Northern California District Council, Etc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 21, 1965

154 N.L.R.B. 1384 (N.L.R.B. 1965)

1384 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LA96R RELATIONS BOARD
organizations , to join or assist Local 1459, Retail Clef International Asso-
ciation, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization , to bargain collectively
through representatives of their own choosing , and to engage in other concerted
activities for the purposes of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or
protection , or to refrain from any and all such activities , 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.
ZAYRE CORPORATION,
Employer.
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 , Boston
Five Cents Savings Bank Building , 24 School Street , Boston , Massachusetts, Tele-
phone No. 523-8100.
Northern California District Council of Hodcarriers and Com-
mon Laborers of America , AFL-CIO; Construction and Gen-
eral Laborers Union Local No. 185, AFL-CIO and Joseph
Mohamed , Sr., an Individual , d/b/a Joseph 's Landscaping
Service . Cases Nos. 20-CC-3541 and 20-CC-363. September 31,
1965
DECISION AND ORDER
On July 31, 1964, Trial Examiner David Karasick issued his Deci-
sion in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that Respondents had
engaged in certain unfair labor practices and recommending that they
cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set
forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Decision. Thereafter, Re-
spondents filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision and a sup-
porting brief. The General Counsel also filed a brief in support of his
own cross-exceptions, but otherwise in support of the Trial Examiner's
Decision.
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 Zagoria].
The Board has considered the Trial Examiner's Decision, the excep-
tions and briefs, and the entire record in the case,' and hereby adopts
1 We affirm the Trial Examiner 's finding that Respondent violated the Act by their pre-
settlement and postsettlement conduct. In this connection , we have reexamined the rule
of Larrance Tank Corporation , 94 NLRB 352 , upon which the Respondents rely and
which indicates that activity prior to a settlement agreement may not be considered in
assessing Respondents ' postsettlement conduct . To the extent that the above rule bars
the use of presettlement conduct as background evidence establishing the motive or object
of a Respondent in its postsettlement activities , we have concluded that It is incorrect.
Accordingly , Larrance Tank is , to that extent , hereby overruled.
154 NLRB No. 116.
NORTHERN CALIFORNIA DISTRICT COUNCIL, ETC. 1385
the Trial Examiner's findings,2 conclusions, and recommendations as
modified herein.'
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended, the National Labor Relations hoard hereby adopts as its
Order the Recommended Order of the Trial Examiner, and orders that
Respondents, Northern California District Council of Ilodcarrlers and
Common Laborers of America, AFL-CIO, and Construction and Gen-
eral Laborers Union Local No. 185, AFL-CIO, their respective officers,
agents, and representatives, shall take the action set forth in the Trial
Examiner's Recommended Order.
2 We find contrary to the Trial Examiner, that Respondents' conduct to force Joseph's
Landscaping Service to enter into a contract otherwise forbidden by Section 'S(e), but
permitted in the construction industry here involved, (lid not violate Section 8(b)(4)(i)
and (ii) (A). Northeastern Indiana Building and Construction Trades Council (Cent-
livre Village Apartments), 148 NLRB 854 reversed on other grounds 352 F 2d 696
(C A.D.C.).
3 Member Fanning finds that Respondents' picketing of gates used by employees em-
ployed by neutral employers and the lack of evidence that Respondents picketed a gate
established for the exclusive use of the primary employer's employees is fatal to Re-
spondents' defense that their picketing activities were lawful under the Moore Drydock
doctrine, 92 NLRB 547. He does not adopt so much of the Trial Examiner's Decision
indicating that Respondents' picketing, whether or not in conformity with Moose Diydock
criteria, would nevertheless be unlawful because of evidence unrelated to the picketing
which revealed a cease- doina business object in the literal language of the statute
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
These proceedings, heard at Sacramento, California, before Trial Examiner
David Karasick on November 5 and 6, 1963, pursuant to charges filed on behalf of
Joseph Mohamed, Sr., An Individual, d/b/a Joseph's Landscaping Service, herein
called Mohamed, on March 25, 1963, in Case No. 20-CC-354 and on May 20, 1963,
in Case No. 20-CC-363, respectively, an amended consolidated complaint I issued
October 15 and an amendment thereto issued October 24, 1963, in essence present
the question whether Northern California District Council of Hodcarriers and
Common Laborers of America, AFL-CIO; and Construction and General Laborers
Union Local No. 185, AFL-CIO, herein separately called the Respondent District
Council and the Respondent Local, and together called the Respondent, violated
Section 8(b) (4) (i), (ii) (A) and (B) of the National Labor Realtions Act, herein
called the Act. At the conclusion of the testimony, the General Counsel and the
Respondents presented oral argument and, following the close of the hearing, filed
briefs which have been fully considered in arriving at the findings and conclusions
hereinafter set forth.
Upon consideration of the entire record in these proceedings, and from my obser-
vation of the witnesses, I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. JURISDICTION
Sunset International Petroleum Corporation, herein called Sunset, a Delaware
corporation, with its main office and principal place of business located in Beverly
Hills, California, and with branches in the United States, Canada, Mexico, South
America, and other locations throughout the world, is engaged as a general con-
tractor in the construction of a multimillion dollar residential project at Sunset City,
Rocklin, California. During the past 12 months, Sunset purchased and received
'Other charges, thereafter severed prior to the hearing, were included in the original
consolidated complaint.
1386 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
products valued in excess of $50 ,000 directly from places located outside the State
of California . Mohamed is , and at all times material herein has been, engaged at
Sacramento , California, in the business of landscape contracting During the past
12 months, Mohamed performed services for Sunset, at Sunset City, Rocklin,
California, valued at $49,176 03. I find that Sunset and Mohamed are engaged in
commerce and in operations affecting commerce , within the meaning of Section
2(6) and (7) of the Act. Wallace Hildebrandt & John Kiefer d/b/a H & K Lathing
Co, 134 NLRB 517.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
The Respondent District Council and the Respondent Local are labor organiza-
tions within the meaning of the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES ALLEGED
A. The settlement agreement in Case No. 20 -CC-354
On March 25, 1963, Mohamed filed a charge in Case No. 20-CC-354, alleging
that on or about March 1, 1963, the Respondents , by threats to picket Sunset violated
Section 8 (b) (4) (i), (u ) ( A) and ( B) of the Act . On April 30 , 1963 , the Regional
Director approved an informal settlement agreement entered into by the Respondents
and the Charging Party in which the Respondents , though not admitting that they
had engaged in any violation of the Act and reserving the right to take lawful action
against Mohamed , agreed that they would not picket or threaten to picket Sunset in
order to force Sunset to cease doing business with Mohamed.
On May 20, 1963, Mohamed filed a charge in Case No. 20-CC-363, alleging that
on or about May 7, 1963, the Respondents violated Section 8(b) (4) (i), (ii) (A)
and (B ) of the Act by threatening , coercing , and restraining Sunset and other
employers and inducing and encouraging employees of Sunset and other employers
to engage in a strike
On July 29, 1963, the Regional Director notified the Respondents that he was
withdrawing his approval of the settlement agreement in Case No. 20-CC-354
because the Respondents had continued their unfair labor practices and that a con-
solidated complaint and notice of hearing in both Case No 20-CC-354 and Case
No 20-CC-363 was being issued. The Respondents contend that- (1) Their conduct
in May was not unlawful , did not constitute a violation of the settlement agreement,
and that their presettlement conduct may not therefore be considered in this case;
and (2 ) the Respondents were afforded an opportunity to settle the charge in Case
No 20-CC-363 only on a formal and not an informal basis and that this constituted
a violation of Section 101.7 of the Board's Statements of Proceduure. For the
reasons set forth hereafter, I am unable to agree that the conduct of the Respondents
in May 1963 did not violate the settlement agreement nor do I find any support for
the Respondents ' contention in the cited provisions of the Board 's Statements of
Procedure.2 Accordingly, I believe it is proper for me to consider both the pre-
settlement and postsettlement conduct of the Respondents in arriving at a determi-
nation whether the allegations of the consolidated complaint have been sustained.
Larnance Tank Corporation, 94 NLRB 352.
B. The facts
As noted above , Sunset is engaged, as a general contractor , in the development
of a multimillion dollar residential project at Sunset City, Rocklin, California. Sun-
set engaged Mohamed, as a subcontractor , to perform certain landscape work at
the project . By virtue of its membership in Associated Home Builders of Sacra-
mento, Inc , Sunset, together with other employers, is party to a master collective-
bargaining agreement with the Respondents.
Mohamed commenced work on the landscaping operations at Sunset City early
in February 1963.3 He did not have a contract with a labor organization covering
2I am also unable to agree with the further contention of the Respondents that the
General Counsel Is precluded from alleging in the amended consolidated complaint that
the Respondents ' conduct violated Section 8 (e) of the Act since the charge in Case No.
20-CC-354 and the informal settlement agreement in that case "was not based upon any
8(e) concept." The charge in each case alleged, among other matters, a violation of
Section 8 (b) (4) (A) which can arise only out of a consideration of the provisions of
Section 8(e).
3 All dates herein refer to 1963 unless otherwise indicated
NORTHERN CALIFORNIA DISTRICT COUNCIL, ETC. 1387
any of his employees who performed concrete work, carpentry, plumbing, electrical
wiring, and laborers' duties
On March 1, while Mohamed and three of his employees were working at the
project site, Bob Sanders,4 assistant business representative of the Respondent Local,
after first speaking to Mohamed's employees who were working at the project,
approached Mohamed and asked him if he was ready to sign a union contract.
Mohamed said that he was not Sanders left but returned shortly thereafter accom-
panied by Bill Metz, a representative of the Operating Engineers Union. Sanders
demanded that Mohamed sign a union-shop agreement and said the union would
not supply Mohamed with any laborers unless he did sign such an agreement and
that the only laborers Mohamed would have on the job would have to be from the
Laborers Union. Sanders further stated that if Mohamed did not sign such an
agreement, the union would strike the project and get Mohamed off the job
Mohamed discussed the possibility of hiring from the union hall the additional men
he needed without signing a union agreement, but Sanders stated that he would have
to sign such a contract. Mohamed explained that his men did a variety of work,
including plumbing, cement finishing, laborers work, and operating roto tillers, and
that he needed men who were versatile so that they could do a variety of jobs.
Sanders, however, said that laborers would have to do labor work, that the union
had other crafts to do other jobs, and that it would require that Mohamed have
the specific craft doing a specific piece of work. When Mohamed indicated he could
not operate on this basis, Sanders replied that Mohamed would "either sign a union
contractor or get off of this job."
Later that day, Project Engineer Krabbe informed Mohamed that a meeting had
been arranged for the following Tuesday, March 5, between the Respondents, the
Operating Engineers, and Sunset. Krabbe stated that Sunset would be represented
by Albert E. Bilger, a labor relations consultant of the Sacramento Valley Employ-
ers' Council, and asked Mohamed if he would be present. Mohamed advised Krabbe
that he had retained counsel and that he would follow his advice. On this occasion,
Krabbe also told Mohamed that the unions had threatened to strike Sunset and told
Mohamed not to come on the job that weekend. Mohamed promised that he would
not. Accordingly, his men did not work on Saturday, March 2, although Mohamed
had scheduled work for them on that day
On March 4, Mohamed observed Sanders talking to three of Mohamed's employees
who were working on the project Mohamed told Sanders that he had taken enough
time of his men on the job and that anything he wanted to discuss with them in the
future would be done on his time or theirs and not on Mohamed's, and he directed
Sanders not to bother them further Sanders answered that Mohamed had better
think twice about this because either Mohamed was going to sign a contract with
the Laborers Union and get rid of these employees and hire out of the hall or the
union would strike the job and close it down.
On the same day, according to the uncontradicted testimony of Project Engineer
Krabbe, Sanders told Krabbe that unless Mohamed was union that Sanders was
going to cause trouble for the project
On March 5, a meeting was held which was attended by Albert E. Bilger, labor
relations consultant of the Sacramento Valley Employers' Council, representing
Sunset; Bob Lovell, a representative of Associated Home Builders of Sacramento.
Inc , an organization of which Sunset was a member; Project Engineer Krabbe; Hy
Larson and Bill Brickell, representatives of the Respondents; and Bill Metz and
Ernie Nelson, representing the Operating Engineers Union Bilger introduced the
various persons present and stated that Mohamed had been advised by his attorney
not to take part in any discussion, and the parties who were present agreed to this
Bilger stated that he would like to know what the complaints were and to arrive at a
solution. Brickell stated that the Respondents wanted Mohamed to have all union
men on the job, to hire out of the union hall, and to sign and abide by the master
agreement of the Respondents Brickell further stated that without this they could
not allow the work to proceed on the Sunset job. He handed Bilger a copy of the
contract, together with a memorandum agreement dealing with the Respondents'
health and welfare, pension, and vacation trust funds and incorporating the Respond-
ents' master agreement by reference Metz, on behalf of the Operating Engineers,
had made similar demands to those voiced by Brickell on behalf of the Respondents,
and Metz also presented Bilger with a copy of the collective-bargaining agreement
d Also referred to in the record as Bob Saunders.
1388 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
of the Operating Engineers which that union demanded that Mohamed sign.3 Since
Mohamed's attorney was unable to attend the meeting, it was agreed that Bilger
would notify the Respondents on the following day of Mohamed's decision
Mohamed's attorney arrived shortly after the meeting had ended After being told
what had occurred, he informed Bilger to advise the Respondents that Mohamed
would not sign the proposed documents but that it would be agreeable if the
Respondents wanted to organize Mohamed's employees and have an election. On
March 6, the Respondents were notified by Bilger of Mohamed's decision
On the following day, March 7, at approximately 7 a.m , a picket appeared at each
of the two main entrances of the Sunset project. A third entrance, which seldom
had been used, was not picketed. Each of the pickets carried a sign which bore the
legend- "Joseph's Landscaping Service, Subcontractor, unfair to Northern Cali-
fornia District Council of Laborers."
Shortly after the picketing began, Leon King, an individual doing business as
King Brothers Masonry, a masonry contractor (hereinafter sometimes called King),
who had been hired by Mohamed to perform certain masonry work on the Sunset
project, was notified by one of his employees that he had been to the jobsite and
could not enter because a picket was there King went out to the project and saw
a picket and a number of men at the project entrance He spoke to Sanders and
explained to him that he had only 3 hours' work to finish the job he had begun under
subcontract with Mohamed and asked what the prospects were of getting in to finish
the job. Sanders replied that he could not give King permission until things were
settled with Mohamed, but stated that he thought this would occur by noon. King
declared that he either wanted to get in and finish his job or else get in and pick up
his equipment so that he would have it for other jobs 6 After having spoken to
Sanders, King sent his men to another job not connected with the Sunset project.
He then went back to the project to pick up his equipment . When he drove up to
the entrance , the picket walked in front of his truck . He told the picket that he was
going in to pick up his equipment and the picket stepped aside and King drove in
to the project . There he saw Mohamed who told King that Mohamed had sent all
of his men away . King told Mohamed that, since the latter 's men were gone, King
saw no reason why he could not make arrangements to get his own men back and
finish the job. Thereafter , King and one of his employees finished the work remain-
ing to be done.
Meanwhile , shortly after the pickets had appeared, Project Engineer Krabbe had
called Mohamed and asked him to take his employees off the job. Since Mohamed
was unable to come to the project immediately, Krabbe, with Mohamed's consent,
ordered the employees to leave. Krabbe then notified Bilger. At this time, most
of the employees of other contractors or subcontractors who were working at the
project continued to work. ? Bilger , therefore , suggested that, since Sunset had not
5 The present proceedings are not concerned with such dispute as may have existed be-
between Mohamed and the Operating Engineers.
s Sanders denied that he had told anyone that morning that he could not cross the
picket line and also denied that Mohamed or that Joseph's Landscaping were men-
tioned during the conversation with King Sanders' version of the conversation in ques-
tion was that King asked what was going on, that Sanders replied "just what you see" ;
that King asked if he could enter the project and get a piece of equipment ; and that
Sanders replied "suit yourself ." As between the versions of these two witnesses , I credit
the testimony of King both because his recounting seems inherently more creditable and
because it seems to me that his recollection of what was said on the occasion in question
was less likely to have been tinctured by the coloration of self -interest than was the
recollection of Sanders , for Sanders is directly involved in the outcome of these proceed-
ings while King is not I find it difficult to believe that the conversation occurred in
the cryptic and truncated manner related by Sanders . I find it equally difficult to be-
lieve that , as Sanders testified, when King asked if he could go into the project to get
a piece of equipment , Sanders replied "suit yourself " The project was a large one and
it does not seem likely that Sanders would have been unaware of the fact that a workman
who ostensibly went in to pick up a piece of equipment could well remain and continue
work, as both King and Mohamed actually did on that very morning. For the foregoing
reasons , I do not credit the denials of Sanders and find that the conversation occuired
substantially in the manner recounted by King.
7 Apparently, a number of the employees on the Sunset project reported for work that
morning before the pickets had appeared.
NORTHERN CALIFORNIA DISTRICT COUNCIL, ETC. 1389
been hurt by the pickets , Mohamed should continue working Krabbe requested
Mohamed to do so. Mohamed worked alone for an hour or an hour and a half,
but, feeling that it was futile to continue in that manner , he left the project and
returned to his shop.
In the meantime , approximately 90 percent of the work on the project had been
performed until 12 o 'clock. After lunch, however , 95 percent of the employees of
various unnamed contractors or subcontractors working at the project ( hereinafter
sometimes called other secondary employers ) quit and left the job 8 At approxi-
mately 1 p . m., Krabbe called Bilger and informed him of what had occurred Bilger
asked Krabbe if he was sure that none of Mohamed 's men were on the job and when
Krabbe said that they were not, Bilger stated that he would call the Respondents
and see that the pickets were removed Bilger called Percy F. Ball , business repre-
sentative of the Respondent Local and secretary of the Respondent District Council
and told him that Mohamed was no longer on the project . Ball replied that he would
check with his people and if Mohamed had left, the picket line would be withdrawn.
The pickets were removed from the project between 1 and 2 p m . Later that after-
noon, when Mohamed called Krabbe and told the latter that he was prepared to
return to work on the project the next morning with his employees , Krabbe stated
that the Respondents had removed the pickets on the basis of Sunset 's promise to
keep Mohamed off the job and instructed Mohamed not to return until the matter
was straightened out. Normal work on the project was resumed the next morning.
On Saturday , March 9, two of Mohamed 's employees were watering some shrub-
bery which had previously been planted , and Mohamed was present at the project
to pick up some of his equipment . While he was there, Mohamed saw Project Engi-
neer Krabbe , and the two men became engaged in conversation . While they were
talking, they were approached by Sanders who protested that Mohamed and his men
were working after Sunset had promised to keep them off the job. After some
discussion , Sanders told Krabbe that he would have to keep Mohamed and his
employees off the project . If Krabbe did not do so, Sanders declared, "I will get
pickets out here and I will close this place down and you will never get them off "
Krabbe then instructed Mohamed to leave the job , together with his employees, until
the matter was settled . Commencing March 19 , however, and at various times
thereafter until May 7 , Mohamed 's employees again worked at the Sunset projects
On May 6 , Ball, who as noted above is business representative of the Respondent
Local and secretary of the Respondent District Council, sent a letter to A. E Bilger,
labor relations consultant of Sacramento Valley Employers' Council, stating that
on May 7, the Respondent District Council would have a picket on the Sunset
project, advising that "the Joseph 's Landscaping Service is unfair to the Northern
California District Council of Laborers." The letter further stated that the Respond-
ent District Council had "no intention of harassing your Association or any mem-
ber thereof."
On the morning of May 7, pickets again appeared at the main entrance and project
office entrance of the Sunset project. Each of the pickets carried a sign bearing a
legend identical to that which appeared on the sign carried by the pickets who had
appeared at the project on March 7 . By noon on May 7, 95 percent of the employees
of other secondary employers who worked at the project left their jobs , and there-
after no work was performed by any of these employees for the duration of the
picketing through May 10.10
In the meantime , on May 7, Project Engineer Krabbe had sent a letter to
Mohamed and a letter to the Respondents advising them that an exclusive entrance
for the employees of Mohamed , separate and apart from the main entrance and the
entrance to the project office, was being established at the Sunset project and indi-
cating where such entrance was located . Signs were placed on either side of the
street facing the newly designated entrance and indicating that it was to be used by
Mohamed's employees only. Because of rain, Mohamed's employees did not work
at the Sunset project from approximately 9 a m. on May 8 through 10, but the
specially designated entrance was used by them during the time they did work on
8 These estimates are based upon the undenied testimony of Krabbe.
The record is silent as to what arrangement, if any , was arrived at between the
parties during this period
11 This estimate is based on the undenied testimony of Krabbe.
1390 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
May 8. The Respondents did not picket the entrance so designated, however, at
any time, although they did continue to picket the other two project entrances on
May 8, 9, and 10.
On May 10, a meeting was held between representatives of the Respondents and
Sunset. It was estimated that Mohamed would require approximately 15 days within
which to complete the work required by his contract. The Respondents agreed to
remove the pickets and to permit Mohamed to finish his work at the Sunset project
without interference. Sunset, in return, reaffirmed section 11 of the master agree-
ment which provided that all terms and provisions of the collective-bargaining
contract were to apply not only to Sunset as the contracting employer but to all
subcontractors who might perform work for Sunset Sunset also agreed that in the
future it would award work within the recognized jurisdiction of the Building Trades
Unions or the Teamsters Union to subcontractors having contracts with the Respond-
ents. Sunset further agreed that an unfair labor practice charge, which had been
filed on its behalf against the Respondents on May 8, would be withdrawn. The
Respondents no longer picketed the Sunset project after May 10.
C. Summary
1. The objectives of the picketing
The Respondents assert that the picketing which occurred on March 7, and again
on May 7, conformed to all the requirements as set forth by the Board in the Sailors'
Union of the Pacific, AFL (Moore Dry Dock Company) case, 92 NLRB 547, and
that the picketing in both instances was primary in nature and therefore lawful It
is true that the picketing on March 7 was limited to the times when Mohamed's
employees actually were present at the Sunset project and to places reasonably close
to the operation of Mohamed's employees; that his employees were engaged in their
normal business duties at the project; and that the signs carried by the pickets showed
that their dispute was with Mohamed. If this were all, the Respondents would be
correct in their assertion. But other evidence in the record shows that an object of
the Respondents was to involve Sunset as well as other employers in their dispute
with Mohamed Assistant Business Agent Sanders' statement to Mohamed on
March 1 that pickets would be placed on the Sunset project and that the project
would be struck unless Mohamed signed the master agreement with the Respondents;
Sanders' reiteration to Mohamed on March 4 that Mohamed would either sign a
contract or the Respondents would strike the job and close it down; his statement to
Project Engineer Krabbe on the same day that unless Mohamed entered into an
agreement with the Respondents "he was going to cause trouble for the project"; the
meeting on March 5 during which Assistant Business Agent Brickell demanded that
Mohamed enter into a contract with the Respondents, presented a memorandum
agreement which by reference incorporated the Respondents' master agreement,ll
and stated that the Respondents could not allow the work to proceed on the Sunset
project unless Mohamed complied with their demand constituted a clear, consistent,
and reiterated warning by the Respondents that Sunset and other secondary employ-
ers would be involved in some form of coercive action unless Mohamed entered
into an agreement with the Respondents.
When the Respondents were informed on March 6 that Mohamed would not
comply with their demand, pickets were placed at the two regularly used entrances
to the Sunset project on the following day. During that morning, Leon King, a
masonry contractor who had been hired by Mohamed to carry out some of the work
on the Sunset project, was told by Assistant Business Representative Sanders that
Sanders could not give King permission to enter the project until things were settled
with Mohamed. Shortly thereafter, when King sought to drive into the project, the
n The Respondents contend that the evidence fails to show that a demand was made
upon Mohamed at this time since Mohamed did not participate in the discussion at the
meeting in the absence of his attorney and since the memorandum agreement and con-
tract to which it referred were handed to Bilger who was acting as the agent of Sunset
and not of Mohamed. Upon the undisputed evidence as to this meeting , I am convinced
and find , that despite Mohamed's failure to participate in the discussion, there was no
doubt that the Respondents ' demand was directed to him.
NORTHERN CALIFORNIA DISTRICT COUNCIL, ETC. 1391
picket at the main entrance stepped in front of his truck, but after King stopped and
stated that he wished to enter for the purpose of picking up his equipment, the picket
stepped aside and King proceeded. Most of the employees at the project site con-
tinued to work until noon but 95 percent 12 of them failed to return after the lunch
hour 13 When Ball, secretary of the Respondent District Council and business agent
of the Respondent Local, was informed, shortly after noon, that Mohamed and his
employees were no longer working on the project, the pickets were removed and
work on the project was resumed on the following morning
The objectives of the initial picketing on March 7 remained unchanged during
the picketing which followed. Thus, on March 9, when Sanders observed Mohamed
and his employees working at the Sunset project, he objected to their presence and
threatened Project Manager Krabbe to recall the pickets and "close this place down."
When the Respondents resumed picketing on May 7, despite the claim in their letter
to Bilger on the day before that the picketing was not intended to harass Sunset, the
manner in which the picketing was carried out belied the statement of disclaimer
contained in the letter. Although the Respondents were notified that a separate
entrance to the Sunset project had been established for the exclusive use of
Mohamed's employees, and although Mohamed and his employees thereafter used
this entrance, the picketing at the two other entrances to the Sunset project which
were regularly used by employees of contractors other than Mohamed nevertheless
continued on May 8, 9, and 10, and there is no evidence that any picketing was
conducted at the separate entrance established for the use of Mohamed's employees.14
Moreover, because of rain on May 8, 9, and 10, Mohamed's employees did not work
at the Sunset project on those 3 days, except for approximately 2 hours on the morn-
ing of May 8. The picketing, however, continued throughout each of those days
and the pickets were not removed until Sunset, in return for a promise that Mohamed
would be permitted to complete his work on the project, had reaffirmed the provision
in the master agreement requiring subcontractors to abide by its terms, agreed to
award all future work within the recognized jurisdiction of the Building Trades
Unions to subcontractors having contracts with the Respondents; and further agreed
to withdraw the unfair labor practice charge which Sunset had filed against the
Respondents on May 8.
On the basis of the foregoing evidence and on the record as a whole, I find that
the picketing conducted by the Respondents on March 7, 1963, had as its objects:
(1) to force or require Mohamed to recognize or bargain with the Respondents;
(2) to require Mohamed to enter into the master agreement containing sections 11
and 27, and (3) to require Sunset and King to cease doing business with Mohamed.
I further find that these objectives remained unchanged throughout the further
picketing which occurred on May 7 through 10.
2. The validity of sections 11 and 27 of the master agreement
The General Counsel contends, and the Respondents deny, that: (1) sections 11
and 27 of the master agreement are prohibited by Section 8(e) of the Act; and (2)
that even if section 11 is to be considered as exempted by the first proviso to Section
8(e), the conduct in question was nevertheless unlawful because coercive union
conduct to secure, as well as to enforce , such a clause is prohibited.
12 This estimate is based on the uncontradicted testimony of Krabbe.
is Most of the employees apparently reported for work at the project before the pickets
appeared . Mohamed testified without contradiction that when he arrived at the project
entrance at approximately 8.30 a in. , a number of the painters , electricians , and plumbers
were not crossing the picket line but that later a number of members of the Operating
Engineers union and other employees who worked during the morning told Mohamed that
they had come to work before the picketing had commenced.
14 On May 7 , separate letters were sent by Sunset to Mohamed and to the Respondents
at their respective places of business located in Sacramento , California , notifying each
of them that a separate entrance was being established for the exclusive use of Mohamed's
employees . The parties stipulated that the letter thus addressed to the Respondents was
received in the due course of mail and Mohamed testified that the letter sent to him was
received by him on the following day. Under these circumstances , I believe it is reasonable
to infer, and I therefore find, that the letter sent to the Respondents was received by them
on May 8.
1392 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
In regard to the first ground advanced by the General Counsel in support of his
position, it is clear that clauses such as those to be found in sections 11 and 27 15 of
the contract are proscribed by Section 8(e) 16 of the Act.
With respect to the second ground advanced by the General Counsel, the first
proviso to Section 8(e) states that its provisions shall not "apply to an agreement
between a labor organization and an employer in the construction industry relating
to the contracting or subcontracting of work to be done at the site of the construc-
tion, alteration, painting or repair of a building, structure, or other work " The
provisions of section 11, though not those of section 27, would then seem to fall
within the terms of the exemption thus created. The Respondents contend that
such an exemption exists in this case and assert that section 11 of the master agree-
ment is therefore lawful. The General Counsel disputes this, asserting that the
provisions of section 11 are invalid because they do not expressly limit their appli-
cation to work at the construction site.
The contract itself is one which was entered into between the Respondents and
designated chapters of the Associated General Contractors of America A definition
of the work to be covered by its terms indicates construction of the type normally
considered as being performed at the jobsite 17 Section 14 of the contract dealing
15 These sections provide as follows
Section 11-Application to Subcontractors
The terms and conditions of this agreement insofar as it affects Employer and the
individual employer shall apply equally to any subcontractor under the control of,
or working under contract with such individual employer on any work covered by
this Agreement, and said subcontractor with respect to such work shall be con-
sidered the same as an individual employer covered hereby.
That if an individual employer shall subcontract work herein defined, provision
shall be made in such subcontract for the observance by said subcontractor of the
terms of this Agreement.
A subcontractor is defined as any peison, other than an employee coverett by
this Agreement, firm or corporation, who agrees, orally or in writing, to perform for
or on behalf of an individual employer any part or portion of the work covered by
this Agreement.
Section 27-Employees Not To Be Discharged for Recognizing
Authorized Picket Lines
No employee covered hereby may be discharged by any individual employer for
refusing to cross a picket line established by an international union affiliated with
the Building and Construction Trades Department of the American Federation of
Labor-Congress of Industrial Organizations or a local union thereof, or the Interna-
tional Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America
or it Local Union thereof, which picket line has been authorized or sanctioned by
the local Building and Construction Trades Council having jurisdiction over the area
in which the job is located after the individual employer involved has been notified
and has had an opportunity to be heard Said notice shall be in writing and mailed
to the individual employer involved at his address last appearing on Schedule "A"
referred to in Section 17(a) hereof This section shall not apply to jurisdictional
disputes.
16 See Southern California Distract Council of Hod Carriers and Laborers and Granite
Workers Local No. 345, et al (Swimming Pool Granite Contractors Group, etc ), 144
NLRB 978; Truck Drivers Union Local No. 413, Teamsters (The Patton Warehouse,
Inc.), 140 NLRB 1474, enfd. in part and set aside in part 334 F. 2d 539 (CAD C.).
17 Section 1(b) of the master agreement provides, among other matters, that the work
intended to be covered by the agreement.
. . . shall include: all building Laborers' work necessary to tend the carpenters
and other building trades craftsmen, stripping of concrete forms, sewer cleaners,
gardening, horticulture, landscaping, trackmen (construction, maintenance, repair),
all cleanup of debris, grounds, and buildings, and all General Laborers' work. In
accordance with Green Book Decision dated August 2, 1920-December 11, 1924, the
loading and unloading, carrying and handling of all rods and materials for use
in reinforcing concrete construction shall be done by Laborers under the supervision
of such person as the employer may designate The hoisting of rods shall be done
by Laborers, except when a derrick or outrigger operated by other than hand power
is used.
NORTHERN CALIFORNIA DISTRICT COUNCIL, ETC. 1393
with the matter of jurisdictional disputes provides that they shall be settled "in
accordance with the rules of the Building and Construction Trades Department of
the American Federation of Labor-Congress of Industrial Organizations , and the
Agreement establishing a `National Joint Board for the settlement of jurisdictional
disputes in the building and construction industry ."' Likewise the reference to
picket lines in section 27 of the Agreement is to those "established by an international
union affiliated with the Building and Construction Trades Department " and "the
local Building and Construction Trades Council ." I believe that section 11 is to be
construed in the light of the other provisions of the contract . The contract clearly
covers construction work. Normally , the work to which its provisions apply would
be done on the site of the construction but the agreement is not clear as to whether
it applies to construction activities which might be performed away from the actual
jobsite. Insofar as the facts in this case are concerned , the sections in question were
invoked only as to work at the construction site and there is no evidence as to actual
or intentional application on a broader basis. It seems to me that under these cir-
cumstances the general rule of contract law that, where doubt exists , a construction
favoring validity is to be followed , is applicable 18 This, in effect, is the principle
followed by the Board under similar circumstances in the Milk Drivers and Dairy
Employees Union, Local No. 546, Teamsters Minnesota Milk Company case, 133
NLRB 1314 , 1316. For the foregoing reasons and upon the record as a whole, I
therefore conclude and find that the provisions of section 11 of the master agreement
are exempted from Section 8(e) by virute of the first proviso to that section of the
Act As noted above, the General Counsel contends that, even if that be true, the
Respondents ' conduct was nevertheless unlawful. The Board in the Colson and
Stevens case 19 has held that, while a voluntary agreement relating to the contracting
All Laborers' work in connection with excavation for building and all other con-
struction , including digging of trenches , piers, foundations and holes ; digging, lagging,
sheeting , cribbing and bracing of foundations , holes, caissons and cofferdams
All Laborers ' work in connection with concrete work ( Except trowel or finishing
work), including mixing, handling , conveying , pouring, vibrating, guniting and other-
wise applying concrete whether done by hand or any other process ; and wrecking,
stripping , dismantling and handling concrete forms and false work.
All Laborers ' work in the excavation , grading , preparation , concreting , asphalt and
mastic paving , paving , ramming , curbing, flagging and surfacing of streets, ways,
courts , underpasses , overpasses and bridges.
All Laborers ' work in connection with the cutting of streets and ways for all
purposes , including digging of trenches , manholes, etc , handling and conveying of
all materials for same ; concreting of same ; and the backfilling , grading and resurfac-
ing of same.
All Laborers' work in connection with the construction of caissons , cofferdams,
aqueducts , culverts , flood controls, airports , and non -metallic drains and sewers,
including the cribbing, lagging, bracing , sheeting , trench jacking and handling of hand-
guided lagging hammers on all open trenches and ditches
All Laborers ' work in connection with the shoring , underpinning and raising of
all structures
All Laborers ' work In connection with drilling , blasting and handling of explosives.
All signalling and rigging in connection with Laboiers' work.
All Laborers ' work in connection with the wrecking of buildings and other
structures.
All Laborers ' work in connection with the slinging , handling and placing of all
rip-rap , rock and stone on highways , jetties, retaining walls or wherever used.
All wrecking yards and all wrecking work on construction and/or razing sites.
""An agreement capable of an Interpretation which will make it valid or legal will
be given such interpretation if the agreement is ambiguous Such interpretation is pre-
ferred to one which renders it invalid . It will not be interpreted so as to be invalid unless
such interpretation is required by the teims of the agreement in the light of the surround-
ing circumstances Since there is no presumption against the validity of agreements, it
is not to be supposed that the parties have made an agreement providing for a particular
event, when that very event would make it void 12 Am Jur, sec 251..11
19 Construction, Production & Maintenance Laborers Union, Local 383, et at . ( Colson
Stevens Constr ), 137 NLRB 1650 , enforcement denied 323 P. 2d 422 (CA. 9) Since
the Board has indicated that it respectfully disagrees with the court 's decision, I ain
bound by the Board 's decision , whatever may be my views in the matter . Insurance
Agents' International Union, AFL-CIO (The Prudential Insurance Company of America),
119 NLRB 768.
206-446-66-vol. 15! 89
1394 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
or subcontracting of work at a construction site is permitted by the first proviso to
Section 8(e), conduct by a labor organization which coerces an employer into
entering into such an agreement is prohibited.20 Nor was the proviso "intended to
legalize strikes or other coercive measures to enforce the specific type of restrictions
that it withdraw from the reach of Section (e)." 21 Accordingly, the conduct of
the Respondents which had as its objects forcing or requiring Mohamed to enter
into the master agreement containing sections 11 and 27 and forcing or requiring
Sunset to enforce these clauses in the agreement was unlawful.
D. Concluding findings
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings and upon the record as a whole, I find
that- (1) Sanders' statements to Krabbe on March 4 22 and 9 that the Respondents
would strike or picket Sunset, (2) Brickell's statements on March 5 to Bilger, Krabbe,
and Mohamed that the Respondents could not allow the work to proceed on the
Sunset project; (3) Sanders' refusal to permit King to enter the project on March 7;
and (4) the picketing which occurred at the Sunset project on March 7 and again
on May 7 through 10 threatened, coerced, and restrained Sunset, King, and Mohamed
and has as objects (a) forcing or requiring Sunset and King to cease doing business
with Mohamed; and (b) forcing or requiring Mohamed to recognize or bargain
with the Respondents although the Respondents had not been certified as the repre-
sentative of Mohamed's employees under the provisions of Section 9 of the Act. By
such conduct, the Respondents violated Section 8(b)(4)(ii)(B) of the Act.23
Tne picketing which occurred on March 7 and May 7 through 10 also induced and
encouraged individals employed by King (on March 7) and individuals employed
by other secondary employers at the project who were engaged in commerce or in
an industry affecting commerce 24 to engage in a strike 25 or refusal to work, thereby
violating Section 8(b) (4) (i) (B) of the Act.
2J See also Southern California District Council of Hod Carriers and Laborers, etc,
et at (Sirinrming Pool Gunite Contractors Crroap etc ), 144 NLRB 978.
ii See International Brotherhood of Teamsters, etc . Local 294 (Island Dock Lumber,
Inc ) 145 NLRB 484, footnote 9, and cases therein cited.
rd The General Counsel conceded that he was not contending that any conduct of the
Respondents prior to March 1 constituted unfair labor practices
Sanders' statements to Krabbe were invocations to exercise the latter's management
authority to cease business relations with Mohamed They therefore are to be regarded
as an "appeal for the exercise of managerial discretion" rather than an "appeal to cease
performing employment services," and did not constitute inducement, or encouragement
within the meaning of Section 8(b) (4) (1) (B). Servette, Inc. v N L R.B., 377 U S. 46
24 Bergen Drug Company, Inc, 132 NLRB 73; S M Kisner, et al ., d/b/a S M. ginner
t Sons, 131 NLRB 1196 Cf National Maritime Union of America, AFL-CIO (Delta
Steamship Lines, Inc ), 147 NLRB 1328.
^ Sunset did none of the actual construction of houses itself. It acted as developer
of the project and awarded the various phases of house construction to building con-
tractors and subcontractors Dale Stringfellow, project manager, testified that Sunset
had "a construction payroll of supervision and pick-up, one man, I believe, and clean-up
for a team of one man minimum, coordinating activities, only " There is no showing in
the record that any employee of Sunset, other than Project Engineer Krabbe, was present
at any time the picketing occurred. For the reasons set forth above (see footnote 23,
supra), I find that not only the statements by the Respondents to Krabbe but the total
conduct of the Respondents in relation to Krabbe, including the picketing, were directed
toward influencing him in the exercise of his management authority, as distinguished from
cessation of employment by him. Accordingly, I make no finding that any individual
employed by Sunset was induced or encouraged to strike by reason of the picketing The
Respondents contend that the employees of the various contractors or subcontractors at
work at the project who left their jobs on May 8. 9, and 10 (after the Respondents had
been notified of the separate entrance established for the exclusive use of Mohamed's em-
plo' ees) may have clone so on those davs because of rain or for other reasons The failure
of such employees to return to work after the lunch hour on March 7 and their resumption
of work the next morning following the removal of Mohamed's employees from the project
and the similar pattern of their failure to work and resumption of work at the time the
picketing occurred on May 7 through 10 would justify an inference that the picketing had
indeed induced and encouraged them to withhold their services But beyond that, it
is well established that inducement or encouragement of employees need not be successful
to render picketing with an unlawful obiect violative of the Act Local Union No. 505,
Teamsters, et al (Carolina Lumber Co ), 130 NLRB 1438.
NORTHERN CALIFORNIA DISTRICT COUNCIL, ETC. 1395
I further find that Brickell 's statements on March 5 to Bilger, Krabbe, and
Mohamed and the picketing which occurred at the Sunset project on March 7 and
again on May 7 through 10 had the additional object of forcing or requiring
Mohamed to enter into the master agreement contaning sections 11 and 27 and that
the Respondents thereby violated Section 8(b) (4) (i) and (11)(A) of the Act.
Finally, I find that the conduct of the Respondents in forcing or requiring Sunset
on May 10 to reaffirm the subcontracting clause of the master agreement violated
Section 8(b) (4) (i) and (ii) (B) of the Act but that such conduct was not unlawful
within the meaning of Section 8 (b) (4) (A) for the reasons set forth by the Board
in its Supplemental Decision and Order in Los Angeles Building & Construction
Trades Council, et al. (Stockton Plumbing Co., et al.), 146 NLRB 737.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondents set forth in section III , above, occurring in con-
nection with the business operations of Sunset and of Mohamed 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 obstruct-
ing commerce and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondents have engaged in certain unfair labor practices,
it will be recommended that they cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirma-
tive action , including the posting of appropriate notices, designed to effectuate the
policies of the Act.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record inn
these proceedings, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Respondents are, and have been at all times material to the issues in these
proceedings , labor organizations , within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
2. Mohamed and Sunset are, and have been at all times material to the issues in
these proceedings, employers within the meaning of Section 2(2) and are engaged
in commerce and in operations affecting commerce within the meaning of Section
2(6) and (7) of the Act.
(3) By engaging in or inducing or encouraging individuals employed by persons
engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce at the Sunset project,
Rocklin, California, to engage in a strike or a'refusal in the course of their employ-
ment to perform services , and by threatening , coercing, or restraining persons engaged
in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce, with the objects of: (1) forcing
or requiring Mohamed to enter into an agreement prohibited by Section 8(e) of
the Act: (2) forcing or requiring Mohamed to recognize or bargain with the
Respondents as the representative of his employees although the Respondents had
not been certified as the representative of such employees under the provisions of
Section 9 of the Act; and (3) forcing or requiring Sunset and King to cease doing
business with Mohamed, the Respondents have violated Section 8(b)(4)(i), (ii) (A)
and (B ) of the Act.
(4) 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 the
entire record in the case, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, I recommend that the Respondents, Northern California
District Council of Hodcarriers and Common Laborers of America, AFL-CIO,
and Construction and General Laborers Union Local No. 185, AFL-CIO, their
respective officers, agents, and representatives, shall:
1. Cease and desist from engaging in, or inducing or encouraging any individual
employed by any person engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce
at the Sunset City project of Sunset International Petroleum Corporation at Rocklin,
California, other than Joseph Mohamed, Sr., d/b/a Joseph's Landscaping Service,
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, or, by picketing at the Sunset City project
1396 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
of Sunset International Petroleum Corporation at Rocklin , California, to threaten,
coerce, or restrain any person engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting
commerce , other than Joseph Mohamed , Sr., d/b /a Joseph's Landscaping Service,
where in either case an object thereof is : ( 1) to force or require Joseph Mohamed,
Sr., d/b/a Joseph's Landscaping Service, to enter into an agreement which is pro-
hibited by Section 8 ( e) of the Act ; ( 2) to force or require Joseph Mohamed, Sr.,
d/b/a Joseph 's Landscaping Service, to recognize or bargain with the Respondents
as the representative of his employees unless the Respondents have been certified
as the representative of such employees under the provisions of Section 9 of the Act;
or (3) to force or require Sunset International Petroleum Corporation or King
Brothers Masonry to cease doing business with Joseph Mohamed, Sr., d/b/a Joseph's
Landscaping Service.
2. Take the following affirmative action which it is found will effectuate the
policies of the Act
(a) Post at their business offices and meeting halls , copies of the attached notice
marked "Appendix A." 26 Copies of said notice , to be furnished by the Regional
Director for Region 20, shall, after being duly signed by authorized representatives
of the Respondents , be posted by the Respondents immediately upon receipt thereof,
and be maintained by them for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places,
including all places where notices to their members are customarily posted. Rea-
sonable steps shall be taken by the Respondents to insure that such notices are not
altered, defaced , or covered by any other material.
(b) Sign and mail sufficient copies of said notice to the Regional Director for
Region 20 for posting by Sunset International Petroleum Corporation , it being
willing, at all locations where notices are customarily posted 27
(c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 20, in writing , within 20 days from
the date of the receipt of this Decision , what steps the Respondents have taken to
comply herewith.28
It is further recommended that unless on or before 20 days from the date of their
receipt of this Trial Examiner 's Decision , the respective Respondents notify the
Regional Director , in writing , that they will comply with the foregoing Recom-
mended Order respectively applicable to them, the National Labor Relations Board
issue an order requiring the said Respondents to take the actions respectively required
of them above.
"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 be 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".
271 believe this will provide an effective method of informing the employees of the
unnamed contractors and subcontractors engaged at work on the Sunset project
^ 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 the Respondent has taken to comply herewith."
APPENDIX A
NOTICE TO ALL OUR MEMBERS AND ALL EMPLOYEES OF KING BROTHERS MASONRY
AND EMPLOYEES OF CONTRACTORS AND SUBCONTRACTORS ENGAGED IN WORK AT THE
SUNSET CITY PROJECT OF SUNSET INTERNATIONAL PETROLEUM CORPORATION,
ROCKLIN, CALIFORNIA
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 you that:
WE WILL NOT induce or encourage any individual employed by any person
engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce at the Sunset City
Project of Sunset International Petroleum Corporation at Rocklin , California,
other than Joseph Mohamed , Sr., d/b/a Joseph 's Landscaping Service, 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 anv services , or, by picketing at the Sunset City
Project of Sunset International Petroleum Corporation at Rocklin, California,
threaten , coerce, or restrain in any person engaged in commerce or in an
CLERMONT'S, INC. 1397'
industry affecting commerce , other than Joseph Mohamed , Sr., d/b /a Joseph's.
Landscaping Service, where in either case an object thereof is : ( 1) to force or-
require Joseph Mohamed , Sr., d/b /a Joseph's Landscaping Service, to enter
into an agreement which is prohibited by Section 8(e) of the Act; (2) to force
or require Joseph Mohamed , Sr., d/b/a Joseph 's Landscaping Service, to recog-
nize or bargain with the undersigned labor organizations as the representative
of his employees unless the undersigned labor organizations have been certified
as the representative of such employees under the provisions of Section 9 of the
National Labor Relations Act; or ( 3) to force or require Sunset International
Petroleum Corporation or King Brothers Masonry to cease doing business
with Joseph Mohamed , Sr., d/b/a Joseph's Landscaping Service.
NORTHERN CALIFORNIA DISTRICT COUNCIL OF HODCARRIERS
AND COMMON LABORERS OF AMERICA, AFL-CIO,
Labor Organization.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------
(Representative ) ( Title)
CONSTRUCTION AND GENERAL LABORERS UNION
LocAL No. 185, 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.
Information regarding the provisions of this notice in compliance with its terms
may be secured from the Regional Office, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, Box 36047,
San Francisco , California , Telephone No. 556-3197.
Clermont's, Inc. and Amalgamated Meat and Food Store Em-
ployees, Local 592, AFL-CIO. Case No. 1-CA-4709. Septem-
ber 22,1965
DECISION AND ORDER
On February 23, 1965, Trial Examiner Thomas A. Ricci issued his
Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that 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. The
Trial Examiner also found that Respondent had not engaged in cer-
tain other unfair labor practices and recommended that these allega-
tions of the complaint be dismissed. Thereafter, Respondent filed
exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision and a supporting brief ;
the General Counsel filed a brief in support of the Trial Examiner's
Decision.
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 Jenkins].
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 Exam-
154 NLRB No. 111.