International Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's Union

388 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 2. The labor organization involved claims to represent certain employees of the Employer. 3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa- tion of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. 4. The Petitioner seeks to represent a single unit of production and maintenance employees in the Florida, Miami, and Jafra plants. The three companies agree with the composition of the unit, but contend that there should be separate units covering employees of each com- pany. In view of our finding that the three companies constitute a single Employer within the meaning of the Act, we find that the single unit as sought by the Petitioner is appropriate. We find that the following employees of the Employer at its plants in Miami, Florida, and Ojus, Florida, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act: All production and maintenance employees including shipping and receiving employees, but excluding office clerical, technical, and pro- fessional employees, watchmen, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act. [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this volume.] MEMBER STYLES took no part in the consideration of the above Deci- sion and Direction of Election. INTERNATIONAL LONGSHOREMEN'S AND WAREHOUSEMEN's UNION, C. I. 0.; LOCAL 13, INTERNATIONAL LONGSHOREMEN'S AND WARE- HOIISEMEN'S UNION; LOCAL 48, INTERNATIONAL LONGSHOREMEN'S AND WAREHOUSEMEN'S UNION; AND SAILORS' UNION OF THE PACIFIC, AFL and PACIFIC MARITIME ASSOCIATION INTERNATIONAL LONGSHOREMEN'S AND WAREHOUSEMEN'S UNION, C. I. 0.; LOCAL 13, INTERNATIONAL LONGSHOREMEN'S AND WARE- HOIISEMEN'S UNION; AND LOCAL 48, INTERNATIONAL LONGSHORE- MENI S AND WAREHOUSEMEN'S UNION and W. R. CHAMBERLIN AND COMPANY. Cases Nos. 20-CD-17 and 20-CD-18 (formerly 21-CD- 26). May 11, 1951 Decision and Determination of Dispute STATEMENT OF THE CASE This proceeding arises under Section 10 (k) of the Act. On No- vember 8, 1950, W. R. Chamberlin and Company, herein called the 94 NLRB No. 67. INT'ERNAT'IONAL LONG SHOREMEINVS AND WAREHOUSEMEN"Si UNION 389 Company, filed with the Regional Director for the Twenty-first Region a charge, docketed as Case No. 21-CD-26, against International Long- shoremen's and Warehousemen's Union and its Locals 13 and 48, herein called the I. L. W. U., alleging that they had engaged in and were engaging in certain activities proscribed by Section 8 (b) (4) (D) of the Act. It was alleged that they had and were engaging in activi- ties proscribed by that section, with the object of forcing and requir- ing the Company to assign particular work to their members rather than to other employees of the Company who were members of the Sailors' Union of the Pacific, AFL, herein called S. U. P. Pursuant to Sections 102.74 and 102.75 of Board Rules and Regu- lations, the Regional Director investigated the charges and provided for an appropriate hearing, upon due notice to all parties. There- after a hearing was held before Jerome Smith, hearing officer of the Board, on December 7, 8, 11, 12, 13, 15, 18, and 19, 1950. On December 12, 1950, the Pacific Maritime Association, herein called P. M. A., filed with the Regional Director for the Twentieth Region a charge against the I. L. W. U. and S. U. P., alleging, in sub- stance, that each had engaged in and was engaging in activities pro- scribed by Section 8 (b) (4) (D), directed against employees of mem- bers of the P. M. A. with the object of forcing or requiring the Com- pany to assign particular work to its members rather than to the members of the other labor organization. Case No. 21-CD-26 was remanded by the Board for further hearing on January 19, 1951, was transferred to the Twentieth Region by the General Counsel, was renumbered Case No. 20-CD-18, and was con- solidated for hearing with Case No. 20-CD-17. On January 22 and 23, 1951, the consolidated hearing was held be- fore Jerome Smith, hearing officer of the Board, pursuant to Sections 102.74 and 102.75 of Board Rules and Regulations upon due notice to all the parties.2 The parties appeared at the hearing and were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to adduce evidence hearing on the issues. The rulings of the hearing officer made at the hearing are free from prejudicial I Pacific Maritime Association and the Shipowners ' Association of the Pacific Coast were served with notice of hearing but did not appear 2 Shipowners' Association of the Pacific Coast , which represents the Company in its relations with the S . U. P, was served with notice of hearing but did not appear. 390 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD error and are hereby affirmed.3 All the parties were afforded an op- portunity to file briefs with the Board.4 Upon the entire record in the case the Board makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The Company's business The Company is and has been for over 30 years engaged at its place of business in San Francisco, California, and elsewhere, in operating merchant vessels of American registry for the transportation of freight, chiefly lumber, between ports in the State of California and ports elsewhere in the United States or in foreign countries. The parties stipulated, and we find, that the Company is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. 2. The P. M. A.'s business The P. M. A. is an incorporated membership association with its principal office at San Francisco, California. Its 141 members are owners and operators of ocean-going vessels and steam schooners, wharfage and stevedoring concerns, and other water-front employers, all of whom operate almost exclusively in interstate commerce-in 1950 to the extent of 18,000,000 tons of cargo. P. M. A. represents its mem- bers in collective bargaining and other labor relations functions. The Company is a member of P. M. A. We find that the P. M. A. is engaged in commerce within the mean- ing of the Act. 3 The P. M. A. has appealed from a ruling of the hearing officer denying its request for a continuance of the healing . This request evidently was made tor the purpose of per- mitting the P. M A. to prepare for inquiry into the coastwide allocation of cargo work between sailors and longshoremen-a much broader inquiry than that presented in the charges initiating this Section 10 ( k) proceeding ; these deal only with the dispute over the cargo work aboard the Company' s vessel, the C-Trader, and the activities of the labor organizations in connection with that controversy. As there appears to be no valid reason for disturbing the hearing officer 's ruling in this respect, the ruling is hereby affirmed. 4 The request for oral argument by the P. M. A. is hereby denied, as the briefs, in the Board's opinion , adequately present the issues and the positions of the parties The I . L. W. U., in its supplemental brief, and the P. M A, in its brief, refer to evidence adduced in the companion injunction proceeding after the close of the hearing in this Section 10 ( k) proceeding. The I. L. W. U. has filed a motion to reopen the record for the receipt of this evidence . The P. M. A. has filed a motion to strike from the I L W. U.'s brief , and the Company and S . U P have filed motions to strike from the briefs of both the I. L. W. U and the P. M. A. references to material not contained in the record of this Section 10 ( k) proceeding . As the evidence referred to is not newly discovered but, on the contrary, was available before the closing of the hearing in this proceeding and as no stipulation was made to hold the hearing in this case open for the receipt of further evidence in the injunction proceeding , the Board hereby denies the I. L. W. U.'s motion to reopen the record and grants the motions to strike from the briefs of the I. L. W. U. and the P. M. A. the references to material not contained in the official record of this proceeding INTERNATIONAL LONGSHOREMEN'S AND WAREHOUSEMEN' S1 UNION 391 3. The dispute a. The facts In June 1950 the Company purchased a three-hatch steam schooner which it converted into a package lumber carrier-primarily through the installation of two revolving hydraulic cranes on its deck-and named the C-Trader. In October 1950 the vessel was ready to operate . in the transportation of package lumber from Reedsport, Oregon, to, Los Angeles, California. During 1950 the Company met on several occasions with I. L. W. U. and S. U. P. representatives with regard to the loading and unload- ing of the C-Trader, but no arrangement concerning the allocation of the cargo work between the sailors and the longshoremen agreeable to both Unions was reached. The Company thereupon elected to, assign the disputed work to the sailors represented by S. U. P. and placed the vessel in operation on October 23, 1950, at Reedsport. Loading of the C-Trader commenced at 8 a. m. on October 23, 1950. Longshoremen, ordered through a stevedoring company, worked as front-men on the dock while sailors worked cargo aboard ship in the, loading of one hatch. Additional longshoremen, ordered to report at 10 a. m., failed to arrive. Tom Richmond, dispatcher for I. L. W. U. Local 48, however, appeared and told company officials that if the sailors were "split"-that is, worked in more than the one hatch-the longshoremen who were working would leave the job and a picket line. would be formed. After a short interval the loading proceeded with sailors working two hatches. The longshoremen front-men left their work, and a picket line was formed by the I. L. W. U. The picket line continued for the next 2 days, but the work of the front-men was performed by workers who were not members of the I. L. W. U. On the following 2 days there was no picket line, and some work was performed by the I. L. W. U. longshoremen. On the fifth day Rich- mond informed company officials that an arbitration proceeding had been held and an award had been made by which the sailors were limited to working on one hatch. He also informed the Company that, unless it abided by the award, all longshoremen would be pulled off the job and a picket line reestablished. Although the Company continued to split the sailors, there was no work stoppage or further picketing, and the vessel was loaded. While the vessel was en route to Los Angeles, a company official was informed by a representative of the I. L. W. U. that there was. going to be a large picket line at Los Angeles and was told that the Company should limit the work of the sailors to one hatch. On November 4, the day the vessel reached Los Angeles, the president of I. L. W. U. Local 13 stated to a company official that the C-Trader 392 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD would undoubtedly lie alongside the dock and rot unless the Company limited the sailors' cargo work to one hatch. In Los Angeles the longshoremen worked as front-men for a few hours until an arbitra- tion award limiting the sailors to one hatch was made. Thereupon, as the Company split the sailor crew, the longshoremen ceased work i nd set up a picket line. On October 25, 1950, Lundeberg, secretary-treasurer of S. U. P., telephoned the president of P. M. A. and stated that he "was putting a freeze on the Oregon coastal ports, that sailors would not be per- mitted to sail vessels in there, but the vessels in there could clear, and that he was doing this to back up Chamberlin's decision to use sailors on the C-Trader handling cargo." This freeze was apparently lifted on October 30, but was resumed on December 5. On December 11, 1950, Harry Johnson, assistant secretary-treasurer of S. U. P., told the marine superintendent of two steamship companies that the Oregon ports would be off limits for the S. U. P., that they would not sail there. The unlicensed deck crew of the S. S. Wyon?.ing signed articles only after they had been advised and were certain that the vessel would not go into Coos Bay, Oregon. On December 21, 1950, the S. S. Oliver Olson entered the Port of Bandon, Oregon. In the few days that followed all of the ship's sailors quit work and replacements through the S. U. P. were unob- tainable. On December 27 the S. S. Margaret Schaefer entered the port at Coos Bay, Oregon, whereupon the sailors were ordered off the job by an S. U. P. agent. At various times in December agents of S. U. P. stated that the freeze was still on. Lundeberg stated that "the freeze was to be kept on these ports in order to give starvation treatment to the longshore- men in these ports until he had won his point with respect to the assignment of work on the C-Trader to the sailors." b. Contentions of the parties The I. L. W. U. contends that it is entitled to the work by certifica- tion, contract, and arbitration awards and, in defense of Section 8 (b) (4) (D) charges, that the Company is failing to conform to the Board's certification. It adds that the object of its activity was not illegal but to force the Company to comply with arbitration awards and to cease violating wage standards. The S. U. P. urges that it has a contractual right to the work in dispute and that the work belongs historically to the sailors. The Company maintains that neither the I. L. W. U. nor the S. U. P. has any right to the work involved and that it may assign the work as it sees fit. INTERNATIONAL LONGSHOREMEN'S! AND WAREHOUSEMEN'S UNION 393 The P. M. A., alleging violations of Section 8 (b) (4) (D) by both labor organizations, takes the position that the dispute which is the subject matter of this Section 10 (k) proceeding goes beyond the operation of the C-Trader and bears upon a coastwise problem.5 c. The I. L. W. U. certification The I. L. W. U. pleads its certification by the Board on June 21, 1938,6 as a defense to charges of violating Section 8 (b) (4) (D). It relies on the exception contained in that section of the Act which reads : ". . . unless such employer is failing to conform to an order or certification of the Board determining the bargaining repre- sentative for employees performing such work .. ." 7 and contends that as representative "of the workers who do longshore work" it is entitled to the work in dispute. The Board's certification of 1938 resulted from a check of designa- tion cards against employers' lists of longshoremen doing work in each of the ports involved. Sailors were not included on these lists, nor was their representative served with notice of hearing. Long- shoremen at Reedsport, Oregon, and Los Angeles, California, the ports directly involved in this proceeding, were included in the check, and the Company was listed in appendices to the decision as participating in the proceeding. As at least part of the I. L. W. U.'s argument is based on the lan- guage used in the Board's certification, it is necessary to examine that language. In the Shipowners' decision the "Conclusions of Law" con- tain the statement "The workers who do the longshore work in the Pacific Coast ports of the United States for the companies .. . constitute a unit appropriate . . ." In like manner, the "Certifica- tion of Representatives" certified that the I. L. W. U. "has been designated . . . by a majority of the workers who do longshore work. . . ." This language might indicate that the I. L. W. U. certification covered all employees when doing longshore work. Other circum- stances indicate, however, that the certification covered only "long- shoremen." Thus, in another part of the decision the Board found that the I. L. W. U. "has been designated and selected by the majority 6 See footnote 3. e Shipowners' Association of The Pacific Coast, et al , 7 NLRB 1002 ' Section 8 ( b) (4) (D) of the Act makes it an unfair labor practice for a labor organ- ization to engage in certain activity, . . where an object thereof . . . forcing or requiring any employer to assign par- ticular work to employees in a particular labor organization or in a particular trade, ciatt, or class rather than to employees in another labor organization or in another trade, craft , or class, unless such employer is failing to conform to an order or cer- tification of the Board deternnninq the bargaining representative for employees per- forming such work; ... [Emphasis supplied :394 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, of the -longshoremen in the appropriate unit" [Emphasis supplied] ; ,the lists, against which the designation cards were checked, contained ,only the names of the longshoremen; and-with the exception of one port where "exclusively" was deleted on some of the cards-the cards which were checked against the lists, besides designating the I. L. W. U. as bargaining representative, contained the statement, "I am employed exclusively as a longshoreman." Furthermore, in concluding that the labor relations of members of the Shipowners Association of the Pacific Coast, which represented -steam schooner operators, were handled in the same manner as the labor relations of the members of the other associations, the Board noted that "The crews on these steam schooners usually do some of the work ordinarily classified as longshore work and the steam schooner operators did not want to be bound by the provisions of the agreement with respect to that portion of the longshore work done by the crews." This is precisely the work in dispute here, and, as noted in'the 1938 decision, it has been excluded from the basic off-shore contract with the I. L. W. U., by supplementary agreements excepting steam schooners from the provisions regarding the scope of work performed by members of the I. L. W. U. The I. L. W. U. urges that this acknowledgment by the Board that crew members on steam schooners usually do some of the work "ordi- narily classified as longshore work" lends conclusive support for its position that the I. L. W. U. was certified as bargaining agent of all workers who do longshore work, including the crews to the extent that they perform such work. It asserts that despite the fact that the Board was aware that crew members do some longshore work, it, never- theless, certified the I. L. W. U. as representative of all workers who do longshore work. The Company and S. U. P. contend that the Board excepted the longshore work performed by sailors from the certification when it recognized that crew members performed cargo work aboard steam schooners, and that the definition of "longshore work" in the basic longshore agreement was inapplicable to steam schooners insofar as this cargo work of the crews was concerned. The most reasonable interpretation of the certification from the above facts appears to be that the Board used the term "longshore- men" and "workers who do longshore work" interchangeably, that by the term "longshoremen" was meant the workers working primarily, if not exclusively, on loading and unloading cargo, and that sailors -doing cargo work on steam schooners were intended to be excluded in accordance with the steam schooner supplement to the basic long- shore contract. Accordingly, we find no merit in the I. L. W. U.'s con- tention that the certification includes sailors insofar as they do cargo work aboard steam schooners. INTERNATIONAL LONGSHOREMEN' SI AND WAREHOUSEMENYSi UNION 395 d. I. L. W. U. bargaining history Both the I. L. W. U. and the S. U. P. contend that they are entitled to the disputed work under bargaining contracts. On October 12, 1934, the National Longshoremen's Board made an arbitration award which "constituted a series of agreements" between the predecessor of the I. L. W. U. and regional associations of em- ployers. On February 4, 1937, the first of several contracts between the operators and the I. L. W. U. was executed. This contract, known as the basic longshore contract, provided that, "The provisions of this agreement shall apply to all handling of cargo in its transfer from vessel to first place of rest, and vice versa, including sorting and piling of cargo on the dock; and the direct transfer of cargo from vessel to railroad car or barge, and vice versa, ..." Appended to this contract, however, was a supplementary agreement, which became known as the "steam schooner supplement." By this supplement the Ship- owners' Association of the Pacific Coast (S. A. P. C.) adopted the basic longshore contract, "provided, however, that members of crews of steam schooners may perform cargo work properly within the scope of their duties, but neither the International Longshoremen's Associ- ation nor the Shipowners' Association shall be permitted [committed] with reference to the scope or nature of the duties of longshoremen or members of the crews of steam schooners, . . Effective October 1, 1938, a new basic longshore contract was exe- cuted, which was adopted in a "steam schooner supplement" by the SAPC with the provision that "uniform coast rules relating to the scope and nature of the duties of longshoremen on steam schooners and other provisions relating to steam schooner practice" should be negotiated. The contracts were later amended and modified on De- cember 20, 1940, but the steam schooner supplement contained the same provision as the supplement of February 4, 1937, with regard to the cargo work of crew members. The basic longshore contract and the steam schooner supplement of December 20, 1940, continued in effect until July 16, 1946, when a new basic contract was executed and the supplement of December 20, 1940, was renewed. These agree- ments, however, expired on September 30, 1946, after which the Pacific Coast Maritime Unions went on strike. After the strike, negotiations for new contracts were conducted and a new basic longshore contract was executed effective June 1&, 1947. Agreement on a steam schooner contract, however, was not reached. During discussion regarding work on steam schooners, controversy arose concerning the question as to whether any steam schooner agree- ment was in existence. The issue was submitted to the Pacific Coast 396 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD arbitrator, who decided that an "implied" contract existed which would expire June 15, 1948. In October 1948, following another strike , negotiations on a basic longshore contract and a steam schooner agreement were resumed. Agreement was reached on the basic longshore contract ; but the parties did not reach agreement on the steam schooner supplement . Little, if any, negotiation took place between about December 31, 1948, and about May 15, 1949. On September 30, 1949, the P. M. A. and the I. L. W. U. negotiators reached agreement on a memorandum to be submitted to the membership of each of the parties. This tentative agreement, which would have limited the cargo work of the crew on steam schooners to one hatch , was never ratified by the steam schooner operators. The record contains testimony that during the period of negotia- tions a "status quo" agreement was in effect . An I. L . W. U. witness understood the status quo to refer to conditions during the 1-year period prior to July 15 , 1948. Testimony of company witnesses indi- cated that they were not certain as to the "status quo" period. In any event the last written steam schooner contract did not limit the cargo work of the sailors to one hatch, nor did any prior agreement. Moreover, on July 11, 1950, Harry Bridges wrote the P. M. A.: In view of the Pacific Maritime Association 's continued failure to ratify the steam schooner agreement, we are hereby notifying you that the union is withdrawing any commitments or under- standings relative to steam schooners. We suggest that nego- tiations be held at your earliest convenience. Negotiations on the steam schooner agreement were later resumed, and in September 1950 two meetings between the I. L. W. U. and the Steam Schooner Committee of P. M. A. took place. About October 18, 1950, a few days before the C-Trader was put into operation, I. L. W. U. representatives met with representatives of the Company for discussions on the method of loading and unloading the C-Trader. Again no agreement was reached. From the foregoing facts it is clear that there is no agreement, oral or written, between the Company (and the P. M. A.) and the I. L. W. U. under which the Company (or the P. M. A.) undertook to allocate the shipside cargo work , and we so find.8 e. S. U. P. bargaining history As did the I. L. W. U., the S. U. P. has customarily negotiated a steam schooner agreement separate from the "intercoastal and off- shore trade" contract. On February 4, 1937, the S. U. P. executed a contract with S. A. P. C. I It is not necessary here to determine the effect of such an agreement if one had existed. INTERNATIONAL LONGSHOREMEN'S AND WAREHOUSEMEN'S' UNION 397 for operators engaged in the steam schooner trade, which set forth, among other things, the wages and conditions under which the sailors were to perform cargo work. On October 24, 1939, the same parties entered into another contract which established, wages for winch- drivers "on ships that carry package lumber, piling, etc. and where sailor crews are split." This agreement also provided that, "Crews maybe split to handle package lumber, piling, etc." (Emphasis sup- plied.) The contract of October 27, 1941, between these parties con- tained the same provisions ; the agreements of July 27, 1946, and October 15, 1947, between the S. U. P. and Pacific American Ship- owners Association, which at those times represented the Company, added the clause, "Crews shall work cargo in any and all hatches as directed. . . ." In the agreement of Defember 13, 1949, between the S. U. P. and the S. A. P. C. (which again represented the Company) which runs until September 30, 1951, the provisions of the previous contracts remain unchanged. Despite the contention of the S. U. P., the provisions in its contracts with the steam schooner operators do not give the S. U. P. or its mem- bers any contract rights to the work involved. On the contrary, the pertinent clauses of the contracts grant the employers the option of requiring certain cargo work of the sailors who have agreed that they "shall work cargo in any and all hatches as directed." f. Applicability of the statute The charges, which were duly investigated, allege violations of Section 8 (b) (4) (D), and the record before the Board establishes that there is reasonable cause to believe that the I. L. W. U. and the S. U. P. induced and encouraged employees to cease work in order to compel the Company to assign work to members of one of the labor organizations rather than to members of the other union. We there- fore find that the dispute in question is properly before the Board. g. The merits of the dispute The Company has assigned the work in dispute-the shipside cargo work-to its employees, the crew members of the C-Trader. The I. L. W. U. contends that it is entitled to that work for its members by reason of certification, contract, and arbitration awards. As the Board has found that the I. L. W. U. was not certified as the bargain- ing representative of the sailors performing the work in dispute, and that there is no existing contract by which the Company (or the P. M. A.) undertook to allocate the shipside cargo work on steam schooners, it is unnecessary to consider the custom or tradition alleged with respect to the work.9 Furthermore, assuming that in some cir- 9 See Juneait Spi uce Coi po) atwn, 82 NLRB 650 398 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD cumstances an arbitration award might be significant, as the S. U. P. was not a party to the awards limiting the sailors to work in one hatch, we find no merit to the I. L. W. U.'s contention that such awards iii its favor are determinative of the case."' The S. U. P. has urged that it has a contractual right to the shipside cargo work and that the work belongs historically to the sailors. As the Board has found no merit to the S. U. P.'s contention that its con- tract granted the work to S. U. P.'s members, it is unnecessary to, consider the custom and tradition alleged by it to support its claim to a "right" to the work in dispute. Accordingly, the Board finds that the I. L. W. U. is not lawfully entitled to require the Company to assign the work in dispute to mem- bers of the I. L. W. U. rather than to members of the S. U. P.; nor is the S. U. P. lawfully entitled to require the Company to assign the work to members of the S. U. P. rather than to members of the I. L. W. U. Determination of Dispute On the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and the entire record in this case, the Board makes the following determination of the dispute, pursuant to Section 10 (k) of the amended Act: 1. International Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's Union, C. 1. 0., Local 13, International Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's Union, and Local 48, International Longshoremen's and Warehouse- men's Union, and their agents are not, and have not been, lawfully entitled to force or require W. R. Chamberlin and Company of San Francisco, California, to assign work aboard ship of loading and unloading cargo on its steam schooner, C-Trader, to its members rather than to sailor employees of the Company who are members of Sailors' Union of the Pacific, A. F. L. 2. Sailors' Union of the Pacific and its agents are not, and have not been, lawfully entitled to force or require W. R. Chamberlin and Company of San Francisco, California, to assign work aboard ship of loading and unloading cargo on its steam schooner, C-Trader, to its members rather than to longshoremen who are members of Inter- national Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's Union, C. I. O. 3. Within ten (10) days from the date of this Decision and De- termination of Dispute, each of the Respondents shall notify the Regional Director for the Twentieth Region, in writing, as to what steps the Respondents have taken to comply with the terms of this Decision and Determination of Dispute. MEMBERS REYNOLDS and STYLES took no part in the consideration of the above Decision and Determination of Dispute. 11 Los Angeles Building and Construction Trades Council, A. F. L., at al., 83 NLRB 477.