Local 30, Int'l Assn. of Heat, Etc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsJul 1, 1965

153 N.L.R.B. 1155 (N.L.R.B. 1965)

LOCAL 30, INT'L ASSN. OF HEAT, ETC. 1155 3. All carpenters and apprentices employed by members of the Southwestern Colorado Contractors Association, excluding all other hourly employees, and also office employees, guards, and supervisors, as defined in the Act, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act. 4. Colorado State Council of Carpenters and Carpenters District Council of Southern Colorado, AFL-CIO, have been, at all times since August 7, 1963, and now are the exclusive representatives of all carpenter employees and apprentices in the aforesaid appropriate unit for the purpose of collective bargaining, within the mean- ing of Section 9(b) of the Act. 5. By refusing to bargain collectively with the Colorado State Council of Carpen- ters and Carpenters District Council of Southern Colorado, AFL-CIO, as the exclu- sive bargaining representative of employees in the appropriate unit, the Respondents have engaged in and are engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (S) and (1) of the Act. [Recommended Order omitted from publication.] Local 30, International Association of Heat and Frost Insulators and Asbestos Workers, AFL-CIO (Armstrong Contracting & Supply Corporation ) and Paul H . Galka. Case No. 3-CB-791. July 1, 1965 DECISION AND ORDER On April 28, 1965, Trial Examiner Alba B. Martin issued his Deci- sion in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent had engaged in certain unfair labor practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Decision. Thereafter, Respondent, Local 30, International Association of Heat and Frost Insulators and Asbestos Workers, AFL-CIO, filed exceptions to the Decision and a supporting brief. 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 case to a three-member panel [Chairman McCulloch and Members Fanning and Brown]. The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner 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 foregoing exceptions and brief, and the entire record in this case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner.' 'To prevent any possibility of misunderstanding, we amend the sentence in the fourth paragraph of the section entitled "The Remedy" after the words "on August 17", by adding at the end thereof: "less the amount he earned during that period, to which shall be added interest at the rate of 6 percent per annum, as prescribed in Isis Piumbang ,i Heatting Co., 138 NLRB 716." This amendment assures the consistency of this sentence with Section 2(b) of the Recommended Order, hereinafter adopted by the Board. 153 NLRB No. 98. 1156 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board hereby adopts as its Order the Recommended Order of the Trial Examiner, and orders that Respondent, Local 30, International Association of Heat and Frost Insulators and Asbestos Workers, AFL-CIO, its officers, agents, and representatives, shall take the action set forth in the Trial Exam- iner's Recommended Order.2 2 The telephone number for Region 3, appearing at the bottom of the Appendix attached to the Trial Examiner's Decision, is amended to lead: Telephone -No 842-3112 TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE This proceeding, with the General Counsel and Respondent represented by counsel, was heard before Trial Examiner Alba B. Martin in Syracuse, New York, on Novem- ber 23 and 24, 1964, on complaint of the General Counsel and answer of Local 30, International Association of Heat and Frost Insulators and Asbestos Workers, AFL- CIO, the Respondent herein, sometimes referred to as Respondent Local 30, Local 30, Respondent Union, and the Union. The issues litigated were whether Respondent caused or attempted to cause the Employer of Paul H Galka to discriminate against Galka in violation of Section 8(a)(3), Respondent thereby violating Section 8(b)(2) and (1) (A) of the Act After the conclusion of the hearing the General Counsel and Respondent each filed a helpful brief, which has been carefully considered Upon the entire record and my observation of the witnesses, I hereby make the following FINDINGS OF FACT I THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER Armstrong Contracting & Supply Corporation, herein called Armstrong is a Dela- ware corporation having its principal office and place of business in Lancaster, Penn- sylvania, and maintaining an office and place of business in East Syracuse, New York, which is the only location herein involved. At the East Syracuse location Armstrong is engaged in the business of providing and performing insulation services and related services During the year prior to the issuance of the complaint Armstrong pur- chased, transferred, and delivered to its East Syracuse location insulation materials and other goods and materials valued in excess of $1 million, of which goods and materials valued in excess of $1 million were transported to said location directly from States of the United States other than the State of New York Armstrong is now, and has been at all times material herein, an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 11 THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED Respondent Local 30 is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Causing and attempting to cause Armstrong to discriminate against Galka Paul H Galka worked for Armstrong Contracting & Supply Corporation, herein called Armstrong, for some 5 years prior to the strike of July 1 through 6, 1964, and but for the position of the Union, discussed herein, his services for Armstrong would have resumed immediately or soon after the conclusion of the strike I conclude on the entire record that Galka was a permanent and regular employee of Armstrong. Armstrong's branch manager of the Syracuse branch, William J Harvey, began the day after the strike to try to get Galka back on an Armstrong job, but not until the middle of August did Armstrong decide to put Galka back on the job over and despite Respondent Union's objections LOCAL 30, INT'L ASSN. OF HEAT, ETC . 1157 Although Galka was a member of another local of the same International union, Local 33 in Connecticut, Galka's home was now in the Syracuse area and he wanted to continue working there. He owned a home in the Syracuse area, was married to a girl of that area, and had worked in that area for some 10 years. During this period he had tried several times to be admitted to membership in Respondent Local 30 in Syracuse, but had always been turned down. Twice he had appealed without avail to the International union, and this did not endear him to Local 30. Local 30 had permitted him to work in its area on a "travelers card" from Galka's "home" local, Local 33 in Connecticut. In 1960 Respondent Local 30 had refused him membership and had then asked him to leave the area in order to provide a job for an unemployed member. Galka had not left. Galka had been paying dues to Respondent Local 30 since January 1961. During the short strike in 1964 Galka went to Connecticut and worked for a com- pany, Homestead, for which he had worked for 3 weeks in about 1961 during an earlier strike in the Syracuse area against Armstrong. On neither occasion did Galka take his travelers card with him On the former occasion Respondent Local 30 apparently permitted him without challenge to return to work for Armstrong in the Syracuse area. On the present occasion, on July 3, Respondent Local sent Galka's travelers card back to his "home" local in Connecticut, and after the strike took the position, to Armstrong's requests for Galka's services, that Galka could not work in the Syracuse area because no "traveler" was on file with it. When Galka finally went to work on August 17, he sent for another "traveler" from his "home" local, but when he mailed it to Respondent Local, the latter refused to accept it and returned it to Galka. At the conclusion of the strike, Armstrong, which considered the matter "critical," tried to get its employees back to work speedily. When the situation was in this posture, on the morning of July 7 as Armstrong's branch manager, Harvey, was checking on how many in fact were at work, Leo McInerney, financial secretary of Local 30, told Haney that Galka would not be permitted to return to work because his travelers card had been sent to his "home" local. At this time McInerney was serving as Armstrong's temporary construction superintendent, filling in for the regular man who was recovering from a coronary attack; but in speaking as he did concerning Galka, it is clear that McInerney was speaking as an official of Respondent Union. To get further confirmation as to what McInerney told him, that evening Harvey telephoned Respondent's business agent, William B. Dwyer. The latter con- firmed all McInerney had said, and added that Respondent Local would not give Harvey permission to put Galka back to work and would not accept his travelers card again. Harvey credibly testified to the above and Dwyer did not deny it. McInerney was not called to testify, although he was in and out of the hearing room during the hearing and was one of the persons affected by the granting of a motion to sequester witnesses. Following these conversations with McInerney and Dwyer, on the evening of July 7 Harvey telephoned Galka long distance from Syracuse to Connecticut and told him that the strike was settled, that Local 30 had sent Galka's travelers card back to Local 33 in Connecticut and would not accept it again. Harvey added that he thought this was a minor mattei and that he could work it out with the Union; and Harvey sug- gested that Galka remain working in Connecticut for another week or two while Harvey tried to settle the matter with the Union. Galka continued working in Connecticut for about 2 weeks, returned to the Syra- cuse area about July 17, and telephoned Harvey. The latter said in substance that although the matter was not yet resolved Harvey was still hopeful; and Harvey sug- gested that Galka work in Connecticut for another week if he could. Galka then returned to Connecticut and worked 1 more week. He then returned to the Syracuse area and contacted Harvey. On this occasion, on or about July 24 or 25, Harvey told Galka, according to Galka's credited testimony, that Galka could go to work the following Monday on a specific job. A few hours later that same evening Harvey called Galka back and said that he had been in touch with Dwyer, who had threatened to pull Armstrong employees off their jobs if Harvey returned Galka to work. In response to Galka's questions, Harvey told Galka that he was not laid off or fired and suggested that Galka get in touch with Business Agent Dwyer and try to settle the matter himself. Corroborating in part Galka's testimony in the above paragraph Harvey credibly testified that "I made an effort on my own" to get Galka back on the job, and I wanted Mr. Dwyer's permission to do this. We got through a strike of almost a week's duration over this very thing and I didn't want to upset the apple cart, so to speak, and I wanted to do this with his permission . . . . I made 1158 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD repeated efforts to put Mr. Galka back to work and each of these efforts were met by a refusal on his [Dwyer's] part to do so, and I kept Mr. Galka advised of these efforts on my part that were going to no avail. One day, variously identified as July 28 or 29 by Harvey and as August 3 by Dwyer, the latter was in Harvey's office on another matter and a discussion concern- ing Galka took place. Leo McInerney was present. In Harvey's language as a witness: . it was . . . primarily my asking a lot of questions why I couldn't hire Mr. Galka. The business agent [Dwyer] stated that his traveler's card had been sent back and he wasn't going to accept it and he wouldn't permit me to hire him. I believe there was some discussion along the lines, suppose I hire him on my own without your permission, and Mr. Dwyer said, "Well, this is what we just went through a whole contract dispute about, so I'm not going to give you my permis- sion, there would be a violation of our new agreement and I knew what that would mean. During this conversation Business Agent Dwyer pointed out that a meeting of Local 30 was coming up and be suggested that Harvey might contact Galka and suggest that Galka attend the meeting. That evening Harvey called Galka, related his conversation with Dwyer, and sug- gested that Galka attend the upcoming union meeting on August 7. Galka then called Dwyer, who made the same suggestion, which Galka accepted. Galka told the members of the Union at the August 7 meeting, there being some 15 present, that he had gone to Connecticut and obtained other employment during the strike because he had a sick child who had been in a hospital several times and he was "snowed under" with doctor and hospital bills. When Galka said that he tried to abide by the Union's rules and regulations, Dwyer pointed out in substance that to the contrary when the Local asked him to leave the area 4 years before, when the Local had unemployed members, Galka had refused. At that point in the meeting Leo McInerney observed that he had been one of the unemployed members 4 years before when Galka had refused to leave. According to Galka's credited testimony, at the meeting he told the members that he had not quit his job with Armstrong; to which Dwyer responded that as far as the Union was concerned Galka had quit his job with Armstrong when he had left the Syracuse area and had gone to Connecticut. To this Galka responded that if this was true for him, how come it was not also true for the members of the Local who had worked out of the area during the strike and did not have to be rehired by their struck employers after the strike. Galka told the meeting that those members who worked elsewhere during the strike just returned and went back to work on the jobs they had left when they went on strike. Insofar as the record shows, these statements went unchallenged. If what Galka told the members as to the members returning unchallenged to their former jobs was not true, it is inconceivable to me that his remarks would have gone unchallenged. Upon these facts and considerations cor- roborated by hearsay testimony by Manager Harvey that two of his employees who were members worked outside the area during the strike (and returned unchallenged by the Union after the strike), I conclude that Galka was singled out by the Local for disparate treatment. Of significance in this regard is the fact that before and aftei the strike Armstrong employed some 1 or 2 dozen persons who held travelers cards and, insofar as the record showed, Galka was the only person whose status was challenged by the Union after the strike. Business Agent Dwyer testified in substance that at this August 7 meeting Galka said he wanted to transfer into Local 30; but he said nothing about "employment," did not request to be placed on the Union's hiring list, and did not present a travelers card and say he wanted to return to work in the territory. But the background of Galka's relationship with the Local, as shown in this record, and what was said at the meeting as set forth above, afford no conclusion but that Galka was seeking to clear away the only obstacle between him and the resumption of his duties with Armstrong; namely, the Union's opposition to him. At the meeting Dwyer said that Galka had refused to leave the area 4 years before when the executive board of the Local had requested him to leave, and Dwyer could not see any reason to put Galka back to work now. Galka was excused from the August 7 meeting with the statement that he would be informed later of the decision of the Local. A day or so after the meeting Dwyer telephoned Galka and, according to the credited testimony of Galka who by his demeanor impressed me as a credible witness, Dwyer said that it was the consensus of the body that Galka should not be allowed to work in its territory. Inferentially corroborative of Galka's version of this conver- sation is the fact that 3 or 4 days later, on August 12, Galka filed the original charge LOCAL 30, INT'L ASSN. OF HEAT, ETC. 1159 herein, alleging that since August 4 the Respondent Local 30 had caused or attempted to cause Armstrong to terminate his employment. Upon the entire record considered as a whole Dwyer's testimony is not credited-to the effect that Dwyer told Galka only that the latter was working in Connecticut, where his traveler card was, and that Local 30 could not consider his transfer. On August 16 Armstrong told Galka that it had decided to put him back to work regardless of the objections of the Union, and directed him to return to work the following morning. Galka then telephoned Local 33 in Connecticut a request that his traveler card be furnished to him, and wrote Local 30 that the would forward the traveler to Local 30 as soon as it arrived. Galka returned to work August 17 and has worked ever since, unmolested by Local 30. When his traveler arrived in late August and Galka forwarded it to Respondent, the latter refused to accept it and returned it to Galka. In substance Respondent's principal defense was that Galka's employment rela- tionship with Armstrong was severed when he left that Syracuse area during the strike and obtained employment elsewhere; that the strike achieved what the Union sought, an exclusive hiring arrangement; that after the conclusion of the strike Galka continued his employment in Connecticut and never asked Respondent to refer him to a job with Armstrong. Upon the entire record considered as a whole, I find and conclude that Galka's employment relationship with Armstrong was never severed and that during and after the economic strike he continued as an employee of Armstrong. Therefore it was not necessary for Galka to apply to the Union for employment under the new hiring clause and it was not necessary for the Union to refer Galka to Armstrong before Armstrong could put him to work. Galka never gave any indication to Arm- strong that he was not coming back to work for it after the strike, and every contact between him and Harvey after the strike was based on the assumption that he was coming back, that he wanted to come back, and that Harvey wanted him back. Galka's every conversation with Harvey after the conclusion of the strike gave Harvey continuing indication that Galka wanted to return to Armstrong. Galka's home was in the Syracuse area and Harvey knew it. The fact that Galka did not take his traveler's card with him to Connecticut was indication that he thought of his stay in Connecticut as temporary during the strike and that he intended to return; and Harvey might reasonably have so inferred. The fact that during the strike, when there was no picketing, Galka accepted employment elsewhere in order to continue earning money to pay his bills, did not of itself signify that Galka had cut off his employment relationship with Armstrong. Cf. Lone Star Gas Company, 18 NLRB 420, 464. The Supreme Court has held that the Board may order reinstatement of strikers who have accepted other employment during a strike, if the Board finds that such reinstatement is necessary and proper to effectuation of the policies of the Act. Phelps Dodge Corp. v. N.L.R.B., 313 U.S. 177. The record establishes beyond any doubt that here the Respondent Union sought, and for a time with success, to bring about a change in the employment relationship between Galka and his employer, Armstrong. Immediately after the strike, as the strikers were returning to work, Respondent's financial secretary and its business agent each sought to prevent Galka from returning to work with Armstong by assuring Armstrong's Manager Harvey, that Respondent would not permit Galka to return As a result of these inducements Harvey, who was critically in need of Galka's serv- ices and wanted him back, suggested that Galka stay where he was for a couple of weeks. Had Harvey not wanted Galka back working for Armstrong, no reason appears in the record as to why Harvey would have telephoned Galka in Connecticut on this first occasion after the strike and as to why thereafter he continued in touch with Galka while Harvey persevered in his efforts with Dwyer and McInerney to overcome their objection to Galka's working for Armstrong. On one occasion, as has been seen, on or about July 24 or 25, Harvey instructed Galka to report for work the following morning and then canceled this order as a direct result of union pressure on Harvey. This union pressure was placed on Galka at the union meeting of August 7, where, as the entire record established, Galka was seeking to overcome the Union's objections to his returning to work for Armstrong, and the Union was giving no ground On or about August 9 Respondent informed Galka that it would not permit him to work in its territory. Upon the above facts and considerations, and the entire record considered as a whole, I believe and find that at all times between the conclusion of the strike when other strikers returned to work, and August 17, Respondent attempted to cause Arm- strong to discharge Galka and caused Armstrong to delay its return of Galka to the job, thereby causing Armstrong to discriminate against Galka in violation of Section 1160 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 8(a) (3) of the Act. This discrimination caused by the Union necessarily encouraged strict adherence to its will was Respondent Union's ultimate purpose. By causing and attempting to cause Armstrong to discriminate against Galka to enforce the Union's conditions of membership, Respondent violated Section 8(b)(2) and 8(b) (1) (A) of the Act. IV THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of the Respondent set forth in section IIi, above, occurring in con- nection with the operations of Armstrong 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 Respondent Local 30 has engaged in the unfair labor practices set forth above, I recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and that it take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. Pursuant to Harvey's July 17 suggestion that Galka woik 1 more week in Con- necticut, on July 20 Galka gave his Connecticut employer, Homestead, notice that this would be his last week I do not consider this as proof that Galka's arrangement with Homestead required him to give a week's notice, or as proof that Galka would have delayed his return to Armstrong's employment at all if on July 7 Harvey had suggested to Galka that he return immediately since the strike was over. The entii e record indicates beyond any doubt that Harvey would have asked Galka to return immediately but for Local 30's opposition to Galka's further employment. Under these circumstances I find that Galka's backpay should begin on July 9, the second day after Harvey called Galka on the evening of July 7 This would have given Galka 1 day, July 8, to sever his employment with Homestead and to return to the Syracuse area. About July 29 Armstrong laid off five employees who had worked for Armstrong not more than 3 months As Galka was a 5-year employee with Armstrong and as Harvey wanted him back working for him at all times after the strike, I conclude that these five layoffs were in no way related to Galka's employment relationship with Armstrong and that Galka would not have been among those laid off This con- clusion is bolstered by the fact that, as has been seen above, at the very time of the five layoffs, on July 28 or 29 or August 4, Harvey was having a session in his office with Dwyer and McInerney about putting Galka to work. Therefore I conclude that had Galka returned to work on July 9 his employment would not have been interrupted by any layoff and that his backpay should continue through August 16, the day before he actually returned to work on August 17 Respondent Local 30 having attempted to cause Armstrong to discharge Galka, and having caused Armstrong to delay its return of Galka to the job. it is recom- mended that Respondent Local 30 notify Armstrong and Galka in writing that it has no objection to the employment of Galka by Armstrong in a position substan- tially equivalent to the one Galka held with Armstrong prior to the strike, without prejudice to his seniority or other rights and privileges. It is further recommended that Respondent Local 30 make Galka whole for any loss of pay he may have suffered by reason of its discrimination against him, by paying to him an amount equal to that which he would have earned with Armstrong, but for the discrimination against him, from July 9 through August 16, the day before Galka actually returned to work for Armstrong on August 17 It is also recommended that Respondent Local 30 make Galka whole for any loss of other rights and incidents of the employ- ment relationship he may have suffered by reason of the Respondent's unlawful con- duct. Pen and Pencil Workeis Union, Local 19593, AFL (Parker Pen Company), 91 NLRB 883. I find that the remedies recommended above are necessary and proper to effectua- tion of the policies of the Act Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record in the case, I make the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW I Armstrong Contracting & Supply Corporation is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act LOCAL 3 0, INT'L ASSN. OF HEAT, ETC. 1161 2. Local 30, International Association of Heat and Frost Insulators and Asbestos Workers, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3. By attempting to cause and by causing Armstrong Contracting & Supply Cor- poration to discriminate against Paul H. Galka in the hire and tenure of his employ- ment, Respondent Local 30 has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(b)(2) and Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act. 4. By restraining and coercing employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act, Respondent Local 30 has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act 5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com- merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. RECOMMENDED ORDER Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law and upon the entire record in the case, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended , it is recommended that Respondent , Local 30, Interna- tional Association of Heat and Frost Insulators and Asbestos Workers, AFL-CIO, its officers , agents, and representatives , shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Causing or attempting to cause Armstrong Contracting & Supply Corporation, its officers , agents, successors , or assigns , to discriminate against its employees in violation of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act. (b) In any other manner restraining or coercing its employees in the exercise of their rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the 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 as authorized in Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action which I find will effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Immediately write Armstrong Contracting & Supply Corporation , and send a copy to Paul H. Galka at his place of work, Armstrong, stating that it withdraws all objections to the employment of and to the working of Paul H. Galka with the same rights and privileges Armstrong Contracting & Supply Corporation grants to all its employees. (b) Make whole Paul H. Galka for any loss of pay he may have suffered by reason of the Respondent 's discrimination against him in the manner set forth in the section herein entitled "The Remedy." ( c) Post in Respondent Local 30's office or union hall in the Syracuse area, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix." 1 Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for Region 3, shall, after being duly,signed by an official representative of the Respondent , be posted by it immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for a period of 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to members of Respondent Local 30 are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by said Respond- ent to insure that said notices are not altered , defaced, or covered by any other material. (d) Notify the Regional Director for Region 3, in writing within 10 dabs from the date of the receipt of this Trial Examiner 's Decision , what steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith.2 It is further recommended that unless on or before 20 days from the date of receipt of this Trial Examiner 's Decision Respondent Local 30 shall notify said Regional Director , in writing , that it will comply with the foregoing Recommended Order, the National Labor Relations Board issue an order requiring the said Respond- ent to take the action aforesaid. i If 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 If the Board ' s Order Is enforced by a decree of a United States Court of Appeals, the notice will be further amended by the substitution of the words "a Decree of the United States Court of Appeals, Enforcing an Order" for the words " a Decision and Order". 2 If this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board, this provision shall be modified to read: "Notify the Regional Director for Region 3, in writing , within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith." 1162 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD APPENDIX NOTICE 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 Rela- tions Act, as amended, we hereby notify our members that: WE WILL NOT cause or attempt to cause Armstrong Contracting & Supply Corporation, or any other employer within our territorial jurisdiction, to dis- criminate against employees or prospective employees in violation of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act. WE WILL NOT in any other manner restrain or coerce employees or prospective employees of Armstrong Contracting & Supply Corporation, or any other employer within our territorial jurisdiction, in the exercise of the rights guar- anteed in Section 7 of the Act, except to the extent that such rights may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of employment, as authorized by Section 8(a)(3) of the Act. WE WILL make whole Paul H. Galka for any loss of pay he may have suffered as a result of our discriminatory action against him. WE WILL notify, in writing, Armstrong Contracting & Supply Corporation, that we have no objection to the hiring and employment of Paul H. Galka by that Company. All our employees are free to become or remain, or refrain from becoming or remaining, members of the above-named Union, or any other labor organization. LOCAL 30, INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF HEAT AND FROST INSULATORS AND ASBESTOS WORKERS, AFL-CIO, Labor Organization. Dated------------------- By------------------------------------------- (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 employees have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions, they may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, Fourth Floor, The 120 Building, 120 Delaware Avenue, Buffalo, New York, Telephone No. 842-2100. Whitfield Pickle Company and United Bakery and Confectionery Workers, Local 441, Retail, Wholesale & Department Store Union, AFL-CIO. Case No. 15-CA-2555. July 1, 1965 DECISION AND ORDER On April 30, 1965, Trial Examiner Louis Libbin issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices and rec- ommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirma- tive action, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Decision. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision and a supporting brief. 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 case to a three-member panel [Chairman McCulloch and Members Brown and Zagoria]. 153 NLRB No. 95.