The Cement League

National Labor Relations Board - Administrative Judge Opinions

May 21, 2015

03-CA-126938 (N.L.R.B. May. 21, 2015)

JD(NY)–23–15
Cambridge, MA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
DIVISION OF JUDGES
NEW YORK BRANCH OFFICE
THE CEMENT LEAGUE
and Case 03–CA–126938
NORTHEAST REGIONAL COUNCIL
OF CARPENTERS
and
NEW YORK CITY AND VICINITY
DISTRICT COUNCIL OF CARPENTERS,
PARTY IN INTEREST
John Grunert Esq. and Charles Guzak Esq.,
for the General Counsel.
Michael Salgo Esq., for The
Cement League.
Raymond G. Heineman Esq., for the
Charging Party.
James M. Murphy Esq., for the
Party in Interest.
Decision
Statement of the Case
RAYMOND P. GREEN, Administrative Law Judge. I heard this case on March 25, 2015, in
New York City. The charge in this proceeding was filed on April 21, 2014, and the complaint
was issued on December 31, 2014. It essentially alleges that a collective-bargaining agreement
between The Cement League, an employer association, and the New York City and Vicinity
District Council of Carpenters contained provisions granting preference in hiring based on union
membership.
On the entire record, including my observation of the demeanor of the witnesses, and
after considering the briefs filed, 1 I make the following
Findings of Fact
I. Jurisdiction
The Cement League is an employer association that bargains on behalf of its employer
members with various labor organizations including the New York City and Vicinity District
Council of Carpenters(the NYC Council). It is conceded that members of The Cement League,
who are engaged in the construction industry, collectively purchase and receive goods on an
annual basis, valued in excess of $50,000 directly from points outside the State of New York. I

1
The Respondent did not file a Brief.
JD(NY)–23–15
therefore conclude that The Cement League is an employer engaged in commerce within the
meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act. It also is agreed and I find that the two
Carpenter District Councils are labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
II. The alleged unfair labor practice5
Although the Respondent in this case is nominally The Cement League, the actual
dispute is between two of the Regional Council’s of the Carpenters International Union. That
dispute relates to under what conditions or limitations, an employer member of The Cement
League (or a signatory to The Cement League collective-bargaining agreement), that is doing 10
work in New York City, may hire individuals who are not members of local unions that are not
part of the NYC Council. And notwithstanding that this dispute is essentially between two labor
organizations, with the employers in the middle, these unions have been unable to resolve this
issue internally or with the assistance of their International Union.
15
The Cement League and the NYC Council have executed a series of successive
collective-bargaining agreements for many years. The NYC Council, as a Regional Council, is
made up of a group of local carpenter unions. The most recent contract runs from July 1, 2011
to June 30, 2015. Basically, this contract covers work done in the New York Metropolitan area.
20
The Charging Party is the Northeast Regional Council of Carpenters (the Northeast
Council). This Council is made up of various local carpenter unions and its geographic
jurisdiction covers northern New Jersey, upstate New York and Long Island.
Historically, members of the unions affiliated with the NYC Council and the Northeast 25
Council have, from time to time, gotten jobs in the respective jurisdictions of each Council.
When obtaining such jobs, they would be covered by the applicable collective-bargaining
agreement for wages and benefits, but would not be required to change their union
membership. 2 For some time, there was a trend of people going from New York City to New
Jersey, Long Island and upstate New York. But in more recent years, the flow has been in the 30
opposite direction with suburban carpenters going to New York City and transferring their
membership to locals of the NYC Council. And although in the past, a carpenter member of the
Northeast Council who decided to obtain employment in New York City might have simply
obtained employment there from an employer-member of The Cement League and worked
under the NYC Council contract, that has changed. For the past several years, those upstate or 35
suburban carpenters have been transferring their local union membership from locals affiliated
with the Northeast Council to locals affiliated with the New York City Council. More about this
later.
Many of the employers who are members of The Cement League are large contractors 40
performing construction work on office buildings and residential apartment buildings and who
maintain more or less stable work forces that move from job to job. In the past, the contract
between the NYC Council and The Cement League has permitted employers to select up to one
half of their work force for any given project, but required them, after the hiring of a foreman and
a shop steward, to obtain the other half from the NYC Council out-of-work list; this being a 45
nonexclusive referral system which was not limited to members of the affiliated local unions of
the NYC Council. This was memorialized at article VI of the contract covering the period from
July 1, 2006 to June 30, 2011.

2
It is my understanding that for example when an employee from the Northeast Council got a job in New
York City, he would be paid the New York contract rate but the pension and welfare contributions would
be transferred to the funds operated by affiliates of the Northeast Council.
JD(NY)–23–15
2
In September 1990, the United States Attorney filed a civil RICO action against the NYC
Council and some of its officers. (United States of America v. District Council of New York City
and Vicinity Carpenters, et al., 90 Civ. 5722). The thrust of this action was the Government’s
allegations that this labor organization had been engaged in graft and corruption and that it had 5
connections to organized crime. Among the allegations were the assertions that the NYC
Council had, through the provisions of its contract and hiring hall, abused the hiring hall system
by rewarding associates and punishing dissident union members. It was alleged that the Union
and local shop stewards had conspired with employers and had been paid off to allow
employers to hire employees “off the books.” If proven this would mean that there were 10
instances where employers, with the approval of corrupt union officials and agents, hired
employees who were not paid the wages required by the collective-bargaining agreement. It
also would mean that those employers would not have made the contractually required
payments to various pension and other benefit funds that were established for the benefit of
bargaining unit employees.15
After a trial commenced in September 1993, the NYC Council offered to settle that case
and a consent decree was entered on March, 4, 1994. In part, the settlement provided for the
selection of a court appointed monitor, who at the present time is Glen G. McGorty. It also
required that the Court approve any new collective-bargaining agreements made by the NYC 20
Council or its affiliated unions.
In 2007, as a result of a contempt proceeding, the Court, in 2009 ordered that the 50:50
hiring ratio be modified so that the employers could now hire 67 percent of their work force from
any source whereas 33 percent would be referred by the Union from the out-of-work list. U.S. 25
District Council of NYC & Vicinity of Carpenters, 592 F.Supp. 2d 708 (2009).
In April 2010, the District Court, based on a stipulation, entered an Order regarding the
appointment of a review officer. This person pursuant to the Order would have the access to all
union and union benefit fund records, and would have the powers, inter alia, to conduct 30
investigations, to initiate lawsuits against union officers, agents and employees, to oversee
union elections, to discipline union officers, agents and employees, and to supervise job referral
rules and procedures.
In May 2013, The Cement League and the NYC Council negotiated modifications to their35
existing contract and this was ratified on October 9, 2013. Among the issues agreed to was that
the employers could, with the limitations described below, man any particular project with
employees of their own choosing, without being required to utilize the Union’s out-of-work or
referral list. The limitation was that in order to do so, the employer’s chosen work force would
have to consist of members of the NYC Council. 40
On October 23, 2013, United States District Judge Richard M. Berman, after being
asked to review a proposed contract, issued an Order which stated; “the Court herby grants the
District Council’s application and approves the CBA between the District Council and The
Cement League, including its provisions regarding full mobility and anti-corruption technology 45
mechanism.” 3 The NLRB was not a party to this lawsuit and as far as I can determine there

3
The Court noted that the parties to the agreement were to establish an electronic jobs reporting system.
Although this is not described in any detail, I would assume that this mechanism was to enable the
monitor to determine the names, job classifications, rates of pay, and hours of work for those persons
employed by the members of the NYC Council and to enable the monitor to ascertain whether individuals
JD(NY)–23–15
3
was no consideration by any of the parties or the judge as to whether any of the contract’s
provisions might have been in conflict with the mandates of the National Labor Relations Act.
The contract that was approved by the Court contained the following provisions that the
General Counsel claims to discriminate against nonmembers of the affiliated locals of the NYC 5
District Council.
Article VI, Section 2:
Any employees not members of the District Council shall be matched 1:1 from
the District Council Job Referral List. The Union will cooperate, in order to meet 10
all legal requirements, and furnish qualified carpenters.
Article VII, Section 2:
For jobs only requiring one (1) or two (2) employees, the Employer will be
permitted to work without a certified shop steward without a time limitation. Any 15
employee who is not a member of the District Council will be matched 1:1 from
the District Council’s Job Referral List.
Article VII, Section 5:
Notwithstanding any other provisions of this Agreement, the Employer shall be 20
permitted to hire any and all Carpenters, except for the Shop Steward and except
as otherwise provided in Article VII, Section 2, without reference to hiring ratios
(i.e., the Employer will be able to hire Carpenters, except as specifically limited,
under so-called full mobility).
25
Article VII, Section 5(b):
The arbitrator shall be empowered as a remedy to reinstate the 50:50 hiring ratio
provisions for the duration of this Agreement for any Employer found to have
acted willfully and with the bad intent to violate the staffing and payrolling
requirements of this Agreement. Such a remedy would mean that the individual 30
Employer would be required to hire at least fifty percent (50%) of Carpenters
from the District Council’s Job Referral List (called an Out of Work List or OWL)
without the ability to make requests.
Article XIX, Section 35:35
… if at any time during the term of this Agreement the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York or any other court of competent
jurisdiction voids the provisions of Article VII, Section 2 and Article VII, Section 5
(i.e., the so-called full mobility hiring provisions), this Agreement shall become a
nullity and the Parties shall return to the terms and conditions under their 40
collective bargaining agreement that expired on its terms on June 30, 2011.
III Analysis
Among other things, Section 7 of the Act gives employees the right to join a labor 45
organization and the right to refrain from doing so. Section 8(a)(1) of the Act prohibits employers
from interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of their Section 7 rights.
Similarly, Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act prohibits a union from restraining or coercing employees
in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7.

hired to perform work as carpenters were being covered by the terms of the collective-bargaining
agreement.
JD(NY)–23–15
4
Section 8(a)(3) prohibits, inter alia, discrimination in regard to hire or tenure of
employment to encourage or discourage membership in any labor organization. However, it
does permit an employer from making an agreement with a lawfully recognized union that would
require membership on or after the 30th day following the beginning of employment or the 5
effective date of the agreement whichever is the later.
In the construction industry, Section 8(f) of the Act permits an employer and union to
enter into a prehire collective-bargaining agreement and to contract for a union security clause
of 7 days. 10
But under either Section 8(a)(3) or Section 8(f), the statute prohibits an employer to
condition the hiring of any employee on whether he or she is a member of a union or is not a
member of a union.
15
If the provisions of the contract between The Cement League and employers performing
services in New York City, explicitly required the employers to hire or give preference in hiring
for all or a portion of their work force to members of the NYC Council, it would follow that such
provisions would be unlawful on their face.
20
In that circumstance, cases cited by the General Counsel and the Charging Party would
be dispositive. In Bricklayers Local 1 (Denton’s Tuckpointing), 308 NLRB 350, 351 (1992), the
Board invalidated a contract provision that stated that “when members of Bricklayers Local
Union No. 1 . . . are available they shall constitute at least 80% of the bricklaying force of the
Employers at all times.” In Plasterers’ Local 32, 223 NLRB 486, 490 (1976), the following 25
language in a contract was held to violate Section 8(b)(1)(A) and 8(b)(2); “it is agreed that at all
times during the progress of any and all jobs, fifty percent (50%) of all plasterers employed by
the contractors, plus the odd man, if any, shall have been dues paying members of the local in
whose jurisdiction the work is being done, for the six (6) months preceding employment. The
remaining fifty percent (50%) of the work force may be residents of the area or nonresidents at 30
the discretion of the contractor.” In Carpenters Local 43 (McDowell Building & Foundation), 354
NLRB 1013, 1017 (2009), the Board concluded that there was a violation where the Union
enforced a “mobility” clause against any individual who was not a member of Local 43.
In Newspaper & Mail Deliverers Union (New York Post), 361 NLRB No. 26 (2014), the 35
Board held that the Union violated the Act when its contracts with certain employers gave hiring
preference to persons who had industry wide seniority with employers having contracts with the
Union, irrespective of the fact that seniority included employment outside of the relevant
collective- bargaining unit.
40
The point is that these cases all involved situations where there were contractual
provisions that clearly and unambiguously required signatory employers to hire, for all or part of
their work force, persons who were members of a particular union or whose seniority was based
on nonunit length of service with employers having contracts with a particular union.
45
Strictly speaking, the contract provisions in the present case do not require any
employer to hire all or a part of its work force for any project in New York City because such
individuals are already members of the NYC Council. What they do require is that if an
employer chooses to hire persons who are nonmembers, then the employer would be required
to hire 50 percent of its work force from the NYC Council’s job referral list that is also called, “the 50
out of work list.” And although it may be fairly assumed that there is strong probability that the
JD(NY)–23–15
5
people on that list would be members of the NYC Council, there is no showing that the Union
prevents or precludes nonmembers from registering for the list. (The record doesn’t disclose
the mechanics of how the list is created, maintained or utilized.) In this sense, the use by a
union of a job referral list is the equivalent of a hiring hall, whether exclusive or nonexclusive.
And since the Board has, with some restrictions, sanctioned the utilization of both exclusive and 5
nonexclusive hiring halls, I think that it would be fair to say that the Charging Party is not
seeking, in the context of this case, for the Board to find that a collective-bargaining agreement
that either requires or allows the use of a union hiring hall would be unlawful simply because
that would tend to encourage membership in a union that was a party to such a contract.
10
The General Counsel and the Charging Party argue that articles VI and VII encourage
employees to become members of the NYC Council and to drop their membership in the
Northeast Council because those provisions state that when an employer wants to hire
employees of its own choosing, the employees that it hires for a New York City project, who are
not members of the District Council, must be matched, essentially on a 50-50 basis, from the 15
NYC Council’s job referral list.
It is my understanding that there are employer members of The Cement League who
perform work within New York City but who also work on projects in New Jersey, Long Island,
and upstate New York. And when they work in those locations, outside the City, they operate 20
under the contract with the Northeast Council. Similarly, it is my understanding that there are
employers having a contract with the Northeast Council, who will obtain jobs within New York
City and will operate as signatories under the auspices of The Cement League’s Carpenters
contract. So for example, in situations where an employer, such as Rogers & Sons Concrete
Inc., which ordinarily has performed work outside of the five boroughs and typically has 25
employed a steady crew of Northeast Council members, obtains a job in New York City, it
operates under The Cement League contract. 4 And if that employer wants to bring its own work
force to the City, the employees that comprise its steady crew would be strongly incentivized to
transfer their union membership from Northeast Council locals to the NYC Council. This would
be because that crew normally would consist of employees who ordinarily would not be 30
members of the NYC Council and as such, only half of them would be eligible for employment
on a NYC project; with the other half being required to come from the NYC Council’s job referral
list.
The Cement League which is the nominal Respondent did not file a Brief and from 35
statements made at the hearing, it appears to me that it is pretty much agnostic about the
outcome of this case.
The NYC Council, as the Party in Interest, did file a Brief. But its arguments did not
question the illegality of the contract provisions as such. Rather, its defense is that the contract 40
was approved by United States District Court Judge Richard M. Berman in the context of a
settlement of a civil RICO. (As noted above, that case involved serious allegations of corruption
by union officers including some shop stewards.)
In asserting that the Board should defer to the District Court’s approval of the collective-45
bargaining agreement and the provisions in issue here, the NYC Council asserts:

4
The record shows that Rogers & Sons Concrete Inc. is a construction industry contractor based in
LaGrangeville, New York. It is a signatory to the contract between the Northeast Council and the
Construction Industry Council of Westchester for work done in Hudson Valley. It is also a signatory to the
Cement League collective-bargaining agreement with the NYC Counsel and therefore it operates under
this latter contract when it utilizes carpenters for projects in New York City.
JD(NY)–23–15
6
The anticorruption benefit of this provision is obvious. The District Council and
the government benefit from having local New York City District Council
members present on any job. If there is any misreporting, underreporting,
“working off the books,” or any other corruption whatsoever on the job, it is 5
believed that District Council members would have a sound interest in policing
those matters and reporting them. Without a District Council presence beyond
a Shop Steward among any given signatory employer’s workforce, the
corruption that has plagued the District Council (e.g., “working off the books,”
accompanying payoff schemes, etc.) could be accomplished by using strangers10
drawn from a different labor pool. In other words, contractors bound by District
Council agreements could simply move to a neighboring locale (e.g. upstate
New York, northern New Jersey, etc.) obtain their workforces from a Carpenters
union affiliate in any of those places and bring them to New York City, all the
while perpetuating the same fraud and corruption of years past. There would 15
be no District Council carpenters tied to the Consent Decree to police against
those corrupt practices.
The Charging Party’s response is:
20
The Cement League and the NYC District council argue that the purpose of
the new language of Article VI, Section 2 and Article VII, Section 2 is to
mandate that in addition to the Shop Steward, there are carpenters on the job
who have a stake in ensuring that the contractual wages and benefits are paid
on all hours worked. The merits of the argument, depend on acceptance of 25
the dubious assumption that NYC District Council members are less
corruptible than other carpenters, an assumption which seems to be more
dubious in light of the history of corruption which resulted in the District Court’s
intervention over the administration of the NYC District Council’s collective
bargaining agreements. . . .30
Whether having NYC Council members, as opposed to members of other Carpenter
locals, on New York jobs would or would not be advantageous in fighting corruption, this is not
an issue that can or should be decided by me. The fact is that the NLRB was not a party to the
RICO action brought against the NYC Council and was not asked for and did not give any 35
opinion as to whether the hiring provisions proposed for approval, would violate the National
Labor Relations Act. Moreover, there is no indication that the provisions were evaluated in light
of the NLRA. As such the Court’s approval of the contract is simply not binding on the Board,
irrespective of the asserted public policy considerations. Accordingly, if the contract provisions
violate the Act, they need to be remedied. Thus, in Field Bridge Associates, 306 NLRB 322, 40
(1992), the Board stated:
The Board adheres to the general rule that if the Government was not a party to
the prior private litigation, it is not barred from litigating an issue involving
enforcement of Federal law which the private plaintiff has litigated 45
unsuccessfully. Allbritton Communications, 271 NLRB 201, 202 fn. 4. . . .
Underlying this rule is the long-recognized principle that “Congress has
entrusted to the Board exclusively the prosecution of the proceeding by its own
complaint, the conduct of the hearing, the adjudication and the granting of
appropriate relief. The Board as a public agency acting in the public interest, 50
not any private person or group, not any employee or group of employees, is
JD(NY)–23–15
7
chosen as the instrument to assure protection from the described unfair conduct
in order to remove obstructions to interstate commerce.” Amalgamated Utility
Workers v. Consolidated Edison Co., 309 U.S. 261, 265 (1940). See also
National Licorice Co., v. NLRB, 309 U.S. 362–364 (1940). . . . Thus the Board,
as a public agency asserting public rights should not be collaterally estopped by 5
the resolution of private claims asserted by private parties…. In this case, the
Board was not a party to the New York State Court proceedings. Accordingly,
we decline to give them a preclusive effect.
In light of the above, I am inclined to agree with the theory proposed by the General 10
Counsel and the Charging Party and to conclude that the provisions of The Cement League’s
collective-bargaining agreement unduly encourage membership in local unions affiliated with the
NYC Council and tend to unduly discourage membership in the locals affiliated with the
Northeast Council.
15
I am also going to reject the defense that the Board should defer to the fact that a
contract, in the context of the RICO settlement, was approved by Judge Berman. I am doing so
despite the fact that that lawsuit was not between private parties and involved a branch of the
government other than the NLRB. As noted above, there is no indication that these particular
provisions of the collective-bargaining agreement that was submitted for review and approval 20
were considered in light of the statutory obligations set forth in the National Labor Relations Act.
Therefore, I conclude that the Respondent, The Cement League has violated Section
8(a)(1) of the Act.
25
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on the entire record, I issue the
following recommended 5
ORDER
30
The Respondent, The Cement League, its officers, agents, and representatives, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Maintaining and/or otherwise giving effect to article VI, section 2, article VII, section 35
2, article VII, section 5, article VII, section 5(b), and article XIX, section 35 of its collective-
bargaining agreement with the New York City and Vicinity District Council of Carpenters, that
requires the giving of preference in the hiring or retention of employment to employees based
upon membership or nonmembership in any labor organization except to the extent permitted
by Section 8(a)(3) of the Act. 40
(b) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees in
the exercise of the rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act. 45

5 If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the Board’s Rules and Regulations,
the findings, conclusions, and recommended Order shall, as provided in Sec. 102.48 of the
Rules, be adopted by the Board and all objections to them shall be deemed waived for all
purposes.
JD(NY)–23–15
8
(a) Notify all employer-members of Respondent, bound by a collective-bargaining
agreement with Respondent, that article VI, section 2, article VII, section 2, article VII, section 5,
article VII, section 5(b), and article XIX, section 35 of the collective-bargaining agreement
between Respondent and the New York City District Council of Carpenters, effective for the
period July 1, 2011 through June 30, 2015, or any amendments thereto or successors thereof 5
containing such provisions, are unlawful.
(b) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at its office(s) in New York, New
York, and any other geographic area covered by its collective-bargaining agreement with the
New York City and Vicinity District Council of Carpenters, copies of the attached notice marked 10
“Appendix.”6 Copies of the notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 3, after
being signed by the Respondent’s authorized representative, shall be posted by the
Respondent and maintained for 60 consecutive days in conspicuous places including all places
where notices to employees are customarily posted. In addition to physical posting of paper
notices, notices shall be distributed electronically, such as by email, posting on an intranet or 15
internet site, and/or other electronic means, if the Respondent customarily communicates with
its employees by such means. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to ensure
that the notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. In the event that
during the pendency of these proceedings, the Respondent has gone out of business or closed
the facility involved in these proceedings, the Respondent shall duplicate and mail, at its own 20
expense, a copy of the notice to all current employees and former employees employed by the
Respondent since April 21, 2014.
(c) Within 21 days after service by the Region, file with the Regional Director a sworn
statement of a responsible official on a form provided by the Region attesting to the steps the 25
Respondent has taken to comply.
Dated, Washington, D.C. May 21, 2015
__________________ 30
Raymond P. Green
Administrative Law Judge

6 If this Order is enforced by a judgment of the United States Court of Appeals, the words in the
notice reading “POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD” shall read
“POSTED PURSUANT TO A JUDGMENT OF THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS ENFORCING
AN ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD.”
JD(NY)–23–15
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
Posted by Order of the
National Labor Relations Board
An Agency of the United States Government
The National Labor Relations Board has found that we violated the National Labor Relations Act
and has ordered us to post and abide by this notice.
Section 7 of the Act gives employees these rights.
To organize
To form, join, or assist any union
To bargain collectively through representatives of their own choice
To act together for other mutual aid or protection
To choose not to engage in any of these protected concerted activities.
WE WILL NOT maintain or otherwise give effect to any agreement with the New York City and
Vicinity District Council of Carpenters requiring any employer bound by the collective-bargaining
agreement to give preference in hiring or retention of employment to employees based on
membership or nonmembership in any labor organization, except to the extent permitted by Section
8(a)(3) of the Act.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the
exercise of the rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL notify all employers bound by our collective-bargaining agreement that any and all
contract provisions or portions of contract provisions giving unlawful hiring preference based upon
considerations of union membership, including article VI, section 2, article VII, section 2, article VII,
section 5, article VII, section 5(b), and article XIX, section 35 will be given no further force or effect.
THE CEMENT LEAGUE
(Employer)
Dated By
(Representative) (Title)
The National Labor Relations Board is an independent Federal agency created in 1935 to
enforce the National Labor Relations Act. It conducts secret-ballot elections to determine
whether employees want union representation and it investigates and remedies unfair labor
practices by employers and unions. To find out more about your rights under the Act and how
to file a charge or election petition, you may speak confidentially to any agent with the Board’s
Regional Office set forth below. You may also obtain information from the Board’s website:
www.nlrb.gov.
Leo W. O'Brien Federal Building
Clinton Ave and N Pearl Street, Room 342
Albany, NY 12207-2350
Phone: (518) 431-4155
JD(NY)–23–15
The Administrative Law Judge’s decision can be found at www.nlrb.gov/case/03-CA-126938 or by using the QR code
below. Alternatively, you can obtain a copy of the decision from the Executive Secretary, National Labor Relations Board,
1099 14th Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20570, or by calling (202) 273-1940.
THIS IS AN OFFICIAL NOTICE AND MUST NOT BE DEFACED BY ANYONE
THIS NOTICE MUST REMAIN POSTED FOR 60 CONSECUTIVE DAYS FROM THE DATE OF
POSTING AND MUST NOT BE ALTERED, DEFACED, OR COVERED BY ANY OTHER
MATERIAL. ANY QUESTIONS CONCERNING THIS NOTICE OR COMPLIANCE WITH ITS
PROVISIONS MAY BE DIRECTED TO THE ABOVE REGIONAL OFFICE’S COMPLIANCE
OFFICER.