moreover, the evidence reflects that on the morning of
December 4 the employees' work was laid out for them,
the plant and equipment were ready for normal operation,
and, as stated above, all employees who reported to work
were admitted inside the plant. These facts are
additionally indicative that the Company did not engage
in a lockout but rather that the Union engaged in a strike.
Accordingly, I reiterate my finding to this effect.
In sum , I find and conclude that the Respondents
refused to bargain within the meaning of Section 8(b)(3)
of the Act by failing to comply with the requirements of
Section 8(d)(3) and (4) of the Act . International Union,
United Mine Workers of America (McCoy Coal
Company), 165 NLRB No. 67.
IV THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR I ABOR PRACTICES UPON
COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondents set forth in section
III, above, occurring in connection with the operations of
the Company, described in section I, above, have a close,
intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and
commerce among the several States and tend to lead to
labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and
the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondents refused to bargain
collectively in violation of Section 8(b)(3) of the Act by
engaging in a strike commencing on November 4, 1968,
without complying with the requirements of Section
8(d)(3) and (4) of the Act, it will be recommended that
Respondents cease and desist therefrom and take certain
affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the
Act.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and
upon the entire record, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Company is an employer engaged in commerce
within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
2. The Unions are labor organizations within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. All production and maintenance employees , including
stockroom clerks, line inspectors, radio men, instrument
men, sheetmetal workers, mechanics and machinists,
hydraulic mechanics, engine overall mechanics , laborers,
janitors, cleaners, painters, carpenters, upholstery workers,
electricians and welders , but excluding guards and
supervisors as defined in the Act, employed by the
Company at its Brownsville, Texas facility constitute a
unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining
within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act.
4. The Respondents have refused to bargain collectively
in violation of Section 8(b)(3) of the Act by failing to
comply with Section 8(d)(3) and (4) of the Act, as found
in section III, above.
5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor
practices affecting commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
519
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and
conclusions of law, and upon the entire record in this case,
I recommend that Respondents International Association
of Machinists & Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO,
International Association of Machinists & Aerospace
Workers, AFL-CIO, Airline District 146, and
International Association of Machinists & Aerospace
Workers, AFL-CIO, Local Union No. 1698, their officers,
agents, and representatives, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Refusing to bargain collectively with
Inter-Continental Engine Service, Inc. concerning the
termination or modification of any collective-bargaining
contract between it and the Company by failing, before
striking , to: (1) give notice of the existence of any dispute
between the Respondents and the Company to the Federal
and State Mediation Service pursuant to Section 8(d)(3)
of the Act; and (2) continue in full force and effect
without resorting to strike all the terms and conditions of
any existing contract pursuant to Section 8(d)(4) of the
Act; provided, however, that no such notices under
Section 8(d)(3) shall be required if an agreement is
reached within 30 days following service of a notice of
proposed termination or modification.
(b) Engaging in, or inducing employees of
Inter-Continental Engine Service, Inc. to engage in, a
strike against said Company for the purpose of modifying
or terminating a collective-bargaining contract, without
first having complied with the requirements of Section
8(d) of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which is
necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Post at the business offices and meeting halls of
Respondent District 146 and Local Union No. 1698,
copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix.""
Copies of said notices, on forms provided by the Regional
Director for Region 23, after being duly signed by
Respondents' representatives, shall be posted by the
Respondents immediately upon receipt thereof, and be
maintained ' for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in
conspicuous places, including all places where notices to
Respondents' members are customarily posted."
Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondents to insure
that said notice is not altered, defaced, or covered by any
other material.
(b) Furnish to the Regional Director for Region 23,
signed copies of the aforesaid notice for posting by
Inter-Continental Engine Service, Inc., if willing, in places
where notices to employees are customarily posted. Copies
of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director,
shall, after being duly signed by the Respondents, be
forthwith returned to the Regional Director for disposition
by him.
In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board,
the words "a Decision and Order" shall be substituted for the words
"the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner" in the notice In the
further event that the Board's Order is enforced by a Decree of a United
States Court of Appeals, the words "a Decree of the United States Court
of Appeals Enforcing an Order," shall be substituted for the words "a
Decision and Order "
12Subsequent to the close of the hearing, I received correspondence
from each of the parties hereto in connection with a proposed unilateral
settlement agreement In this correspondence, all of which has been placed
520 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
(c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 23, in
writing , within 20 days from the receipt of this Decision,
what steps Respondents have taken to comply herewith."
in the formal file of this proceeding, the General Counsel and the Charging
Party indicated that the Respondents presently have no office or meeting
place in Brownsville, Texas, I shall leave this matter for the compliance
stage of this proceeding. In the event it is then determined that
Respondents have no regular office or meeting places in Brownsville,
Texas, it is recommended that Respondents mail to all employees in
the bargaining unit a copy of the attached notice marked "Appendix"
"In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board,
this provision shall be modified to read "Notify said Regional Director,
in writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps
Respondents have taken to comply herewith "
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL MEMBERS OF INTERNATIONAL
ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS & AEROSPACE WORKERS,
AFL-CIO AIRLINE DISTRICT 146, INTERNATIONAL
ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS & AEROSPACE WORKERS,
AFL-CIO, LOCAL UNION No. 1698
Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial
Examiner of the National Labor Relations Board and in
order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, we hereby notify you that:
WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain collectively with
Inter-Continental Engine Service , Inc., concerning the
termination or modification of any collective -bargaining
contract between our Union and the Company by
failing , before striking, to (1) give notice of the
existence of any dispute between our Union and the
Company to the Federal and State Mediation Services
pursuant to Section 8(d)(3) of the Act, and (2) continue
in full force and effect without resorting to strike all the
terms and conditions of any existing contract pursuant
to Section 8(d)(4) of the Act; provided, however, that
no such notice under Section 8 (d)(3) shall be required if
an agreement is reached within 30 days following
service of a notice of proposed termination or
modification.
WE WILL NOT engage in, or induce employees of
Inter-Continental Engine Service, Inc. to engage in, a
strike against said Company for the purposing of
modifying or terminating a collective-bargaining
agreement, without first having complied with the
requirements of Section 8(d)(3) and (4) of the Act.
Dated By
INTERNATIONAL
ASSOCIATION OF
MACHINISTS & AEROSPACE
WORKERS, AFL-CIO,
INTERNATIONAL
ASSOCIATION OF
MACHINISTS & AEROSPACE
WORKERS, AFL-CIO
AIRLINE DISTRICT 146,
INTERNATIONAL
ASSOCIATION OF
MACHINISTS & AEROSPACE
WORKERS, AFL-CIO,
LOCAL UNION No. 1698
(Labor Organization)
(Representative) (Title)
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.
If members have any question concerning this notice or
compliance with its provisions, they may communicate
directly with the Board's Regional Office, 6617 Federal
Office Building , 515 Rusk Avenue Houston, Texas 77002,
Telephone 713-226-4722.