Construction and General Laborers Union, Local 320

118 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR -RELATIONS BOARD We shall therefore direct that a self-determination election be held in a voting group composed of the timekeeper in the Employer's Freeport plant, excluding all other employees and supervisors .3 If he votes for the Petitioner, he will be taken to have indicated his de- sire to be included in the production and maintenance unit currently represented by the Petitioner. [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this volume.] 8 Cf. Southwestern Sales Corporation (Radio Station KVOO ), 92 NLRB 936. CONSTRUCTION AND GENERAL LABORERS UNION, LOCAL 320, AFFILIATED WITH INTERNATIONAL HOD CARRIERS , BUILDING AND COMMON LABORERS UNION OF AMERICA, AFL, AND R. L. SLATER, ITS OFFICER AND AGENT and JAMES FELLOWS and EDWARD F. WILSON. Cases Nos. 36-CB-I4° and 36-CB-43. September 10, 1951 Decision and Order On May 15, 1951, Trial Examiner William E. Spencer issued his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondents had engaged in and were engaging in certain unfair labor practices and recommending that they be ordered to cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the Intermediate Report attached hereto. 'Thereafter the Respondents filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and a supporting brief. The Board 1 has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings' are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Inter- mediate Report, the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record in the case and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner.2 1. The Trial Examiner found, and we agree, that the Respondent violated Section 8 (b) (2) and (1) (A) of the Act by causing the Com- ''Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board has delegated its powers in respect to this case to a three-member panel [Members Houston , Reynolds, and Styles]; 2 The Respondent excepts to the Trial Examiner 's characterization of the Company as a "multistate enterprise," in connection with his jurisdictional findings. Whether or not the Company is a multistate enterprise within the meaning of that term as used in prior Board decisions , we find, in view of the fact that during 1949 the Company performed services outside the State-of Oregon exceeding $25,000 in value, that it would effectuate the policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction in this case See Stanislaus Implement and Hardware Company, Limited, 91 NLRB 618; Starrett Bros. and Eken, Inc., 92 NLRB 1757. 96 NLRB No. 12. CONSTRUCTION AND GENERAL LABORERS UNION 119 pany to discharge Wilson and Fellows for reasons other than their failure to tender periodic dues and initiation fees. However, we do not agree with the Trial Examiner that it was nec- essary for the-disposition of this case to ascertain the precise reason for the Respondent's action in suspending Fellows and Wilson as members in good standing. Under the Act such reasons would be relevant only if there were in existence a valid union-security agree- ment, and the discharges were alleged to have been made pursuant to such agreement. Recognizing this, the Trial Examiner found, and we agree, that there was in fact no such contract in existence at the time of the discharges in this case, and that the discharges were there- fore illegal regardless of the reasons for the Respondent's suspension of the dischargees. However, he deemed himself precluded from dis- posing of the case on this ground, because of the failure of the General Counsel to allege the nonexistence of such a contract. We do not agree with this view insofar as it implies that the burden is on the General Counsel, in a case of this sort, to allege the nonexistence of a valid' -union-shop contract. The burden is rather properly on the respond- ent in such a case to plead the existence of such a contract and that the discharges were made pursuant thereto. Absent proof of the existence of such a contract in this case, we find that, in any event, Respondent's violation of the Act is sufficiently es- tablished by the evidence that the, discharges- were made at the Re- spondent's request because of the dischargees' loss of membership in good standing, and it was unnecessary for the Trial Examiner to in- quire into the reasons for such loss of membership. 2. In connection with his finding that the Respondent caused the Company to discharge Wilson and Fellows in violation of Section 8 (b) (2) and (1) (a) of the Act by demanding their discharge for not being members in good standing; the Trial Examiner found that the Company depended on the Respondent for its labor supply. The Re- spondent asserts that there is no basis in the record for such a finding. Assuming that to be the case, and that the Company did not depend on the Respondent for its labor supply, that fact would not affect the validity of the Trial Examiner's conclusion that the Respondent vio- lated the Act, or our concurrence therein. Order Upon the entire record in the case and pursuant to Section 10 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the Respondent, Construction and General Laborers Union, Local 320, affiliated with International Hod Carriers, Building and Common Laborers Union of America, AFL, Portland, Oregon, its officers, agents, representatives, successors, and 120 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD assigns, and the Respondent R. L. Slater, officer and agent of the Re- spondent Union, jointly and severally, shall : 1. Cease and desist from : (a) Causing or attempting to cause Yonker & Pettijohn, its agents, successors or assigns, to discharge, suspend or otherwise discriminate against its employees because they are not members in good standing of the Respondent Union, except in accordance with Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act. (b) In any other manner causing or attempting to cause Yonker & Pettijohn, Portland, Oregon, or its agents, successors, and assigns, to discriminate against its employees in violation of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act. (c) Restraining or coercing employees of Yonker & Pettijohn, its successors, or assigns in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other -mutual aid or protection, and to refrain from any or all such activ- ities, except to the extent that such right may be affected by an agree- ment authorized by Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action, which the Board finds will effectuate the policies of the Act : (a) Immediately notify Yonker & Pettijohn and The-Pettijohn Engineering Company, Portland, Oregon, that they have no objections -to the immediate reinstatement or reemployment of James Fellows and Edward F. Wilson in their former or substantially equivalent positions, without prejudice to their seniority and other rights and privileges, if any. (b) Make whole James Fellows and Edward F. Wilson, for any ,-loss of pay they may have suffered because of the Respondents' un- fair labor practices, in the manner described in section of the Inter- .mediate Report entitled "The Remedy." (c) Post copies of the notice attached as an Appendix to the Inter- mediate Report 3 in conspicuous places at the Respondent Union's business offices in Portland, Oregon, and all other places where no- tices to members of the Respondent Union are customarily posted. Copies of the notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for the Nineteenth Region (Seattle, Washington), shall be posted by the Respondents immediately upon their receipt, after being duly signed by a representative of each, and the said posting shall be maintained by them for a period of sixty (60) consecutive days thereafter. Rea- 8 This notice shall be amended by substituting for the words "The Recommendations of a Trial Examiner" in the caption thereof, the words "A Decision and Order." If this Order is enforced by a decree of the United States Court of Appeals, the notice shall be further amended by inserting before the words "A Decision and Order," the words "A Decree of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing." CONSTRUCTION AND GENERAL LABORERS UNION 121 sonable steps shall be taken by the Respondents to insure that these notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. . (d) File with the Regional Director of the Nineteenth Region, within ten (10) days from the date,of this Order, a report in writing setting forth the manner and form in which they have complied with these recommendations. Intermediate Report and Recommended Order STATEMENT 29OF THE CASE Upon charges filed by James Fellows and Edward F. Wilson, individuals, the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board, herein called respectively the General Counsel and the Board, by the Regional Director for the Nineteenth Region (Seattle, Washington), issued his complaint dated March 8, 1951, alleging, that Construction and General Laborers Union, Local 320 of the International Hod Carriers, Building and Common Laborers Union of America, AFL, herein called the Respondent Union, and R. L. Slater, as its agent, herein called Re- spondent Slater, have engaged in and are engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8, subsection (b) (1) (A) and (2) and Section 2, subsection (6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended (61 Stat. 136), herein called the Act, in that the Respondents attempted to cause and caused Yonker & Pettijohn, herein called the Employer, to discharge the aforesaid Fellows and Wilson, in violation of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act. Copies of the complaint, accompanied by notices of hearing thereon, were duly served upon the parties. In their answer duly filed, the Respondents denied the jurisdictional allegations of the complaint and that they had engaged in the alleged unfair labor practices. ' Pursuant to notice,`a hearing was held at Portland, Oregon, on April 26, 1951, before me, the undersigned duly designated Trial Examiner. All parties were represented at and participated in the hearing, where full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bear- ing on the issues was afforded them. On motion of the General Counsel and without objection, the transcript of certain prior proceedings was made a part of the record herein' After the evidence had been taken, the General Coun- sel's unopposed motion to conform the pleadings to the proof was granted. There was oral argument participated in by the General Counsel and counsel for the Respondents. The Respondents filed a brief. Upon the entire record in the case and from my observation of the witnesses who appeared before me, I make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT I. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYES Yonker & Pettijobn, the Employer herein, was a partnership formed in or about February 1948, engaged as general contractors in the construction business, with its office at Portland, Oregon. 1 This transcript included an injunction proceeding in the District Court of the United States for the District of Oregon and a proceeding before the Board in the matter of Con- struction and General Laborers Union, Local No. 320 of the International Hod Carriers, Building and Common Laborers Union of America, AFL, and Robert L. Slater, as its Agent, and Armco Drainage and Metal Products, Inc., 93 NLRB 751. 122 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD From April 1949 to October 1949, it was engaged as a subcontractor in the construction of the foundation and footings for a power transmission line in the city of Seattle, Washington, at a contract price of approximately $109,650, which included services, materials, and labor. Starting in July 1949, it was en- gaged as a subcontractor on a_power line or transmission line job in the State of Washington at a contract price of approximately $107,722. This construc- tion was performed for the Bonneville Power Administration, an agency of the Federal Government. In May 1950, the Employer became engaged in a construction job for a hous- ing subdivision in or near the city of Portland, Oregon, known as the Vermont Hills job, at a contract price of $33,000. It is the situs of the incidents giving rise to the case at bar. This project was completed in the fall of 1950. Also in the latter part of 1950, the Employer was engaged in laying sewer pipe on a construction job at or near Portland, Oregon, at a contract price of approximately $5,000. It is clear from the foregoing, and is found, that Yonker & Pettijohn was a multistate enterprise engaged in_construction projects of substantial value in the States of Oregon and Washington. It was therefore engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act and it will effectuate the policies of the Act for the Board to assert jurisdiction herein. In view of these findings, it is unnecessary to consider the business: of Armco Drainage and Metal Products, Inc., the employer with whom the Respondents herein had their primary dispute,' out of which flowed the incidents giving rise to the case at bar, in order to determine jurisdiction herein. On or about September 1950 Yonker & Pettijohn dissolved their partnership or joint venture and the Pettijohn Engineering Company, Portland, Oregon, ac- quired the good will of the partnership, some of its properties, and the right to use the name of Yonker & Pettijohn for its own future operations. II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED Construction and General Laborers Union, Local 320, affiliated with Interna- tional Hod Carriers, Building and Common Laborers Union of America, AFL, and R. L. Slater, its officer and agent, is a labor organization within the mean- ing of Section 2 (5) of the Act. III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES The case at bar in which it is alleged that the Respondent Union and its agent, Respondent Robert L. Slater, caused Yonker & Pettijohn discrimina- torily to discharge its employees, James Fellows and Edward F. Wilson, de- rives from a situation in which the same respondents were found by the Board to have engaged in conduct violative of Section 8 (b) (4) (A) and (B) of the Act. The following facts are recited from the Board's `decision; of which I take official notice : For several years before 1948, the Respondent Union was the bargaining representative of the employees in Armco's [Armco Drainage and Metal Products, Inc.] concrete products plant. In 1948, in answer to a petition for decertification of the Union as bargaining representative of these em- ployees, the Union acknowledged that it no longer represented them. The petition was thereupon dismissed. In April 1950, the Union commenced See footnote 1, supra. s Construction and General Laborers Union, Local No. 320 of the International Hod Carriers, Building and Common Laborers Union of America, AFL, et at., 93 NLRB 751. CONSTRUCTION AND GENERAL LABORERS UNION 123 • picketing Armco's place of business for the purpose of forcing Armco to bargain for employees whom it had disclaimed representing in 1948. No intervening certification of the Union had occurred. In June 1950, Respondent Slater, the Respondent Union's secretary and business manager, went to the job site of one of Armco's customers (Yonker & Pettijohn) and told this customer's employees, who were also members of the Union, that he wished to have the delivery of Armco material stopped. Slater also asked the customer.to stop handling the Armco material. De- spite Slater's statement to them, the employees of Yonker & Pettijohn con- tinued to handle the Armco material on an interim basis. Slater observed and expressed displeasure at this action. Two days later, without adequate explanation, the Union suspended them from membership and refused to permit them to return to work for Yonker & Pettijohn. It is against this background that we approach the gravamen of the present complaint. Fellows and Wilson were two of those employees whom the Union suspended from membership and refused to permit to return to work for Yonker & Pettijohn. It is alleged that by that action and course of conduct the Respond- ents attempted to cause and caused Yonker & Pettijohn, the employer herein, to discriminate against Fellows and Wilson. It does not appear to be dis- puted that Yonker & Pettijohn terminated the employment of Fellows and Wilson, on or about June 26, 1950. In any event, this is established by Wilson's credited and corroborated testimony that on June 25, he called E. I. Pettijohn, one of the partners of Yonker & Pettijohn, who informed him that it was "im- possible" for him and the other men who had been suspended from membership in the Union, to return to work.4 Neither does it appear to be disputed that the Union and its agent, Slater, "attempted to cause and caused" the Employer to discharge Fellows and Wilson. It was Pettijohn's credited testimony that Slater informed him that these and other employees engaged on the job had been "suspended from the job, and they could not return under any circumstances." Pettijohn further testified, "I objected to his removing all the men from the job because I felt it was not fair to them and, from my standpoint, it also jeopardized the normal operation. Bringing in a new crew would necessitate the reorganizing of our method of procedure." Nevertheless Pettijohn acquiesced in the Respondents' request that the men be removed from the job. It may be argued that the Union's request for the discharge of Fellows, Wilson, and others was not accompanied by such pressures as to constitute an "attempt to cause" or the "causing" of the discharges, within the meaning of the Act. A similar argument was rejected by the Board in a recent decision in which the Board stated: ". . . in the instant case, the Respondent Union's, International and its locals were the source of the Company's labor supply not only for the job involved here but for other operations in various parts of the country. In view of the Respondent Union's potential economic power to deprive the Employer of its labor market, the request of the Respondent Union's job steward, later reiterated by the business agent, that members of the subordi- nate local be laid off out of turn, exerted sufficient pressure to accomplish the ends desired by the Respondent Union. It is unrealistic to contend that such request was not in fact the `cause' of the discharges." ` Similarly, it would Wilson testified : ". . . he [Pettijohn] told me that the executive board [of the Union] had informed him that we were suspended and that we could not come back on the job. That was all he could say He said he pleaded with them to let us stay on the job, that he wanted us back and was satisfied with our work, but be said it was impossible for us to come back because we were suspended." 6 Sub Grade Engineering Company et al., 93 NLRB 406. 124 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD be unrealistic to make such a contention here where the Employer argued against the discharges and, obviously, would riot have effectuated them except for economic pressures implicit in the Respondents' demand. It remains to consider whether the Respondents' request for the discharges was permissible, or violative of the Act as alleged in the complaint. It seems clear that the Employer in discharging Fellows, Wilson, and others at the re- quest of the Respondents, encouraged membership in_ the Union within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act. The decision by the Board in a recent case is applicable to the case at bar: ". . . by the act of yielding to the Local's demand that Watson be removed, the Employer perforce strength- ened the position of the Local and forcibly demonstrated to the employees that membership in, as well as adherence to the rules of, that organization was extremely desirable. Such encouragement of union membership was particu- larly effective when, as in the present case, the Employer deferred to the de- mand of the Local that employees be cleared through its hall, and membership appears to have been a condition precedent to obtaining the necessary clear- ance." 6 Here, also, the Employer depended on the Respondents for its labor supply ; otherwise, it would not have yielded to the Respondents' request for the discharges. It follows that the discharges were discriminatory and there- fore violative of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act unless they fall within the proviso of that Section which makes discrimination permissible under a valid union-shop contract where membership in a labor organization is denied or terminated because of "the failure of the employee to tender the periodic dues 2nd the initiation fees uniformly required as a condition of acquiring or retain- ing membership." We turn now to a somewhat more detailed survey of the situation which gave rise to the Respondents' request for the discharge of Fellows, Wilson, and others. In May and June 1950, the Employer was engaged in the construction of a trunk sewer system for a housing subdivision in the city of Portland In June 23, 1950, several truck loads of materials purchased from Armco Drainage and Metal Products, Inc., hereinafter called Armco, were delivered to the site of the Employer's operations. At this time, as previously indicated, a labor dis- pute existed between the Respondent Union and Armco. On the morning of June 23, Respondent Slater, having been informed of the delivery of Armco ma- terial on the Employer's job, visited the job site and spoke to a number of the employees. In the course of this conversation, he informed them that material being used on the job was being supplied from the picketed Armco plant, and he wished to get the delivery of this material stopped. While disclaiming any intention of advising the employees what they should do under the circum- stances, he suggested that they wait until he left and then decide among them- selves what action to take. Later that same morning, Respondent Slater spoke to Pettijohn and obtained from the latter the promise to purchase material for the completion of the job from a ,supplier other than Armco. Following his conversation with Pettijohn, Slater returned to the job site and told some of the laborers, including Wilson, that he had noticed one of the employees un- loading Armco pipe after he (Slater) had instructed the employees to stop further deliveries Later that same day, Pettijohn informed the employees that he had stopped further deliveries of Armco materials and in the ensuing discussion, it was 6 American Pipe and Steel Corporation at al., 93 NLRB 54. CONSTRUCTION AND GENERAL LABORERS UNION 125 agreed that the employees would continue to work on the Armco material which had already been delivered. The employees, including Fellows and Wilson, continued to work for the rest of that day. On June 25, a meeting of the- Union's executive board was held and 5 of the 10 laborers employed on the Employer's job, including Fellows and Wilson, ap- peared before the executive board where they were asked to relate what had occurred on the job in connection with the Armco materials. Following this meeting, they were informed that all of the laborers on the Employer's job were suspended from the Union and that two of them, including Wilson, were fined $50. They were also advised that, being suspended from the Union, they could not return to work on the Employer's job. It was Pettijohn's credited testimony that Respondent Slater informed him that the employees were suspended from the Union for laying "unfair" pipe. The employees themselves were given no explicit factual reasons by the Union for their suspension . It was Respondent Slater's testimony that the employees were suspended, and certain of them fined, for having insisted that the Union picket the Employer's job. I am unable to credit this testimony. It is in- consistent with Slater's statement to Pettijohn that the aforesaid disciplinary action was taken because the employees had laid "unfair" pipe, and all reasonable inferences arising from the situation just described. The real reason for the employees' suspension was that they had continued to work with Armco ma- terials after Respondent Slater had visited them on the job site on the morning of June 23 and suggested that they do something to stop the delivery of Armco materials. In short, they had not participated as fully as the Respondents ex- pected them to, in furtherance of the Union's labor dispute with Armco and boycott of its products? It is clear from the foregoing and it is found that the Respondents' request for the discharge of Fellows and Wilson, among others, was not based on their failure "to tender the periodic dues and the initiation fees uniformly required as a condition of acquiring or retaining membership . . ." Accordingly, it is found that the Respondents violated Section 8 (b) (1) (A) and (l:) (2) of the Act, by attempting to cause and causing Yonker & Pettijohn to discharge Fellows and Wilson in violation of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.8 , IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of the Respondents, set forth in Section III, above, which oc- curred in connection with the operations of the Employer set forth in Section I, above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States, and tend to lead to labor disputes burden- ing and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce. 7 These findings, arrived at by the undersigned independently of the Board 's decision in the prior case, are based on the credited testimony of Fellows, Wilson, and Pettijohn, duly corroborated , in some or all particulars , by the testimony of other employees testifying for the General Counsel. Respondent Slater's testimony, where it is in conflict with these findings, although considered in its entirety , is rejected. 8It further appears that at the time Fellows and Wilson were discharged, there was no existing valid union-shop contract between the Employer and the Union. In the absence of such a contract, regardless of the reasons which caused the Respondents to suspend these employees, they had no license to demand the discharges and their attempt to cause and the causing of the discharges was patently illegal . The discussion herein has been focused on the actual reasons for the action taken by the Respondents in suspending these employees from membership in the Union, because the complaint does not specifically allege the nonexistence of a valid union-shop contract as the basis of the alleged unlawful acts. 126 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD V. THE REMEDY It having been found that the Respondents engaged in certain unfair labor practices, it will be recommended that they cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, including posting of appropriate notices, designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. It has been found that the Respondents caused the Employer to discriminate against James Fellows and Edward F. Wilson in violation of Section 8 (a) (3) of the statute. It is recommended that the Respondents notify the Employer, Yonker & Pettijohn, and Pettijohn Engineering Company ° in writing, that they have withdrawn their objections to the employment of Fellows and Wilson. The Respondents having committed an unfair labor practice which resulted in the termination of Fellows' and Wilson's employment, it will be recommended that the Respondents, jointly and severally, make them whole for losses suf- fered by reason of the Respondents' unlawful conduct, by payment to each of them of a sum of money equal to the amount each normally would have earned as wages from June 26, 1950, the date of the discharge, to the date on which his employment would normally have been terminated except for the Respond- ents' unlawful acts," less his net earnings, if any," during this period, computed upon a quarterly basis, in the manner established by the Board in the recent Woolworth case." CONorusIONs OF LAW Upon these findings of fact, and upon the entire record in the case, I make the following conclusions of law : 1. Yonker & Pettijohn is, and at all times material herein was, an employer within the meaning of Section 2 (2) of the Act, engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. 2. The Respondent Union, Construction and General Laborers Union, Local 320, affiliated with International Hod Carriers, Building and Common Laborers Union of America, AFL, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act, and Respondent R. L. Slater is its officer and agent. 3. By causing Yonker & Pettijohn to discriminate against James Fellows and Edward F. Wilson in violation of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act, and by their restraint and coercion of Fellows and Wilson and other employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the Respondents engaged in and are engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (b) (1) (A) and (2) of the Act. 4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. [Recommended Order omitted from publication in this volume.] 9 At the time of the hearing, Yonker had withdrawn from the partnership. Upon disso- lution of the partnership, Pettijohn acquired the good will and some of the assets of the partnership and the right to use Yonker & Pettijohn as a trade name for future operations. m The Yonker & Pettijohn project on which Fellows and Wilson were engaged at the time of their employment was completed in or about September 1950. There is no evidence from which it may reasonably be inferred that they normally would have remained in the employ of Yonker & Pettijohn after the completion of this project, or that they thereafter suffered losses attributable to the Respondents ' unlawful labor practices. n Crossett Lumber Company, 8 NLRB 440 ; Republic Steel Corporation v. N. L. R. B., 311 U. S. 7. F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289. CONSTRUCTION AND GENERAL LABORERS UNION Appendix 127 NOTICE TO ALL MEMBERS OF THE CONSTRUCTION AND GENERAL LABORERS UNION, LOCAL 320, AFFILIATED WITH INTERNATIONAL HOD CARRIERS', BUILDING AND COMMON LABORERS' UNION OF AMERICA, AFL Pursuant to the recommendations of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Relations Act, we hereby notify you that : WE WILL NOT attempt to cause or cause YONKER & PETTIJOHN, or its agents, successors, or assigns, to discharge or otherwise discriminate against any of its employees because they are not members in good standing of CONSTRUC- TION AND GENERAL LABORERS UNION, LOCAL 320, AFFILIATED WITH INTERNA- TIONAL HOD CARRIERS, BUILDING AND COMMON LABORERS UNION OF AMERICA, AFL, except in accordance with Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act. WE WILL NOT restrain or coerce employees of YONKER & PETTIJOHN or its agents, successors , or assigns in the exercise of their right to self-organiza- tion, to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own free choice and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, and to refrain from any or all such activities except to the extent that such right may be affected by an agreement authorized by Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act. WE WILL make James Fellows and Edward F. Wilson whole for any loss of pay which they may have suffered because of the unfair labor practices which caused the termination of their employment. CONSTRUCTION AND GENERAL LABORERS UNION, LOCAL 320, AFFILIATED WITH INTERNATIONAL HOD C A R R I E RS, BUILDING AND COMMON LABORERS UNION OF AMERICA, AFL, Labor Organization. Dated -------------------- By ----------------------------------------- (Representative ) (Title) R. L. SLATER By ----------------------------------------- (Agent or Representative ) (Title) This notice must remain posted for 60 days after its date, and must not be al- tered, defaced, or covered by any other material. STANDARD & POOR'S CORPORATION and NEWSPAPER GUILD OF NEW YORK, FOCAL 3, AMERICAN NEWSPAPER GUILD, CIO. Case No.. -RC-92751. September 11, 1951 Order Amending Decision and Order On July 17, 1951, the Board issued a Decision and Order I in the above-entitled matter, dismissing the petition upon the ground that the Petitioner had failed to make a showing of interest adequate to 1 95 NLRB 248. 96 NLRB No. 20.