Laborers' INTL. Union Local 1320

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 25, 1980

253 N.L.R.B. 475 (N.L.R.B. 1980)

LABORERS' INTL. UNION, LOCAL 1320
Laborers' International Union of North America,
AFL-CIO, Local Union No. 1320 (Dunbar &
Sullivan Dredging Co.) and Tom Kilgore. Case
14-CB-4696
November 25, 1980
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN FANNING AND MlMBI;RS
JENKINS AND PENEILO
On July 31, 1980, Administrative Law Judge
James M. Fitzpatrick issued the attached Decision
in this proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent filed ex-
ceptions and a supporting 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 brief
and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings,'
and conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge
and to adopt his recommended Order, as modified
herein.
We agree with the Administrative Law Judge
that Respondent violated Section 8(b)(l)(A) and (2)
of the Act by causing the layoff of Tom Kilgore
and Charlie Storey. We disagree, however, with
his finding that Respondent's initial designation of
Robert Adams and Paul E. Johnston as job stew-
ards on September 17, 1979,2 gave rise to the
layoff. We find, for the reasons stated herein, and
consistent with the specific allegations contained in
the complaint, that Respondent's arbitrary and dis-
criminatory conduct on September 20 caused Kil-
gore and Storey to be laid off.
The pertinent facts are fully set forth in the Ad-
ministrative Law Judge's Decision. Briefly, Re-
spondent's business manager, Paul J. Johnston, Jr.,
referred six laborers to the Employer's Metropolis,
Illinois, jobsite on September 17.3 Prior to the re-
ferral, it had been established that the six would
work a single daytime shift during the early stages
of the job, and, within a short period of time, the
i Respondent has excepted to certain credibility findings made by the
Administrative Law Judge It is the Board's established policy not to
overrule an administrative law judge's resolutions with respect to credi-
bility unless the clear preponderance of all of the relevant evidence con-
vinces us that the resolutions are incorrect Standard Dry Wall Products.
Inc., 91 NLRB 544 (1950), enfd. 188 F2d 362 (3d Cir. 1951). We have
carefully examined the record and find no basis for reversing his findings.
We have further considered Respondent's contention that the Administra-
tive Law Judge has evidenced a bias against Respondent's position. We
have carefully considered the record and the attached Decision and
reject these charges.
2 All dates hereinafter are in 1979
3 Respondent is the exclusive source for referral of laborers to the
Company's project at Metropolis, Illinois.
253 NLRB No. 58
job would expand to three shifts, with two laborers
working each one.
Johnston, following standard procedure, first se-
lected three stewards: William Ogden, Robert
Adams, and his son, Paul Johnston, Nos. 12, 14,
and 8, respectively, from the referral list. Then,
taking their position on the referral list into ac-
count, he selected Tom Kilgore (No. 1), Charlie
Storey (No. 3), and Raymond Greer (No. 6). John-
ston assigned Odgen to the steward position on the
day shift, Adams to the second-shift position, and
Johnston to the third. The stewards decided among
themselves that Kilgore would work with Ogden,
Storey with Adams, and Greer with Johnston. The
job, however, did not go to three shifts until Octo-
ber 8. Thus, from September 17 to October 8,
Ogden was the sole functioning steward on the
jobsite.
Company Foreman Jack Bailey approached
Ogden at the jobsite the morning of September 20
and, unexpectedly, informed him that three labor-
ers would be laid off at the end of the day. During
the course of the ensuing discussion Bailey agreed
that Odgen and Kilgore would remain, since they
had been assigned to the day shift.
After the conversation with Bailey, Odgen bor-
rowed Kilgore's truck, telling him he had union
business to attend to. He went to speak to Business
Manager Johnston about the impending layoffs.
When he told Johnston he wanted to be sure about
which three employees to keep on the job, John-
ston replied, "It's customary to keep the job stew-
ards." Upon returning to work, Ogden proceeded
to pass the word to the Company, 4 and explained
to Kilgore that he would be among those laid off
because Johnston told him the stewards would stay
on the job and the others would have to go.
Around 2 o'clock that afternoon, Bailey confirmed
Ogden's comments to Kilgore, informing Ogden
that the Company would keep the three stewards.
The Administrative Law Judge found, and we
agree, that the circumstances warrant the finding
that Respondent effectively selected those to be
laid off.5 He correctly found that Respondent's
conduct on September 20 was motivated by its
desire to maintain employment for two job stew-
ards, even though their presence at the jobsite was
unnecessary at that time."
The Administrative Law Judge mistakenly con-
cluded, however, that the critical nexus between
4 After work. Ogden reported to Johnston that Kilgore, Storey, and
Greer had been laid off Johnston asked if he had told the Company
which men to lay off Ogden replied that he had just told the upervisor
it was customary to keep the three stewards
6 See Grovs-Granuie. a Joinl .entur, 229 NLRB 5., 63-i5 {1977)
e Busines, Manager Johnston also was eager lo see to it that his son.
one of the designated stewards. continued working
475
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Respondent's conduct and the Company's decision
to lay off Kilgore and Storey could be traced to
the initial September 17 designation of two non-
functioning stewards. Adams and Johnston were
referred on September 17 in the expectation that
the job would shortly break down into three shifts,
each of which would require a steward. The com-
plaint alleges that Respondent attempted to cause
and did cause the Employer to lay off Kilgore and
Storey by its actions on September 20. The record
shows that the job steward, Ogden, first learned of
the impending layoff on the morning of September
20. His first conversation with Foreman Bailey that
morning had ended in agreement-Ogden and Kil-
gore would remain on the job. However, after con-
ferring with Business Manager Johnston, Ogden re-
versed course. He informed the Company that it
was customary to keep all the job stewards, and he
told Kilgore the stewards would stay and that Kil-
gore would have to be laid off. Thus, the earlier
understanding between Ogden and Bailey was re-
vised in favor of retaining the two designated, but
nonfunctioning, stewards. Accordingly, we find
that Respondent, by its conduct on September 20,
violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) and (2) of the Act.
AMENDED CONCI.USIONS OF LAW
Delete Conclusion of Law 4 and substitute the
following:
"4. Respondent Union violated Section
8(b)(1)(A) and (2) of the Act by causing the layoff
on September 20, 1979, of Tom Kilgore and Char-
lie Storey in order to maintain employment for
Robert Adams and Paul E. Johnston."
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,
Laborers' International Union of North America,
AFL-CIO, Local Union No. 1320, Metropolis, Illi-
nois, its officers, agents, and representatives, shall
take the action set forth in the said recommended
Order, as so modified:
1. Substitute the following for paragraph l(a):
"(a) Restraining and coercing employees by at-
tempting to cause and causing Dunbar & Sullivan
Dredging Co. to discriminate against employees in
violation of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act."
2. Substitute the following for paragraph l(b):
"(b) Restraining and coercing employees by stat-
ing that certain employees designated to be job
stewards, but not functioning as such, will retain or
have retained their employment because of their
status as designated stewards."
3. Substitute the attached notice for that of the
Administrative Law Judge.
APPENDIX
NOTICE To MEMBERS
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT restrain or coerce employees
by attempting to cause Dunbar & Sullivan
Dredging Co., or any other employer, to dis-
criminate against employees in violation of
Section 8(a)(3) and (I) of the Act.
WE WIlt.. NOT restrain and coerce employ-
ees by stating that certain employees designat-
ed to be job stewards, but not functioning as
such, will retain or have retained their em-
ployment because of their status as designated
stewards.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner
restrain or coerce employees in the exercise of
the rights guaranteed them in Section 7 of the
Act.
WI: WILL make Tom Kilgore and Charlie
Storey whole, with interest, for any losses
they may have suffered by our unlawfully
causing them to be laid off from the Dunbar &
Sullivan Dredging Co. project at Metropolis,
Illinois.
LABORERS' INTERNATIONAL UNION
OF NORTH AMERICA, AFL-CIO,
LOCAL UNION No. 1320
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
JAMES M. FITZPATRICK, Administrative Law Judge:
The Union here referred out unneeded extra job stew-
ards to a construction job so that when a layoff occurred
they were kept on the job in lieu of other laborers who
were higher on the union referral list. As set out below,
I find the layoffs which resulted were unfair labor prac-
tices.
This proceeding originated with unfair labor practice
charges filed October 2, and amended charges filed No-
vember 1, 1979,1 by Tom Kilgore, an individual, against
Laborers' International Union of North America, AFL-
CIO, Local Union No. 1320 (herein the Union or Re-
spondent). Based on these charges a complaint issued
November 1, and was later amended, at the hearing, al-
leging that Respondent had engaged in unfair labor prac-
i All dates herein are in 1979 unless otherwise indicated.
476
LABORERS' INTL. UNION. LOCAL 1320
tices proscribed by the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended, when the union steward told a laborer that
certain other laborers were being retained on the job be-
cause they were union stewards and when the union
business manager told the laborer that certain referrals
and layoffs were arranged to keep the business manager's
son working, both contrary to Section 8(b)(l)(A) of the
Act. The complaint further alleges that the Union caused
the layoff of Kilgore and Charlie Storey for arbitrary, in-
vidious, and discriminatory reasons and because they
were not stewards, contrary to the provisions of Section
8(b)(l)(A) ad (2) of the Act. Respondent filed an
answer admitting jurisdictional allegations but denying
the unfair labor practices alleged. The issues were heard
before me at Benton, Illinois, on December 17.
Based on the entire record and including my observa-
tion of the witnesses and consideration of the brief filed
by the General Counsel, I make the following:
FINDIN(;S OF FACI
I. THE EMP.OYER
Dunbar & Sullivan Dredging Co. (herein the Employ-
er or Company), is a New York corporation authorized
to do business in Illinois and Kentucky where it is en-
gaged at various construction sites, including Metropolis,
Illinois, in dredging and marine construction. In the year
preceding issuance of the complaint, a period representa-
tive of its operations, the Company purchased, and
caused to be transported to its Illinois construction sites,
pipe, rock, and other goods and materials valued over
$50,000 which came directly from outside Illinois.
During the same period it performed services valued
over $50,000 at sites and for enterprises located outside
Illinois. It is an employer engaged in commerce.
II. THE UNION
Respondent is a labor organization. Its principal offi-
cial is Paul J. Johnston, Jr., its business manager and fi-
nancial secretary. William Ogden is a union member and
also a job steward on the project involved in this case.
Respondent admits that both Johnston and Ogden are its
agents acting on its behalf.
Respondent is the exclusive source for referral of la-
borers to the Company's project at Metropolis, Illinois.
To facilitate such referrals it maintains at the union hall a
rotating referral list of employment applicants in the nu-
merical order in which the applicants sign the list. As
each laborer is referred to a job, the date of referral is
noted by his name on the list thereby having the effect
of removing that name from the list. As referrals are
made, names lower on the list in effect move nearer the
top. When a laborer loses his job and again becomes
available for employment, he applies for referral by plac-
ing his name at the bottom of the list.
Announcements of referral are made by Business Man-
ager Johnston or his secretary, Clyde Owens. All refer-
rals are pursuant to the system noted above except that
the laborer designated by the business manager as job
steward (normally a longtime member of the Union) may
be selected without reference to his position on the list.
IL. TIIE Al .IEGI:) UNFAIR lABOR PRACTICES
A. Referrals to the Metropolis Job
Prior to September 17 Business Manager Johnston
held a prejob conference with company officials during
which the Company requested that four laborers be re-
ferred. After the meeting ended, one of the company su-
pervisors asked that six be referred. It was understood
that for the first few days all six would be working a
single daytime shift doing unloading and other work in
preparation for the main part of the job, and that at some
later point, when the job was in full swing, ;t would be
working three shifts with two laborers on each shift.
On September 17 at the union hall, Business Manager
Johnston referred six laborers to the Metropolis job. He
did this by first selecting three stewards, William Ogden
who was No. 12 on the referral list, Robert Ad;lms who
was No. 14, and Paul E. Johnston (the business manag-
er's son) who was No. 8. He then selected the other
three in accordance with their positions on the list, these
being Tom Kilgore (the Charging Party) who was No. 1
on the list, Charlie Storey who was No. 3, and Raymond
Greer who was No. 6. Business Manager Johnston as-
signed a shift to each designated steward, naming Ogden
for the day shift.
The six laborers then reported to the jobsite where the
three stewards decided the shift assignments for the
nonstewards, as follows: Kilgore was to work with
Ogden, Storey with Adams, and Greer with Steward
Johnston. However, beginning September 17 and con-
tinuing through September 20, all six worked on the day
shift. On September 20 three laborers were laid off.
Thereafter the Company continued operating one shift
until October 8 when it went to three shifts.
When the laborers began to work on September 17,
Ogden and Kilgore began working together on a barge
tied up at the bank. They unloaded pipe and performed
cleanup work, continuing with this assignment until Sep-
tember 20. The other laborers all worked at various jobs
on the bank and up the hill.
B. The Layoffs
Early on the morning of September 20, Company
Foreman Jack Bailey came to the barge where Ogden
and Kilgore were working and informed Ogden as the
steward for the day shift that three laborers would be
laid off at the end of the day. Ogden responded that he
and Kilgore would be the ones to remain on the job inas-
much as they were assigned to the day shift while the
others were to be on night shifts, and they would have
to figure out among themselves who would be laid off.
The foreman indicated agreement with that arrangement
and left the barge, going up the hill to where the other
laborers were working.
A short while later he returned to the barge and spoke
with Ogden, asking him who would be the night-shift
steward. Ogden replied that Adams would be steward
for the second shift and Johnston for the third. Bailey
went up the hill again.
After the conversation with Bailey had concluded,
Ogden asked Kilgore for the loan of his pickup truck, in-
477
I)F CISIONS 01; NATIONAL I.AOR RELATIONS BOARD
dicating he was getting into some union involvement and
was going to talk with Business Agent Johnston. He then
left for the union hall in Kilgore's truck.
Ogden first went to the union hall, but not finding
Business Manager Johnston there, drove to his home
where he located Johnston. He informed the business
manager of the impending layoff of three men adding
that he wanted to be sure which three to keep. Johnston
replied that, "It's customary to keep the job stewards."
Even though at the hearing the business manager testi-
fied that he said "steward" and did not use the plural, I
base the foregoing finding on his further testimony that
in a pretrial affidavit made approximately I month after
the events and 2 months prior to the hearing he used the
plural form as found above, followed by the parentheti-
cal comment that "the reason I said this was I didn't
know when they would start three shifts." He did not
satisfactorily explain the discrepancy between his testi-
mony at the hearing and that in the affidavit, and in view
of this and the parenthetical comment, I do not credit his
revised testimony at the hearing. See Alvin J. Barr and
Co., Inc., 236 NLRB 242 (1978).
Ogden testified that the business manager told him,
"We've got to hold the steward," and when Ogden
asked, "How about the rest?", Johnston replied, "That's
up to them," I do not credit this testimony of Ogden be-
cause, upon returning to the jobsite after being away for
an hour and a half, he told Kilgore he would have to go,
that Johnston had said the stewards would stay on the
job and the others would have to go. Ogden told Kil-
gore the foreman (Bailey) would talk with the job super-
intendent and if four laborers were kept, then Kilgore
could remain. If the instructions to Ogden had been to
keep one steward, there would have been no question
about Kilgore remaining because he was number one on
the referral list.
Around 2 in the afternoon Bailey again came down to
the barge and informed Ogden he was keeping the three
stewards. Ogden then asked about Kilgore and Bailey re-
plied they would try to call him back when the job start-
ed. This apparently meant when the job would be in full
swing with three shifts. In mid-afternoon at the end of
the workday checks were brought to the jobsite for Kil-
gore, Storey and Greer and they were laid off.
Later, around 5 O'clock that afternoon, Ogden again
called on Business Manager Johnston at his home, re-
porting to him who had been laid off. Johnston inquired
if he had told the Company which men to lay off. Ogden
replied he had not, that he had just told the supervisor it
was customary to keep the three stewards. I base this
finding on Johnston's testimony at the hearing that he so
stated in his pretrial affidavit. See Alvin J. Bart and Co.,
Inc., supra. Although at the hearing he testified that he
asked Ogden if he had told the supervisor what men to
lay off and that Ogden said no, when confronted with
his affidavit, he indicated his current recollection was
somewhat uncertain. Accordingly, I rely on his previous-
ly recorded recollection that Ogden reported that he had
told the company supervisor it was customary to keep
the three stewards.
The next morning, September 21, Kilgore, having been
laid off, went to the union hall to sign up on the referral
list for further work. After the normal time for referrals
(7 to 9 a.m.) had passed, he asked Business Manager
Johnston why he had been laid off the day before. John-
ston explained that stewards stay on the job. He thus ex-
pressed his approval of the retention of all three stew-
ards, including two extras, who were not needed, there-
by necessitating the layoff of Kilgore and Storey.
Based on the foregoing, I find that Respondent effect-
ed the displacement of Kilgore and Storey by layoff in
violation of Section 8(b)(2) and (1)(A) of the Act. Explo,
Inc., 235 NLRB 918 (1978); Building Material, Truck
Drivers, Chauffeurs and Helpers, Local No. 282, Interna-
tional Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehouse-
men and Helpers of America (Explo, Inc.), 229 NLRB 347
(1977). It is undisputed that beginning September 17 and
until October 8 there was only one functioning steward
on the job, Ogden, and only one steward was needed. By
designating three stewards prior to the commencement
of the work on September 17, Business Manager John-
ston was able to determine which three would be re-
tained when the expected layoff occurred even though
Adams and Snooky Johnston were not then needed, and
continued until October 8 to be unneeded, as functioning
stewards. But, being labeled stewards, they were pre-
ferred over Kilgore and Storey when the expected layoff
of September 20 occurred, In the circumstances the con-
clusion is warranted, and I find, that the designation of
three stewards was made for arbitrary and invidious rea-
sons in order to accomplish the discriminations which in
fact occurred. This finding is further supported by the
foreman's acceptance of Ogden's initial indication that
he, Kilgore, and one other would be retained on the job.
This proposed resolution of the problem was then re-
vised, to the detriment of Kilgore after the foreman con-
ferred with the other stewards, again with Ogden, and
Ogden consulted the union business manager who de-
creed that it was customary to keep the stewards and
Ogden passed that word to the Company. These circum-
stances warrant the finding that the Union effectively se-
lected those to be laid off. See Groves-Granite, 229
NLRB 56, 63-68 (1977).
C. The Session at Curley's Corner
Following his layoff on September 20, Kilgore re-
mained unemployed until October 8 when, through word
transmitted to him the day before by Business Manager
Johnston, he was recalled to the Company's Metropolis
project and again assigned to work days with Ogden.
About a week after his layoff and while still unem-
ployed, he had occasion to be in a local tavern, known
as Curley's Corner, frequented by union members. He
had been in the tavern in the morning for a couple of
drinks, in midday had gone home for lunch, and returned
to the tavern in the afternoon. Around mid-afternoon
Business Manager Johnston joined him at the bar. Kil-
gore bought him a beer, at the same time ordering him-
self a second drink for the afternoon. The two sat to-
gether for several hours socializing and taking turns
buying each other drinks. Early in their conversation,
while they were still on their first drink together, John-
ston commented, "Tom, the Local can't stand these law-
47K
I.ABORERS' INTL UNION, LOCAL 1320(
suits. We've not got the money." At the time, the charge
in the present matter had not yet been filed nor served
on Respondent but a number of other charges had. I find
that Johnston's reference was to these other matters.
Kilgore then asked him why he "came to send a list
like this." According to Kilgore, Johnston replied,
"Tom, me and the office talked it over. That was the
only way I could get to my boys. I'm getting too old to
keep him up," Johnston's version of what lie said differs
but is similar in substance. He testified he said, "I should
not come down to the job and have them lay off my son
and me have to support him just in order to hold you a
job."
The essential meaning of these comments is that John-
ston, in order to preserve his son's employment, departed
from the numerical order on the referral list. This state-
ment of favoritism was an admission of his failure to pro-
vide fair representation to employees and was itself a
violation of Section 8(b)(l)(A) of the Act. Building Mate-
rial, Truck Drivei.s, Chauffeurs and Ilelpers, Local o.
282, International Brotherhood of Teamsters. Chauffeurs.
Warehousemen and Helpers of America (xplo, Inc. ). supra
at 349.
IV. THI IFFICIS OF 'I Ht: UNFAIR IABOR PRACTICES
UPON COMME RCE
The unfair labor practices of Respondent Union set
forth in section III, above, occurring in connection with
the operations of Dunbar & Sullivan Dredging Co. de-
scribed in section I, above, have a close and substantial
relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the sever-
al States and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and
obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce.
CONCLUSIONS OFi LAW
1. Dunbar & Sullivan Dredging Co. is an employer en-
gaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6)
and (7) of the Act.
2. Respondent Union is a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. Respondent's business manager, Paul J. Johnston,
Jr., and its steward, William Ogden, at all times material
to this case were its agents acting on its behalf within the
meaning of Sections 2(13) and 8(b) of the Act.
4. Respondent Union, by its Business Manager John-
ston, violated Section 8(b)(l)(A) and (2) of the Act by
the unnecessary designation on September 17, 1979, of
Robert Adams and Paul E. Johnston as job stewards,
thereby causing the layoff on September 20, 1979, of
Tom Kilgore and Charlie Storey.
5. Respondent Union by its steward Ogden violated
Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act by informing Tom Kilgore
on September 20, 1979, that Robert Adams and Paul E.
Johnston retained their employment and were not laid
off because they were job stewards.
6. Respondent Union by its Business Manager John-
ston violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act by in sub-
stance telling Kilgore on about October 1, 1979, that job
referrals and layoffs had been arranged to keep his son
working.
7. These unfair labor practices affect commerce within
the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
THi R ME)Y
Having found that Respondent Union violated Section
8(b)(1)(A) and (2) of the Act. I recommend that it be or-
dered to cease and desist from such conduct and take
certain affirmative action to remedy its violations. I also
recommend that Respondent Union make Tom Kilgore
and Charlie Storey whole for any losses suffered by
them as a result of Respo:ident's unlawful conduct with
interest thereon to be computed in the manner prescribed
in /F W. Woolworth Company, 90 NL.RB 289 (1950), and
Florida Steel Corporation, 231 NLRB 651 (1977).` 1 fur-
ther recommend that Respondent Union be required to
post an appropriate notice and make copies thereof avail-
able to the employing company.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of
law, and the entire record in this case, and pursuant to
Section 10(c) of the Act. I hereby issue the following
recommended:
ORDER :
The Respondent Laborers' International Union of
North American, AFL-CIO, Local Union No. 132(), Me-
tropolis, Illinois, its officers, agents. and representatives,
shall:
1. Cease and desist fronm:
(a) Restraining and coercing employees by discrimina-
torily, arbitrarily, and in violation of the duty of fair rep-
resentation appointing unnecessary job stewards thereby
attempting to cause and causing Dunbar & Sullivan
Dredging Co. to discriminate against other employees in
violation of Section 8(a)( 3) of the Act.
(b) Restraining and coercing employees ii, violation of
its duty of fair representation by informing employees
that job stewards who had been appointed unnecessarily
retained their employment and were not laid off because
they were job stewards.
(c) In any like or related manner restraining or coerc-
ing employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed them
in Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to
effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Make whole Tom Kilgore and Charlie Storey for
losses suffered by them as a result of its unlawful con-
duct in the manner set forth in the section of this Deci-
sion entitled "The Remedy."
(b) Post at its union hall copies of the attached notice
marked "Appendix."4 Copies of said notice, on forms
provided by the Regional Director for Region 14, after
being duly signed by its representative, shall be posted
by the Respondent Union immediately upon receipt
2 See, generally, It Plumbing Heating Co., 138 NlRH 716 t1962)
3 In the event no exceplions are filed as provided hb Sec 10)2 46 of the
Rules and Regulaions of the National Labor Relations Board, the find-
ings, conclusions, and recommended Order herein shall, as provided n
Sec. 102 48 of Ihe Rules and Regulations, be adopted by the Board and
beconme its findings, conclusions, and ()rder, and all objections thereto
shall hbe deemed waived for all purposes
4 In the eent hai this Order i enforced by a Judgmentl of a Uinted
States Court of Appeals, he words in the notice reading "Posted h)
Order f Ihe Nalional labor Relations Board" hall read "Polsted ursu
ant to a Judgnit of the United Slates Cour of Appeals nforcing an
Order of the National I abor Relations Hoard "
479
DECISIO)NS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS B()ARD
thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days
thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places
where notices to members are customarily posted. Rea-
sonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent Union to
insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or cov-
ered by any other material.
(c) Forward signed copies of the notice to the Region-
al Director for Region 14 for posting by Dunbar & Sulli-
van Dredging Co., if willing, at its Metropolis, Illinois,
project.
(d) Notify the Regional Director for Region 14, in
writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what
steps the Respondent Union has taken to comply here-
with.
48)