Local Union No. 103, Iron Workers

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 21, 1972

195 N.L.R.B. 980 (N.L.R.B. 1972)

980 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Local Union No. 103, International Association of
Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Iron Workers,
AFL-CIO, and its agent Charles Tremper and As-
sociated General Contractors of America , Evansville
Chapter, Inc. Case 25-CB-1023
March 21, 1972
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS FANNING
AND JENKINS
,ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Re-
lations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations
Board adopts as its Order the recommended Order of
the Trial Examiner and hereby orders that the Re-
spondent, Local Union No. 103, International Associa-
tion of Bridge,,Structural and Ornamental Iron Work-
ers, AFL-CIO; its officers, agents, and representatives,
and the Respondent, Charles Tremper, its business
agents shall take the action set, forth in the Trial Ex-
aminer's recommended Order.
On April 13, 1971, Trial Examiner Alba B. Martin
issued the attached Decision in this proceeding. There-
after, Respondents filed exceptions and 'a supporting
brief, arid' the General Counsel filed limited exceptions,
a supporting brief, and a brief, in reply to Respondents'
exceptions.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section _ 3(b) of the
National' Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au-
thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the record and the Trial
Examiner's Decision in light of the exceptions and
briefs and has decided to affirm the Trial Examiner's
rulings, findings,' conclusions, and recommendations
as modified herein.
We agree with the Trial Examiner's conclusion that
the record clearly establishes the cause of the impasse
in negotiations on July 31 was Respondents' adamant
insistence upon the resolution of jurisdictional disputes
by the Interim Joint Board or the National Joint Board
or by Respondent Union's "work jurisdiction" accom-
panied by its freedom to strike. Moreover, the record
evidence convinces us that Respondent Union did not
enter the July negotiations with an open mind, but
continued on its earlier course of unlawful bargaining'
with a fixed inflexible position and was rigidly unwill-
ing to consider seriously any possible alternatives to its
jurisdictional disputes proposals. In these circum-
stances, we find that a valid impasse was not reached
in negotiations because of Respondents' unlawful
course of bargaining, and Respondent Union was not
lawfully free to negotiate and sign separate agreements
with individual members and thereby fracture the exist-
ing multiemployer bargaining unit. Plainly, Respond-
ents' conduct is violative of Section 8(b)(3) as alleged.
' We note that the Trial Examiner inadvertently found that Randolph
Walther had not participated in negotiations after the first meeting in Febru-
ary 1970 The record discloses that Walther attended the July 13 meeting
and all but one other meeting prior to his attendance at the July 13, 1970
meeting.
Local Union No 103, International Association of Bridge, Structural
and Ornamental Iron Workers, AFL-CIO, and its agent Charles Tremper
(Associated General Contractors of America, Evansville Chapter, Inc.), 190
NLRB No 145
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
ALBA B. MARTIN, Trial Examiner: This proceeding, with
all parties represented by counsel, was heard before 'me in
Evansville, Indiana, on February 9 and 10, 1971, on com-
plaint of the General Counsel and answer of Local Union No.
103, International Association of Bridge, Structural and Or-
namental Iron Workers, AFL-CIO, and its agent Charles
Tremper, Respondents herein. The Union is sometimes re-
ferred to as Local 103 or the Union. The issues litigated were
whether Respondents violated Section 8(b)(3) of the Act' by
negotiating and entering into and putting into effect separate
collective-bargaining agreements with five employer mem-
bers of a multiemployer unit at a time when they were legally
bound to continue their bargaining for these five and all other
members of the multiemployer unit with the bargaining agent
for this unit, Associated General Contractors of America,
Evansville Chapter, referred to herein as Evansville Chapter.'
At the conclusion of the hearing decision was reserved on
Respondents' motion to dismiss the complaint and for a sum-
mary judgment in favor of Respondents. These motions are
hereby disposed of in accordance with the findings and con-
clusions below. After the hearing all parties filed helpful
briefs, which have been carefully considered.'
Upon the entire record and my observation of the wit-
nesses, I hereby make the following:
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
I THE BOARD'S JURISDICTION
The Board's jurisdiction is not in dispute. The complaint
alleged, the answer admitted, and I find that each of five
named corporations who are members of Evansville Chapter
met the Board's jurisdictional standards during a representa-
tive period, the 12-month period prior to issuance of the
complaint herein on December 2, 1970. Burch and Lamb,
Inc„ had a direct inflow in excess of, and a direct outflow in
excess of, $50,000. Industrial Contractors, Inc., Peyronnin
Construction Co., Inc., Bauer Bros., and Rust Construction
Corp., each had a direct inflow in excess of $50,000.
' The Act refers to the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, 29
U.S C Sec. 151, et seq.
Evansville Chapter filed the charge on August 14, 1970
With his brief the General Counsel submitted a motion to correct the
record in certain respects. No opposition was filed to this motion As the
changes appear correct to me I hereby grant the motion The corrections,
as worded in the motion, are attached as Appendix A [omitted from publica-
tion] In addition the following corrections are made to conform to state-
ments at the hearing. p 11, 1. 20, change "testimony" to "time"; p. 95, 1
12, change "no impasse" to "an impasse."
195 NLRB No. 179
LOCAL UNION NO. 103, IRON WORKERS 981
As of May 25, 1970, these 5 and some 41 additional compa-
nies made up the membership of Evansville Chapter. Ran-
dolph Walther, executive director of Evansville Chapter since
1967, testified that he recalled no changes in the membership
since July 7, 1970, the date of the hearing before Judge Mul-
lin. The record shows no change in the membership between
May 25 and July 7.'
The testimony before me established that in July 1970,
Evansville Chapter through a committee held seven bargain-
ing conferences with Local 103; that this followed a series of
bargaining conferences beginning in February 1970; and that
others of its committees negotiated collective-bargaining
agreements with other craft unions including the "Carpen-
ters" and possibly the "Millwrights." The testimony before
me established further that Evansville Chapter and Local 103
had earlier been parties to a 3-year written "Agreement"
covering wages, hours, working rules, working conditions,
safety provisions, grievance procedure, etc.
Upon the above evidence I find and hold that one of the
purposes for which Associated General Contractors, Evans-
ville Chapter, Inc., exists is to represent its employer mem-
bers in collective bargaining with various labor organizations,
including Local 103, and that among its members are con-
tractors who in the course and operation of their business
meet the Board's jurisdictional standards. I conclude that
Evansville Chapter and its members are employers engaged
in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of
the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Local Union No. 103 (sometimes referred to as the Union),
International Association of Bridge, Structural and Orna-
mental Iron Workers, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization
within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. At all times
material herein Charles Tremper has been and is, business
agent for Local 103.
III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Background
Upon his consideration of the first 14 bargaining meetings
in 1970 between Local 103 and Evansville Chapter, towards
a new contract, Trial Examiner Robert E. Mullin concluded
that Local 103 and Tremper violated Section 8(b)(1)(B) and
(3) by insisting upon, to impasse, and striking for, a clause
providing for the submission of jurisdictional disputes to the
Interim Joint Board, or the new National Joint Board for
Settlement of Jurisdictional Disputes, on neither of which
body did Evansville Chapter have any representation. The
Board has not yet passed upon Judge Mullin's decision,
which was in Case 25-CB-973.
Principally involved before me are the seven bargaining
sessions after the hearing before Judge Mullin on July 7,
1970, and the fracturing of the multiemployer unit. The
Evansville Chapter was bargaining on behalf of its members,
including the five who negotiated separate agreements with
Respondent Local 103.
B. The July Negotiations Between Local 103 and Evansville
Chapter
The testimony before me proved convincingly that Re-
spondents' insistence upon the inclusion of the "National
Joint Board" clause persisted, with some slight relaxation,
during the seven negotiating sessions in July 1970, and that
' After the material events herein, three corporations orally told Walther
they may not or would not pay their dues for 1971.
this issue was never resolved prior to the execution of the
separate agreements. These sessions occurred on July 13, 17,
21 (two meetings), 23, 28, and 31. Norman Knoop, chairman
of Evansville Chapter's Iron Workers negotiating committee
and its chief negotiator, credibly testified that during the July
meetings the jurisdictional dispute problem was the major
issue; that as of the last meeting "this was the main problem
that we had yet to resolve and it has been the main problem
for many, many sessions prior to that and it was what we were
hung up on." The evidence supported these conclusions.
When at the beginning of the first session (July 13) Knoop
asked if Local 103's position had changed on article VIII of
the old agreement, the article which included the National
Joint Board,' Respondent Business Agent Tremper, chief
negotiator for Local 103, objected strenuously that that issue
was not to be discussed at this meeting. Knoop agreed not to
bring it up again at that meeting. The parties then discussed
and reached agreement on subjects entitled "Precast" and
"Compensation Insurance."
At the July 17 meeting the jurisdictional dispute issue was
not discussed. The parties discussed and agreed upon subject
entitled "Foreman-General Foreman-Area Foreman,"
"Ironworkers required on guy and stiff leg derricks," and also
a tool clause.
At the two negotiation sessions on July 21, the parties
made a real effort, without success, to find a substitute for
article VIII of the expired agreement, to find a compromise
between Respondents' insistence upon the resolution of juris-
dictional disputes by the Interim Board or the National Joint
Board and Evansville Chapter's strong desire not to be bound
by a body on which it was not represented. Local 103 offered
as an alternative a clause setting forth its work jurisdiction
accompanied by the absence of a no-strike, no-lockout,
clause. At this meeting Respondent Business Agent Tremper
said that Local 103 "could not agree to a contract that did
not have reference to this National Joint Board or a board or
some means that would be equally as good as the National
Joint Board for the settlement of jurisdictional disputes."
The July 23 meeting lasted only 30 or 45 minutes, with no
agreements on anything. As the meeting broke up the parties
were discussing the matter of the National Joint Board and
Local 103's work jurisdiction.
Knoop started the July 28 session with a plea that his side
was interested in getting an agreement, that the negotiations
had been unduly prolonged, and that he hoped they could get
down to "some earnest business of resolving our differences."
The parties discussed a number of subjects, including vaca-
tions, increased compensation insurance (which was agreed
upon), improvements of other benefits, reporting time, trans-
portation. "A figure for a raise was tossed on the table" but
e This clause read as follows: "Article VIII, Craft Jurisdiction.
It is agreed that the jurisdiction of work covered by this Agreement is
that provided for in the Charter Grant issued by the American Federa-
tion of Labor to the International Association of Bridge, Structural and
Ornamental Iron Workers, it being understood that the claims are
subject to Trade Agreements and final decisions of the AFL-CIO, as
well as the decisions rendered by the National Joint Board for the
settlement of jurisdictional disputes.
The parties to this Agreement are subject to and agree to be bound
by all decisions and awards made by the National Joint Board for
Settlement of Jurisdictional Disputes with respect to all jurisdictional
disputes which may arise under this Agreement."
The expired agreement between the Associated General Contractors
of America, Evansville Chapter, Inc., and International Association of
Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Iron Workers Local Union No. 103,
was in effect from April 1, 1967, until March 31, 1970. The strike began
April 1, 1970, and has continued until the present except as to the five
companies which signed separate agreements with Respondent Local
103 in August and September 1970.
982 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
wages were not discussed in depth. Knoop testified that the
parties had earlier agreed to resolve all nonmonetary items
before getting to "money," and that this agreement occurred
prior to July 7. At the July 28 meeting the parties discussed
trying to get some help from a Federal mediator and one, Mr.
Richards, was called and he arrived about 9 p.m. He talked
with both sides and set up a meeting for July 31.
Mediator Richards opened the July 31 meeting with a 15-
or 20-minute appeal to both sides. About the only issue then
discussed by the parties was the matter of resolving jurisdic-
tional disputes. The first general vice president of the Interna-
tional Association, John McCarthy, from St. Louis, was
present . McCarthy said he could not understand why the
Evansville Chapter could not accept the National Joint Board
because several Associated General Contractors chapters had
accepted it, naming Springfield, Illinois; Detroit, Michigan;
and St . Louis, Missouri . After a while the employer repre-
sentatives called Randolph Walther into the meeting.
Walther was executive director of Evansville Chapter, and he
had not participated in the negotiations since the first meeting
in February 1970. Mediator Richards had the two sides
caucus in separate rooms and Richards went back and forth
between them. Then he brought them back together in one
room. Walther disputed McCarthy's repeated claim that the
three AGC chapters had agreed to the National Joint Board
clause. According to Walther's credible and uncontradicted
testimony, McCarthy "insisted that we negotiate a contract
with the National Joint Board, or all the work classifica-
tion(s) in the Iron Workers' constitution" without a no-strike
clause. Walther replied that "We had no representation on
the Joint Board, we could not participate in that Board, and
we could not include all the work classifications in the Iron
Workers' constitution because it included many work classifi-
cations of other trades, and all of our contracts contained
no-strike clauses in jurisdictional disputes." Walther credibly
testified that "most of the conversation after that was general,
that we'd reached an impasse ." Vice President McCarthy
said that "he could understand now why the Iron Workers
couldn't get a contract with AGC." Knoop credibly testified
that McCarthy said that AGC represented less than 10 per-
cent of the membership of Local 103 and that "they could
negotiate with whomever they pleased." Business Agent
Tremper said, "We are bargaining with the wrong people."
Mediator Richards adjourned the meeting. There have been
no meetings since.
During the July negotiations there was some reference to
money, as has been seen above, but wages were not discussed
at length or in depth. Also there was lack of agreement on
other subjects. But the preponderance of the evidence estab-
lished that the cause of the impasse on July 31 was Local
103's and Tremper's insistence upon the resolution of juris-
dictional disputes by the Interim Board or the National Joint
Board or by Local 103's "work jurisdiction" accompanied by
its freedom to strike. As has been seen Norman Knoop tes-
tified to this effect. As has been seen this jurisdictional dispute
issue was discussed at length but to no avail at the two meet-
ings on July 21; and the July 23 and 31 meetings were devoted
almost entirely to it. Note also, below, the testimony of David
Poe and John Robert Moye on this subject, and the fact that
article VIII was included unchanged in the separate agree-
ments. Thus I conclude that the July 31 impasse and the
continuation of the strike thereafter was caused by the
Union's and Tremper's adamant position. I note in this con-
nection that on October 27, 1970, after considerable corre-
spondence between the parties concerning setting a new date
for further negotiations . Business Agent Tremper wrote
Knoop,
As, Iron Workers Local 103 feels that we need some
manner to handle jurisdictional disputes in the agree-
ment equally as good as the National Joint Board and at
no cost to the Local Union, we feel like we need some
assurance from you that this is possible, to negotiate or
further negotiation would be fruitless.
The July negotiations proved also that both parties hon-
ored the historic multiemployer appropriate unit and that
both sides to the bargaining understood that Evansville
Chapter was negotiating on behalf of all its members who
hired ironworkers in the territorial jurisdiction of Local 103.
C. Breakaway From Multiemployer Unit, and Negotiation
and Execution of Separate Agreements
By August 1970 the strike had been on for some 4 months,
and from economic necessity three employers' took the initia-
tive and departed from the multiemployer bargaining; they
negotiated and on August 7 signed a separate agreement with
Local 103. The employer party to the agreement was desig-
nated as "Indiana, Illinois and Kentucky Erector's [sic] As-
sociation," and the agreement was signed by each of the three
employers. "Indiana, Illinois and Kentucky Erector's As-
sociation" did not then, and does not now, exist. The name
was used with the thought that eventually such an association
would come into existence. As each of these three employers
signed the agreement, as the strike immediately thereupon
ended as to at least one of them and presumably all of them,
and as this employer, Tri-State, thereafter was able to get and
work men from Local 103, I conclude that this contract
amounted to a separate contract between Local 103 and each
of the three corporations.
On August 17 Poe Steel Erection, Inc., signed a similar
agreement, except that its president, David C. Poe, crossed
out "Indiana, Illinois and Kentucky Erector's Association"
as the employer party and inserted "Poe Steel Erection, Inc."
Upon signing the contract the strike was over as to Poe and
he has gotten his men from Respondent Local 103 ever since.
Poe refused to sign unless he also received an agreement with
the International Association which Respondents agreed to.
Poe later received such agreement.
Poe testified he signed this contract because
either that or I'm out of business . I only hire ironwork-
ers. I was $30,000 in debt over a 4 % month strike with
no work. It's simple.
John Robert Moye, president of Tri-State, testified that he
signed the agreement:
in order to go back to work ... I contract to subcontract
steel erection. I erected with ironworkers. In order to get
ironworkers you sign a contract. That's what I'm refer-
ring to when I say go back to work.... In order to
maintain the business, keep the business operating, to
keep from going under.
On August 7 Charles Braun, president of Industrial Con-
tractors, Inc., telephoned Randolph Walther that
I may get kicked out of the AGC, but it looks like I am
going to have to sign with the Iron Workers or sit here
and go broke.
Burch and Lamb, Inc., signed Local 103's agreement on
November 18, 1970, in order to get ironworkers on a job it
was doing for "Alcoa." In early November Business Agent
Tremper told Alcoa's project manager that Burch and Lamb
had no contract with Local 103. Tremper testified this project
manager knew "from this year" and also previous years the
"known fact that I wouldn't furnish ironworkers to a contrac-
These were Allied Erection & Conveyor, Inc., Industrial Contractors,
Inc., Tri-State Steel Erection, Inc.
LOCAL UNION NO. 103, IRON WORKERS 983
tor that does not sign an agreement with Local 103." Alcoa's
project manager then called Jerry Lamb , president of Burch
and Lamb, Inc., and told him Tremper said Burch and Lamb
had not signed his contract and that Tremper would not
allow Burch and Lamb on the jobsite. Lamb replied he would
take care of that. Lamb then called Tremper and told him
they would sign his contract. Local 103's president brought
to Lamb's office, and Lamb signed, an "Acceptance of Agree-
ment," stating that Burch and Lamb, Inc., accepted the
agreement between Local 103 and "the Indiana, Illinois and
Kentucky Erector's Association." As this association was not
in existence I conclude this amounted to an agreement be-
tween Local 103 and Burch and Lamb, Inc. Since.signing the
contract the latter corporation has obtained ironworkers
from Respondent and Tremper and has worked them at the
Alcoa project.
President Lamb testified that he signed the agreement be-
cause
we had arrived at a point financially where we were
going to have to sign with the Iron Workers or close our
doors. It's that simple.
All of the contracts signed by these five corporations con-
tained the same article VIII, set forth above, as appeared in
the agreement which expired March 31, 1970. David Poe
credibly testified and without contradiction that at the meet-
ings between the several breakaway employers and Local 103
the latter's committee said that the "National Joint Board"
had to be included if the employers were to get a contract. Poe
testified further that the several employers saw "no way of
getting a contract without the National Joint Board through
the AGC." Moye testified that in the separate negotiations
the Union said it would have to have article VIII to protect
its work jurisdiction.
There were three meetings of the breakaway employers
with the Union's negotiating comttlittee, two of them in July.
The presidents of four of the breakaway corporations were on
Evansville Chapter's Iron Workers Committee and par-
ticipated, along with at least four other employer representa-
tives, in the 1970 negotiations with the Union on behalf of
Evansville Chapter. The Union's Committee in the breaka-
way negotiations was essentially the same one as the commit-
tee that was negotiating with Evansville Chapter; in both
cases Business Agent Tremper was chief spokesman. One of
the separate negotiation meetings occurred right after the
breakup of one of the sesssions with Evansville Chapter, and
in the same room, in late July.'
When they negotiated and signed the separate agreements
all five of the breakaway corporations were members of
Evansville Chapter and were being negotiated for by Evans-
ville Chapter. At least some of them knew that other mem-
bers of Evansville Chapter's negotiating committee consid-
ered their actions in going-it-alone to be unlawful. And all of
them knew that Randolph Walther, executive director of
Evansville Chapter, was strongly opposed to their actions,
and took the position that they were illegal. During Evans-
ville Chapter's negotiations, Walther met with the entire
membership once a week for 16 weeks, and always took the
position that Evansville Chapter's board of directors consid-
ered that all members were bound by Evansville Chapter's
bylaws to try to negotiate a contract, and they could not
withdraw from the bargaining. Poe Steel Erection, Inc., and
' The Respondents indulged in these breakaway negotiations even
though on March 4, 1970, they had filed with the Federal Mediation and
Conciliation Service a notification, requested by law, that Evansville Chap-
ter was the employer involved in the negotiations in issue in this case.
Respondents never changed this representation to Evansville Chapter or to
the F.M.C.S.
Burch and Lamb, Inc., signed the separate agreement after
the charge herein had been filed and after Walther had writ-
ten them and all members on August 13, 1970:
The Evansville AGC has today filed with the NLRB
additional charges against Local 103 Iron Workers and
the International Iron Workers Union for negotiating
contrary to law, contracts with individual members of
the AGC and ignoring the bargaining rights of the AGC.
Prior to signing these separate agreements none of the five
employers gave any notice or took any step to withdraw from
Evansville Chapter. Nor did Respondents ever notify Evans-
ville Chapter of their intent to withdraw from group bargain-
ing. All five corporations are parties to other agreements
Evansville Chapter negotiated for them with other unions.,
At the separate negotiations both sides accepted all the
clauses previously agreed upon between Evansville Chapter
and the Union's negotiating committee in all the 1970
negotiations since February 11, 1970; and in addition decided
it would be a 3-year contract, and decided upon wages. The
five employers agreed upon higher wage increases than
Evansville Chapter had ever offered the Union's Committee,
but wages were never discussed exhaustively or in depth in
the negotiations between Evansville Chapter and the Union's
Committee.
D. Analysis and Conclusions
The outcome of this case depends upon the Board's deci-
sion in the earlier case , Case 25-CB-973.
If the Board finds in the earlier case that a legitimate
impasse existed at the conclusion of the negotiations covered
by that case, because it arose over one or more mandatory
subjects of collective bargaining; the strike was a lawful
strike; and the Board therefore dismisses that case, then this
case also should be dismissed. The testimony before me
showed that the strike continued during seven more negotia-
tion sessions in July 1970, and that on July 31 another im-
passe occurred over the same issue as was involved in the
earlier case: Respondents' insistence upon the inclusion of the
National Joint Board clause or its equivalent . If the impasse
in the earlier case was a legitimate impasse , then the same is
true of the impasse involved in the present case , the case at
bar. If the strike in the earlier case was a lawful strike, then
the continuation of the strike for the same reasons , involved
herein, was also lawful action . Following a lawful impasse the
Union could lawfully through economic action cause the
fracturing of the multiemployer unit and could lawfully enter
into separate contracts with the employer members of the
multiemployer unit. Therefore if the Board dismisses Case
25-CB-973 under the reasoning set forth in this paragraph,
the complaint in the case at bar should be dismissed.
If on the other hand the Board finds in the earlier case that
a legitimate impasse was not reached in the negotiations cov-
ered by that case because it arose over a nonmandatory sub-
ject of collective bargaining; the strike was an unlawful strike,
and the Board therefore holds there was a violation of the
Act, then I hold that the complaint before me should also be
upheld. If the strike was unlawful at its inception because it
followed an illegitimate impasse over a nonmandatory sub-
ject, then the same is true of the impasse involved in the
present case. In that event the five employers and Respondent
Union were not lawfully free to negotiate and sign separate
agreements and thereby fracture the multiemployer unit.
Therefore if the Board finds a violation in Case 25-CB-973
' Walther testified that what action Evansville Chapter takes against
these five corporations , if any, depends upon the outcome of this case.
984 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
under the reasoning set forth in this paragraph , then I hold
that the complaint in the case at bar should be upheld.
In order to expedite the decision ' in this case I assume,
without deciding , the correctness of Judge Mullin's Decision
and Order in Case 25-CB-973, and hereby issue the-follow-
ing recommended:'
ORDER
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclu-
sions of law , and upon the preponderance of the evidence in
the entire record considered as a whole, I recommend that
Local Union No. 103, International Association of Bridge,
Structural and Ornamental Iron Workers, AFL-CIO, its
officers, representatives , agents, successors , and assigns, and
Respondent Charles Tremper, its business , agent, shall:
1. Cease and desist from: -
(a) Honoring or giving , any effect to the separate agree-
ments entered into in August and November 1970 with Allied
Erection & Conveyor, Inc., Industrial Contractors, Inc., Tri-
State Steel Erection , Inc., Poe Steel Erection , Inc., and Burch
and Lamb, Inc.
(b) Refusing to bargain with Evansville Chapter, Inc., by
negotiating and entering into and/or giving any effect to
separate collective-bargaining agreements with any member
of Evansville Chapter at a time when it is obligated by law
to bargain with Evansville Chapter for all of its members.
(c) In any like or related manner , refusing ',to bargain col-
lectively in good faith with Evansville Chapter.
2. Take the following affirmative action which is necessary
to effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Respondent Local 103 and Respondent Charles
Tremper shall notify Evansville , Chapter in writing that they
will bargain in good faith with Evansville Chapter for all of
the members of Evansville Chapter; and that they will cease
to honor and give any effect to the agreements entered into
in August and November 1970 with Allied Erection and
Conveyor , Inc., Industrial Contractors , Inc., ' Tri-State Steel
Erection , Inc., Poe Steel Erection , Inc., and Burch and Lamb,
Inc., or any other agreement they have negotiated and en-
tered into with any member of Evansville Chapter at a time
when Respondent Local 103 was obligated by law to bargain
with Evansville Chapter for all of its members.
(b) Post in Local 103's offices and meeting places within its
territorial jurisdiction , copies of the notice attached hereto
and marked "A,ppendixB ." 10 Copies of said notice, on forms
provided by the Regional Director for Region 25, after being
duly signed by a representative of Respondent Local 103 and
by Respondent Tremper, shall be posted by them immedi-'
ately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by them for 60
consecutive days thereafter , in conspicuous places, including
all places where notices to members are customarily posted.
Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondents to insure that
said notices are not altered , defaced , or covered by any other
(c) Promptly after receipt of copies of said notice from the
-Regional Director , return to him signed copies for -posting by
Evansville Chapter and by all employer-members of Evans-
ville Chapter, if they are willing, at their places of business,
including all places where notices to employees are cus-
tomarily posted.
(d) Notify the Regional Director for Region 25, in writing,
within 20 days from the date of this Decision , what steps. have
been taken to comply herewith."
it In the event that this recommended Order is adopted by the Board
after exceptions have been filed, notify the Regional Director for Region 25,
in writing , within 20 days from the date of this Order , what steps Respond-
ents have taken to comply herewith
APPENDIX B
NOTICE To MEMBERS
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT honor or give any effect to the collec-
tive-bargaining agreements we entered into in August
and November 1970 with Allied Erection and Conveyor,
Inc., Industrial Contractors, Inc., Tri-State Steel Erec-
tion , Inc., Poe Steel Erection, Inc., and Burch and Lamb,
Inc.
WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain with Associated Gen-
eral Contractors of America, Evansville Chapter, Inc.,
by negotiating and entering into and/or giving any effect
to separate collective-bargaining agreements with any
member of Evansville Chapter at a time when we are
obligated by law to bargain with Evansville Chapter for
all of its members.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner refuse to
bargain collectively in good faith with Evansville Chap-
ter.
LOCAL UNION
No. 103,
INTERNATIONAL
ASSOCIATION
OF BRIDGE,
STRUCTURAL AND
ORNAMENTAL IRON
WORKERS, AFL-CIO,
AND ITS AGENT
CHARLES TREMPER
(Labor Organization)
Dated By
(Representative) (Title)
material . Dated By
' In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec 102.46 of the
Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board , the findings,
conclusions, recommendations , and recommended Order herein shall, as
provided in Sec 102 46 of the Rules and Regulations , be adopted by the
Board and become its findings , conclusions, and order , and all objections
thereto shall be deemed waived for all purposes
t0 In the event that the Board 's Order is enforced by a judgment of a
United States Court of Appeals , the words in the notice reading "Posted by
Order of the National Labor Relations Board " shall be changed to read
"Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals
Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board "
Charles Tremper, Busi-
ness Agent
This is - an official notice and must not be defaced by any-
one.
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days
from the date of posting and must not be altered , defaced, or
covered by any other material.
Any questions concerning this notice or compliance with
its provisions may be directed to the Board's Office, 614 ISTA
Center, 150. West Market Street, Indianapolis, Indiana
46204 , Telephone 317-633-8921.