LOCAL 420, TEAMSTERS
Building Material & Dump Truck Drivers Local
420, International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of
America and Standard Concrete Material, Inc.
Case 21-CB-6647
March 12, 1982
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS FANNING, JENKINS, AND
ZIMMERMAN
On February 11, 1980, Administrative Law
Judge Peter E. Donnelly issued the attached Deci-
sion in this proceeding. Thereafter, the Respondent
filed exceptions and a supporting brief, and the
Charging Party filed an answering brief.
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 at-
tached Decision in light of the exceptions and
briefs and has decided to affirm the rulings, find-
ings,' and conclusions of the Administrative Law
Judge and to adopt his recommended Order, as
modified herein. 2
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Re-
lations Board adopts as its Order the recommended
Order of the Administrative Law Judge, as modi-
fied below, and hereby orders that the Respondent,
Building Material & Dump Truck Drivers Local
420, International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of Amer-
ica, South El Monte, California, its officers, agents,
and representatives, shall take the action set forth
in the said recommended Order, as so modified:
1. Substitute the following as paragraph l(b):
"(b) Restraining and coercing employees of
Standard Concrete Material, Inc., by sending let-
ters to said employees advising them that they had
been suspended from membership in Respondent
for nonpayment of dues; that they were required to
pay a reinitiation fee; and that failure to pay such
reinitiation fee would result in removal from their
jobs; all at a time when Respondent did not repre-
' In the firstl paragraph of sec III, A, 2, of the Administratise I as
Judge's Declslln entitled "Action hv Joint Council 42 and Local 420,.
the second phrase of Ihe first sentence should read: "that all grievance,
concerning the emnploeces were handled by Local 235 and no other
Teamsters local
' We has.e mlodlfied para l(h) Ifo Ihe recommended ()rder h, di ldllng
it into two paragraphs I(h) and l(d), respectisel,, the former enillinilg
the specifi l coniduct of the Res pondienl foiund unlass ful, and the latter en-
joining the Respondent froenl CIgaging in unlaful conIdut mn "alla or
like related manner"
sent a majority of said employees and said employ-
ees were under no statutory obligation to join Re-
spondent."
2. Insert the following as paragraph l(d):
"In any like or related manner restraining or co-
ercing employees in the exercise of the rights guar-
anteed them under Section 7 of the Act."
2. Substitute the attached notice for that of the
Administrative Law Judge.
APPENDIX
NOTICE To MEMBERS AND EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT restrain or coerce employees
of Standard Concrete Material, Inc., by send-
ing letters to said employees notifying them
that their union membership has been trans-
ferred from Local 235 to Local 420 and that
they are obligated to pay dues to Local 420 at
a time when Local 420 does not represent a
majority of the employees and they are under
no statutory obligation to join Local 420.
WE WILl. NOT restrain or coerce employees
of Standard Concrete Material, Inc., by send-
ing letters to said employees advising them
that they have been suspended from member-
ship in Local 420 for nonpayment of dues; that
they are required to pay a reinitiation fee; and
that failure to pay such reinitiation fee will
result in removal from their jobs; all at a time
when Local 420 does not represent a majority
of said employees and said employees are
under no statutory obligation to join Local
420.
WE WILL NOT attempt to cause Standard
Concrete Material, Inc., to discharge employ-
ees for nonpayment of dues at a time when
Local 420 does not represent the majority of
said employees and said employees are under
no statutory obligation to pay such dues to
Local 420.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner
restrain or coerce employees in the exercise of
the rights guaranteed them under Section 7 of
the Act.
BUILDING MATERIAL & DUMP
TRUCK DRIVERS LOCAL 420, INTER-
NATIONAI BROTHERHOOD OF TEAM-
SIERS, CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSE-
MEN AND HELPERS OF AMERICA
260 NLRB No. 115
899
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
PETER E. DONNELL.Y, Administrative Law Judge: The
charge herein was filed by Standard Concrete Material,
Inc., herein called the Employer, Standard, or the
Charging Party, on September 21, 1978. An amended
charge was filed on October 12, 1978. A complaint
thereon was issued on December 21, 1978, alleging that
Building Material & Dump Truck Drivers Local 420, In-
ternational Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Ware-
housemen and Helpers of America, herein called Re-
spondent or Local 420, had violated Section 8(b)(1)(A)
and (2) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amend-
ed. An amended complaint was issued on March 19,
1979, alleging additional violations of Section 8(b)(1)(A)
and (2) of the Act. Answers were timely filed to both
complaints. Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held before
me at Los Angeles, California, on April 5 and 6, 1979.
Briefs have been timely filed by the General Counsel,
Respondent, and the Charging Party which have been
duly considered.
FINDINGS o0 FACT
I. THE EMPLOYER'S BUSINESS
The Employer is a California corporation engaged in
the manufacture and transportation of cement and rock
products in southern California. The Employer during
the past 12 months received goods and products valued
in excess of $50,000 directly from suppliers located out-
side the State of California. The complaint alleges, the
answer admits, and I find that the Employer is an em-
ployer engaged in commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION
The complaint alleges, the answer admits, and I find
that Respondent and General Truck Drivers, Local 235,
International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen and Helpers of America, herein called
Local 235, are labor organizations within the meaning of
Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. rHE AL.LEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Facts
I. Background and contract negotiations
Since at least 1971 Standard and several other employ-
ers have comprised a group known as the Rock Products
and Ready Mix Concrete Employers of Southern Cali-
fornia and have been party to contracts with several
Teamsters locals in the southern California area. The
most recent contract, entered into on September 1, 1977.
is effective through March 31, 1980, covering the some
34 employers listed in the contract and 7 Teamsters
locals; namely, Locals 420, 982, 88, 235, 495, 692, and
871. These contracts have been negotiated by committees
representing the employers and the unions. Members of
the employer committee are designated by the employ-
ers. The union committee members are designated by the
various local unions, one from each local union. The em-
ployers meet to formulate proposals which are the basis
for the proposals made by the employer committee to
the union committee during contract negotiations. Like-
wise, the several unions have prenegotiation meetings
and formulate one set of proposals to be made to the
management committee. The contracts are negotiated by
the committees. The management committee has the au-
thority to execute the negotiated contract on behalf of
the employers. The union membership, however, must
ratify the contract negotiated by the union committee.
All the contracts' negotiated since 1971 have included
the same "Preamble" and recognition language which
appear in the current 1977 to 1980 agreement. The pre-
amble reads:
1977-1980 AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into
This First Day of September, 1977 by and between
the ROCK PRODUCTS AND READY MIXED
CONCRETE EMPLOYERS OF CONCRETE
EMPLOYERS OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
signatory hereto, respectively, hereinafter referred
to as "The Employer," as separate parties, and
LOCALS 420, 692, 495, 88, 982, 235 and 871 of the
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF
TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSE-
MEN & HELPERS OF AMERICA, hereinafter re-
ferred to as "The Union" or as "the applicable local
Union."
The relevant recognition language reads:
Article I
RECOGNITION-UNION SHOP
Section 1. Recognition of the Union: The Em-
ployer recognizes the Union as the exclusive repre-
sentative for the purposes of collective bargaining
in respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employ-
ment, or other conditions of employment for all em-
ployees in the bargaining unit, consisting of those
classifications set forth in Article IV, Section I and
excluding all employees properly covered by other
bargaining units, office clerical employees, technical
and professional employees, guards, watchmen and
supervisors as defined in the National Labor Rela-
tions Act as amended. As used in this Agreement,
the term "employee" refers only to the employees
in the bargaining unit unless the context clearly re-
quires a broader interpretation.
As to the matter of the geographical jurisdictions of
the individual locals, the contract reads, in pertinent part:
' Ther cllecti',e-hargaining agreements are known as, and referred to
herein as. Hlue Book agreermenls
900
l.()CAI. 420. IEAMSTERS
Article XII
JURISDICTION OF LOCAL UNIONS
Section I. Geographic Areas. The Union agrees
to furnish the Employers with a map and descrip-
tion clearly defining the geographical areas of the
respective local Unions parties to this Agreement.
It is undisputed that, since 1971, several of the employ-
ers, on an individual basis, have executed contracts with
individual unions having the effect of removing certain
unit employees from the coverage of the Blue Book. The
Standard vice president and general manager, David
Horowitz, testified, without contradiction. that in Febru-
ary 1977 Standard and Local 235 negotiated, and subse-
quently executed, a contract titled "For-Hire Material
Haulers Agreement" between a newly established com-
pany headed by Horowitz, called Humble Transport Co.,
which had the effect of removing the rock and sand
trucks and drivers previously covered by the Blue Book
with Standard into coverage under the "For-Hire"
agreement. 2
Other such agreements were negotiated between
Arthur K. Battle, manager of industrial relations for
Conrock Co., on behalf of Reliance Transport Co., a
wholly owned subsidiary of Conrock, with Locals 235
and Respondent. These were "For-Hire Cement Haul"
agreements. The effect of these agreements was to
remove work previously performed by Conrock employ-
ees under the Blue Book to separate coverage under the
"For-Hire" agreements.
In another transaction Steve Gibson, vice president
and general manager of G & E Ready Mix Concrete
Co., testified that in 1974 he negotiated for G & E with
Local 692 for a "For-Hire Cement Haul" agreement
with CPL Trucking Company, a separate corporation set
up by G & E to haul cement. This agreement had the
effect of removing the cement haul work from the cov-
erage of the Blue Book with G & E into a separate more
favorable "For-Hire" agreement with CPL.
Also in August 1975, the rock and sand trucks which
had been operating under the Blue Book with G & E
employees were, by agreement with Local 692, trans-
ferred to a newly established corporation called Gibson
Material Corporation and covered by a "For-Hire Mate-
rial Haul" agreement. Two drivers were allowed to
remain under the Blue Book coverage, but their wages
were "red lined," or frozen at the existing Blue Book
rate.
In another like arrangement, testified to by John
Young, vice president for Transit Mix Concrete Compa-
ny, 17 sand and rock drivers, employees represented by
Local 235, were removed from the coverage of the Blue
Book. This agreement, dated February 1, 1978, was ne-
gotiated between Young and representatives of Local
235 and had the effect of removing 17 truckdrivers from
coverage under the Blue Book as Transit Mix employees
into a separate "For-Hire Material Haul" agreement with
Western Aggregate Transportation Company, a newly
2 These "For-Hire" agreements prov ide Iower wage rates thus enabling
employees to remain competitive wioth olher employees swhose emploees
are not covered by the Blue Book
formed, wholly owned subsidiary of Transit Mix. Some
26 rock and sand trucks continued to operate under the
Blue Book as a part of the Transit Mix operation
Focusing now on the negotiations leading to the cur-
rent contract, it appears that termination notices were
sent by the individual local unions to the employers who
employed their members In the case of Standard. notice
was received by letter dated June 17, 1977, from Kelly
Drake, secretary-treasurer of Local 235, stating:
In accordance with the provisions of our existing
Labor Agreement. this is our official notice that we
hereby terminate said Agreement as of August 31,
1977.
We would like to meet with you for the purpose
of negotiating a new Agreement to become effec-
tive 8-31-77.
Please contact the undersigned so that a time and
place can be arranged.
The chairman of the employer negotiating committee
was Battle and the chairman for the union negotiating
committee was H. J. Sperling of Joint Council No. 42,
representing the seven local unions.3 There followed a
series of negotiating sessions leading to the execution of
the current contract. At the second negotiating session
on July 27, 1977, Battle proposed changes in the pream-
ble and article I of the contract to substitute the follow-
ing language for the above-quoted existing language:
Preamble: Change to read as follows:
"This Agreement is made and entered into this
first day of September, 1977, by and between the
Rock Products and Ready-Mixed Concrete En-
ployers of Southern California, an industry group
acting through its Employers' Negotiating
Committee for and on behalf of the member Em-
ployers, hereinafter referred to collectively as 'the
Employers' and individually as 'the Employer,' and
Locals 420, 692, 495, 88, 982, 235 and 871 of the In-
ternational Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen & Helpers of America, hereinafter
referred to collectively as 'the Unions' or as 'the ap-
plicable local Union,' as the case may be."
Article I - Union Membership:
Section 1. Change to read as follows: "The Em-
ployers recognize the Unions as the exclusive joint
representative for the purposes of collective bar-
gaining in respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of
employment or other conditions of employment for
all employees in the multiemployer bargaining unit
covered by this Agreement, consisting of employees
of the Employers working in the classifications set
forth in Article IV, Section 1, and covered by the
predecessor agreement immediately prior to execu-
tion of this Agreement, and excluding all employees
properly covered by other bargaining units, office
clerical employees, technical and professional em-
'Sperling did not te'tift al the hearing
9()1
DF. CISIONS ()F NAIO()NAL I.ABOR RELATIONS B()ARD
ployees, guards, watchmen and supervisors as de-
fined in the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended. As used in this Agreement, the term 'the
employee' refers only to the employees in the bar-
gaining unit, unless the context clearly requires a
broader interpretation."
Upon inquiry by Sperling, Battle explained that the
changes were being proposed "due to the fact that we
had that theory of the Board that we wanted to clear up
the language so that there was no misunderstanding that
we were negotiating on a multiemployer basis; that this
had been the function of the employers' negotiating
committee for many years in the process of collective
bargaining on behalf of the employers we represent." 4
Sperling did not agree to these proposals, and specifical-
ly objected to the use of the word "joint" in the pro-
posed change to article I, section 1. Battle testified that
he cannot remember the basis for Sperling's objection.
At the next meeting on July 29, 1977, the union
committee objected to both the preamble and article I
changes proposed by the Employer, saying that the lan-
guage changes were not necessary. Battle asked Sperling
if they disagreed with the Employer's contention that ne-
gotiations were being conducted on a multiemployer
basis. According to Battle, Sperling responded that they
were negotiating on a multiemployer, multiunion basis.
Battle said that if that was the case, then they would
proceed to discuss the rest of the proposals.
Another meeting was held on August 9, 1977. Battle
submitted an employer proposal prefaced by a recital to
the effect that the parties were in mutual agreement that
they were negotiating on a multiemployer-multiunion
local basis. Sperling countered that the words "as sepa-
rate parties" be deleted from the preamble; however,
Battle refused, taking the position that such deletion was
unnecessary since they had a mutual understanding that
they were negotiating on a multiemployer-multiunion
basis. Battle testified that he was "suspicious" because
Sperling had asked for the change, despite the fact that
this language was also removed from the employer
committee proposal of July 27, 1977. No changes were
made in the language of either the preamble or article I
during the negotiations for the instant contract. After
being negotiated, the contract was signed by the employ-
er negotiating committee on behalf of the employers and
by the seven local union members after ratification by
the local unions.
2. Action by Joint Council 42 and Local 420
By way of stipulation, the record discloses that the
bargaining unit employees of Standard had always been
members of Local 235 and no other Teamsters local; that
all grievances concerning the employees were handled
by Local 235 and other Teamsters locals; and that during
September 1978 Joint Council No. 42 issued an order re-
quiring these employees to be transferred to and become
4 Battle testified that these changes Were suggested because Ihe Natin-
al Labor Relations Board had issued a complaint in a case (Case 21 CA
14677) involving Conrock and Reliance as respondents. w ith Locals 42()
and 467 as the charging parties, wherein the complaints concluded that
this swas not a multiemployer bargaining unit
members of Local 420 instead of Local 235. It was fur-
ther stipulated that at no time did or have any of such
employees consented to such transfer to Local 420, nor
have any of them signed Local 420 authorization cards
or joined Local 420. It appears that thereafter on
October 18, 1978, Local 235 disclaimed any interest in
representing Standard's employees and that Local 235
has since merged with Local 952.
Subsequent to the transfer order of Joint Council No.
42, as stipulated by the parties, beginning on October 4,
1978, Traweek sent letters to Standard requesting the ter-
mination of various unit employees for nonpayment of
dues under the union-security provisions of the Blue
Book. Traweek also wrote letters to certain unit employ-
ees advising them that they had been suspended from
Local 420 for nonpayment of dues and demanding a
"reinitiation" fee, payable immediately, or be removed
from their jobs with Standard.
B. Discussion and Analysis
The General Counsel, while not contending that the
transfer of members from Local 235 to Local 420 was
"per se" unlawful,5 contends that Respondent's attempts
to cause Standard to discharge these employees violates
Section 8(b)(2) of the Act, since Respondent does not
lawfully represent any of them. The General Counsel
also contends that since Respondent does not represent
these employees it was unlawful, under Section
8(b)(1)(A), for Respondent to advise them of their sus-
pension from membership in Local 420 or to advise them
that their continued employment with Standard depend-
ed on the payment of reinitiation fee.
Respondent, on the other hand, while conceding that
these actions were taken, contends that its action was
privileged since it was the lawful representative of these
employees after the transfer to Local 420. Respondent
contends that the transfer of members from Local 235
into Local 420 was lawful since the seven locals signato-
ry to the Blue Book are the joint representative of all the
employees covered by the contract, and the transfer was
simply an internal union matter. In Respondent's view, it,
as well as Local 235, and indeed all the other five locals
covered by the contract are the lawful representatives of
all the employees covered by the contract. Since Local
420 was, therefore, the collective-bargaining representa-
tive of the transferred employees, it was privileged to re-
quest Standard to terminate them under the union-
security provisions of the contract; to advise these em-
ployees of their suspensions from union membership; and
to condition their continued employment on payment of
a reinitiation fee. The basic issue is whether or not the
local unions, signatory Blue Book, are joint representa-
tives of the employees covered by this agreement.
In evaluating this matter it is necessary to examine the
contracts and past practices under the contracts. The lan-
guage of the current contract and the prior contracts, in
evidence dating back to 1971, all contain language both
in the preamble and article I (recognition) which appear
:' Joint Counrl of lea ,nters No. 42. Inrternationul Brotherhod of lieam-
iters. ChaujiJeur. Warehousemen & IHelper otJ.4lmeicu (Grineil lire Priec-
non .Svten' Cor[mpany /n,'.l 235 Nl RH 116 (q1180)
902
I ()CAL 420. EAMSTERS
to define the contractual relationship between parties on
a separate individual basis within geographic jurisdiction-
al boundaries established by the unions. If this language
is to be modified by the past conduct of the parties it
must be supported by the evidence. However, the evi-
dence shows that grievances were filed by individual
unions with individual employees, also, that separate
agreeements were executed between individual unions
and individual employers removing employees from the
coverage of the Blue Book. Nothing in the records
shows that the geographic jurisdiction of the individual
local unions has not been observed. It is evident, in
viewing the contract itself and the practices of the par-
ties, that the contracts, while negotiated collectively
through the employer committee and the union
committee, were administered on a single-employer,
single-union basis.
Respondent also argues that, apart from the contracts
and the conduct of the parties under the contracts, it
became apparent during the negotiations for the most
recent contract that the employers and the unions have
negotiated a multiemployer-multiunion contract. I do not
agree.
At the start, and in order to avoid the implications of
the contrary conclusion reached by the Regional Direc-
tor for Region 21 in a case involving his Employer,
noted above, Battle wanted confirmation by the Union
that, not only were negotiations being conducted on a
multiemployer-multiunion basis, but that the negotiated
contract was in fact a multiunion-multiemployer agree-
ment. To this end Battle proposed certain modifications
necessary to the preamble and recognition provisions of
the contract to reach that goal. However, the union ne-
gotiating committee declined to agree to these changes,
and later the employer committee turned down a propos-
al by the union committee which would have deleted the
words "as separate parties" from the preamble. Thus,
both parties, for reasons set out above, backed away
from proposals which would have had the effect of man-
ifesting their intention to negotiate a multiemployer-mul-
tiunion contract and the language of the contract re-
mained unchanged. These facts do not persuade me that
the parties negotiated a multiemployer-multiunion con-
tract despite the contention that Battle and Sperling con-
curred that negotiations were being conducted on a mul-
tiemployer-multiunion basis. The question is not the
manner in which negotiations were conducted but
whether or not representation under the resulting con-
tract was multiemployer-multiunion in scope. In my
opinion, negotiations were conducted on a multiem-
ployer-multiunion basis, resulting in employee representa-
tion under the contract which was and has been single
employer, single union, in scope.
The employees under these contracts, since at least
1971, have been represented separately within the geo-
graphical jurisdiction outlined in the contract. The lan-
guage of the contract itself and the practices thereunder
show this. Nothing which has occurred in the most
recent negotiations compels a different result.
Having reached the conclusion that representation has
been on a single-union basis, it follows that Respondent's
contention that all the unions are joint representatives of
all the employees must fail. This being the case, it is ap-
parent that the transfer of Standard employee from
Local 235 to Local 420 was effective and Local 420 is
not and has never been the collective-bargaining repre-
sentative of Standard's employees Therefore, the at-
tempts made by Local 420 to enforce the Union's
security provisions of the contract were illegal. More
particularly, I conclude that, by writing letters to Stand-
ard requesting the termination of various unit employees,
Respondent has violated Section 8(b)(2) of the Act. Mill-
wright and Machinery Erectors Local Union No. 740. et al.
(Tallman Constructors, a Joint Venture), 238 NLRB 159
(1978). By writing letters to the various employees advis-
ing them of their suspension from membership in Local
420 for nonpayment of dues, and requiring a reinitiation
fee, and reciting that failure to do so would result in
their termination, Respondent has violated Section
8(b)(l)(A) of the Act.
IV. IHHE EFFECT OF lHE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
UPON COMMERCE
The activities of Respondent set forth in section I11,
above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relationship
to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States
and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and ob-
structing commerce and the free flow of commerce.
v. THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has engaged in and is
engaging in certain unfair labor practices, I shall recom-
mend that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain
affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of
the Act.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, con-
clusions of law, and upon the entire record in this case, I
hereby make the following:
CONCI tSIONS OF LAW
1. The Charging Party is an employer engaged in
commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of
the Act.
2. Respondent is a labor organization within the mean-
ing of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing em-
ployees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in
Section 7 of the Act, Respondent has engaged in and is
engaging in unfair labor practices proscribed by Section
8(b)(l)(A) of the Act.
4. By attempting to cause the Charging Party to dis-
criminate against employees in violation of Section
8(a)(3) of the Act, Respondent has engaged in and is en-
gaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of
Section 8(b)(2) of the Act.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of
law, and the entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c)
of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, I
hereby issue the following recommended:
90.1
I)ECISI()NS ()F NATI()NAL I.AB()R REL.ATIONS 0()ARD
()RDER"
The Respondent, Building Material & Dump Truck
Drivers Local 420, International Brotherhood of Team-
sters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of Amer-
ica, South El Monte, California, its officers, agents, and
representatives, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Restraining and coercing employees of Standard
Concrete Material, Inc., by sending letters to said em-
ployees notifying them that their union membership had
been transferred to pay dues to Local 420, at a time
when Local 420 did not represent a majority of the em-
ployees and they were under no statutory obligation to
join Respondent.
(b) Restraining and coercing employees of Standard
Concrete Material, Inc., by sending letters to said em-
ployees advising them that they had been suspended
from membership in Respondent for nonpayment of
dues; that they were required to pay a reinitiation fee;
and that failure to pay such reinitiation fee would result
in removal from their jobs; all at a time when Respond-
ent did not represent a majority of said employees and
said employees were under no statutory obligation to
join Respondent; or in any like or related manner re-
straining or coercing employees in the exercise of rights
guaranteed under Section 7 of the Act.
(c) Attempting to cause Standard Concrete Material,
Inc., to discharge employeees for nonpayment of dues, at
a time when Respondent did not represent a majority of
' In the event no, exceptions are filed as provided by Sec 102.46 of the
Rules and Regulations of the National L abor Relations Hoard, the find-
ings, conclusirons, arid recommended Order herein shall, as provided in
Sec. 102.48 of the Rules and Regulations, be adopted by the Hoard aind
become ils findings, conclusions. and Order, and all objections thereto
shall be deemed waived for all purposes
said employees and said employees were under no statu-
tory obligation to pay such dues to Respondent.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to
effectuate the policies of the Act: 7
(a) Post at its offices and places where its meetings are
customarily held copies of the attached notice marked
"Appendix. " ' Copies of said notice, on forms provided
by the Regional Director for Region 21, after being duly
signed by an official representative of Respondent, shall
be posted by it immediately upon receipt thereof, and be
maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in
conspicuous places, including all places where notices to
its members are customarily posted. Reasonable steps
shall be taken by Respondent to insure that said notices
are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other materi-
al.
(b) Mail signed copies of the notice to said Regional
Director for posting, Standard Concrete Material, Inc.,
willing, at all locations where notices to its employees
are customarily posted.
(c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 21, in
writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what
steps have been taken to comply herewith.
7 The General Counsel seeks as a relief in this case an order that Re-
spondent inform Standard Concrete Material, Inc. and the unit employ-
ces that Respondent wrill rescind the suspension of membership and pay-
ment of any reinitiation fee for failing to pay dues when Respondent does
not represent a majority of the unit employees Howeser, since it has
been stipulated by the parties that none of the employees has joined Re-
spondent. the posting of the notices provided herein constitutes adequate
notice to both Standard Concrete Material, Inc. and the affected employ-
ees.
In the event that 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 Hoard' shall read "Posted Pursu-
ant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an
()rder of the National Labor Relations Hoard "
904
