Painters District Council No. 36, AFL-CIO

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 17, 1965

155 N.L.R.B. 1013 (N.L.R.B. 1965)

PAINTERS DISTRICT COUNCIL NO. 36, AFL-CIO 1013
Painters District Council No . 36, AFL-CIO and Commercial Dry-
wall Constructors, Inc. Case No. 01-CB-2332. November 17,
1965
DECISION AND ORDER
On August 12, 1965, Trial Examiner Wallace E. Royster issued his
Decision in the above-entitled, proceeding, finding that the Respondent
had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices,
and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take cer-
tain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's
Decision. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to 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 Jenkins and Zagoria].
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 the entire record in the case,
and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of
the Trial Examiner, except as modified herein.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended, the National Labor Relations Board hereby adopts as its
Order the Recommended Order of the Trial Examiner, as modified
hereinafter, and orders that the Respondent, Painters District Coun-
cil No. 36, AFL-CIO, Los Angeles, California, its officers, agents, and
representatives, shall take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's
Recommended Order, as so modified:
Delete the period at the close of paragraph 2 (c) and substitute there-
for a comma followed by the words "if willing."
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This matter was tried before Trial Examiner Wallace E. Royster in Los Angeles,
California, on April 23 and 29, 1965.1 At issue is whether Painters District Council
No. 36, AFL-CIO, herein called the Council or the Respondent, by insistence upon
the inclusion of certain clauses in a proposed bargaining agreement with Commercial
Drywall Constructors, Inc., herein called Commercial, has refused to bargain in viola-
tion of Section 8(b)(3) of the National Labor Relations Act, hereinthe Act, and,
additionally , by insistence that Commercial designate a bargaining representative
i Charges filed June 9 and September 30, 1964, complaint issued February 4, 1965.
155 NLRB No. 92.
1014 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
not of Commercial's choice, has restrained and coerced Commercial in violation of
Section 8(b)(1)(B) of the Act. These asserted unfair labor practices are alleged to
affect commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
Upon the basis of the entire record in the case, from my observation of the wit-
nesses, and in consideration of the briefs filed, I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF COMMERCIAL
Commercial is a California corporation engaged in the installing of metal studs and
the hanging and taping of drywall in the building and construction industry. In 1964
Commercial's purchases exceeded $475,000 in value of which more than $50,000
came to Commercial or to its suppliers directly from points outside the State of
California. I find that Commercial is an enterprise engaged in commerce or in an
activity affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
H. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The Respondent is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of
the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
Frank A. Calhoun, secretary of Commercial, testified that in the summer of 1964,
under a contract with Doyle Associates, Commercial undertook to install wallboard
in connection with some construction in Van Nuys, California. On July 1 Calhoun
testified, he became apprehensive that the Respondent intended to stop the taping
operations on the job. In consequence, accompanied by William Knorr, Commercial's
president, he went to the office of the Council and met with the Council's executive
secretary, Tom Prophet, and his associate, Walter Zagajeski. According to Calhoun,
Prophet said that the Council was the organization which had jurisdiction over paint-
ing and taping in the Los Angeles area where Commercial was operating and that
Commercial must sign an agreement with the Council in order to perform work.2
Prophet then handed Calhoun a document captioned "Application for Shop Card of
the Los Angeles County Painters and Decorators Joint Committee, Inc." Calhoun
objected that he was being offered an agreement with the Joint Committee; that he
had no desire to enter into any arrangement with that entity but instead wanted a
contract with the Council. The shopcard made reference to the provisions of a labor
agreement then in effect between the chapters of the Painting and Decorating Con-
tractors Association of Los Angeles County, herein called the Association, and the
Council. By signing the shopcard, Commercial would have been bound to this con-
tract and to "any amendments, interpretations or modifications made thereto." Cal-
houn asked to see the contract to which the shopcard referred. Prophet explained that
negotiations had just been completed but that the contract had not yet been printed.
Calhoun said that he could not sign any document unless he was first shown the
collective-bargaining agreement to which he would thus be bound. Prophet then
handed Calhoun a mimeographed sheet showing the wages and fringe benefits Com-
mercial would be required to pay its employees under the terms of the contract.
Calhoun said that he had no objection to these cost items and was willing to sign an
agreement whereby Commercial would pay these amounts.
The contract between the Council and the Association contains the following pro-
visions which the complaint characterizes as "permissive" but not "mandatory" sub-
jects of collective bargaining.
ARTICLE 1
EMPLOYERS
Section 2. LICENSE, BONDING AND LEGAL REQUIREMENTS. Every
Employer signatory shall have a duly issued and effective California State Con-
tractors License where required by law to perform the work covered by this
Agreement, shall carry Responsibility Bonds (see page 59), Workmen's Com-
pensation Insurance and shall comply with all Federal , State and Municipal
Laws pertaining to the work covered by this Agreement , and to all health and
2It Is conceded and I find that the Council Is the bargaining representative of Com-
merdal's employees in an appropriate unit.
PAINTERS DISTRICT COUNCIL NO. 36, AFL-CIO 1015
safety regulations and rules of the State and Municipal Departments, Commis-
sions and Health Officers, including the rules and regulations of the Industrial
Safety Commission.
Section 4. AUTHORITY OF SIGNATORY TO EXECUTE:
C. The Employer signatory warrants, asserts and agrees that this document or
Agreement is executed by him with full authority to represent and bind any
firm, partnership, corporation or association of which he is a partner, officer,
representative or member.
ARTICLE 8
ADMINISTRATION
Section 2. CONTRIBUTORS: Every member signatory to this Agreement
shall pay to the Administrative Fund Trustees for the purposes set forth below the
following sums for every hour worked by every journeyman and apprentices
employed under this Agreement. (a) Between July 1, 1964 and December 31,
1964 20 per hour; (b) Between January 1, 1965 and June 30, 1965 3¢ per hour
and (c) Between July 1, 1965 and June 30, 1969 4¢ per hour.
Section 4. EXPENDITURES:
A. The Administrative Fund Trustees shall determine, within their sole dis-
cretion, how the said contributions shall be expended to defray the cost of
administering this Agreement, to maintain maximum employment and good
workmanship in the industry, to foster cooperative relationships between archi-
tects, engineers, builders and contracting agencies on the one hand and painting
and decorating contractors on the other, and to perpetuate the harmonious
relations that have existed between management and labor in the painting and
decorating industry; provided, however, that no portion of said contributions
shall be paid to any representative of a labor organization as prohibited by the
Labor-Management Relations Act.
ARTICLE 16
MANNER OF PAYMENT OF WAGES
* * * *
Section 7. RESPONSIBILITY BOND:
Each contractor signatory to said Agreement shall, by September 1, 1964,
post with the Los Angeles County Painters and Decorators Joint Committee,
Inc., cash or other security acceptable to the Joint Committee or a surety bond,
in the amount of $1000.000 to guarantee any deficiency of such employer in
the payment of wages, health and welfare and other fringe benefits and/or any
other monetary obligations that are duly imposed under the provisions of this
Agreement.
Each employee, Trust Fund or other person or entity having, a claim against
any contractor under the provisions of this Agreement shall notify the Los
Angeles County Painters and Decorators Joint Committee, Inc., in writing, of
the facts and circumstances of such unpaid obligation. The Joint Committee,
or its representative, shall, after verification of the indebtedness, process a cer-
tification of default to the surety company for payment under the terms of the
surety bond and remit the funds received from the surety company to the per-
son, fund or entity entitled thereto.
In the event, the employer has deposited cash or other security under these
provisions, the Joint Committee, or its representative, shall, after verification of
the indebtedness, withdraw from said cash deposit or convert said security to
cash and forward to the obligee thereof, sufficient funds to discharge such obli-
gation, Within 24 hours after notice to any employer of such payment by the
Joint Committee out of that employer's cash or other security deposit, the
employer shall replenish his cash or security deposit to the original sum of
$1000.00 or to such further sum as the Joint Committee shall determine as
necessary to guarantee future deficiencies of such employer.
1016 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Should the Los Angeles County Joint Committee determine that the liability
of any employer under this agreement is greater than the sum of $1000.000,
they may immediately demand and cause the employer to increase his cash
deposit or surety bond to an amount sufficient to cover any such liability.
Learning that a proof copy of the new agreement was available, Calhoun went
to the office of the Joint Committee and examined it. The next day, July 2, still
according to Calhoun, he spoke by telephone with Zagajeski, saying again that Com-
mercial was willing to adopt all the wages, hours, working conditions, and fringe
benefits in the new contract, but would not agree to the provisions set forth above, to
representation by the Association, or to the disposition of grievances by the Joint
Committee. Zagajeski answered that the Council would not sign an agreement with
Commercial; that Commercial would have to deal with the Joint Committee. Cal-
houn thereupon consulted counsel. On July 5 Commercial's counsel wrote to the
Council saying that Commercial desired to enter into an agreement with Council;
that Commercial would undertake to employ within the territorial jurisdiction of
the Council only persons who were cleared for employment by the Council; that
Commercial would put into effect all terms and conditions of the agreement between
the Council and the Association relating to wages, hours and other terms and condi-
ditions of employment, but that Commercial was unwilling to have the Joint Com-
mittee or the Association as its representative for purposes of collective bargaining
or as the agency for the adjustment of grievances. Further objection was made to
provisions binding other business entities in which Commercial or its officers might
have an interest, and the posting of any sort of "responsibility bond." 3 On August 4,
the Council, over the signature of Prophet, wrote to Commercial saying, in part,
. we shall be happy to execute an agreement with you covering the wages, hours,
and all of the terms and conditions of employment in accord with the existing col-
lective bargaining agreements , which are uniform with respect to all employers."
The letter continued that in connection with the adjustment of grievances, Commer-
cial could have representation on the Joint Committee, that there were reasons for
insisting upon a responsibility bond, and that he hoped Commercial would see fit
to accept the contract as offered.
On August 11 Knorr and Calhoun, accompanied by Commercial's attorney, met
with Prophet and Zagajeski who also had their counsel present. Calhoun again
expressed his objection to signing any agreement whereby Commercial would con-
stitute the Association as its bargaining representative or binding it to any future
contract changes negotiated between the Council and the Association; objected to
any requirement that the Joint Committee have a voice in settling any grievances in
which Commercial might be involved as an employer, and declined to agree to the
posting of any sort of responsibility bond. The meeting ended without agreement.
After an unproductive exchange of correspondence, the principals met again on
October 23 .4 The job about which Commercial had been concerned in July had
been completed but problems had arisen at another location in Los Angeles where
Commercial was a subcontractor. Commercial was apprehensive that unless it
reached agreement with the Council, its work contract might be canceled. Speaking
to Zagajeski, Calhoun asked what Commercial might do "to get the job going?"
Zagajeski said that Commercial must sign the standard contract. Calhoun then
raised the same objections he had voiced earlier and threatened to cause an investi-
gation by the Department of Justice. Zagajeski said, Calhoun testified, "There will
be no men on that job unless an agreement is signed ." 5 Calhoun left. President
William Knorr remained however and, he testified, because Zagajeski had said that
3 The letter also contains an objection to making payments to the Joint Committee.
The contract proposed contemplates payments to Administrative Fund Trustees who
would defray some expenses of the Joint Committee and also support activities designed
to promote the industry in general. The objection to article 1, section 4(C) is based,
from my reading of the language used, upon a misapprehension. I do not find in that
portion of the contract any undertaking by a signer to accept the contract for any em-
ploying entity other than the named employer, I think that the contract is not fairly
susceptible of the interpretation given to it by Calhoun and the General Counsel, in sum,
that by signing it Calhoun or Knorr by that act would also have contracted for any
business other than Commercial.
4 There may have been an interim meeting on October 14 but the record is exceedingly
vague on that point.
B Because it was stipulated that the testimony of Knorr concerning what occurred at
this meeting would be the same as that of Calhoun, I find that Knorr corroborated
Calhoun in this particular.
PAINTERS DISTRICT COUNCIL NO . 36, AFL-CIO 1017
the only way that Commercial could "put men back on the job" and avoid diffi-
culty for Hight Construction Company, for which entity Commercial was perform-
ing the taping work, capitulated and signed the agreement offered by the Council.
Council representatives Prophet and Zagajeski placed the initial meeting with
Commercial in early June rather than on July 1. This conflict raises no material
issue and I do not pass upon it. Zagajeski testified that he did not "believe" that
he ever indicated to Commercial that the Council would picket or strike any job
where Commercial was working . On October 23, according to Zagajeski , Calhoun
expressed the fear that even if Commercial signed the contract the Council would
bother him because of some dispute in another area between Commercial and a
labor organization related to the Council . Zagajeski assured Calhoun and Knorr
that the Council would not take any such action. At a later point in his testimony,
Zagajeski said that he never threatened Commercial with a strike or picketing in an
attempt to get the contract signed. Thus a credibility problem is posed, I find that
Calhoun and Knorr are to be credited . If Zagajeski had a clear recollection that'he
had offered no threats to Commercial of the character described , I think that when
he was first questioned about it he would have answered more forthrightly than by
saying he did not "believe" he had done so . I have considered also that Zagajeski
is a representative of an organization dealing with a large number and variety of
employers . The meeting with Commercial could not have been a matter of great
importance to him. To Calhoun and Knorr , on the other hand , what developed
between Commercial and the Council was vital. I consider it probable that they
retained an unclouded recollection of just what was said on this occasion. Finally,
it is amply clear from the testimony of Prophet and Zagajeski that the Council
thought it beneficial to the Council and to the industry that all employers such as
Commercial be bound by the same agreement . It is highly probable that in reaching
for this desired result, Zagajeski applied the pressures attributed to him.
Unquestionably , the Council desired to reach agreement with Commercial and
Commercial had its reasons for wanting the benefits of acontract with the Council.
Both parties hoped to reach an accord and each, naturally , wanted the best bargain
it could obtain . It has long been the law that neither party may insist, as the price
of agreement , upon the inclusion of contract provisions which are not within the
area of wages , hours, and other terms and conditions of employment .6 I assume
that the Council was free to propose that Commercial accept the Association con -
tract; that Commercial be bound by any changes or modification thereafter nego-
tiated between the Association and the Council ; that Commercial post a responsi-
bilitybond ; that Commercial contribute to the Administrative Fund Trustees; and
that Commercial agree to the resolution of grievances through the Joint Committee.
But the Council could not insist upon the inclusion of such provisions and this is
what it did .7 At some point in the course of the meetings , Zagajeski suggested that
Calhoun might prefer an alternative form of agreement and showed it to him. This
too included a responsibility bond requirement in an increased amount and, Cal-
houn testified credibly , Zagajeski said that he had no ' authority to conclude the
altered agreement anyway. So no choice really was offered. Commercial was at
all times ready to abide by those portions of the contract relating to wages, hours,
and other terms and conditions of employment . The Council could require no more
and Commercial , having rejected the clauses and provisions detailed earlier in this
decision , there remained nothing that Commercial was required to bargain about.8 I
find that by insisting upon the inclusion of subjects outside the scope of mandatory
bargaining as a condition to any agreement , the Council has refused to bargain with
Commercial and thus has engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of
Section 8 (b) (3) of the Act .9
This refusal , coupled with a threat that no workmen would be on the job, had a
coercive effect upon Commercial. Knorr concluded that he must pay the price of
acceding to the Council's demands in order to protect his business interest. By
signing the contract , Commercial agreed that the Association would to some extent
at least be its bargaining representative . It also agreed that grievances arising under
6 N.L.R.B. v. Wooster Division of Borg-Warner Corporation, 356 U.S. 342.
7 Metropolitan District Council of Philadelphia and Vicinity of the United Brotherhood
of Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO, 137 NLRB 1583.
8 For the proposition that performance bonds are topics outside the area of mandatory
bargaining see N.L.R.B. v. American Compress Warehouse, Division of Frost-Whited Co.,
Inc., 350 F. 2d 365 (CA. 5), enfg. this holding in 144 NLRB 433.
9 Operative Plasterers' & Cement Masons' International Association Local No. 2, AF'L-
010 (Arnold M. Hansen), 149 NLRB. 1264.
1018 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the contract would be resolved through the agency of the Joint Committee. Com-
mercial bad objected consistently to such provisions and capitulated only under
coercive pressure. I find that by insisting upon the inclusion of these requirements
as to bargaining and resolution of grievances, the Council restrained and coerced
Commercial in the selection of its representatives for purposes of collective bargain-
ing and the adjustment of grievances. The Council thereby engaged in unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 8(b) (1) (B) of the Act.10
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Council set forth in section III, above, occurring in connec-
with the operations of Commercial described in section T, above, have a close, inti=
mate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several
States and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and
the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that the Council has restrained and coerced Commercial in the
selection of a bargaining representative for purposes of collective bargaining and for
the resolution of grievances, and having further found that the Council has by the
insistence upon the inclusion of topics outside the area of mandatory bargaining in a
contract as a price of agreement, it will be recommended that the Council be ordered
to cease and desist from such conduct and take certain affirmative action designed
to effectuate the policies of the Act. As Commercial has evidenced a willingness to
be bound by the contract which it signed except for the specific provisions dealt with
herein, it will be recommended that the Council be ordered not to insist upon such
inclusions in future bargaining with Commercial and to continue the current contract
with Commercial in effect in all respects except as to the responsibility bond, the
contributions to Administrative Fund Trustees, the requirement that Commercial be
bound by any changes or modifications negotiated between the Association and the
Council and to the resolution of grievances through the Joint Committee.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record in
this case, I make the following:
CONCLUSION OF LAW
1. Commercial Drywall Constructors, Inc,, is an employer within the meaning of
Section 2(2) of the Act and is engaged in commerce and in operations affecting
commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. Painters District Council No. 36, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization.within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. All tapers employed by Commercial excluding all other employees and super-
visors as defined in the Act constitute a unit appropriate for purposes of collective
bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act and at all times material
herein the Council has been the exclusive representative of the employees in the
appropriate unit for purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section
9(a) of the Act.
4. By insisting as a price of agreement that Commercial accept a contract requir-
ing the posting of a performance bond, and the contribution , of money to an industry
promotion fund , the Council has refused to bargain with Commercial and thus has
engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(b) (3) of the Act.
5. By restraining and coercing Commercial to force it to accept the Association to
represent it for purposes of collective bargaining and to use the Joint Committee for
the resolution of grievances , the Council has engaged in unfair labor practices in
violation of Section 8 (b) (1) (B ) of the Act.
6. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law and upon
the entire record in the case, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
10 United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting
Industry of the United States and Canada, Local, Union No. 525, AFL-CIO (Federated
Employers of Nevada, Inc.), 135 NLRB 462. Metropolitan District Council of Phila-
delphia and Vicinity of the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America,
AFL-CIO, supra, footnote 7.
PAINTERS DISTRICT COUNCIL NO. 36, AFL-CIO 1019
Relations Act, as amended, I recommend that Respondent, Painters District Council
No..36, AFL-CIO, Los Angeles, California, its officers, agents, and representatives,
shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Refusing to bargain with Commercial Drywall Constructors, Inc., by insisting
as a price of agreement upon the posting of a performance bond and the contribu-
tion of money to Administrative Fund Trustees.
(b) Coercing or restraining Commercial Drywall Constructors, Inc., in the selec-
tion of its representative for purposes of collective bargaining or resolution of
grievances.
(c) Applying or enforcing those portions of the existing contract with Commer-
cial Drywall Constructors, Inc., requiring the posting of a performance bond, con-
tributions to Administrative Fund Trustees for administration of the agreement or
for industry promotion, the acceptance of any modification, extension or renewal
of that contract or the resolution of any grievances thereunder except as agreement in
such matters may be reached with representatives chosen by Commercial Drywall
Constructors, Inc.
2. Take the following, affirmative action which I find will effectuate the policies of
the Act:
(a) Notify Commercial Drywall Constructors, Inc., in writing, that it will not
insist upon a performance bond or contributions to Administrative Fund Trustees
and reimburse Commercial for expenses incurred in these connections to date.
(b) Post at its principal office and usual membership meeting places, and further
including such offices and membership meeting places of its constituent locals; copies
of the attached-notice marked "Appendix." 11 Copies of said notice, to be furnished
by the Regional Director for Region 21 of the National Labor Relations Board,
shall, after being signed by a duly authorized representative of the Council, 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 the Council to insure
that such notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(c) Mail copies of the said notice to the said Regional Director in Los Angeles,
California, after such copies have been signed, as provided above, for posting by
Commercial Drywall Constructors, Inc.
(d) Notify the said Regional Director, in writing, within 20 days from the date
of this Recommended Order, what steps have been taken in compliance.12
n In the event that this Recommended Order be 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."
12 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 Decision , what steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith."
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL MEMBERS
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 refuse to bargain with Commercial Drywall Constructors, Inc.,
by insisting as a price of agreement that it accept a contract requiring the post-
ing of a performance bond and contributions to Administrative Fund Trustees.
WE WILL NOT apply or enforce such provisions in the contract we now have
with that employer.
WE WILL NOT coerce or restrain Commercial Drywall Constructors , Inc., in
its selection of a representative for purposes of collective bargaining or for the
resolution of grievances . WE WILL NOT apply or enforce such provisions as now
existing in our contract with that employer.
1020 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
WE WILL notify Commercial Drywall Constructors, Inc., that we will reim-
burse it for expenses incurred to date by reason of the provisions in the contract
relating to a performance bond and Administrative Fund Trustees.
PAINTERS DISTRICT COUNCIL No. 36, AFL-CIO,
Labor Organization.
Dated------------------- - By------------------- ---.--------_------------
(Representative) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting,
and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
If employees have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its
provisions , they may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, 849
South Broadway, Los Angeles, California, Telephone No. 688-5229.
AmericanGuild of Variety Artists, AFL-CIO and Al Fast and
Golden Triangle Restaurant , Inc. and Tampa International Inn,
Inc., The Outrigger Inn of St. Petersburg , Inc., d/b/a Outrigger
Inn, Hawaiian Village Restaurant, Fontainebleau Hotel Cor-
poration, d/b/a, Fontainebleau Hotel, Morris Lansburgh, et al.,
d/b/a Deauville Hotel, Americana Hotel, Forty-Five Twenty-
Five, Inc., d/b/a Eden Roc Hotel, and Carillon Hotel, Parties to
the Contract (Minimum Basic Agreement) and Gold Coast
Theatrical Agency, Inc., Gerry Grant Agency, Parties to the
Contract (AGVA Franchise Agreement)
American Guild of Variety Artists, AFL-CIO and Clayton I. Hart
and Al Fast. Cases Nos. 12-CB-647,12-GA-2393 1, and 12-GA-
2393-2. November 18, 1965
DECISION AND ORDER REMANDING
Upon charges and amended charges filed and served upon American
Guild of Variety Artists , AFL-CIO , herein called Respondent or
AGVA, a complaint and an amended complaint were, served upon the
parties on November 16 , 1962, and July 15, 1963 , respectively, in
Cases Nos. 12-CA-2393-1 and 12-CA-2393-2, alleging violations by
AGVA as an employer. On July 16, 1963 , a consolidated complaint
and notice of hearing in Cases Nos. 12-CA-2393-1, 12-CA-2393-2,
and 12-CB-647 was issued , alleging violations of Section 8 (a) (3) and
(1), and 8(b) (1) (A) and (2) of the Act by AGVA as an employer
and as a labor organization , respectively . By its answers , the Re-
spondent denied any wrongdoing and moved that the Board decline
jurisdiction herein and dismiss the complaint.
Thereafter, by stipulation executed on October 28, 1963, and filed
with the Board on October 31, 1963, the parties agreed to waive all
intermediate proceedings before a Trial Examiner on the question of
jurisdiction and submit that issue directly to the Board , expressly
155 NLRB No. 106.