Southwestern Colorado Contractors Association

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 1, 1965

153 N.L.R.B. 1141 (N.L.R.B. 1965)

SOUTHWESTERN COLORADO CONTRACTORS ASSN., ETC. 1141
(c) Notify the said Regional Director, in writing, within 30 days from the receipt
of this Decision,24 what steps it has taken to comply herewith.
It is further recommended that the complaint herein be dismissed, insofar as it
alleges that the Respondent discriminated against either Charles Horsey or Jerry
Ward in violation of Section 8(a) (3) of the Act.
24 If this Recommended Order should be adopted by the Board, the words "20 days
from the receipt of this Decision" shall be striken, and the words "10 days from the
date of this Order" shall be substituted therefor
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES AND APPLICANTS FOR EMPLOYMENT
Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor
Relations Board, and in order to carry out the policies of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, as amended , you are notified that:
WE WILL NOT ask job applicants , either orally or on job application forms, to
disclose their union affiliations, activities , or sympathies.
WE WILL NOT harass our employees , or otherwise discriminate against them
in regard to their hire or tenure of employment or any of their working condi-
tions, because they give testimony under the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended.
WE WILL NOT threaten reprisal against our employees because they refuse to
make a statement to our attorney or otherwise cooperate in investigating or
pieparing a defense to unfair labor practice charges against us.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain , or coerce our
employees or applicants for employment in the exercise of their right to self-
organization , to form unions, to join or assist Amalgamated Clothing Workers
of America , AFL-CIO, or any other union, to bargain collectively through rep-
resentatives of their own choosing , to engage in concerted activities for the pur-
poses of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection , or to refrain
from doing so, except to the extent that such right may be affected by an agree-
ment requiring union membership as a condition of employment , as authorized
in Section 8(a)(3) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended.
Our employees are free to become or remain, or refrain from becoming or remain-
ing, members of any union, except to the extent that such right may be affected by
an agreement requiring union membership as a condition of employment as per-
mitted by Section 8(a)(3) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended.
SPRINGFIELD GARMENT MANUFACTURING COMPANY,
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.
Questions concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions may be directed
to the Board's Regional Office, 1200 Rialto Building, 906 Grand Avenue , Kansas City,
Missouri , Telephone No Baltimore 1-7000 , Extension 2733.
Southwestern Colorado Contractors Association , and its Mem-
bers and Colorado State Council of Carpenters and Carpenters
District Council of Southern Colorado, AFL-CIO . Case No.
27-CA-1513. July 1,1965
DECISION AND ORDER
On October 2,1964, Trial Examiner James T. Barker issued his Deci-
sion in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondents had
153 NLRB No. 75.
1142 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
engaged in and were engaging 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 Deci-
sion. Thereafter, the Respondent Members filed exceptions to the
Trial Examiner's Decision and a supporting brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board has
delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member
panel [Chairman McCulloch and Members Fanning and Brown].
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made at
the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The
rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial
Examiner's Decision, the exceptions and brief, and the entire record in
this case, and hereby adopts the Trial Examiner's findings, conclusions,
and recommendations to the extent consistent herewith.
The Trial Examiner found that the Respondent Members of the
respondent multiemployer association were unlawfully motivated in
dissolving the Association in order to avoid joint bargaining with the
Charging Parties. Accordingly, he concluded that the Association and
its members thereby collectively violated Section 8(a) (5) of the Act.
We agree with the Trial Examiner that the Association and its mem-
bers collectively violated Section 8(a) (5) of the Act by refusing to
bargain with the certified representative. We rely, however, not only
upon the rationale of the Trial Examiner, but upon the following rea-
sons as well:
Although multiemployer bargaining is not specifically provided for
in the Act, the Board has recognized multiemployer bargaining units
stemming from consensual arrangements. In recognizing such units,
the Board has established guidelines and principles or rules governing
multiemployer units. These rules attempt to accommodate both the
fundamental purpose of the Act of maintaining stability in multi-
employer bargaining relationships, once lawfully established, and of
allowing the parties their requisite freedom to withdraw their consent
at suitable periods.'
In the instant case, the Association, acting within the implied scope
of its agency, executed the consent-election agreement on behalf of its
members with their apparent knowledge and acquiescence. Through
that agreement, which was binding upon them, the employer-members
accepted the multiemployer unit as the appropriate unit for collective
bargaining and, in effect, consented and agreed, should the Union win
the election, to honor the statutory obligations normally flowing from
a certification for a period of at least a year.2 The Union having been
1 Retail Associates , Inc , 120 NLRB 38S
2 Ray Brooks v NLRB , 348 U.S 96
SOUTHWESTERN COLORADO CONTRACTORS ASSN., ETC. 1143
certified as statutory representative in these circumstances, we find
withdrawal from the agreed-upon form of bargaining within the
period of a year was untimely and ineffective.3
The principle on which we rest decision here that an employer may
not withdraw from a multiemployer association during the certifica-
tion year is analogous to other established principles of the Board lim-
iting the actions of employers and unions alike during either the term
of a certification or of a contract. Thus, the principle is firmly rooted
that collective-bargaining contracts between an employer and the certi-
fied bargaining representative will constitute a bar to a petition by
either of the contracting parties during the entire term of the contract .1
Similarly, it is well settled that a certification must be honored for a
reasonable period, ordinarily 1 year, absent unusual circumstances.5
Accordingly, we conclude that the dissolution of the Association
within the certification year, which is in effect an attempted with-
drawal from the multiemployer unit at an inappropriate time, did not
release the individual employer-members in that unit of their obliga-
tion arising out of the consent-election agreement and the ensuing cer-
tification to bargain jointly for a period of a year.
In remedying the violation found, we deem it unnecessary to direct
the reconstitution of the Association since the existence of a formal
association is not a prerequisite to the establishment or continuance of
a multiemployer bargaining unit. We will, however, order the
Respondent employer-members who are parties to this proceeding to
bargain jointly with the certified bargaining representative.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that
Respondent member firms, as set forth in footnote 1 of the Trial
Examiner's Decision, of Southwestern Colorado Contractors Associa-
tion, their officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Refusing to bargain collectively and jointly with Colorado
State Council of Carpenters and Carpenters District Council of South-
ern Colorado, AFL-CIO, as the exclusive representative of all car-
penter employees and apprentices in the appropriate unit, as certified.
(b) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining, or
coercing their employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed by
Section 7 of the Act.
3 Jas. H. Matthews Go, Industrial Marking Products , 145 NLRB 1680.
4 Montgomery Ward t Co., Incorporated, 137 NLRB 346.
a Ray Brooks, supra
1144 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Recognize and, upon request, bargain collectively and jointly
with Colorado State Council of Carpenters and Carpenters District
Council of Southern Colorado, AFL-CIO, with respect to rates of pay,
wages, hours of employment, and other conditions of employment,
and, if an understanding is reached, embody such understanding in a
signed collective-bargaining agreement.
(b) Post at the offices of each of the Respondent member firms, as
set forth in footnote 1 of the Trial Examiner's Decision, copies of the
attached notice marked "Appendix." 6 Copies of said notice, to be
furnished by the Regional Director for Region 27, shall, after being
duly signed by Respondent Members' authorized representatives, be
posted by them immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained
by them for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places,
including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted.
Reasonable steps shall be taken by each respondent firm to insure that
said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 27, in writing, within
10 days from the date of this Order, what steps Respondents have
taken to comply herewith.
0In the event that this Order is enforced by a decree of a United States Court of
Appeals , there shall be substituted for the words "a Decision and Order" the words "a
Decree of the United States Court of Appeals , Enforcing an Order "
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to a Decision and Order of the National Labor Relations
Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, we hereby notify our employees that:
WE WILL recognize and, upon request, bargain collectively and
jointly with Colorado State Council of Carpenters and Carpenters
District Council of Southern Colorado, AFL-CIO, as the exclu-
sive joint bargaining representative of all carpenter employees
and apprentices in the certified appropriate unit. The certified
unit is:
All carpenters and apprentices employed by members of the
Southwestern Colorado Contractors Association, excluding
all other hourly employees and also office employees, guards,
and supervisors as defined in the Act.
WE WILL NOT, by refusing to bargain collectively and jointly or
in any like or related manner, interfere with, restrain, or coerce
our employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to
form, join, or assist the above-named or any other labor organiza-
SOUTHWESTERN COLORADO CONTRACTORS ASSN., ETC. 1145
tions, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own
choosing, and to engage in other concerted activities for the pur-
pose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection,
or to refrain from any or all such activities, except to the extent
that such right may be affected by the provisions of Section 8 (a)
(3) of the Act, as amended.
All our employees are free to become, or remain, or to refrain from
becoming or remaining, members of any labor organization.
J. J. BODINE, H. C. FLAUGH CONSTRUCTION COM-
PANY, CORN ELIUS PAINT COMPANY, SQUARE DEAL
BUILDERS, PATTERSON PLASTERING COMPANY,
ROYCE TILE COMPANY , M. F. MCGECI_IIi: CON-
STRUCTION, ATHEY-BAUMAN ROOFERS, HOLT
SIIEET METAL, JACK HIGGINS CONSTRUCTION,
LUZAR PLUMBIN G S, HEA'T'ING, ROOT & MA LARSIE
PLUMBING & HEATING, GOODMAN PAINT, BUR-
NETT CONSTRUCTION COIrI'AN F, ROBERT EATON,
Employers.
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.
Employees may communicate directly with the Board's Regional
Office, 609 Railway Exchange Building, 17th and Champa Streets,
Denver, Colorado, Telephone No. 297-3551, if they have any quest ion
concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions.
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon a charge filed on December 26, 1963, by Colorado State Council of Carpen-
ters and Carpenters District Council of Southern Colorado, AFL-CIO, hereinafter
called the State Council and District Council, respectively, and sometimes herein-
after referred to jointly as the Charging Parties, the Regional Director of the National
Labor Relations Board for Region 27, on February 28, 1964, issued a complaint and
notice of hearing designating the Southwestern Colorado Contractors Association,'
hereinafter called the Association, and its members, as Respondents, and alleging vio-
lations of Section 8(a)(1) and 8(a)(5) of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended, hereinafter called the Act. Pursuant to notice a hearing was held before
Trial Examiner James T. Barker at Durango, Colorado, on April 28, 1964. Repre-
sentatives of the General Counsel, Charging Parties, and the respective firms desig-
nated in the complaint as employer-members of the Association were represented
at the hearing and were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to introduce relevant
'Attached to the complaint as "Appendix A" was a list of employer-members The
following named firms were designated in the appendix: J J. Bodine, H. C Flaugh Con-
,tnu•tion Company, Coineiins Paint Company, Squaie Deal Builders, Patterson Plaster-
ing Company, Royce Tile Company, M F McGechie Construction, Athey-Bauman Roofers,
Holt Sheet Metal, Jack Higgins Construction, Luzar Plumbing & Heating, Root & Malarsie
Plumbing & Heating, Goodman Paint, Burnett Construction Company, Robert Eaton.
1146 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
evidence, to present oral argument, and to file briefs with me. Each representative
waived oral argument, and on June 1, 1964, briefs were filed on behalf of the General
Council and Root & Malarsie and by Harold B. Wagner, on behalf of his 13 clients.2
No appearance was entered at the hearing on behalf of Southwestern Colorado
Contractors Association, as an entity separate and distinct from the 15 firms which
the General Counsel alleged comprised its membership. At the hearing the General
Counsel moved for judgment on the pleadings with respect to the Association. In
light of the determination made herein, I find it unnecessary to rule specifically on the
General Counsel's motion.
1. THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENTS
At material times prior to July 1963, the Southwestern Colorado Contractors
Association was an association of business enterprises whose membership included,
inter alra, J. J. Bodine; H. C. Flaugh Construction Company; Cornelius Paint Co.;
Square Deal Builders Co.; G. A. Patterson Lath & Plaster; Royce Tile Co ; McGechie
Construction Company, Inc.; Holt Sheet Metal Works; Jack Higgins Construction;
Luzar Plumbing & Heating, Inc ; W. G. Goodman Paint and Glass Store; Burnett
Construction Company; and Robert Eaton.3
During the calendar year 1963 Burnett Construction Company purchased cement
and/or other goods and materials from Ideal Cement Company having a gross value
of $53,673.10 The cement and/or other goods and materials were shipped directly
to Burnett Construction Company in the State of Colorado from the State of New
Mexico. The gross value of the cement and/or other goods and materials aforesaid
included freight and delivery charges of $14,818.33 and a sales discount granted
Burnett Construction Company by Ideal Cement Company of $2,173.
Additionally, during the calendar year of 1963 McGechie Construction Company,
Inc , did a gross volume of business in the amount of $572,689.43. During the calen-
dar year 1963 McGechie Construction Company, Inc., purchased materials from
suppliers located in States other than the State of Colorado having a gross value of
$13,048.41.
Upon the foregoing stipulated facts, considered in conjunction with the further
findings hereinafter made that each of the 15 firms named as respondents paid mem-
bership dues to the Association during 1963 and that at least 9 of the member firms,
including Burnett Construction Company and McGechie Construction Company, Inc ,
engaged in group negotiations with other Association members during the calendar
year 1963, I find that the Association and the firms designated in appendix A of the
complaint constitute a single employer for jurisdictional purposes, and that the
Respondent Association is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6)
and (7) of the Act .4
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
The Colorado State Council of Carpenters and Carpenters District Council of
Southern Colorado, AFL-CIO, are labor organizations within the meaning of Section
2(5) of the Acts
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
The complaint alleges that on or about August 7, 1963, a majority of the employ-
ees of respondent members of the Respondent Association in an election conducted
'At the hearing Mr. Wagner stated that he was appearing on behalf of: Athey Beaman
Company; J. J. Bodine ; Burnett Construction Company; \lyrle L. Cornelius ; Robert
Eaton; Lawrence C. Gass; Walter G Goodman; Jack Higgins ; William D Holt ; Luzar
Plumbing & Heating, Inc. , McGechie Construction Company, Inc.; G. A. Patterson, and
Gordon H. Royce.
The foregoing in based upon the admissions contained in the answers filed by these
respective Respondents.
Siemons Mailing Service, 122 NLRB, 81, 84 Local 69, United Association of Journey-
men, etc. ( Plumbing and Heating Employers Association, etc.), 136 NLRB 1556; Pearl
Beer Distributing Company of Jefferson County, Incorporated, 143 NLRB 596, 597
s All respondent firms save H C. Flaugh Construction Company and Root & Malarsie
Plumbing & Heating admit the status of the State Council and the District Council as
labor organizations. The foregoing finding is predicated upon these admissions and in-
dependent evidence of record revealing that both the State Council and the District
Council exist, in part, for the purpose of dealing with employers concerning grievances,
labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, and/or conditions of work
SOUTHWESTERN COLORADO CONTRACTORS ASSN., ETC. 1147
under the supervision of the Regional Director for Region 27 designated and selected
the Charging Parties as their representative for the purpose of collective bargaining
with the Association and that on or about August 15, 1963, the Charging Parties were
certified by the Regional Director as the exclusive bargaining representative of
employees in an appropriate multiemployer bargaining unit. The complaint further
alleges that at all times since August 15, 1963, the Charging Parties have jointly been
the representative for the purpose of collective bargaining of the employees in the said
unit; and that commencing on or about September 5, 1963, and at times material there-
after the Charging Parties jointly have requested and are requesting the Respondent
Association to bargain collectively with them with respect to rates of pay, wages,
hours of employment, and other terms and conditions of employment, but that since
on or about said date and at all times thereafter the Association has refused to do so.
The respondent firms deny the allegations of the complaint and state, affirmatively,
that by an act of its membership the Association was dissolved in July 1963; and they
contend, further with respect to the merits, in substance, that as a consequence there
existed no organization or entity authorized to enter into collective-bargaining nego-
tiations with the Charging Parties on behalf of the individual respondent firms; that
after the dissolution of the Association only single-employer bargaining units were
appropriate and that the Charging Parties did not at any time request the respondent
firms individually to negotiate on a single-employer basis. It is thus the contention
of the respondent firms that as a further consequence of the foregoing the essential
statutory requisites to a finding of a refusal to bargain are not present.
In response to these contentions, the General Counsel asserts that the dissolution
of the Association was undertaken for the purpose of evading the legal obligation
which had devolved upon it to bargain collectively with the Charging Parties, and,
citing Darlington Manufacturing Company, 139 NLRB 241, the General Counsel
asserts that, in legal effect, dissolution, in the circumstances of this case, is the "logi-
cal extension of a situation where an employer goes out of business to avoid bargain-
ing with a union."
A. The motion to dismiss
At the commencement of the hearing the respondent firms raised a jurisdictional
issue seeking dismissal of the complaint for lack of timely service of the December 26,
1963, charge upon them. The charge named the Southwestern Colorado Contractors
Association as the employer against which the charge was being filed. As the basis
of the charge, the following was set out therein:
Since August 15, 1963, the Employer has refused to bargain with the under-
signed labor organizations which were jointly certified as representatives of
employees of the Employer in an appropriate unit for collective bargaining.
(See Appendix A attached for list of employer members.)
A list of the 15 firms which were later in the complaint named party respondents,
together with their addresses, was attached to the charge as appendix A.
The charge and appendix were served upon the Southwestern Colorado Contractors,
Association on December 27, 1963. Thereafter, on February 26, 1964, copies of the
charge and appendix were mailed to each firm named a party respondent herein, and
these were received by each on or before February 28, when the complaint issued.
I find the motion to dismiss to be without merit The provisions of Section 102.12
of the Board's Rules and Regulations, Series 8, as amended, requires the name and
address of the person against whom the charge is made to be specified in the charge,
and the terms of the limitation proviso of Section 10(b) outlaws those unfair labor
practices which occurred more than 6 months prior to the filing of the charge and
service of a copy upon the person against whom such charge is made 6
The complaint alleges, and I find herein, that the Association and the 15 firms
named party respondents constitute a single employer both for jurisdictional and unit
purposes under the Act. There is no contention made that timely service was not
accomplished with respect to the Association; indeed, the record reveals that the
charge was served on December 26 and received on December 27.
In light of the timely service of the charge upon the Association, the single-employer
relationship between the Association and the 15 films designated as respondents, the
specific reference in the body of the charge to the appendix attached thereto, and the
identifying affects of the appendix, I find that Sections 102.12 and 102 14 of the
Board's Rules and Regulations were complied with and that the limitation provision
See General Molds and Plastics Corporation, 122 NLFB 182, 18G, and cases cited therein
at footnote 7.
1148 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
of Section 10(b) did not operate so as to preclude the Regional Director from naming
the 15 firms designated in appendix A of the charge as respondents in this
proceeding.7
B. The history of bargaining
1. The prior certification
On December 8, 1958, a representation petition was filed in Case No. 30-RC-1563
by Carpenters' Local Union 2243, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of
America, AFL-CIO, seeking representation of employees of Southwestern Colorado
Contractors Association in the following described unit-
All carpenters, millwrights, and apprentices employed by employer members of
the association excluding office workers, guards, professional and supervisory employ-
ees as defined in the Act
Thereafter, pursuant to an agreement for consent election approved by the Regional
Director for Region 27 on January 20, 1959, an election was conducted under the
supervision of the said Regional Director on February 3, 1959. On February 11,
1959, the Regional Director certified the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and
Joiners of America, Local Union No. 2243, AFL-CIO, as the exclusive bargaining
representative for the unit of employees aforesaid.
Following its inception in 1958 or 1959, the Association became signatory to two
collective-bargaining agreements with Local 2243. The first was effective from
September 1, 1960, to July 1, 1962, and the second from July 1, 1962, to July 1, 1963.
In this regard, Gordon Royce in his capacity as secretary of the Association executed
the two above-referred to separate and successive collective-bargaining agreements
which by their terms were shown to be between Local Union 2243 and Southwestern
Contractors Association of Colorado, an association which Royce credibly testified
was one and the same organization as the Southwestern Colorado Contractors Asso-
ciation, a party respondent herein. Further, the 1960 agreement was executed by
George W. Teats in the capacity of president of the Association and the 1962 agree-
ment by H C Flaugh, in an identical capacity.8
2. The 1962 effort to amend the certification
On June 14, 1962, officers of Local 2243 filed a motion with the Regional Director
requesting that the February 11, 1959, certification of the Regional Director designat-
ing the Local as the exclusive bargaining representative of a unit of employees of the
Association be amended by deleting the name of the Local and by inserting the name
of "Carpenters' District Council of Southern Colorado " In support of the request
the Local asserted it was a subordinate body of the District Council. On July 20,
1962, the Acting Regional Director of Region 27 of the National Labor Relations
Board denied the motion.
During June or July 1962, L. A. Ader, president of the Southern District Council;
Matt Weaver, representative of Local 2243 of the Southern District Council; William
Gray, then recording secretary of Local 2243; and two other representatives of the
Local met with Messrs McGechie, Flaugh, Royce, and Patterson and discussed with
them questions relating to the transfer of certification from the Local to the South-
western District Council. The employers on this occasion asserted that they would
not negotiate with the District Council but that they desired to negotiate with the
"Durango local, only." 9
See Frank Arquillo, d/b/a Deluxe Motor Stages, etc., 93 NLRB 1425. Esgto Inc
and Esgro Valley Inc, 135 NLRB 285. Cf International Union, United Mine Workers of
America, at at (Blue Ridge Coal Co ) v. N L R B , 299 F. 2d 441. The cases cited in sup-
port of the motion to dismiss, both at hearing and in the memorandum brief are, in light
of the findings made herein with respect to the identity of the parties, inapposite and
distinguishable, both as they pertain to the basic jurisdiction of the Board, and as they
relate to the authority of the Board to issue a remedial order against the 15 party
respondents
8 The foregoing is predicated upon the credited testimony of Gordon Royce and sup-
porting documents which the General Counsel introduced into evidence and which bore
the signatures of Royce as well as the purported signature of Teats and Flaugh respec-
tively. The respective respondent firms objected to the receipt in evidence of the two
agreements. In view of the testimony of Gordon Royce as discussed above, and his fur-
ther testimony that the two agreements were taken by him from the files of the Associa-
tion, I affirm my ruling receiving the two documents in evidence.
9 The foregoing is predicated upon the credited testimony of William Gray.
SOUTHWESTERN COLORADO CONTRACTORS ASSN., ETC. 1149
C. The 1963 bargaining demand
Subsequently, in the spring of 1963, on April 17, a letter was sent by L. A. Ader
to H C Flaugh, president of Southwestern Colorado Contractors Association which
contained the following paragraph:
The Carpenters District Council of Southern Colorado and the Carpenters Local
Union No. 2243 of the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of Amer-
ica desires to open negotiations in accordance with Article 7 of the present
Agreement.
No collective-bargaining meetings between representatives of the Respondents or
representatives of either the Local or the District Council appears to have been held
thereafter.
D 1963 collective bargaining between
Association and Laborers
During the summer of 1963 several collective-bargaining meetings were held
between representatives of the Association and representatives of the Laborers. In
the negotiations leading to the consummation of the 1960 and 1962 agreements, the
Association had designated a bargaining committee to represent the Association in
collective bargaining with Carpenters Local 2243 and with the Laborers. Similarly,
in 1963 during its negotiations with the Laborers, the Association was also repre-
sented by a committee whose composition fluctuated from meeting to meeting. Gor-
don Royce attended the "majority" of the bargaining sessions and George Patterson
of Patterson Plastering Company, Harold Luzar of Luzar Plumbing & Heating, Law-
rence Gass of Square Deal Builders, and John Shoser of Burnett Construction Com-
pany served as members of the negotiating Committee. Additionally, at a bargain-
ing session held with the Laborers on June 27, Messrs. Luzar, Malarsie, Bodine,
McGechie, Burnett, Holt, and Royce were in attendance. Further, Messrs. Luzar,
Mallarsie, and Royce attended a bargaining meeting with the Laborers held on
August 12.10
E. The 1963 certification
In the interim, on June 4, 1963, the Colorado State Council of Carpenters and
Carpenters District Council of Southern Colorado, AFL-CIO, the Charging Par-
ties, filed a petition with the Regional Director in Case No. 27-RC-2456, seeking to
represent employees of the Southwestern Contractors Association of Colorado in the
following described unit:
All carpenters and apprentices employed by members of the above-named associa-
tion [Southwestern Contractors Association of Colorado] including millwrights, office
clericals, and supervisors as defined in the Act.
On July 17, 1963, Gordon H. Royce executed an agreement for consent election
in Case No. 27-RC-2456. Present when Royce executed the agreement was Irving
Mason, a Durango, Colorado, attorney. Previously at a meeting of some of the
members of the Association, shortly before July 17, attended by Royce, it was decided
to seek advise of counsel. As a consequence of the meeting, Royce, in his capacity
as secretary of the Association, sought legal advice from Mason and further sought
his presence at the conference at which the agreement for consent election was to be
executed.
Association Vice President McGechie appeared briefly at the July 17 conference
and was shown the consent agreement by Royce prior to time Royce executed it i1
Pursuant to the agreement an election was subsequently conducted by mail ballot.
Thereafter, the Regional Director on August 15, 1963, certified Colorado State Coun-
cil of Carpenters and Carpenters District Council of Southern Colorado as the exclu-
sive bargaining representative of employees in the following described unit.
All carpenters and apprentices employed by members of the Southwestern Colorado
Contractors Association; excluding all other hourly employees and also office employ-
ees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act.
10 The foregoing is predicated upon the credited testimony of Gordon Royce His testi-
monv with respect to employer representation at the June 27 and August 12 meetings,
respectively , was offered after Royce consulted minutes which he had in his possession
at the hearing and which had been extracted from the files of the Association
n The foregoing is based upon the credited testimony of Gordon Royce
1150 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
F. The Association dissolves
On August 12, 1963, a collective-bargaining meeting was held between the Asso-
ciation and the Laborers. At this meeting the Laborers presented its "last proposal"
and was informed by Royce during the meeting that there weren't "enough members
present to negotiate the contract." At the meeting representatives of the Association
informed the Laborers that they would respond telephonically to the Laborers' pro-
posal by 9:30 a in. the following morning. Representatives of the Laborers received
no call the following morning. However, on August 16, William Smart, business
representative of the Laborers, received a telephone call from Royce in which Royce
informed him that the Association had "disbanded as a bargaining unit," and "that
it would function as a social unit only." 12
In the meantime, on August 15, at a meeting attended by Messrs. McGechie,
Gass, Luzar, Malarsie, Higgins, and Royce, it was voted unanimously by those
present to dissolve the Association.13
Thereafter , on September 5, L. A. Ader sent the following letter addressed to
Gordon Royce as secretary of the Southwestern Contractors Association of Colorado:
April 17 , 1963 a certified letter was sent to Mr. H. C. Flaugh president of
the Southwestern Colorado Contractors Assn. stating our desire to open nego-
tiations with the above mentioned Assn.
To this date no meetion [sic] has been set.
The State Council of Carpenters and The Carpenters District Council of
Southern Colorado respectfully request that a meeting be set not later than
September 18, 1963 for the purpose of negotiating a new contract.
Subsequently, on September 7, 1963, on stationery of the Southern Colorado Con-
tractors Association , in a letter addressed to Carpenters District Council, to the
attention of Ader , Gordon Royce stated the following: 14
As you know Southwestern Colo. Contractors Assn. no longer exists as a bar-
gaining unit.
G. The Association membership and bargaining authority
Gordon Royce credibly testified at the hearing that on the occasion of the July 17
meeting above referred to at which the consent -election agreement was executed
in Case No. 27-RC-2456, he considered to be members of the Association of the
Association each of the firms named as individual parties respondent herein and
designated in appendix A of the complaint . In explication of his testimony he
credibly testified that Association dues were $5 per annum and that the books
and ledgers of the Association reflected that during the period January through
April 1963, each of the firms designated in appendix A of the complaint made pay-
ments of their annual dues.
Sometime prior to January 29, 1963, a form letter, on stationery of the South-
western Colorado Contractors Association and bearing signature lines of the South-
western Colorado Contractors Association and for H. C. Flaugh, president; G. A
Patterson, vice president; Gordon Royce, secretary; and Merle Cornelius, special
committee, was prepared for distribution to prospective members of the Association.
The letter contained the following paragraph:
As you know our association was organized a few years ago for the primary
purpose of conducting labor negotiations with the various crafts of the build-
ing and construction trades and to assist members with various problems. Dur-
ing the ensuing period we have conducted several negotiations with most satis-
factory results. To continue to do so successfully we must have the support
and cooperation of the contractors and subcontractors engaged in building and
construction in Southwestern Colorado. Since several contracts are due to be
opened for negotiations this year we are endeavoring , at this time , to increase
our strength and support so that we can sit at the negotiating table secure in
12 The foregoing is predicated upon the credited testimony of William Smart.
zs The credited testimony of Gordon Royce.
la This and the foregoing is predicated upon the credited testimony of L A. Ader as
supported by an exhibit of record.
SOUTHWESTERN COLORADO CONTRACTORS ASSN., ETC. 1151
the knowledge that the men we are facing across the table realize that we
represent a strong, united and responsible organization with whom they must
bargain and work.'5
James Bell, a carpenter and financial secretary for the Carpenters' Local 2243,
ciedibly testified that during May 1963, on a job at Mesa Verde National Park, he
and three other employees engaged in a discussion with Jack Higgins, a party
respondent herein, concerning the payment of travel allowance under article II,
section 2, of the 1962 agreement. The four employees contended that they were
due travel pay under the terms of the agreement, but Higgins asserted that he did
not want to be the first "one to pay it." Higgins, however, upon being shown the
agreement asserted that he would pay travel allowance.
H. The Association membership status of H. C. Flaugh
Gordon Royce credibly testified that during the summmer of 1963 H. C. Flaugh
was ill, having suffered a heart attack. He further testified credibly that Flaugh
did not attend any of the negotiations conducted during 1963 with the Laborers and
he was not consulted concerning the consent-election agreement.
Additionally, Royce credibly testified he received from Flaugh a letter dated
June 19, 1963, which stated the following:
It is with regret that I must ask you to accept my resignation as President of
the Southwestern Colorado Contractors Association due to my recent illness.
My Doctor advises me that near complete abstinence from business and
related activities for a while will be necessary to effect a complete and timely
recovery of my health.
My sincere best wishes to all the fellows and I pledge my strong moral sup-
port to the continued success of our very worthwhile organization.
Conclusions
This proceeding involves employers engaged in the construction industry who at
times prior to the certification of the Charging Parties had been members of an
association whose organizational structure was informally drawn and whose mem-
bership over the 5- or 6-year period following its organization had fluctuated. That
each of the 15 firms named party respondents herein had been a member of the
Association during material periods of 1963 is established by admissions of 13 of the
respondents, as supplemented by the further testimony of Gordon Royce, the Asso-
ciation's secretary-treasurer, specifically his testimony concerning the payment of
1963 annual membership dues by each of them, including the two respondents who
in their answers denied membership, namely, Athey Beaman Company and Root &
Malarsie Plumbing and Heating.
The General Counsel's proof further reveals, and I find, that the Association had
as one of its purposes joint collective bargaining on behalf of its members. Thus,
the 1960 and 1962 agreements were negotiated by a committee selected from the
Association's membership and were executed in the name of the Association by
officers of the Association. The 1963 negotiations between the Association and the
Laborers in which representatives of at least nine member firms participated is
further proof of the joint bargaining purpose of the Association.16
In light of the foregoing background proof in support of controverted allegations
of the complaint and in explication of the precise nature of and relationship between
the Association and the firms named respondents herein, the General Counsel's
threshold burden in support of the allegations of the complaint was met by intro-
15 The foregoing is predicated upon the credited testimony of Gordon Royce and upon
a document received in evidence as General Counsel's Exhibit No 22 Royce credibly
testified that the letter was one which he had received in due course and had extracted
from his files prior to the hearing herein I affirm my ruling receiving the document in
evidence.
161 have also considered as evidentiary facts bearing upon the purposes of the Asso-
ciation prior to its dissolution, the January 29, 1963, letter and attached questionnaire,
entered in evidence as General Counsel's Exhibit No 22, and Royce's August 16 telephone
statement to William Smart that the Association had "disbanded as a bargaining unit"
1152 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ducing proof of the August 15 certification of the Charging Parties in an associa-
tionwide bargaining unit embracing the Association and its members. The certifica-
tion followed a Board-conducted election which resulted from a joint representation
petition filed by the Charging Parties, and a consent-election agreement executed by
Gordon Royce, as secretary-treasurer of the Association In the circumstances of
this case, this certification is binding upon them and is conclusive as to the appro-
priateness of the unit and the majority status of the Charging Parties.17 That the
Regional Director's August 15 certification has the finality of a Board certification
is not here open to question for no contention or showing was made at the hearing
that irregularities had occurred in the conduct of the election as would show gross
mistake of a variety to imply fraud or that the certification was tainted by arbitrary
or capricious action on the part of the Regional Director, nor was evidence newly
discovered bearing upon the representation proceeding offered at the instant hearing.
In context of the findings aforesaid regarding the composition of the Association,
its purpose, inter alia, and the effect of the certification, I find without merit the
contention of each of the respondent firms that the complaint must be dismissed
because the General Counsel failed to establish that they or any of them had author-
ized the Association to engage in collective bargaining on their behalf. I find that
in the circumstances above delineated the General Counsel was not required to
specifically establish this authorization. In point of fact the Respondents' contention
is tantamount to an attack upon the appropriateness of the unit, as specified in the
consent-election agreement to which they, through the Association, were parties,
and as certified by the Regional Director. In light of Secretary-Treasurer Royce's
testimony relating to the circumstances surrounding the execution of the consent
agreement, and the Association membership of each respondent firm, and absent
evidence that prior to July 17 when the consent-election agreement was executed
any of the members had resigned from the Association, I find that Royce was acting
within the scope of his authority as an agent and representative of each of the party
respondents herein including the Association in executing the consent agreement;
that, as members of the Association, each respondent firm had been put on notice
of the pendency of the representation proceeding, and thereby had ample oppor-
tunity to raise any issue relevant to that proceeding, including any and all issues
relating to the appropriateness of the unit and their inclusion in the unit. I further
find that by failing to do so they became bound by the terms of the consent agree-
ment including the resulting unit determination and certification.
In connection with the foregoing, I additionally find that the evidence pertaining
to the 1963 heart attack of H. C. Flaugh and his June 19, 1963, letter does not
establish his timely withdrawal from Association membership relieving him of the
legal effects of the certification. Rather, the evidence establishes merely his entorced
inactivity in the affairs of the Association resulting from illness and his proffered
resignation trom the office of Association president because of ill health.
It is in the context of the foregoing findings that the issues central to a proper
disposition of this case must be viewed. The complaint alleges a request and refusal
on and after September 5. The respondent members, however, as noted above,
assert that the Association had dissolved on August 15, some 3 weeks prior to the
Charging Parties' request. Against the contention must be weighed the General
Counsel's assertion that the dissolution was accomplished for the purpose of evading
the statutory duty to bargain collectively with the Charging Parties, and that the
disbandment of the Association, in the circumstances here present, is but a corollary
of an employer going out of business to avoid bargaining.
Contrary to the contention of the respondent firms, this proceeding does not turn
on the question of timely withdrawal from group bargaining. That employers may
individually or collectively withdraw or discontinue joint bargaining by appropriate
notice given at an appropriate time is not in dispute.18 That employer-members of
the Association, individually or collectively, could have availed themselves of this
opportunity by giving timely notice to Local 2243, the then certified and recognized
bargaining representative, is not here challenged. However, the Respondents not
only remained mute until August 15, concerning any intentions to disband the
Association, but, on the contrary, on July 17 joined in a consent-election agreement
17 The Baker and Taylor Co., 109 NLRB 245 See also Parkhurst Manufacturing Com-
pany, Inc, 136 NLRB 872, 878-879
18 Seattle Automotive Wholesalers Association, etc , 140 NLRB 1393 . McAnary A Welter,
Inc., 115 NLRB 1029; The Milk and Ice Cream Dealers of the Greater Cincinnati, Ohio,
Area, etc., 94 NLRB 23, 25; International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, and Local
59, etc (Terlite, Inc ), AFL-CIO, 119 NLRB 1792, 1793
SOUTHWESTERN COLORADO CONTRACTORS ASSN., ETC. 1103
consenting to a Board-conducted election designed to determine the question con-
cerning representation raised by the filing of the Charging Parties' June 4 joint peti-
tion, and thereafter remained passive while balloting was being conducted and the
choice of a bargaining representative ascertained. Not until the very day that the
certification issued did the Respondents take action to disband the Association as
a collective-bargaining entity.
Well established is the principle that an employer violates Section 8(a) (5) of
the Act by refusing during the period between the election and the issuance of the
certification to bargain collectively with the labor organization designated in the
election as the majority bargaining representative of its employees.19 Under the
terms of the consent agreement ballots were to be opened and counted on August 7.
While the record contains no direct evidence establishing that the counting occurred
on the date specified, no evidence to the contrary was introduced. Moreover, pur-
suant to Board procedures and the terms of the consent agreement each pal ty was
entitled to have present at the counting a representative and was to be furnished a
tally of ballots. In this circumstance, and presuming the regularity of the admin-
istrative process, I conclude and find that the ballots were counted on August 7
and that the Charging Parties' majority status was established on that date
Further, I find that the representatives of the Respondents had knowledge of the
results of the election in advance of the August 15 dissolution meeting and that the
vote for dissolution was taken with knowledge on the part of the Association's mem-
bers that the Charging Parties had been selected as the joint-bargaining representative
of the carpenter employees and apprentices of firms comprising the membership of the
Association. Neither the Association, nor its members, had filed objections to the
election, no other labor organization had been on the ballot or a party to the
proceeding; the certification had, accordingly, at the time the members took their
dissolution action, become essentially a ministerial act, to follow in due course. In
the circumstances I find that when the Association was dissolved by the act of its
membership, the Association and its members were under a legal obligation to
recognize the Charging Parties as the collective-bargaining representatives of their
carpenters and apprentices for the term of the certification. 20
The Board has held that an employer violates Section 8(a)(5) of the Act when
it shuts down or liquidates its operation to avoid dealing with a labor organization 21
That employers acting in concert would similarly violate Section 8(a)(5) of the Act
by terminating the bargaining function of their joint-bargaining representative solely
as a device for avoiding their statutory bargaining obligation would appeal to follow
axiomatically from this principle.22
But the analogy to Darlington is not a complete one, for the members' individual
enterprises continued to exist and operate unaffected by the dissolution of the
Association, and here, unlike Dai lington, no economic justification is offered in
support of the dissolution. Thus, a reliance by the Respondents upon a right anal-
ogous to that claimed in Darlington would be strained and misplaced Cf Dee] ing-
Milliken, Inc. (Darlington Manufacturing Company) v. N.L.R.B., 325 F. 2d 682
Rather, I am of the opinion that, in the ultimate, the decision here turns on the
question of motivation. If, as I do here find, the dissolution of the Association as a
bargaining entity was unlawfully motivated, no barrier, practical or constitutional,
10 Ray Brooks v N.L.R B , 348 US. 96; George Sexton, an individual, d/b/a Sexton
Welding Company, 100 NLRB 344, 345, 350 at footnote 2 ; see also Reliance Fuel Oil Col p ,
129 NLRB 1166.
20 See Ray Brooks v. N L R B , supra
"Darlington Manufacturing Company, 139 NLRB 241, enforcement denied sub nom
Deering-Milliken, Inc, 325 F. 2d 682 (CA 4) , New England Web, Inc, et at, 135 NLRB
1019, 1026, enforcement denied 309 F. 2d 696 (CA 1) See also Sam Wallick, et al,
d/b/a Wallick and Schwalm Company, 95 NLRB 1262, 1265, enfd 198 F 2d 477
(C A 3)
22 While in Darlington and in New England Web, and the cases cited therein, contem-
poraneous violations of Section 8(a) (1) and Section 8(a) (3) of the Act were found by the
Board to have been committed, it would, in my opinion, be inconsistent with the underly-
ing logic and purport of those decisions to hold that in the absence of accompanying Sec-
tion 8(a) (1) and Section 8(a) (3; violations, no violation of Section 8(a) (5) of the Act
would flow from evasive action of the precise nature taken herein which had the purpo,e
and effect of frustrating the expressed will of employees to bargain collectively with their
cniployeia thiough th"ii duly chosen joint-bargaining repicaentatives in an appropriate bai-
gaining unit. No warrant in logic, precedent, or statute suggests itself in support of such
a conclusion
796-0 27-66-v of 153-74
1154 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
exists precluding a remedial order which recognizes the pragmatic artificiality of the
dissolution and requires the restoration of the status quo ante, i e., joint bargaining
in a multiemployer bargaining unit through authorized representatives with the
certified bargaining representative.
The proof of record demonstates that the Respondents were well aware of the
desire of the Charging Parties to continue the bargaining relationship that the Asso-
ciation had established with the Local, and it further shows that the Association was
disbanded as a bargaining entity precipitously at a time when the bargaining agents
for the carpenter employees of member firms had been selected and their certifica-
tion was imminent. Accordingly, in these circumstances, viewed in context of the
Respondents' course of conduct as above found, I conclude and find that the General
Counsel established a prima facie case in support of his contention that the dissolu-
tion of the Association was unlawfully motivated. Therefore, as the individual
Respondents offered no defense in explanation of their actions and of the events
which transpired, and as the Association, as a separate respondent, offered none,
having made no appearance at the hearing, I find on this record that the Respondents
dissolved the Association in order to avoid joint bargaining with the Charging
Parties. Thus by this action they sought to relegate to themselves the determination
of the appropriate bargaining unit and to checkmate their employees' choice made
pursuant to established statutory authority and processes. This they may not
lawfully do. In the circumstances I find that the Association and respondent firms
collectively thereby violated Section 8 (a) (5) of the Act.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The conduct of the Respondents set forth in section III, above, occurring in con-
nection with the operations described in section I, above, have a close, intimate, and
substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States and
tends to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing 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 designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
Thus, as I have found that the Association was dissolved as a bargaining entity
on August 15, 1963, by an act of its membership , for the purpose of avoiding the
legal obligation that had devolved upon the members of the Association as a result
of the August 7, 1963, Board-conducted election to recognize and bargain collectively
with the Colorado State Council of Carpenters and Carpenters District Council of
Southern Colorado, AFL-CIO, as the exclusive collective -bargaining representative
of their carpenter employees and apprentices in an associationwide appropriate bar-
gaining unit, and as the carpenter employees and apprentices of said Association's
members have been deprived of their statutory rights to be represented in collective
bargaining by said labor organizations as a result of the unfair labor practices of the
Respondents , I shall recommend , in order to effectuate the purposes of the Act, that
the Colorado State Council of Carpenters and Carpenters District Council of South-
ern Colorado , AFL-CIO, be recognized as the exclusive bargaining representative
of carpenter employees and apprentices of the fifteen firms named respondents herein
which have been found to have been members of the Association on August 7, 1963,
and that, upon request, the said firms through the Association bargain collectively
with the Colorado State Council of Carpenters and Carpenters District Council of
Southern Colorado, AFL-CIO, with respect to wages, hours , and terms and condi-
tions of employment of carpenter employees and apprentices and, if an agreement
is reached , embody such understanding in a signed agreement binding upon the
Association and each of the 15 individual Respondents.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Southwestern Colorado Contractors Association is, and at all times mate-
rial herein has been, an association of employers that prior to August 15, 1963,
existed for the purpose, inter alia, of representing employer-members in multiemployer
collective bargaining with labor organizations and is an employer engaged in com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. Colorado State Council of Carpenters and Carpenters District Council of
Southern Colorado, AFL-CIO, are labor organizations within the meaning of Sec-
tion 2(5) of the Act.
LOCAL 30, INT'L ASSN. OF HEAT, ETC. 1155
3. All carpenters and apprentices employed by members of the Southwestern
Colorado Contractors Association , excluding all other hourly employees, and also
office employees , guards, and supervisors, as defined in the Act, constitute a unit
appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section
9(b) of the Act.
4. Colorado State Council of Carpenters and Carpenters District Council of
Southern Colorado , AFL-CIO, have been , at all times since August 7, 1963, and now
are the exclusive representatives of all carpenter employees and -apprentices in the
aforesaid appropriate unit for the purpose of collective bargaining , within the mean-
ing of Section 9(b) of the Act.
5. By refusing to bargain collectively with the Colorado State Council of Carpen-
ters and Carpenters District Council of Southern Colorado, AFL-CIO, as the exclu-
sive bargaining representative of employees in the appropriate unit, the Respondents
have engaged in and are engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of
Section 8 (a) (5) and (1) of the Act.
[Recommended Order omitted from publication.]
Local 30, International Association of Heat and Frost Insulators
and Asbestos Workers, AFL-CIO (Armstrong Contracting &
Supply Corporation ) and Paul H . Galka. Case No. 3-CB-791.
July 1, 1965
DECISION AND ORDER
On April 28, 1965, Trial Examiner Alba B. Martin issued his Deci-
sion in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent had
engaged in certain unfair labor practices and recommending that it
cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set
forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Decision. Thereafter,
Respondent , Local 30, International Association of Heat and Frost
Insulators and Asbestos Workers, AFL-CIO, filed exceptions to the
Decision and a supporting brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board has
delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member
panel [Chairman McCulloch and Members Fanning and Brown].
The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner
at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The
rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial
Examiner's Decision, the foregoing exceptions and brief, and the entire
record in this case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and
recommendations of the Trial Examiner.'
' To prevent any possibility of misunderstanding, we amend the sentence in the fourth
paragraph of the section entitled "The Remedy" after the words "on August 17", by
adding at the end thereof : "less the amount he earned during that period , to which shall
be added interest at the rate of 6 percent per annum, as prescribed in Isis Plumbing &
Heating Co ., 138 NLRB 716." This amendment assures the consistency of this sentence
with Section 2(b) of the Recommended Order, hereinafter adopted by the Board.
153 NLRB No. 98.