A. W. Farrell's & Sons, Inc. a/k/a A. W. Farrell & Son

National Labor Relations Board - Administrative Judge Opinions

Nov 18, 2010

28-CA-022599 (N.L.R.B. Nov. 18, 2010)

JD(SF)-43-10
Las Vegas, NV
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
DIVISION OF JUDGES
A.W. FARRELL & SON, INC.1
and Case 28-CA-22599
SHEET METAL WORKERS’ INTERNATIONAL
ASSOCIATION, AFL-CIO-CLC, LOCAL UNION NO. 88
Pablo Godoy and David Kelly, Attys., for the General Counsel.
Steven W. Suflas and Isaac P. Hernandez, Attys. (Ballard Spahr, LLP), of
Voorhees, New Jersey and Phoenix, Arizona, respectively, for the
Respondent.
Richard G. McCracken, Atty. (McCracken, Stemerman & Holsberry), of Las
Vegas, Nevada, for the Charging Party.
DECISION
I. Statement of the Case
LANA PARKE, Administrative Law Judge. Pursuant to charges filed by Sheet Metal
Workers’ International Association, AFL-CIO-CLC, Local Union No. 88 (Local 88), the Regional
Director of Region 28 of the National Labor Relations Board (the Board) issued a Complaint and
Notice of Hearing (the Complaint) on September 22, 2009.2 The complaint alleges that A.W.
Farrell & Son, Inc. (the Respondent) violated Sections 8(a)(5) and (1) of the National Labor
Relations Act (the Act). This matter was tried in Las Vegas, Nevada on April 8.
II. Issue
Did the Respondent violate Sections 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act by failing and refusing
to furnish the Union with information relevant and necessary to the Union’s
enforcement of provisions of the pertinent collective-bargaining agreement?
III. Jurisdiction
At all material times the Respondent, a New York corporation with its main office in
Dunkirk, New York, has had offices and places of business in various states of the United
States, including a facility located in Las Vegas, Nevada (the Respondent’s Las Vegas facility),
has been engaged in business as a commercial roofing contractor. During the 12-month period

1 Although the Respondent’s name appears in several collective-bargaining agreements as
A.W. Farrell’s & Son, Inc., the evidence reveals the formal name of the Respondent is A.W.
Farrell & Son, Inc.; variations of that name, although clearly designating the Respondent are not
accurate. The accurate formal name is as stated in the caption.
2 All dates herein are 2009 unless otherwise specified.
JD(SF)-43-10
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
2
ending July 13, 2009, the Respondent, in conducting its business operations performed services
valued in excess of $50,000 in States other than the State of Nevada. I find that at all material
times the Respondent has been an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act and that Sheet Metal Workers’ International Association,
AFL-CIO-CLC (SMWIA), and its affiliates, Local 88 and Local Union No. 112 (Local 112), have
been labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
IV. Statement of Facts
On the entire record,3 including my observation of the demeanor of the witnesses,
and after considering the briefs filed by the General Counsel, the Charging Party, and the
Respondent, I find the following events occurred in the circumstances described below during
the period relevant to these proceedings. Unless otherwise explained, findings of fact herein
are based on party admissions, stipulations, and uncontroverted testimony.
A. Collective Bargaining Background
The Respondent and Local 112, which has its office in Jamestown, New York, have
been parties to seriatim collective bargaining agreements for the past 30 to 40 years.4 Of the
Respondent’s agreements with Local 112, the one at issue herein was effective May 1, 2007 to
April 30, 2010 and was entitled “Standard Form of Union Agreement” (the Local 112 Standard
Form Agreement or Standard Form Agreement). The terms of the Standard Form Agreement
were the product of negotiations between the SWMIA International and the Sheet Metal and Air
Conditioning Contractors National Association (SMACNA). The Local 112 Standard Form
Agreement was negotiated by Local 112 and the Sheet Metal, Roofing, Ventilating and Air
Conditioning Contracting Divisions of the Construction Industry and entered into by signatory
business establishments individually, whether represented by a contractor association or not.
Local 112 entered into the Standard Form Agreement as an affiliate of SMWIA, which was
referred to within the Local 112 Standard Form Agreement as “the Union.”5 Local 88 is also an
affiliate of SMWIA. The Respondent is not and never has been signatory to any agreement with
Local 88.
Article I of the Local 112 Standard Form Agreement sets forth the unit of employees
covered by the terms of the agreement (Article I work or the Unit):
This Agreement covers the rates of pay and conditions of employment of all employees
of [the signatory employer] engaged in but not limited to the: (a) manufacture,

3 The Respondent made an offer of proof as to the proposed testimony of William Farrell,
President of the Respondent, which I rejected as not material to the issues herein. Pursuant to
stipulation of the parties, the July 1, 2006—June 30, 2010 Standard Form of Union Agreement
between Local 88 and SMACNA of Southern Nevada, Inc. is hereby received as General
Counsel’s Exhibit No. 16. The Order To Produce Written Offer Of Proof, dated June 29, 2010,
the Respondent’s Offer of Proof Regarding the Materiality of J. William Farrell’s Testimony to
the Disposition of this Case, dated August 5, 2010, and the Order Rejecting Offer of Proof,
Closing Hearing, and Setting Date of Briefs are received as Administrative Law Judge Exhibits,
Nos. 1, 2, and 3, respectively.
4 The Respondent has collective bargaining agreements with several other local union
affiliates of SMWIA across the United States.
5 While the wording to the introductory paragraph of the Standard Form Agreement is not
entirely clear, it is reasonable to infer that the designation “union” refers to the SMWIA as well
as to Local 112.
JD(SF)-43-10
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
3
fabrication, assembling, handling, erection, installation, dismantling, conditioning,
adjustment, alteration, repairing and servicing of all ferrous or nonferrous metal work and
all other materials used in lieu thereof and of all HVAC systems, air-veyor systems,
exhaust systems, and air-handling systems regardless of material used including the
setting of all equipment and all reinforcements in connection therewith; (b) all lagging
over insulation and all duct lining; (c) testing and balancing of all air-handling equipment
and duct work; (d) the preparation of all shop and field sketches whether manually drawn
or computer assisted used in fabrication and erection, including those taken from original
architectural and engineering drawings or sketches; (e) metal roofing; and (f) all other
work included in the jurisdiction claims of Sheet Metal Workers’ International
Association.
Article VIII, Sections 5 and 6 of the Local 112 Standard Form Agreement (the Two-Man
Travel Rule) provides:
Section 5. Except as provided in Sections 2 and 6 of this Article, the Employer agrees
that journeymen sheet metal workers hired outside of the territorial jurisdiction of this
Agreement shall receive the wage scale and working conditions of the local Agreement
covering the territory in which such work is performed or supervised.
Section 6. When the Employer has any work specified in Article 1 of this Agreement to
be performed outside the area covered by this Agreement and within the area covered
by another agreement with another union affiliated with the Sheet Metal Worker’s
International Association, and qualified sheet metal workers are available in such area,
the Employer may send no more than two (2) sheet metal workers per job into such area
to perform any work which the Employer deems necessary, both of whom shall be from
the Employer’s home jurisdiction. All additional sheet metal workers shall come from the
area in which the work is to be performed. Journeymen sheet metal workers covered by
this Agreement who are sent outside of the area covered by this Agreement shall be
paid at least the established minimum wage scale specified in Section 1 of this Article
but in no case less than the established wage scale of the local Agreement covering the
territory in which such work is performed or supervised, plus all necessary
transportation, travel time, board and expenses while employed in that area, and the
Employer shall be otherwise governed by the established working conditions of the local
Agreement. If employees are sent into the area where there is no local Agreement of
the Sheet Metal Workers’ International Association covering the area then the minimum
conditions of the home local union shall apply.
The Respondent understood the Two-Man Travel Rule to mean that two employees of
an employer signatory to the Agreement could travel to another local’s jurisdiction to perform
Article I work for their employer. Additional employees required for such work would have to be
obtained through the auspices of the local union in whose jurisdiction the work was performed.
Article X of the Local 112 Standard Form Agreement provided a grievance procedure
applicable to parties to the Agreement, which, in pertinent part, stated:
Section 1. Grievances of the Employer or [Local 112/SMWIA], arising out of
interpretation or enforcement of this Agreement, shall be settled between the Employer
directly involved and the duly authorized representative of [Local 112/SMWIA], if
possible. Both parties may participate in conferences through representatives of their
choice.
JD(SF)-43-10
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
4
Section 2. Grievances…may be appealed by either party to the Local Joint Adjustment
Board where the work was performed or in the jurisdiction of the employer’s home local.
Section 6. In the event of noncompliance with [the decision of a Local Joint Adjustment
Board], a local party may endorse the award by any means including proceedings in a
court of competent jurisdiction in accord with applicable state and federal law. If the
party seeking to enforce the award prevails in litigation, such party shall be entitled to its
costs and attorney’s fees…
Local 88 has jurisdiction over Article I work performed in Las Vegas and Henderson,
Nevada. The Respondent understood that if it performed Article I work in those areas the Two-
Man Travel Rule applied, and it was required to hire through Local 88 all employees in
classifications described in the Unit beyond the contractually permitted two.
Local 88, as an affiliate of SMWIA, was signatory to a collective bargaining agreement
entitled the Standard Form of Union Agreement and Addenda thereto with SMACNA of
Southern Nevada, Inc. (the Local 88 Standard Form Agreement) for the relevant term of July 1,
2006 – June 30, 2010. Article I of the Local 88 Standard Form Agreement (the unit description)
is identical to Article I of the Local 112 Standard Form Agreement. Article X of the Local 88
Standard Form Agreement provides for a grievance procedure like that of the Local 112
Standard Form Agreement, which may culminate in seriatim appeals to a Local Joint
Adjustment Board and to the National Joint Adjustment Board.
B. Local 88’s Grievance and Request for Information
Commencing about April 23, the Respondent performed work at the Henderson Aquatic
and Recreation Center jobsite in Henderson, Nevada and at a jobsite at Carey Los Felis High
School, both of which were within the jurisdiction of Local 88. Representatives of Local 88
visited the jobsites and observed work performed that they considered to be encompassed in
Local 88’s jurisdiction. The attendant workers appeared to utilize vehicles bearing the lettering:
A.W. Farrell Roofing Local 162 as well as the website address www.roofusa.com. Thereafter,
Local 88 representatives investigated the corporate and collective-bargaining circumstances of
the Respondent and any related companies.6
By letter dated May 22, Local 88 filed a written grievance (the Grievance) with the
Respondent alleging violations of the Local 88 Standard Form Agreement by the following
conduct:
By not assigning work to our members covered by Article I Section 1 of [the Local 88
Standard Form Agreement], A W Farrell and Son Inc. and A W Farrell and Son Inc. DBA
Progressive Services Inc. and also DBA RoofUSA NV L.L.C. have violated…provisions
[specified thereafter] of our Collective Bargaining Agreement.
On June 3, when the Respondent and Local 88 were unable to settle the Grievance,
Local 88 filed an appeal with the Local Joint Adjustment Board for the Sheet Metal Industry
(LJAB).

6 It is unnecessary to relate the methodology or details of Local 88’s investigation, as the
Respondent has stipulated that if the General Counsel proves the Respondent had an obligation
to provide the information Local 88 later sought, the Respondent would admit that Local 88 had
a reasonable basis to request the information.
JD(SF)-43-10
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
5
On June 4, Local 88 in writing requested certain information from the Respondent,
stating (the June 4 Information Request):
Sheet Metal Workers Local Union No. 88 has reason to believe that alter ego
relationships exist among A.W. Farrell & Son, Inc, Progressive Services, Inc. and Roof
USA. The Local has reliable information that the metal roofing and siding work being
performed at the Heritage Park Senior and Aquatic Facility in Henderson, Nevada is
covered by the collective bargaining agreement between A.W. Farrell & Son and the
Sheet Metal Workers. Consequently the Local needs the following information to verify
or put to rest the nature of the relationship among A.W. Farrell & Son, Progressive
Services, Inc. and Roof USA.
…
[Local 88] believes that this requested information is valid and relevant to the grievance
filed May 22nd.
The June 4 Information Request sought 40 separate items of information including details of the
supervisorial, managerial, directorial, and ownership composition of each of A.W. Farrell & Son,
Inc, Progressive Services, Inc. and Roof USA, their connections and interactions in the following
areas: contractual obligations, day to day operations, inter-financial matters, inter-indebtedness,
equipment ownership and usage, Nevada job bid and job performance, legal representation,
advertising, employment. The June 4 Information Request also sought the details of employee
benefit plans, details of membership in employer associations, inter-discussion of business
matters, and copies of all documents referring to the formation, business direction and/or
function of any of the three companies.
By letter dated June 12, Steven W. Suflas (Mr. Suflas), counsel for the Respondent, on
behalf of A. W. Farrell & Sons, Inc., Progressive Roofing, Inc. and Roof USA, LLC., informed
Mr. Brooks, in pertinent part, as follows:
First and foremost, neither A. W. Farrell & Sons, Inc., Progressive Roofing, Inc. nor Roof
USA, LLC has ever been signatory to a collective bargaining agreement with [Local 88].
As a result, none of these companies is under any obligation to submit to the grievance
and arbitration procedures set out in Article X of Local 88’s collective-bargaining
agreement with the SMACNA of Southern Nevada, Inc.
Similarly, neither A. W. Farrell & Sons, Inc., Progressive Roofing, Inc. nor Roof USA,
LLC is under any other contractual obligation that would bind any of them to the Local 88
collective-bargaining agreement.
As a result, A. W. Farrell & Sons, Inc., Progressive Roofing, Inc. nor Roof USA, LLC are
under no legal duty to submit to the grievance and arbitration provisions of the Local 88
contract.
By letter dated June 19, Mr. Suflas informed Local 88 that the Respondent was under no
legal obligation to provide Local 88 with the information requested in the June 4 Information
Request. The Respondent did not, thereafter, provide Local 88 with any of the information
sought.
By letter to SMACNA dated June 22, Mr. Suflas requested a postponement of the
pending LJAB hearing, noting, “By writing this letter, AW Farrell & Son is no way conceding that
the LJAB has jurisdiction over any alleged dispute which it may have with Local 88, nor is it
conceding that it owes any contractual obligations whatsoever to Local 88.”
JD(SF)-43-10
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
6
On September 23 and October 6, LJAB met to consider the Grievance and thereafter, on
October 26, rendered a decision finding that the Respondent had violated various sections of
the Agreement and assessing monetary damages. The Respondent appealed the LJAB
decision.
V. DISCUSSION
Under Section 8(a)(5) and (8(d) of the Act, an employer must furnish a union with
requested relevant information to enable it to represent employees effectively in
administering and policing an existing collective-bargaining agreement. NLRB v. Acme
Industrial Co., 385 U.S. 4232, 435-436 (1967), A-Plus Roofing, Inc., 295 NLRB 967, 970
(1989) enfd. NLRB v. A-Plus Roofing, Inc., 39 F. 3d 1410 (9th Cir. 1994). The
Respondent has stipulated that if the General Counsel proves the Respondent had an
obligation to provide the information sought in the June 4 Information Request, the
Respondent would admit that Local 88 had a reasonable basis to request the
information, i.e., that the information was relevant.7 It follows that the pivotal issue herein
is whether the Respondent had a bargaining obligation to furnish Local 88 with its
requested information.
The General Counsel presents two specific arguments as to why the Respondent’s
refusal to provide the information requested by Local 88 violates Section 8(a)(5): (1) the
language of the Respondent’s collective bargaining agreements grants non-signatory local
unions 8(f) representational status whenever the Respondent does business within the
jurisdiction of a non-signatory local union affiliate;8 (2) preclusion of non-signatory local unions
from enforcing the extraterritorial clause runs counter to public policy. Although not specifically
cited as an issue, Counsel for the General Counsel also argues that that a non-signatory local
union has the right to request information from an employer doing business within its jurisdiction
when the non-signatory local union is acting as an agent of the signatory local union.
The General Counsel provides no authority for its proposition that simply by entering into
a standard form agreement with Local 112, the Respondent agreed to 8(f) recognition of all local
union affiliates in whose jurisdiction the Respondent might conduct unit work.9 It is true that the
Local 112 Standard Form Agreement bound the Respondent to terms and conditions of non-
signatory union bargaining agreements as to employees hired outside the territorial jurisdiction
of the Local 112 Standard Form Agreement. That fact alone cannot justify an inference that the
Respondent thereby intended to recognize each extra-territorial union in whose jurisdiction it did
business, and there is nothing in the contractual language of the Local 112 Standard Form
Agreement that shows recognitional intent toward any non-signatory union. I cannot agree,
therefore, with the General Counsel’s assertion that “Local 88 enjoys Section 8(f)
representational status, attained by virtue of the [Local 112 Standard Form Agreement],
including the extra-territoriality clause.”

7 In light of this stipulation, it is unnecessary to determine if the Information sought
was presumptively relevant or if Local 88 had to demonstrate its relevance.
8 The Charging Party also argues that the Standard Form Agreement “creates what is in
essence a national bargaining unit,” giving local unions such as Local 88 the status of 8( f)
representatives, entitled to request information about employers working in their respective
jurisdictions.
9 That the Respondent could lawfully do so under Section 8(f) does not permit an inference
that it did.
JD(SF)-43-10
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
7
It is clear that the Local 112 Standard Form Agreement extended certain direct and
indirect benefits to unit employees represented by local unions in visited areas that were
affiliated with SMWIA--in this case, Local 88. Local 88 has jurisdiction over Article I work
performed, inter alia, in Las Vegas and Henderson, Nevada. The language of the Two-Man
Travel Rule is clear that when the Respondent performed Article I work in Local 88’s jurisdiction,
it was required to hire through Local 88 all employees beyond the contractually-permitted two.
Local 88-represented unit employees are consequently third party beneficiaries of the Local 112
Standard Form Agreement’s contractual provisions. However, third-party-beneficiary status
does not confer statutory-bargaining standing on Local 88 so as to entitle Local 88 to the
requested information in furtherance of a grievance against the Respondent for violation of the
Two-Man Travel Rule.10
The critical question is whether Local 88’s status goes beyond that of a third-party
beneficiary of the Local 112 Standard Form Agreement to include representational authorization
from Local 112 and/or SMWIA sufficient to empower Local 88 to pursue grievances against the
Respondent with the attendant rights thereto. No evidence was presented that Local 112 or
SMWIA explicitly authorized Local 88 to pursue grievances under the Local 112 Standard Form
Agreement. Any valid authorization must, therefore, be inferred from the terms of the Local 112
Standard Form Agreement.
Article X of the Local 112 Standard Form Agreement provided a grievance procedure
applicable to parties to the agreement, which, in pertinent part, stated:
Section 1. Grievances of the Employer or [Local 112/SMWIA], arising out of
interpretation or enforcement of this Agreement, shall be settled between the Employer
directly involved and the duly authorized representative of [Local 112/SMWIA], if
possible. Both parties may participate in conferences through representatives of their
choice.
Section 2. Grievances…may be appealed by either party to the Local Joint Adjustment
Board where the work was performed or in the jurisdiction of the employer’s home
local…The local Employers’ Association, on its own initiative, may submit grievances for
determination…
Section 6. In the event of noncompliance with [the decision of a Local Joint Adjustment
Board], a local party may endorse the award by any means including proceedings in a
court of competent jurisdiction in accord with applicable state and federal law. If the
party seeking to enforce the award prevails in litigation, such party shall be entitled to its
costs and attorney’s fees…
Section 1 under Article X permitted Local 112/SMWIA or its “duly authorized
representative” to pursue a grievance initially. Nothing in Section 1 or 2 specifically designated
any union other than Local 112/SMWIA to frame a grievance, but Section 2 provided that
grievances unresolved at the first step could be appealed by either party (i.e. a signatory
employer or Local 112/SMWIA’s “duly authorized representative”) to the LJAB in the area in
which the work was performed. It is reasonable to infer that Section 2 contemplated, at the very
least, the active involvement of a local affiliate of SMWIA in appealing a grievance to the joint
adjustment board of its work locality, and that the term “party” in Section 2 included the local
affiliate whose contractual interests in the Short Form Agreement had been arguably affected.

10 See Howell Insulation Company, Inc., 311 NLRB 1355 (1993), discussed below.
JD(SF)-43-10
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
8
The language of Section 6 was more expansive than the preceding sections. Once a
decision of a LJAB had been rendered, “a local party,” which reasonably would include a local
union affiliate of SMWIA, might seek to force compliance with the LJAB award. The authority to
force compliance suggests a contractually sanctioned local-affiliate-interest in the grievance
process as a whole, and the unambiguous overall import of Article X’s grievance language is
that any duly authorized representative of Local 112/SMWIA was authorized to initiate
grievances under the Local 112 Standard Form Agreement. The question is whether Local 88
was a duly authorized representative of Local 112/SMWIA when it sought the information at
issue.11
The Respondent contends that the Board's decision in Howell Insulation Company, Inc.,
311 NLRB 1355 (1993) is the controlling law regarding the disputed issue in this case and
establishes that Local 88 was not and could not have been a statutory bargaining agent for the
Respondent’s employees during the relevant time period without the specific authorization of
Local 112. In Howell an Alabama employer entered into a collective-bargaining agreement with
an Alabama local affiliate of an international union. The agreement included an extra-territoriality
clause, which provided that the employer would abide by other locals' area agreements when it
undertook projects in their jurisdictions. When a non-union company closely associated with the
employer took a job in Tennessee, the Tennessee local filed a grievance, claiming the non-
union company was substantially the same employer as the Alabama employer and bound by
the extra-territoriality clause. The Board held that although the Tennessee local was a third-
party beneficiary of the agreement, it was not statutorily empowered to file a grievance under
the Alabama local’s agreement. Following Howell’s reasoning, if Local 88 is only a third-party
beneficiary of the Agreement, it does not have standing to request information from the
Respondent for the purpose of pursuing a grievance under the terms of the Local 112 Standard
Form Agreement.
The Two-Man Travel Rule of the Local 112 Standard Form Agreement provides that
when a signatory employer exceeds the two-man travel employee limitation in a visited locale
and hires local workers, the employer shall be “governed by the established working conditions”
of the applicable local collective-bargaining agreement as to those workers. The contractual
provision at issue in Howell is remarkably similar to the Two-Man Travel Rule. Under the
Howell collective bargaining agreement, the signatory employer agreed that “on all operations
outside the chartered territory of the Union he will abide by the rates of pay, rules, and working
conditions established by the collective-bargaining agreement between the local insulation
contractors and the local Union in that jurisdiction.” Instructed by the Board’s view in Howell, it
is clear that the language of the Two-Man Travel Rule did not confer statutory representational
authority upon Local 88 for enforcement of the Local 112 Standard Form Agreement.
The Howell decision is not, however, the only Board opinion relevant to these issues. In
Advanced Construction Services, Inc., 330 NLRB 365, enfd. 247 F. 3d 807 (8th Cir. 2001), the
Board, in factual circumstances similar to the instant case, rejected the employer’s contention
that it had no duty to supply to information to a local union. The Board noted the employer
was signatory to collective-bargaining agreements with an international union, of which the local
union was an affiliate, that required the employer to adhere to the terms and conditions of
employment established by 'bona fide local area agreements.' The Board found the international

11 The Respondent mistakenly asserts that the General Counsel must prove the
Respondent and Local 112 intended that the Respondent be bound by the entire collective
bargaining agreements of non-signatory local unions. The General Counsel need only show
that the Local 112 Short Form Agreement authorized affected extra-territorial locals to pursue
grievances relevant to their beneficiary rights under the Short Form Agreement.
JD(SF)-43-10
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
9
agreements obligated the employer to supply the local union with requested information relevant
and necessary to police its local area agreement. In enforcing the Board’s decision in
Advanced, the Eighth Circuit distinguished Howell, pointing out that the local union was more
than a third-party beneficiary, as it had an obligation to maintain a hiring hall, which the
employer could access, and was empowered to initially settle disputes or grievances arising
under the terms of the agreement. 247 F. 3d 807, at 811. See also Boden Store Fixtures, Inc.,
342 NLRB 699 (2004) (agreement with national union, which obligated employer to comply with
the terms of local agreements where it did business, including grievance procedure, constituted
effective delegation of authority to local union to enforce the local agreement); Jervis B. Webb
Co., 302 NLRB 316 (1991) where a standard international agreement "incorporated by
reference the terms and conditions of local union agreements when a signatory employer was
performing work within the respective territorial jurisdictions of the local unions," the “contractual
relationship between [the employer] and the [local union] was defined by both the Standard
International Agreement and the applicable local union agreement." Supra, at 318.
Viewing the terms of the Standard Short Form Agreement as a whole, I find that the
agreement implicitly designated Local 88, a local affiliate of SMWIA, as an authorized
representative of Local 112/SMWIA to insure compliance with those provisions relating to work
performed in Local 88’s jurisdiction. It logically follows that if Local 88 was empowered, as an
authorized representative of Local 112/SMWIA, to pursue grievances about alleged breach of
such provisions, it was also empowered to seek information relating to the grievances.
Accordingly, the Respondent violated Sections 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act by failing and refusing
to furnish Local 88 with information relevant and necessary to the enforcement of the
extraterritorial jurisdiction provisions of the Standard Form Agreement.12
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2),
(6), and (7) of the Act.
2. Sheet Metal Workers’ International Association, AFL-CIO-CLC, Local Union No. 88 is a labor
organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. The Respondent has violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act as set forth herein.
THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has violated and is violating Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act
I recommend that it be required to cease and desist therefrom and from in any other like or
related manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of their
rights under Section 7 of the Act. I shall also recommend the posting of an appropriate notice,
attached hereto as "Appendix."13

12 In light of these findings, it is unnecessary to consider the General Counsel’s public policy
argument.
13 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(SF)-43-10
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
10
ORDER
The Respondent, A.W. Farrell & Son, Inc., its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Failing and refusing to provide Sheet Metal Workers’ International Association, AFL-CIO-
CLC, Local Union No. 88 with the information requested in Local 88’s June 4, 2009 written
request for information.
(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 which is necessary to effectuate the purposes of the Act:
(a) Within 21 days after receipt of this decision furnish Sheet Metal Workers’ International
Association, AFL-CIO-CLC, Local Union No. 88 with the information requested by it in its
June 4, 2009 request for information.
(b) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at its facility copies of the attached
notice marked "Appendix."14 Copies of the notice, on forms provided by the Regional
Director for Region 28, after being duly signed by Respondent's representative, shall be
posted immediately upon receipt thereof, and shall remain posted by Respondent for 60
consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to
employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to
ensure that the notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(c) Within 21 days after service by the Regional Office, file with the Regional Director a
sworn certification of a responsible official on a form provided by the Region attesting to the
steps that the Respondent has taken to comply.
Dated: November 18, 2010
Lana H. Parke
Administrative Law Judge

14 If this 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 read "Posted
Pursuant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the
National Labor Relations Board."
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 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 benefit and protection
Choose not to engage in any of these protected activities
WE WILL NOT refuse to give requested information to Sheet Metal Workers’ International
Association, AFL-CIO-CLC, Local Union No. 88.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the
exercise of the foregoing rights guaranteed under Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL promptly furnish the information requested on June 4, 2009 to the Sheet Metal
Workers’ International Association, AFL-CIO-CLC, Local Union No. 88.
A.W. FARRELL & SON, INC.
(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.
2600 North Central Avenue, Suite 1800
Phoenix, Arizona 85004-3099
Hours: 8:15 a.m. to 4:45 p.m.
602-640-2160.
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, 602-640-2146.