Raymond Interior Systems

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 30, 2011

357 N.L.R.B. 2044 (N.L.R.B. 2011)

DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
357 NLRB No. 166
2044
Raymond Interior Systems and Southern California
Painters and Allied Trades District Council No.
36, International Union of Painters and Allied
Trades, AFL–CIO

United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of
America, Local Union 1506 and Southern Cali-
fornia Painters and Allied Trades District
Council No. 36, International Union of Painters
and Allied Trades, AFL–CIO and Southwest
Regional Council of Carpenters, United Broth-
erhood of Carpenters And Joiners of America,
Party in Interest. Cases 21–CA–037649 and 21–
CB–014259
December 30, 2011
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN
PART MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
BY CHAIRMAN PEARCE AND MEMBERS BECKER
AND HAYES
On September 30, 2010, the National Labor Relations
Board issued a Decision and Order in this proceeding.1
The Board found, inter alia, that Respondent Raymond
Interior Systems violated Section 8(a)(2) and (3) of the
Act by unlawfully assisting Carpenters Local Union
1506 in obtaining authorization cards from Raymond’s
drywall finishing employees. The Board further found
that Raymond violated Section 8(a)(2) by granting 9(a)
recognition to the Carpenters as the drywall finishing
employees’ representative at a time when the Carpenters
did not represent an uncoerced majority of those employ-
ees; that the Carpenters violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) by
accepting that recognition; and that Raymond and the
Carpenters violated Section 8(a)(3) and (b)(2), respec-
tively, by maintaining and applying the Carpenters Union
2006–2010 master agreement, including its union-
security provision, to the drywall finishing employees at
a time when the Carpenters did not represent an unco-
erced majority of those employees.
On October 27, 2010, Raymond filed a motion for re-
consideration, and the Carpenters filed a notice of Join-
der to that motion. Thereafter, the Acting General Coun-
sel filed an opposition. On June 24, 2011, Raymond
filed a notice of supplemental authority, the Acting Gen-
eral Counsel filed an opposition to the notice, and Charg-
ing Party Painters District Council No. 36 filed a re-
sponse. For the reasons stated below, we grant the Re-

1 355 NLRB 1292. The Decision and Order incorporated by refer-
ence the prior decision reported at 354 NLRB 757 (2009). Member
Hayes did not participate in either of those decisions, but he agrees with
the disposition of the motion here.
spondents’ motion in part, deny it in part, and modify the
Board’s Order accordingly.
Raymond asserts that the Board’s Order is inappropri-
ate insofar as it directs Raymond to provide employees
with alternate benefits coverage equivalent to the cover-
age that its drywall finishing employees possessed under
the Carpenters Union 2006–2010 master agreement.2
We recognize that the Board has not been consistent in
requiring that alternate benefits coverage be provided in
remedying unlawful employer assistance to and recogni-
tion of a union.3 The Board’s most recent decision pre-
senting the issue, however, did not order alternate bene-
fits coverage. See Garner/Morrison, LLC, 356 NLRB
1301 (2011). Consistent with Garner/Morrison, we find
that alternate benefits coverage is not required to effectu-
ate the key proscription in unlawful assistance and
recognition cases: that an employer not recognize a union
as a 9(a) representative of its employees unless and until
an uncoerced majority of employees favors such repre-
sentation. Accordingly, we modify the Board’s Order to
delete the alternate benefits provision,4 and we substitute
a new notice that comports with these modifications.5

2 Par. A,2(c) of the Board’s Order provides: “To the extent that cov-
erage was provided under Carpenters Union plans, provide alternate
benefits coverage equivalent to the coverage that its drywall finishing
employees possessed under the Carpenters Union 2006–2010 master
agreement, including pension coverage and medical, hospitalization,
prescription drug, dental, optical, life, and other insurance benefits, and
ensure that there be no lapse in coverage.” 354 NLRB 757, 758.
3 Compare Brooklyn Hospital Center, 309 NLRB 1163, 1163–1164
(1992), enfd. sub nom. Service Employees Local 144 v. NLRB, 9 F.3d
218 (2d Cir. 1993); Mego Corp., 254 NLRB 300, 301 (1981); Hartz
Mountain Corp., 228 NLRB 492, 493, 562 (1977), enfd. sub nom.
District 65, Distributive Workers of America v. NLRB, 593 F.2d 1155
(D.C. Cir. 1978); with Dairyland USA Corp., 347 NLRB 310, 314
(2006), enfd. sub nom. NLRB v. Food & Commercial Workers Local
348-S, 273 Fed.Appx. 40 (2d Cir. 2008); Co-Op City, 340 NLRB 35, 41
(2003); Windsor Castle Health Care Facilities, 310 NLRB 579, 593–
595 (1993), enfd. as modified 13 F.3d 619 (2d Cir. 1994); Duane
Reade, Inc., 338 NLRB 943, 945 (2003), enfd. 99 Fed.Appx. 240 (D.C.
Cir. 2004).
4 We likewise modify par. A,1(b) of the Board’s Order, consistent
with that in Garner/Morrison, to direct Raymond to cease and desist
from “[m]aintaining, enforcing, or giving effect to the Carpenters Un-
ion 2006–2010 master collective-bargaining agreement, including the
union-security clause, so as to cover its drywall finishing employees, or
any extensions, renewal, or modifications thereof, unless or until Re-
spondent Carpenters Local Union 1506 has been certified by the Board
as the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of those employ-
ees; provided that nothing in this Order shall require any changes in
wages or other terms and conditions of employment that may have been
established pursuant to said agreement.”
5 Contrary to Raymond’s contention, the Board’s Order should not
be interpreted as requiring a Board certification of representative before
Raymond may lawfully recognize the Carpenters (or any other labor
organization) as its employees’ 8(f) collective-bargaining representa-
tive.
RAYMOND INTERIOR SYSTEMS 2045
Raymond also argues that the Board erred in failing to
decide whether the “Confidential Settlement Agreement”
(CSA) reached between Raymond and the Carpenters 3
weeks before the unlawful assistance constituted a valid
8(f) agreement that was not invalidated by Raymond’s
subsequent acts of unlawful assistance. We deny this
aspect of the motion, because a finding that the CSA
constituted a valid 8(f) agreement would not affect our
determination that Raymond, on October 2, 2006, unlaw-
fully recognized the Carpenters as the 9(a) representative
of its drywall finishing employees.
ORDER
The motion for reconsideration is granted in part and
denied in part. Accordingly, the National Labor Rela-
tions Board affirms its original Order as modified below,
and orders that the Respondents, Raymond Interior Sys-
tems, Orange and San Diego, California, its officers,
agents, successors, and assigns; and United Brotherhood
of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local Union 1506,
Los Angeles and Orange, California, its officers, agents,
and representatives, shall take the action set forth in the
Order as modified.
1. Delete paragraph A,2(c) and reletter the subsequent
paragraphs.
2. Substitute the following for paragraph A,1(b).
“(b) Maintaining, enforcing, or giving effect to the
Carpenters Union 2006–2010 master collective-
bargaining agreement, including the union-security
clause, so as to cover its drywall finishing employees, or
any extensions, renewal, or modifications thereof, unless
or until Respondent Carpenters Local Union 1506 has
been certified by the Board as the exclusive collective-
bargaining representative of those employees; provided
that nothing in this Order shall require any changes in
wages or other terms and conditions of employment that
may have been established pursuant to said agreement.”
3. Substitute the attached notices for those in the
Board’s original Decision and Order.
APPENDIX A
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 vio-
lated Federal labor law and has ordered us to post and obey
this notice.
FEDERAL LAW GIVES YOU THE RIGHT TO
Form, join, or assist a union
Choose representatives to bargain with us on
your behalf
Act together with other employees for your bene-
fit and protection
Choose not to engage in any of these protected
activities.

WE WILL NOT recognize and bargain with Southwest
Regional Council of Carpenters on behalf of its affiliated
local unions, including Respondent Carpenters Local
Union 1506, as the 9(a) collective-bargaining representa-
tive of our drywall finishing employees at a time when
those unions do not represent an uncoerced majority of
those employees.
WE WILL NOT maintain, enforce, or give effect to our
Carpenters Union 2006–2010 master collective-bar-
gaining agreement, including the union-security clause,
so as to cover our drywall finishing employees, or any
extensions, renewal, or modifications thereof, unless or
until Respondent Carpenters Local Union 1506 has been
certified by the Board as the exclusive collective-
bargaining representative of those employees; provided
that nothing herein shall require any changes in wages or
other terms and conditions of employment that may have
been established pursuant to said agreement.
WE WILL NOT assist Respondent Carpenters Local Un-
ion 1506 in obtaining authorization cards by warning our
drywall finishing employees that, if they did not sign
with Respondent Carpenters Local Union 1506 that day,
there would be no more work for them.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere
with, restrain, or coerce you in the exercise of the rights
set forth above.
WE WILL withdraw and withhold all recognition from
Respondent Carpenters Local Union 1506 as the collec-
tive-bargaining representative of our drywall finishing
employees unless and until it has been duly certified by
the Board as the collective-bargaining representative of
those employees.
WE WILL and severally with Respondent Carpenters
Local Union 1506, reimburse our past and present dry-
wall finishing employees, who joined Respondent Car-
penters Local Union 1506 on or after October 2, 2006,
for any initiation fees, periodic dues, assessments, or any
other moneys, which they may have paid or which may
have been withheld from their pay pursuant to the Car-
penters Union 2006–2010 master agreement, with inter-
est.

RAYMOND INTERIOR SYSTEMS
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 2046
APPENDIX B
NOTICE TO MEMBERS
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 vio-
lated Federal labor law and has ordered us to post and obey
this notice.
FEDERAL LAW GIVES YOU THE RIGHT TO
Form, join, or assist a union
Choose representatives to bargain on your behalf
with your employer
Act together with other employees for your bene-
fit and protection
Choose not to engage in any of these protected
activities.

WE WILL NOT accept assistance from Respondent
Raymond in obtaining union authorization cards from
Raymond’s drywall finishing employees.
WE WILL NOT accept recognition from Respondent
Raymond as the 9(a) collective-bargaining representative
of our drywall finishing employees at a time when we do
not represent an uncoerced majority of those employees.
WE WILL NOT maintain and enforce the Carpenters Un-
ion 2006–2010 master agreement, including the union-
security clause, so as to cover Respondent Raymond’s
drywall finishing employees, and any extensions, renew-
al, or modifications thereof, unless and until we have
been certified by the Board as the collective-bargaining
representative of those employees.
WE WILL NOT fail to inform Respondent Raymond’s
drywall finishing employees, when we first seek to obli-
gate them to pay dues and fees under a union-security
clause, of their rights under NLRB v. General Motors
Corp., 373 U.S. 734 (1963), to be and remain nonmem-
bers of Respondent Carpenters; and of the rights of non-
members under Communications Workers v. Beck, 487
U.S. 735 (1988), to object to paying for union activities
not germane to the Union’s duties as collective-
bargaining representative, and to obtain a reduction-in-
dues and fees for such activities.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner restrain or
coerce you in the exercise of the rights set forth above.
WE WILL jointly and severally with Respondent Ray-
mond, reimburse all of the latter’s past and present dry-
wall finishing employees, who joined Respondent Car-
penters Local Union 1506 on or after October 2, 2006,
for initiation fees, periodic dues, assessments, or any
other moneys, which they may have paid or which may
have been withheld from their pay pursuant to the Car-
penters Union 2006–2010 master agreement, with inter-
est.
UNITED BROTHERHOOD OF CARPENTERS AND
JOINERS OF AMERICA, LOCAL UNION 1506