Local Union No. 180, Carpenters

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 11, 1970

181 N.L.R.B. 94 (N.L.R.B. 1970)

94 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Local Union No. 180, United Brotherhood of
Carpenters and Joiners of America , AFL-CIO and
B & K Drywall Systems, Inc. Cases 20-CB-1766
and 20-CC-752
February 11, 1970
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS
FANNING AND JENKINS
On November 13, 1968, Trial Examiner George
L. Powell issued his Decision in the above-entitled
proceeding, finding that Respondent had engaged in
and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices
within the meaning of the National Labor Relations
Act, as amended, 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 filed exceptions to
the Decision and a supporting brief, and the General
Counsel filed a brief in answer to Respondent's
exceptions and 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.
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 briefs, and
the entire record in this proceeding, and hereby
adopts the findings, conclusions, and
recommendations of the Trial Examiner, except as
modified herein.
The Walters Project
We agree with the Trial Examiner's finding that
union agent Leshe's threats to Walters (the neutral
general contractor) to get rough and withdraw
carpenters, and picket the job if Walters were to use
B & K violated Section 8(b)(4)(ii)(B) of the Act.
The Recknagel Project
We agree with the Trial Examiner's finding that
threats made by Leshe to Recknagel (the neutral
general contractor) and Recknagel's superintendent
Cullum on October 23 and November 7, 1967, that
he (Leshe) would stop the job if B & K, Inc., did
not leave violated Section 8(b)(4)(ii)(B) of the Act.
Contrary to the Trial Examiner, however, we find
that Leshe's threats that Griffith would be fined for
working with nonunion men and that Kilthau (the
owner and president of B & K, Inc.) would be taken
to the Joint Drywall Board and fined if he worked
Ford, Wicks, and Rice, did not violate Section
8(b)(4)(ii)(B) of the Act because, as the General
Counsel himself points out, the threats were not
made in the presence of Recknagel, his employees,
or agents, but were made only to Kilthau and
Griffith and as such were primary activity not
violative of Section 8(b)(4)(ii)(B) of the Act.
We agree that Respondent violated Section
8(b)(1)(A) of the Act when McGrogan, the
Respondent's financial secretary, refused to give
dispatch slips to Griffith and Woods on October 18,
1967 until he was convinced that Griffith would pay
an outstanding fine and Woods really was a union
member; in our opinion, McGrogan's conduct had
the effect of restraining and coercing Griffith and
Woods.'
The Trial Examiner found:
On Monday, October 23, 1967, Respondent,
through Leshe, told Recknagel and his
superintendent Cullum that he was going to stop
the job if [Kilthau's] employees did not leave the
job, and Cullum, accordingly, told the employees
to "get off the job". Under the circumstances of
this case, i.e., lack of membership in the Union
and taking back the dispatch slips, Leshe caused
Recknagel2 to discriminate against his employees
as to their hire and tenure of employment, to
encourage membership in Respondent, and I find
this to be a violation of Section 8(b)(2) of the
Act, and derivatively of Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the
Act.
In view of our decision in Malbaff Landscape
Construction3 we are unable to concur with the Trial
Examiner's finding. For in Malbaff, the Board held
a union did not violate Section 8(b)(2) and (1)(A) of
the Act by picketing a construction project where
there was a nonunion subcontractor working,
thereby forcing the general contractors to cease
doing business with the subcontractor with the
resultant loss of employment by the subcontractor's
employees because of their nonmembership in the
union, since there was no direct employer-employee
relationship between the general contractor and the
subcontractor's employees. The Board made it clear
that it would not find a violation of Section 8(b)(2)
of the Act when the pressure exerted by a union is
directed not to the employer of employees involved,
'in finding that McGrogan's conduct restrained and coerced Griffith and
Woods, we also rely on the following
McGrogan told Woods and Griffith that they should join Respondent,
rather than getting temporary work permits, and they would then have no
trouble getting jobs as lots of work was available within Respondent's
jurisdiction Thus, McGrogan indicated that one's opportunity to obtain
work was greater if he belonged to Respondent Since a hiring hall and
this hiring hall in particular (according to the Drywall Master Agreement)
must be operated in a nondiscriminatory manner with respect to union
membership in one local or another (or in none at all) McGrogan's
statement interfered with the right of Woods and Griffith not to join the
Respondent but to remain in another Carpenters local
The General Counsel points out that the word "Recknagel" in par 17
of section B. 2, of the Trial Examiner 's Decision should read B & K, Inc
We agree and hereby correct the record accordingly since the employees
referred to were obviously those of B & K, Inc
'Local No 447, United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of
181 NLRB No. 18
LOCAL UNION NO. 180, CARPENTERS 95
but rather to another (secondary or neutral
employer). We indicated that "if an employer does
not violate Section 8(a)(3) by terminating a business
relationship with another employer, union pressure
merely designed to achieve such an end would not
violate 8(b)(2)". Thus, while Leshe's threat to
Recknagel and Callum that he was going to stop the
job if B & K employees did not leave the job was
violative of Section 8(b)(4)(ii)(B), it was not
violative of Section 8(b)(2) and derivatively
8(b)(1)(A) of the Act. Likewise, it was not a
violation of Section 8(b)(2) of the Act when Leshe
told Recknagel's superintendent Cullum on
November 7, 1967, that he (Cullum) had to get
Ford and Rice off the fob.'
The Trial Examiner found that Respondent
violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act when Leshe
told Griffith on November 7, 1967, that he would be
fined for working with nonunion employees Ford
and Rice. We do not agree. Initially, we note that
the complaint did not allege and the General
Counsel did not argue that Leshe's threat was
violative of Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act. In any
event, we are of the opinion that the Trial
Examiner's finding must be rejected in light of such
decisions as Scofield v. N L.R.B (Wisconsin Motor
Corp ), 393 U.S. 995, and N.L.R.B. v.
Allis-Chalmers Mfg. Co., 388 U.S. 175. (See also
American Federation of Musicians of the United
States and Canada, AFL-CIO, 165 NLRB No. 110,
enfd. 395 F.2d 401.)
We agree with the Trial Examiner's finding that
Respondent violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act
on November 8, 1967, when Leshe would not
dispatch Keen because he had a fine levied against
him and would not dispatch Ford or Rice because
they were not union members.
The Reide Project
On November 8, Kilthau requested that Leshe
send four men to the Reide jobs to begin work
November 13; Leshe replied that he would not refer
any men. Notwithstanding his comment, Leshe
dispatched two men (Smith and Sorensen) to work
for B & K, Inc., on November 13. Kilthau, in the
presence of Russell (Russell, a carpenter and
member of Respondent was Reide's foreman and a
supervisor within the meaning of the Act)
telephoned Leshe and requested two additional men.
Upon Leshe's reply that no additional men were
available, Kilthau told Leshe that he would put
Griffith and Keen to work; Leshe told Kilthau that
if he did so he (Leshe) would shut down the job.
the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the United States and Canada,
AFL-CIO (Matbaff Landscape Construction), 172 NLRB No 7,
Chairman McCulloch dissenting
.Contrary to his colleagues , and in line with his dissenting position in
Matbaff Landscape Construction, supra. Chairman McCulloch agrees with
the Trial Examiner that Leslie 's threats to Recknagel and Cullum were
violative of Sec. 8 (bX2) and, derivatively , of Sec 8 (b)(IXA) as well
'Rede was the general contractor for the construction of an addition to
Leshe next talked to Russell and told him not to
let Keen and Griffith work until they got a
clearance6 or the carpenters (Reide's) would be cited
on a union violation. Leshe also told Russell he
could work Keen and Griffith "until 10:00 o'clock
and Mr. Reide can decide whether his rock hangers
[B & K, Inc. employees] are going to leave or his
carpenters are going to leave." Griffith and Keen
did not work on November 13.
On November 14 Griffith worked the morning on
the job and Keen reported for work at noon; Leshe
also arrived at the jobsite about noon. Leshe told
Keen and Griffith to get straightened out with their
home locals. Leshe told Russell, "not to let the men
(Keen and Griffith) work or we would be cited."
Finally the following day, November 15, Keen and
Griffith were dispatched by Respondent to the Reide
project.' B & K, Inc.'s work under the contract was
completed that day.
The Trial Examiner found:
As in the above cases involving Walters and
Recknagel, Section 8(b)(4) (i)(ii)(B) of the Act
were violated when:
1) Leshe threatened Russell on November 13,
that the carpenters employed by Reide would
be fined by Respondent, and Respondent would
pull the job in the event Reide did not force B
& K, Inc. to leave the premises, . .
Initially, we note that with respect to the Walters
and Recknagel projects the Trial Examiner found
only (ii) and not (i) violations.
The Trial Examiner found that Leshe was, in
effect, threatening to pull the job when he told
Russell that he could work Keen and Griffith until
"10:00 o'clock and then Mr. Reide can decide
whether the rock hangers . . . are going to leave or
his carpenters are going to leave." We agree that
Leshe's threat was violative of 8(b)(4)(ii)(B). We are
also of the opinion that Leshe's remark to Russell
that the carpenters employed by Reide would be
cited if Russell permitted Keen and Griffith to work
without a clearance constituted a threat within the
meaning of 8(b)(4)(ii)(B).e
the city hall at Dixon , California Reide had subcontracted the painting
and drywall work to Bush who in turn had subcontracted the drywall work
to B & K, Inc
.Keen had only paid part of his initiation fee to join the Union and
Griffith had lost his Union membership book; neither was a member of the
Respondent 's local
'Apparently the reason for this was that Keen had paid the remainder of
his initiation fee on November 14 and Griffith had found his union
membership book
The Trial Examiner, as noted above, also found that Leshe threatened
to fine the carpenters employed by Rede in the event Reide did not force
B & K, Inc to leave the premises The only basis for such a finding comes
from the testimony of Kdthau However, Kdthau's testimony in this regard
was hearsay , since Kdthau was testifying as to what Russell told him
Leshe had said to Russell over the telephone At the hearing the
Respondent objected to the admission of this testimony Russell, to whom
Leshe spoke, testified only that Leshe threatened to cite and not to fine the
carpenters For these reasons we do not adopt the Trial Examiner's finding
that Respondent violated 8(b)(4Xn)(B ) by threatening to fine Reide's
carpenters
96 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
In finding an (i) violation, the Trial Examiner
apparently considered (no explanation for this
finding was given) that Leslie's remark to Russell on
November 14 that the carpenters would be cited if
Keen and Griffith were not removed from the job
was made to Russell as a union member and as such
constituted "inducement and encouragement" within
the meaning of 8(b)(4)(i)(B). We do not agree. For
after a careful reading of the record we are
convinced that Leshe's remarks were directed to
Russell in his managerial capacity as Reide's
foreman and not as a union member.' There is no
evidence that Russell was a working foreman who
worked with the tools of the trade.'° To the
contrary, the record reveals that Russell, as
foreman, was authorized to hire, discharge, and
responsibly direct employees, not only of Reide, but
where appropriate of Reide's subcontractors. It
further appears that Russell, as foreman, was in
charge of the job in Reide's absence. From these
facts and the tenor of the exchange between Russell
and Leshe, we find that Leshe's remarks were
directed to Russell as a supervisor and a "person"
within the meaning of subsection (ii). Accordingly,
we shall dismiss the subsection (i) aspect of the
complaint.
We agree with the Trial Examiner's finding that
Respondent attempted to cause discrimination
against Keen and Griffith in violation of Section
8(b)(2) when Leshe told Kilthau on November 13,
that if Kilthau hired Keen and Griffith, he (Leslie)
would shut down the job.
The AEC- Rubendall Project
We agree with the Trial Examiner ' s finding that
Respondent violated Section 8(b)(4)(ii )( B) of the Act
when Leshe told Rubendall on December 7, 1967,
that he would picket the job if B & K performed the
sheet rock installation.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Charging Party, Walters Construction
Company, Carl Recknagel General Contractor,
Reide Construction Company, Paul R. Rubendall,
Inc., B & K Drywall Systems, and Bush Painting
and Drywall Company, Inc., are, and during all
times material have been employers engaged in
commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and
(7) of the Act.
2. Local Union No. 180, United Brotherhood of
Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO, is a
labor organization within the meaning of Section
2(5) of the Act.
3. The Respondent has violated Sections
8(b)(1)(A), (2), and 8(b)(4)(ii)(B) of the Act as set
forth above.
'See N L R B v Servette , Inc, 377 U S 46 (1964)
"Cf Local 11 IBEW (LG Electrical Contractors), 154 NLRB 766,
Carpenters Local 944 ( Interstate Employers), 159 NLRB 563
THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent violated Sections
8(b)(1)(A), (2), and 8(b)(4)(ii)(B) we shall order it to
cease and desist therefrom and take certain
affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies
of the Act.
Additionally, we shall order Respondent to make
whole Arthur Griffith and Ronald Keen for any loss
of pay they may have suffered by reason of
Respondent's causing their loss of work on the
Reide project, as set forth above. The sum of money
to be paid to make whole any employee for loss of
earnings suffered shall be computed in accordance
with the formula set forth in F. W Woolworth
Company, 90 NLRB 289, with interest due on at 6
percent per annum, as provided in Isis Plumbing &
Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board hereby orders that Respondent,
Local Union No. 180, United Brotherhood of
Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO, its
officers, agents, and representatives, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Threatening, coercing, or restraining Walters
Constructio>a, Company, Carl Recknagel General
Contractor, Reide Construction Company, Paul R.
Rubendall, Inc., or any other person engaged in
commerce or in an industry affecting commerce
where an object thereof is to force or require
Walters Construction Co., Carl Recknagel General
Contractor, Reide Construction Company, Pai;1 R.
Rubendall, Inc., or any other employer or person to
cease doing business with B & K Drywall Systems,
Inc.
(b) Restraining or coercing employees in the
exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the
Act; and
(c) Causing or attempting to cause B & K
Drywall Systems, Inc., to discriminate against an
employee in violation of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the
Board finds will effectuate the policies of the Act;
(a) Make whole Arthur Griffith and Ronald Keen
for any loss of pay each may have suffered by
reason of Respondent's causing B & K Drywall
System's, Inc., to discriminate against them in the
manner set forth above in the section entitled "the
Remedy."
(b) Post at its office and meeting hall, copies of
the attached notice marked "Appendix."" Copies of
"In the event this Order is enforced by a judgment of the United States
Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by Order of the
National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursuant to a
Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of
the National Labor Relations Board "
LOCAL UNION NO. 180, CARPENTERS
said notice, on forms provided by the Regional
Director for Region 20, shall, after being duly
signed by Respondent, be posted by it 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 the notices are not altered, defaced, or
•overed by any other material.
(c) Furnish to said Regional Director sufficient
signed copies of the aforementioned notices for
posting by B & K Drywall Systems, Inc., if willing,
at all locations where notices to employees are
customarily posted.
(d) Notify the Regional Director for Region 20, in
writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order,
what steps have been taken by Respondent to
comply herewith.
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO MEMBERS
Posted by Order of the National Labor Relations
Board an Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT threaten, coerce, or restrain Walters
Construction Company, Carl Recknagel General
Contractor, Reide Construction Company, Paul
Rubendall, Inc., or any other person engaged in
commerce or an industry affecting commerce where, in
either case an object thereof is to force or require the
above-named employers or any other person to cease
doing business with B & K Drywall Systems, Inc., or
any other person.
WE WILL NOT cause or attempt to cause B & K
Drywall Systems , Inc., to discriminate against an
employee in violation of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with,
restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of rights
guaranteed by Section 7 of the National Labor
Relations Act, except to the extent that such rights may
be affected by contracts permissible under Section
8(a)(3) and Section 8(f) of the Act, as amended
WE WILL make whole Arthur Griffith and Ronald
Keen for any loss of pay they may have suffered as a
result of discrimination which we caused to be practiced
against them.
Dated By
LOCAL UNION No. 180,
UNITED BROTHERHOOD
OF CARPENTERS AND
JOINERS OF AMERICA,
AFL-CIO
(Labor Organization)
(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,
450 Golden Gate Avenue, Federal Office Building, Box
36047, San Francisco, California, Telephone
415-556-3197.
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
97
GEORGE L. POWELL, Trial Examiner: This case was
tried before me at Sacramento, California, on May 21
and 22, 1968. The consolidated complaint issued March
29, 1968, based upon a charge filed in Case 20-CB-1766
on November 20, 1967, and a charge filed in Case
20-CC-752 on November 20, 1967, amended on February
5 and March 15, 1968, respectively. Briefs of the General
Counsel and Respondent were filed on July 1 and 2, 1968,
respectively The questions presented are whether
Respondent engaged in certain alleged secondary boycotts
in violation of Section 8(B)(4)(1 ) and (ii )(B) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, herein called
the Act,' and whether Respondent interfered with,
restrained, or coerced employees and attempted to cause
and caused the Charging Party to discharge certain of its
employees because of their lack of membership in the
Union, and whether Respondent refused to permit
employees to work unless they became members in good
standing of Respondent or other local unions affiliated
with the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of
America, AFL-CIO, herein called Carpenters, in violation
of Section 8(b)(1)(A) and (2) and Section 2(6) and (7) of
the Act.
Upon the entire record of evidence, my observation of
the witnesses as they testified , and on due consideration of
the briefs filed by the Respondent and the General
Counsel, I find, for the reasons hereinafter stated, that the
General Counsel has established by a preponderance of
the evidence that Respondent violated Section 8(b)(1) (A),
(2), (4)(i) and (ii)(B) of the Act as alleged in the
complaint, and I will recommend that Respondent be
ordered to cease and desist from certain conduct, make
whole certain employees for loss of employment and post
certain notices to that effect in order to effectuate the
purposes of the Act
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
A The Employers and'the Labor Organization
I find the allegations of paragraphs II, III, IV, V, and
VI of the complaint, as to the nature and volume of
business carried on by the therein identified contractors in
the building and construction industry to be true, and
conclude that they are employers engaged in commerce,
or in operations affecting commerce , within the meaning
of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. More particularly,
Thomas D. Walters is a sole proprietor d/b/a Walters
Construction Company (herein called Walters); Carl A.
Recknagel is a sole proprietor, d/b/a Carl Recknagel
General Contractor (herein called Recknagel); Gus Riede
is a sole proprietor, d/b/a Riede Construction Company
(herein called Riede ); and Paul R . Rubendall , Inc., is an
Illinois corporation (herein called Rubendall). The cities in
which they operated and the particular jobs involved will
be detailed later. There is no dispute with respect to the
nature and volume of business carried on by the
contractors.
I find the Charging Party, herein called B & K Inc., to
be an employer engaged in commerce , or in operations
affecting commerce, within the meaning of Section 2(6)
and (7) of the Act based upon the following facts. Lyle E.
'29 U S C Sec 151, et seq
98 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Kilthau, herein called Kilthau, is the president and only
stockholder of B & K Inc., a California corporation
engaged in the installation of sheet rock under
subcontracts from building and construction contractors.
Prior to the formation of the corporation, Kilthau and
David J. Bush, herein called Bush, were partners doing
business as B & K Drywall Systems (herein called B & K
Systems or the partnership). This partnership was formed
in February 1967, and was dissolved on September 29,
1967. The nature of work performed by B & K Inc. is
substantially the same as that performed by B & K
Systems.
I also find and conclude that the Respondent, Local
Union No. 180, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and
Joiners of America, AFL-CIO, herein called Respondent
or the Union, at all times material herein has been a labor
organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the
Act, another aspect of case not in controversy, in the
geographical jurisdiction of Solano County, California.
B. The Alleged Unfair Labor Practices
Background
At all pertinent times in this matter, Bush has been the
owner and the president of Bush Painting and Drywall
Company, Inc., herein called Bush Painting, a California
Corporation located near Davis, California, engaged in
the construction industry as a painting and drywall
contractor From 1964 until February 1967, Kilthau was
an employee of Bush Painting and during his last year's
employment was its superintendent.
The instant case has to do with the following four
projects or jobsites. Each site concerned a different
contractor but involved either Union Business Agent
William Leshe or Joseph B. McGrogan both admitted to
be agents within the meaning of the Act.
1. The Walters' Project
Walters was the general contractor in the construction
of two residences located at Dixon, California, herein
called the Walters' Project. Being within the geographical
jurisdiction of Respondent Union, Walters informed Leshe
that he was the general contractor and requested two
carpenters for his project. Construction of the residences
began in early September 1967, and all three of the
carpenters employed were members of Respondent Some
two or three weeks after the initial request for carpenters
had been made, Leshe came to the Walters' Project and
asked Walters who he intended to have perform the sheet
rock installation Walters replied that at the time he had
not received any bids for that work. Leshe then told him
"Do not use B & K." Walters asked why and Leshe told
him "They haven't paid their fringe benefits." Leshe also
told Walters that he would get "kind of rough" if Walters
"used B & K." Leshe also told Walters he "could
withdraw the carpenters from the job and picket the jof if
[Walters] were to use [B & K]." These facts are not in
issue. On approximately October 9, 1967, Kilthau
submitted a written bid to Walters to perform the sheet
rock installation for the Walters' Project. Walters told
him the bid was "reasonable" but he wanted to have
another before awarding the sheet rock contract Later on,
Walters received a written bid from Reich Drywall and
awarded it the Drywall contract The Reich Drywall bid
was higher than that submitted by Kilthau Walters stated
that "B & K would have been awarded the bid but for the
above conversation with Leshe "
Conclusion as to the Walters' Project
Section 8(b) of the Act (in pertinent part) makes it an
unfair labor practice for a union or its agents - "(4)(i) to
engage in, or to induce or encourage any . . [employee] .
. to engage in, a strike or a refusal in the course of his
employment to . . . work . or to perform any services;
or (ii) to threaten, coerce, or restrain any person . .
where in either case an object thereof is: . . . (B) forcing
or requiring any person .. to cease doing business with
any other person ...."
The Board has held that threats by a union's agent to
neutral employers that the Union would cause "trouble"
or "problems" in situations similar to the instant case
where Leshe told Walters he would get rough, are
unqualified threats within the meaning of the Act and
violative of Section 8(b)(4)(ii)(B) of the Act.' Accordingly,
I find that Leshe's threats to Walters to get rough and
withdraw carpenters and picket the job if Walters were to
use B & K violated Section 8(b)(4)(ii)(B) of the Act.
The Recknagel Project
Recknagel received a contract from the Dixon Unified
School District to construct a classroom and a locker
room at the Dixon High School for $444,444. In early
May 1967, Recknagel awarded an $8,000' contract to
Bush to furnish, install and tape the sheet rock involved
On about September 26, 1967, Bush awarded B & K Inc.
a $7,127 subcontract "to furnish, hang and install all
gypsum and sound board" at this project
Under the terms of the Drywall Master Agreement (a
collective-bargaining agreement between the California
Drywall Contractors Association and various district
councils and local unions affiliated with the Carpenters),
which was being honored by B & K Inc. as successor to B
& K Systems which had incorporated it by reference in a
Drywall Memorandum Agreement with the
Sacramento-Yolo District Council of the Carpenters, B &
K Inc. registered its job on the Recknagel Project with
Respondent on October 16, 1967 And McGrogan,
Respondent's financial secretary, an admitted agent, was
asked to furnish four employees to perform the work for
B & K Inc. Respondent did not dispatch any employees
within 2 days, and B & K Inc., acting under article IV,
section 2, subsection (6), of the Drywall Master
Agreement,' sent Arthur Griffith and Larry Woods, on
October 18, 1967, to Respondent's office to obtain
dispatch slips to begin work. Leshe was out but
McGrogan was in and, after some discussion, gave each a
dispatch slip. Woods had explained to McGrogan that he
had lost his card which would show he was a member of
Local 586 in Sacramento, and be entitled to a dispatch
slip. McGrogan recalled that about a month earlier
Woods had shown him all of the required credentials. He
'Carpenters Local 2067 ( Batterman Const Inc ), 166 NLRB No 78,
IBEW Local 5 (Jonel Construction Co ), 164 NLRB No 58; Lafayette
Building and Construction Traders Council (Southern Construction Corp ),
132 NLRB 673, United Mechanics Local 150-F (American Photocopy
Equipment Co ), 151 NLRB 386, 390, Local 150, IOUE (Frisch
Contracting Service Co, Inc ). 149 NLRB 29, 34, IBEW Local 5 (Bethel
Electric). 146 NLRB 339, 340, fn 2
'Recknagel testified the contract " was in the neighborhood of
$8,000„
'Art IV, sec. 2, subsec (6), is as follows
When ordering workmen the Contractors will give notice to the Local
LOCAL UNION NO. 180 , CARPENTERS 99
then verified his recollection by checking his records and
ended up by giving Woods a dispatch slip Griffith, a
member of the Carpenters local in Marysville, California,
had a different problem to solve before he got his dispatch
slip. McGrogan told him he had an outstanding fine
against him but that he would have 60 days in which to
pay it and thereupon issued him the dispatch slip Woods
and Griffith found out from McGrogan there were "plenty
of men" available on the Respondent's out-of-work list
but they were not dispatched to B & K, Inc. after the
latter's request for employees had been received, because
no one wanted to work for Kilthau.s McGrogan then told
Woods and Griffith that they should join Respondent,
rather than getting temporary work permits, and they then
would have no trouble getting jobs as lots of work was
available within Respondent's jurisdiction. Woods and
Griffith returned to the project and worked there the next
2 days, Thursday and Friday, October 19 and 20, without
incident
On Monday, October 23, 1967, Leshe came to the
jobsite, took the dispatch slips from Woods and Griffith
and told Recknagel, the contractor, and Cullum, his
superintendent, that he was going to stop the job if B & K
Inc. did not leave the job. Cullum then said to Kilthau,
"You're going home." Kilthau asked Recknagel what his
feeling on the matter was and was told in reply, "Well, I
have to go along with my superintendent." Kilthau further
testified without contradiction that Cullum said, "Well, I
guess you guys will just have to get off the job." And
they, Woods, Griffith and Kilthau, left the job.
Leshe, who never testified in the case but whose
remarks while on the jobsite had been recorded and had
been stipulated to as having been made, took Woods'
dispatch slip because he had no union card with him and
took Griffith's dispatch slip because "B & K is not right."
Kilthau asked Leshe, "If you are going to run us off this
job I want to know the reason why." Leshe replied, "The
reason why is because you are still with Bush."
On Tuesday, October 24, Kilthau took Bush to Leshe's
office to give him documents which would establish that
the partnership between Bush and Kilthau had been
dissolved and that Kilthau had formed a new corporation.
Leshe refused to sign a receipt for the documents and
"walked off."
On Wednesday, October 25, Kilthau sent Leshe a
telegram via Western Union in which Leshe was told that
B & K Inc. had requested men from Respondent on
October 16, but that none had been furnished, and that B
& K Inc. would "man the job" on the Recknagel Project
on October 25. Shortly thereafter Leshe cleared Griffith
to return to the project where, with several of Recknagel's
Union or District Council not later than 2.30 p in of the day prior
(Monday through Friday ), in any event , not less than 17-1/2 hours
before the required reporting time, and in the event that, 48 hours after
such notice , the Local Union or District Council shall not furnish such
employees, the Contractor may procure employees from any other
source or sources If men are so employed , the Contractor shall
immediately report to the Local Union or District Council having work
and area jurisdiction, each such employee by name (Emphasis supplied ]
'The Drywall Master Agreement provides for a hiring hall in art IV,
sec 2(a)(4), as follows
. the selection of workmen for referral to jobs shall be on a
nondiscriminatory basis as to Union membership or lack of membership
or union good standing The Local Union and District Council shall
register and dispatch workmen from the employment lists without
discrimination as to union affiliation , and such registration and
dispatchment shall not be affected in any way by rules, regulations,
by-laws, constitutional provisions or any other aspect or application of
union policies or requirements. .
carpenters (who began doing B & K Inc.'s work on
October 27), he began work.
On Thursday, November 2, Kilthau, by telegram,
requested four men for the Recknagel Project beginning
the following day. This was the same type registration as
that of October 16, above, and was really unnecessary, as
Counsel for Respondent pointed out, under article XII,
section 12, of the Drywall Master Agreement. However,
as of Monday, November 6, Respondent had not
dispatched any men, and B & K Inc. was free, under the
Drywall Master Agreement, to obtain men "from any
other source or sources " Accordingly, Kilthau put
employees Tom Ford, Bob Wicks and Tom Rice to work
on the Recknagel Project on November 6, phoning Leshe
their necessary identification and telling him they were
going to work.
These employees, all nonunion men, had been hired by
B & K Inc. on or about November 1 to work on jobs
outside of Respondent's jurisdiction. When Leshe was told
that these three men were going to work on the Recknagel
Project, he replied that if they did he would take Kilthau
to the Joint Drywall Board where Kilthau would be fined.
Ford, Wicks, and Rice, along with Griffith, went to the
project to commence work on the morning of November
6.
Wicks and Griffith reported for work together, but,
before they could commence, Recknagel's superintendent,
Cullum, asked to see their "union cards." Griffith showed
his, but Wicks not being a member of the Union had
none. Cullum then telephoned Respondent's office, in
Wick's presence, and, at the conclusion of a conversation
with a representative of Respondent, Cullum told Wicks
he could not work because he was not a member of
Respondent and had not been "cleared" by Respondent to
work on the project. Wicks left. No inquiry was made
concerning Wick's previous employment as to employer,
place or duration. He had not worked for B & K Inc. 7
days to have required him to be a member of Respondent
under the Drywall Master Agreement, nor was there
evidence that he had earlier worked for contractors whose
employees were covered by the said agreement.
Although Wicks was required to leave the project on
November 6 because he was not a union member and had
not been "cleared" by Respondent, Ford and Rice
continued to work that day yet they too were nonunion
employees of the B & K Inc. However, on Tuesday,
November 7, Leshe came to the project where he found
Ford, Rice and Griffith at work. Cullum joined them in
the conversation that followed with Leshe Leshe asked
Ford and Rice if they were members of any Union. They
told him they were not Leshe noted to Griffith that this
was the second or third time that he had been ca}ight
working with nonunion men, and he was told he was.
subject to being fined for this. Ford asked what it would
cost to join Respondent and was told "$210 flat", further,
Leshe said "I don't think you have that kind of money on
you." Leshe believed that Kilthau had given him only 46
hours' notice for manning the job and told Cullum,
"You'll have to get these guys off the job, or we are going
to close you down." And "If I were you, I'd pull them off
the job right now." Cullum indicated that Ford and Rice
would have to leave the job, which they did
Recknagel's carpenters, as well as Cullum, were
members of Respondent's union pursuant to the
Carpenters Master Agreement by which Recknagel was
bound. At the time Ford had to leave the job, he had been
in the employ of B & K Inc. only for 5 1/2 working days
and under the Drywall Master Agreement which had a
100 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
8-day union-security grace period, he was not required to
join the Union. As for Rice, he had been employed by B
& K Inc. for only 6 1/2 days when he had to leave the
project.
The next day, Wednesday, November 8, Kilthau with
Ford, Rice, and Ronald Keen went to Respondent's office
in an attempt to get these employees dispatched to the
high school project. Leshe refused to clear the men for
work. With respect to Keen, Leshe asked if he were a
member of the Union and found that he was not at that
time a member of the Carpenters. Leshe determined that
Keen had a fine against him levied by a union, and
refused to give him a dispatch slip or work permit
believing that Keen was not going to pay the fine.
Kilthau asked Leshe if he would accept Ford and Rice
as members in Respondent. Leshe would do so for $210
each but would not accept installment payments as
suggested by Kilthau. After a dispute between Leshe and
Ford as to the time of day when Leshe received Kilthau's
telegram of November 2, Leshe concluded the meeting by
saying the men were nonunion, and he had no obligation
to them. Neither Ford, Keen, nor Rice were thereafter
assigned to work on the high school project.
Conclusions as to the Recknagel Project
As in the Walters' Project above, I find that threats
made by Leshe to Recknagel and Recknagel's
superintendent, Cullum, that he (Leshe) would stop the
job if B & K Inc. did not leave the job violates Section
8(b)(4)(ii)(B) of the Act. Likewise Leslie's threats that
Griffith would be fired for working with nonunion men
and that Kilthau would be taken to the Joint Drywall
Board and fined if he worked Ford, Wicks and Rice,
violates Section 8(b)(4)(ii)(B) of the Act when made to
cause Recknagel to cease doing business with B & K Inc.'
Section 8(b)(1)(A) in essence as far as this case is
concerned, makes it an unfair labor practice for a Union
or its agents to restrain or coerce employees in the
exercise of their rights to join or not join a Union, as
provided in Section 7. And Section 8(b)(2) makes it an
unfair labor practice for a Union or its agents to cause or
attempt to cause an employer to discriminate against an
employee as to his hire or tenure of employment to
encourage membership in a Union This is the legal
framework within which to consider certain actions of
Respondent's agents McGrogan and Leshe.
On October 18, 1967, McGrogan told employees
Griffith and Woods they should join Respondent Union if
they wanted to get jobs in Respondent's area with no
trouble, as there was plenty of work there. McGrogan also
did not give dispatch slips to Griffith and Woods until he
was convinced that Griffith would pay an outstanding fine
against him by his Union, and that Woods really was a
union member having lost his membership card. Inasmuch
as the hiring hall contract specifically said " . the
selection of workmen for referral to jobs shall be on a
nondiscriminatory basis as to union membership or lack
of membership or Union good standing," such
requirements as used by McGrogan had the effect of
restraining and coercing Griffith and Woods within the
meaning of Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act and hence I find
this Section of the Act to have been violated by
McGrogan.
`Glaziers Local 1184 (Tennessee Glass Co ), 164 NLRB No 9; Laundry
Dry Cleaning Local 209 (East Bay Counties Dry Cleaners), 167 NLRB
No 6.
On Monday, October 23, 1967, Respondent, through
Leshe, told Recknagel and his superintendent, Cullum that
he was going to stop the job if these employees did not
leave the job, and Cullum, accordingly, told the employees
to "get off the job." Under the circumstances of this case,
i e., lack of membership in the Union and taking back the
dispatch slips, Leshe caused Recknagel to discriminate
against his employees as to their hire and tenure of
employment to encourage membership in Respondent, and
I find this to be a violation of Section 8(b)(2) of the Act,
and, derivatively of Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act.
On November 7, 1967, Respondent, through Agent
Leshe, violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act when Leshe
told Griffith he would be fined for working with nonunion
employees Ford and Rice and Section 8(b)(2) was violated
when Leshe told Cullum he had to get Ford and Rice off
the job. There was no evidence that, at the time any of
these employees were discriminated against as to their hire
or tenure of employment because they were not union
members, they had worked the number of days needed
before they were required to join the Union.
Likewise Respondent, through Agent Leshe, violated
Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act on November 8, 1967, when
he wouldn't dispatch Keen because he had a fine levied
against him, and when he wouldn't dispatch Ford or Rice
because they were nonmembers of the Union
3. The City Hall Project-Riede
Riede was the general contractor for the construction of
an addition to the city hall at Dixon, California. Bush was
his subcontractor for the painting and drywall and he in
turn subcontracted the purchase and installation of the
drywall to B & K Inc.
Before beginning any work under the subcontract from
Bush , Kilthau on Wednesday, November 8, informed
Leshe that he had the job and needed four men to do it.
Leshe told him he would not refer any men to the job.
Notwithstanding his comment that he would not refer
any men to the job. Leshe did dispatch Smith and
Sorenson to the job on its first work day of Monday,
November 13, 1967. Kilthau telephoned Leshe for the two
additional men, and when told none were available, told
Leshe he would work Keen and Griffith. Whereupon
Leshe told Kilthau that if this happened he (Leshe) would
shut down the job. [Keen had only paid part of his
initiation fee to join the Union and Griffith had lost his
union membership book, and neither were members of
Respondent]. Griffith reported for work and worked
Tuesday morning, November 14, but Keen, who reported
for work at noon on that day, never worked.' Leshe told
Russell , job foreman for Riede and himself a carpenter
and member of Respondent, not to let Keen and Griffith
work until they got a clearance or "we would be `cited' on
a union violation ." Also Leshe told Russell that he could
work Keen and Griffith "until 10:00 o'clock and then Mr.
Riede can decide whether his rock hangers [B & K Inc
employees] are going to leave or his carpenters are going
to leave." I find this to mean that unless Riede removed B
& K Inc., from the project Respondent's members
employed on the project would engage in a work stoppage
or strike. Thus, Leshe was threatening to pull
Respondent's members. Keen and Griffith left the job As
a result neither Keen or Griffith worked Monday and only
Griffith worked Tuesday and then but for one half the
day
Finally, both Keen and Griffith were dispatched by
Respondent on Wednesday morning, November 15, and
LOCAL UNION NO. 180 , CARPENTERS 101
worked that day for B & K Inc. at the project ' This
concluded all work under the contract.
the conversation of December 7. A copy of this letter was
introduced in evidence as General Counsel ' s Exhibit 3.
Conclusions as to the City Hall Project-Riede
I find that Leshe attempted to cause and caused
discrimination against Keen and Griffith, within the
meaning of Section 8(b)(2) (and derivatively violated
Section 8(b)(1)(A),) of the Act, when he told Kilthau that
if he hired them Leshe would shut down the job As this
was done because Keen at that time was not a union
member and hence it would encourage union membership.
As in the above cases involving Walters and Recknagel,
Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B) of the Act were violated
when- 1) Leshe threatened Russell on November 13, that
the carpenters employed by Riede would be fined by
Respondent, and Respondent would pull the job in the
event Riede did not force B & K Inc. to leave the
premises; and 2) Leshe told Russell on November 14 that
Riede's carpenters, including Russell, would be "cited" by
Respondent in the event Griffith and Keen (employees of
B & K Inc.) were not removed from the job.
4. The AEC-Rubendall Project
Rubendall began the construction of an addition to the
AEC's Radiobiology Laboratory at Davis, California, on
October 1, 1967, under a contract with the University of
California and the U S. Atomic Energy Commission.
Bush was a subcontractor for Rubendall , and Bush, in
turn, subcontracted to B & K Inc. the purchase and
installation of sheet rock
Rubendall employed three carpenters , one laborer and
one cement finisher on the project (all were union
members ) while his 11 subcontractors employed various
craftsmen all of whom were union members Rubendall
was bound by the terms of the Carpenters Master
Agreement.
On December 7, 1967, Leshe visited the project and
talked with Rubendall . Leshe asked if carpenter work was
still going on at that time, and Rubendall told him that it
was Leshe asked who was going to do the sheet rock
work and was told that it was being done under a
subcontract with Bush Painting . Leshe wanted to know if
B & K Inc . might be doing the actual work, but
Rubendall wad unsure. The two then went to the office
where Rubendall telephoned Bush Painting and
.determined that the partnership , "B & K Systems," would
do the work. Leshe told Rubendall that both Bush
Painting and the partnership were not in good standing
with Respondent in that they were both delinquent in
paying fringe benefits to the various union benefit funds.
Leshe told Rubendall that if either of these firms
performed the sheetrock installation the Respondent
would install a picket on the project . Rubendall told Leshe
that he was powerless to change subcontractors unless he
had a legitimate reason in writing that he could take to
the contractor with a request for permission to change
subcontractors . Leshe left the job but telephoned
Rubendall later that afternoon telling him that he could
not give any information in writing but that if Rubendall
used Bush Painting or the partnership he "would be
compelled to put a picket on the job." Rubendall, the
following day, December 8, wrote Leshe a letter reciting
'Apparently the reason for this was that Keen had paid the remainder of
his initiation fee on Tuesday afternoon, November 14, and Griffith had
found his union membership book
Conclusions as to the AEC-Rubendall Project
For the reasons given above in the Walters ' Project, I
find that Respondent violated Section 8(b)(4)(ii )( B) of the
Act on December 7, 1967 when Leshe told Rubendall that
if either Bush Painting or the partnership performed the
sheetrock installation Leshe would picket the job , because
an object of this threat was to force or require Rubendall
to cease doing business with Bush Painting or B & K
Systems. Rubendall was employing carpenters and other
craftsmen who were union members and Rubendall had
subcontractors who were employing union members. A
picket line against Rubendall would shut down the job.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Charging Party, Walters Construction Company,
Carl Recknagel General Contractor, Riede Construction
Company, Paul R. Rubendall, Inc., B & K Drywall
Systems, and Bush Painting and Drywall Company, Inc.
are, and during all times material have been, employers
engaged in commerce and in businesses affecting
commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of
the Act.
2. Respondent is, and during all times material has
been, a labor organization within the meaning of Section
2(5) of the Act.
3 The General Counsel has established by a
preponderance of the evidence that Respondent has
violated Sections 8(b)(1)(A), (2), (4)(i) and (u)(B) of the
Act as set forth above The remedy for these violations
will be provided below.
4. The unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act
THE REMEDY
I will recommend the usual remedy requiring
Respondent to cease and desist from engaging in the
conduct found under Section I, above, to have violated
Sections 8(b)(I)(A) and 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B) of the Act.
Additionally, as urged by the General Counsel in his
brief, I shall order Respondent to make whole Larry E.
Woods, Arthur Griffith, Tom Ford, Harry Rice, Robert
Wicks and Ronald Keen for any loss of pay they may
have suffered by reason of Respondent's causing their loss
of work on the projects above, or their discharge from
employment by B & K Drywall Systems, Inc. The Board
has these powers to fashion any remedy reasonably related
to the violation of the Act N L R B v. Express Pub . 312
U.S. 426 Phelps Dodge v N L R B. 313 U.S 177. It is
reasonable to require Respondent to remedy its unfair
labor practices by reimbursing said employees for wages
lost, inasmuch as it succeeded in causing the termination
of their employment. This remedy would be the same if
no violation of Section 8(b)(2) were found. Pacific Coast
Marine Firemen, Oilers, Watertenders and Wipers
Association. Independent, 107 NLRB 593, 594, 595,
Bausche & Lomb Optical. 107 NLRB 790; and D'Arey
Co, 115 NLRB 1320.
In order to insure the expeditious compliance with the
recommended backpay order, I shall recommend that B &
K Drywall Systems, Inc , upon reasonable request, make
any pertinent records available to the Board and its
agents.
102 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The sum of money to be paid to make whole any
employee for any loss of earnings suffered as a result of
discharge or other discriminatory action shall be
computed in accordance with the formula set in F W
Woolworth Company 90 NLRB 289, with interest thereon
at six percent per annum, as provided in Isis Plumbing &
Heating Co 138 NLRB 716
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and
conclusions of law, it is hereby recommended that Local
180, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of
America, AFL-CIO, its officers, agents, and
representatives, shall.
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Engaging in, or inducing or encouraging individuals
employed by Carl Recknagel General Contractor, Riede
Construction Company, or Paul R. Rubendall, Inc., or
any other person engaged in commerce or in an industry
affecting commerce, to engage in, a strike or refusal in the
course of their employment to use, manufacture, process,
transport, or otherwise handle or work on any goods,
articles, materials , or commodities or to perform any
services; or to threaten, coerce, or restrain Walters
Construction Company, Carl Recknagel General
Contractor, Riede Construction Company, Paul R.
Rubendall, Inc., or any other person engaged in
commerce or in an industry affecting commerce where in
either case an object thereof is to force or require Walters
Construction Company, Carl Recknagel General
Contractor, Riede Construction Company, Paul R.
Rubendall, Inc., or any other person engaged in
commerce or in an industry affecting commerce to cease
doing business with B & K Drywall Systems, Inc., or any
other person.
(b) Restraining or coercing employees in the exercise of
the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
(c) Causing or attempting to cause Carl Recknagel
General Contractor, Riede Construction Company, B &
K Drywall Systems, Inc., or any other employer to
discriminate against an employee in violation of Section
8(a)(3) of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which it is
found will effectuate the policies of the Act-
(a) Make whole Larry E. Woods, Arthur Griffith, Tom
Ford, Harry Rice, Robert Wicks, and Ronald Keen for
any loss of pay each may have suffered, by reason of
Respondent' s causing B & K Drywall Systems, Inc., to
discriminate against them , in the manner set forth above
in the section entitled "The Remedy."
(b) Post at its offices and meeting halls in Solano
County, California, copies of the attached notice marked
"Appendix."' Copies of said notice, on forms to be
furnished by the Regional Director for Region 20, shall,
after being duly signed by the representative of Local 180,
United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of
America, AFL-CIO, be posted by it 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 by Local 180, United
Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America,
AFL-CIO to insure that said notices are not altered,
defaced, or covered by any other material.
'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
(c) Sign and mail copies of said notice to the Regional
Director for Region 20 for posting by B & K Drywall
Systems, Inc., if willing, at all locations where notices to
its employees are customarily posted.
(d) Notify the Regional Director for Region 20, in
writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what
steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith.'
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 "
'In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board,
this provision shall be modified to read "Notify the Regional Director for
Region 26, in writing , within 10 days from the date of this Order, what
steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL MEMBERS OF LOCAL UNION No. 180,
UNITED BROTHERHOOD OF CARPENTERS AND JOINERS
OF AMERICA, AFL-CIO
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 engage in or induce or encourage any
individual employed by Carl Recknagel General
Contractor, Riede Construction Company, or Paul R.
Rubendall, Inc., or any other person engaged in
commerce or in an industry affecting commerce to
engage in a strike or refusal in the course of his
employment, to use, manufacture, process, transport, or
otherwise handle or work on any goods, articles,
materials , or commodities or to perform any services
And WE WILL NOT threaten, coerce, or restrain the
above-named employers, Walters Construction
Company, or any other person engaged in commerce or
an industry affecting commerce where, in either case an
object thereof is to force or require the above-named
employers or any other person to cease doing business
with B & K Drywall Systems, Inc, or any other
person.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with,
restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the National Labor
Relations Act.
WE WILL NOT cause or attempt to cause Carl
Recknagel General Contractor, Riede Construction
Company, B & K Drywall Systems, Inc , or any other
employer to discriminate against an employee in
violation of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act.
WE WILL make whole Larry E. Woods, Arthur
Griffith, Tom Ford, Harry Rice, Robert Wicks, and
Ronald Keen for any loss of pay each may have
suffered by reason of our causing discrimination against
them.
Dated By
LOCAL UNION No. 180,
UNITED BROTHERHOOD
OF CARPENTERS AND
JOINERS OF AMERICA,
AFL-CIO
(Labor Organization)
(Representative ) (Title)
LOCAL UNION NO 180, CARPENTERS 103
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days compliance with its provisions, they may communicate
from the date of posting and must not be altered, defaced, directly with the Board's Regional Office, 13050 Federal
or covered by any other material. Building, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, Box 36047, San
If members have any question concerning this notice or Francisco, California, Telephone 556-0335.