International Hod Carriers', Etc., Local 894

INTERNATIONAL HOD CARRIERS', ETC., LOCAL 894 55 interstate commerce and who themselves meet the Board's jurisdic- tional standards (other than the indirect inflow or outflow stand- ards) constitute indirect outflow under the Board's Siemons decision and would satisfy the current standard for the assertion of jurisdic- tion over nonretai'l enterprises. Accordingly, the parties are advised under Section 102.103 of the Board's Rules and Regulations, Series 8, as amended, that upon the allegations submitted herein, the Board would assert jurisdiction over the Employer's operations with respect to disputes cognizable under Sections 8, 9, and 10 of the Act. International Hod Carriers', Building and Common Laborers' Union of America, Local 894, AFL-CIO [Thorpe Construction Company and Lomelo Construction Company] and William O. Strickland. Case No. 8-CB-732. July 30, 1964 DECISION AND ORDER On January 29, 1964, Trial Examiner Leo F. Lightner issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respond- ent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor prac- tices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Exam- iner's Decision. Thereafter, the General Counsel and the Respond- ent filed exceptions to the Decision and supporting briefs. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel [Members Fanning, Brown, and Jenkins]. The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial Examiner's Decision, the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record in this case, and hereby adopts the Trial Examiner's findings,' conclusions, and recommenda- tions except as hereinafter set forth. We find that, notwithstanding the valid provisions in their written contract with the Respondent relating to hiring and union security, Thorpe and Lomelo, pursuant to oral arrangements with Respondent, maintained a referral or clearance arrangement with Respondent which discriminated in favor of union members. As a party to such ' The Respondent has excepted to the credibility findings made by the Trial Examiner. It Is the Board's established policy, however, not to overrule a Trial Examiner's resolu- tions with respect to credibility unless, as is not the case here, the clear preponderance of all the relevant evidence convinces us that the resolutions were incorrect. Standard Dry 'Wall Products, Inc., 91 NLRB 544, enfd. 188 F. 2d 362 (CA. 3). 148 NLRB No. 10. 56 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD arrangements, the Respondent under settled law was plainly in viola- tion of Section 8(b) (2) and (1) (A) of the Act. In so finding, how- ever, we do not adopt so much of the Trial Examiner's findings which indicate that an exclusive referral or clearance arrangement is per se violative of the Act. The Supreme Court has held that it is per- missible for an employer to agree with a union to hire only those em- ployees referred by the union provided, however, the hiring hall is operated on a nondiscriminatory basis.2 As discussed in the Trial Examiner's Decision, this was not the nature of the Respondent's re- ferral practices. . We further find that, pursuant to the foregoing unlawful arrange- ments, employee Strickland was denied clearance for a job with Thorpe in June 1963, and his employment was terminated by Lomelo the following July 8. By so depriving Strickland of employment, Respondent caused both Thorpe and Lomelo to discriminate against him within the meaning of Section 8(b) (2) and (1) (A) of the Act. In any event, regardless of the unlawful arrangements, Respondent's liability for such unfair labor practices is independently established by the record. As appears in the Trial Examiner's Decision, the Re- spondent caused Thorpe not to hire Strickland because he was not a member in good standing, although Strickland had reemployment rights under the contract of the parties. Thereafter, when Strickland obtained a job with Lomelo, Respondent demanded and secured his discharge for the same reason. In these circumstances, Respondent plainly caused both Thorpe and Lomelo to discriminate against Strickland for a reason not permissible under the Act and thereby violated Section 8(b) (2) and (1) (A) of the Act. ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board hereby adopts as its Order, the Order recommended by the Trial Examiner, and orders that the Respondent, International Hod Carriers', Building and Common Laborers' Union of America, Local 894, AFL-CIO, its officers, agents, and representatives, shall take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order with the following amendments : 3 1. Paragraph 1(d) is renumbered 1(e) and the following is added in its place and stead as 1(d) : (d) Entering into, maintaining, or giving effect to an exclusive hiring arrangement, understanding, or practice with Thorpe Con- 2 Local 357, International Brotherhood of Teamsters , etc. (Los Angeles-Seattle Motor Express ) v N.L It B., 365 U.S 667. 8 We find merit in the General Counsel's exception to the failure of the Trial Examiner to provide a remedy for the unlawful hiring practice . Accordingly, we shall amend the Recommended Order to provide such a remedy. INTERNATIONAL HOD CARRIERS', ETC., LOCAL 894 57 struction Company, Lomelo Construction Company, or any other employer, which discriminates in favor of union members over other applicants for employment. 2. The following paragraph is added to the Appendix as the first substantive paragraph thereof: WE WILL NOT enter into, maintain, or give effect to any exclu- sive hiring arrangement, understanding, or practice with Thorpe Construction Company, Lomelo Construction Company, or any other employer, which discriminates in favor of union members over other applicants for employment. TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE This proceeding was heard before Trial Examiner Leo F. Lightner in Akron, Ohio, on October 3 and 4, 1963, on the complaint of the General Counsel, as amended, and the answer of International Hod Carriers', Building and Common Laborers' Union of America, Local 894, AFL-CIO, herein referred to as Respond- ent.) The issues litigated are whether the Respondent engaged in unfair labor prac- tices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8(b)(1)(A) and (2) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Labor Management Relations Act, 1947, as amended (61 Stat. 136, 73 Stat. 519, 29 U.S.C. Sec. 151 et seq.), herein called the Act. The parties waived oral argument and briefs filed by the General Counsel and Respond- ent have been carefully considered. Respondent's motions to dismiss the complaint are disposed of in accordance with the following findings of fact and conclusions of law. Upon the entire record and from my observation of the witnesses, I make the following: FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 1. BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYERS The complaint alleges that Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices with respect to an employee of Lomelo Construction Company, and an applicant for employment by the Thorpe Construction Company. Lomelo Construction Company, herein referred to as Lomelo, is an Ohio corpora- tion with its principal place of business at Akron, Ohio, where it is engaged in the construction of highways, streets, parking lots, and driveways. During the calendar year 1963, prior to October 4, Lomelo received income in excess of $50,000, for work on the construction of State Highways No. 526 and No. 5, and did other work on the construction of State highways. In addition, Lomelo Construction Company is a member of the General Contractors Association of Akron and Vicinity, an organization which exists for the purpose, inter alia, of negotiating and administer- ing collective-bargaining agreements made for and on behalf of its member em- ployers with Respondent and other labor organizations. In the course and conduct of their business operations, the members of the Association together annually pur- chase in excess of $50,000 of goods and materials which are purchased from sup- pliers within the State of Ohio, and which goods and materials are received by such suppliers from points located outside of the State of Ohio. Respondent does not dispute that the General, Contractors Association of Akron and Vicinity is engaged in commerce. However, Respondent initially questioned whether Lomelo Construction Company is a member of the Association. The evi- dence, including the credible testimony of George D. Martter, secretary of the Gen- eral Contractors Association of Akron and Vicinity, Thomas J. Arconti, business representative and secretary-treasurer of Respondent, and John A. Lomelo, vice president and general manager of Lomelo Construction Company, establishes the Association membership of Lomelo. 1 A charge was filed on July 5, 1963, an amended charge was filed on July 10, 1963, and a complaint was Issued on August 23, 1963. 58 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD It appears undisputed that the Association exists for the purpose, inter alia, of negotiating collective-bargaining agreements with various labor organizations, in- cluding Respondent, and that all members of the Association are bound by said labor agreements. The Board has held in numerous cases that it considers all members of multi- employer associations who participate in or are bound by multiemployer bargaining negotiations a single employer for jurisdictional purposes. Siemons Mailing Service, 122 NLRB 81, 84. In the same case the Board stated, inter alia, that jurisdiction will be asserted over all nonretail enterprises which have an outflow or inflow across State lines of at least $50,000, whether such outflow or inflow be regarded as direct or indirect. Thorpe Construction Company, herein referred to as Thorpe, is an Ohio corpora- tion with its principal place of business located at Akron, Ohio, and is engaged in the construction of State highways, inter alia. Thorpe derived gross income of approximately $180,000, for construction work on State Route 44 in Portage and Stark Counties. This contract was entered into with the State of Ohio, in July or August 1962, and the work was completed in September 1963. In the calendar year of 1962 Thorpe entered into five separate contracts for the building of State high- ways, involving Federal funds, all of which were approximately of the same dollar value as the one specified. Three of said contracts were completed in the calendar year of 1963. The Board has held that construction of intrastate or State highways affects com- merce within the meaning of the Act and services rendered for the construction of such highways are considered as having been performed for an instrumentality of interstate commerce.2 Since Thorpe received in excess of $50,000, for services performed for an instrumentality of commerce, in the calendar year of 1962, and in the year preceding the issuance of the complaint herein, its operations satisfy the nonretail jurisdictional requirements of the Board. Siemons Mailing Service, supra. Accordingly, I find that Lomelo Construction Company and Thorpe Construction Company are engaged in commerce, or alternatively, are engaged in activities affect- ing commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. H. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. The Issues The principal issues raised by the pleadings and litigated at the hearing are whether Respondent, as more fully set forth in the complaint, engaged in activity in contravention of the provisions of Section 8(b)(2) and (1) (A) of the Act, by main- taining in effect with Thorpe Construction Company an agreement, arrangement, or practice which provides that Thorpe Construction Company shall hire, or retain, as its employees, only those individuals who have obtained clearance from Respondent in the form of a referral slip, permit, or otherwise, and/or only those persons who are members of Respondent Union, and whether on or about July 3, 1963, Respond- ent, through its officers, agents, and representatives, more particularly Thomas J. Arconti, attempted to cause and did cause Thorpe Construction Company to refuse to hire for employment William O. Strickland pursuant to said agreement, arrange- ment, or practice; also whether said Respondent had a similar agreement, arrange- ment, practice, or understanding with the Lomelo Construction Company and whether on or about July 8, 1963, Respondent, through Thomas J. Arconti, at- tempted to cause and did cause Lomelo Construction Company to terminate the employment of William O. Strickland, in accordance with such an agreement, arrangement, practice, or understanding. Respondent admits that Thomas J. Arconti is its business representative and an agent acting on its behalf, within the meaning of the Act. Respondent denies the existence of any arrangement, practice, or understanding with Thorpe Construction Company which requires said Company, either directly or indirectly, to hire or retain only members of Respondent and denies there is any agreement, practice, or understanding requiring persons to obtain clear- ance from Respondent in the form of a referral slip, permit, or otherwise, as alleged. Respondent similarly denies the existence of any agreement, arrangement, practice, or understanding with-Lomelo Construction Company. Respondent admits that William O. Strickland was not a member of Respondent Union, but denies that it caused Thorpe Construction Company to refuse to hire Strickland, or Lomelo Con- struction Company to discharge him. 28pears-Dehner, Inc., 139 NLRB 922 , 923; Mohican Trucking Company, 131 NLRB 1174, 1175; J W. Saltsman, Doing Business As Saltsman Construction Company, 123 NLRB 1176 , 1179; Madison County Construction Co., 115 NLRB 701. INTERNATIONAL HOD CARRIERS', ETC., LOCAL 894 59 1. Background and sequence of events Respondent is a labor organization within the meaning of the Act. On May 26, 1961, Respondent entered into a collective-bargaining agreement with General Con- tractors Association of Akron and Vicinity, and others, effective June 1, 1961, and terminating April 30, 1964. It is undisputed that Lomelo Construction Company, as a member of the Association, was a party to this agreement. It is undisputed that Thorpe Construction Company, not a member of the Association, is a signatory to the standard agreement. William O. Strickland, discriminatee herein, credibly testified that he has worked as a laborer in the construction industry, inferentially in the Akron area, for 30 years. He was a member of the Respondent Union prior to his military service in World War II. In 1947 or 1948, and on other occasions since, Strickland has sought unsuccessfully to have his union membership reestablished. It is undisputed that Thomas J. Arconti, business representative and secretary-treasurer of Respond- ent Union, which offices he has held for approximately 16 years, has refused to permit Strickland to become a member of the Union .3 It is undisputed that Strick- land worked for Thorpe from approximately 1930 until 1940, and from 1954 to and including 1962, during portions of each construction season. Strickland as- serted that in 1960, while Strickland was working for Thorpe, he saw Arconti, on the job, and asked Arconti about joining the Union. Arconti responded that he was not bothering Strickland, inquired what Strickland was complaining about, and told Strickland to just go on working. 2. Events at Thorpe It is undisputed that Strickland worked for Thorpe in 1962, for approximately 3 months, and received a burn, while working, which incapacited him, however, Strickland was employed at the end of the season. It is established practice, in the industry in Akron, for employers to recall former employees, who worked in the prior year, as they staff their working crews for a new season. Article VIII, of the current collective-bargaining agreement, which covers "Hiring Procedure," so provides.4 Osborne L. Wimberly credibly testified that he has been superintendent for Thorpe, in charge of the laying of asphalt, and has held this position for approxi- mately 7 years. He has authority to hire and fire. Wimberly asserted "before hiring a person that I might have in mind to hire I consult with the union, in as much as they serve as a referral agency and try to get their okay for the person to work." Wimberly asserted he followed this practice "more closely this year (1963)," but it had been a practice over a number of years. In June 1963 he received spe- 8It is patent, and I find, that Strickland' s membership was denied on a ground other than his failure to tender periodic dues and initiation fees uniformly required as a con- dition of acquiring or retaining membership. While I find unnecessary a resolution of the reason for the denial of membership the reasons asserted were dissimilar Strickland asserted that Arconti, in 1947, advised Strickland that he was one of a group that sought to oust Arconti from office. Arconti, on the other hand, asserted that he was attempting to purge the Union of members engaged in gambling activities. The provisions of article VIII are as follows* SECTION 1. All employers are required to recall former employees of the construc- tion industry who have been terminated for lack of work or entrance into military service. This requirement shall be a right of the workmen, and the employer must check with the Union office to ascertain the availability of the former employees in the construction industry. This right applies to employees for a period of not more than one (1) year from date of last termination. It is further mutually agreed that the industry will adopt a standard form to be given each worker upon termination of employment which will indicate the reasons for separation of work. This form will be in triplicate-one copy to the employee, one copy to the Union, and one copy to be retained by the Employer. SEC. 2 The Union does not enter into the question of hiring of new employees ex- cept as limited by Section One. The Union recognizes that the hiring of new em- ployees is the exclusive prerogative of the employer. SEC. 3. The Union's function is to facilitate the recall of former employees for employers and to render service to employees and any contractor with whom the Union has an agreement covering wages, hours, and other conditions of employment provid- ing it is understood by all concerned that said employer is not restricted in any manner to the exclusive hiring of members of the Union. 60 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD cific instructions to follow this practice from 'either John Thorpe, president of Thorpe, or William Joseph Thorpe, vice president of Thorpe. Wimberly was certain That it was one or the other who gave him these instructions. John Thorpe credibly testified that there was a strike, in 1963, by Respondent and unions representing Thorpe's engineer and cement mason employees, of 3 or 4 weeks' duration, being settled in early June. While the strike involved a number of matters, John Thorpe related that Arconti demanded that Thorpe agree to "having all our men referred out of the union hall." John Thorpe stated "it was requested that any man who would come out and work for us would have to have a referral slip from the hall." 5 John Thorpe related that it was Arconti who negotiated the settlement of the strike, on behalf of Respondent. John Thorpe acknowledged that there was a general dis- cussion that people who had previously been employed were to be given first oppor- tunity to come back to work, and that new people were not to be hired before such recalls. William Joseph Thorpe, vice president of Thorpe and general superintend- ent, corroborated the testimony of John Thorpe relative to the Respondent's request, made by Arconti, that men going out on the job should go to the union hall and obtain referral slips and then report to the job. William Thorpe acknowledged that it was his understanding of the referral system that if Thorpe needed a new man they were to call the union hall and ascertain if the particular skill was available, out of the hall. If the Union did not have a man of that particular skill then Thorpe was free to go to any source to acquire a man with that skill. William Thorpe then stated his understanding was that all men coming to work in 1963 should obtain clearance through the Union, whether they had worked for the Company in previous years or not. Superintendent Wimberly related that he had known Strickland, discriminatee herein, for approximately 35 years. Strickland had worked for Thorpe in October 1962, as part of a crew under Wimberly's immediate supervision. In June 1963, Wimberly considered putting Strickland to work and called Respondent requesting information concerning the status of Strickland. Wimberly related that he was ad- vised that Strickland was not a member in good standing, that Strickland should come in and talk with Arconti, prior to Wimberly hiring him, to get an okay and a work slip. Wimberly described this as "the procedure." Wimberly called Strick- land the same night, informed him of the information which Wimberly had received from the Union, and requested Strickland to check with the Union, if he was inter- ested in working.6 Wimberly asserted that the job was filled by Eugene Riddick, who was sent by the Respondent Union, with a referral slip. Riddick did not work for Thorpe in 1962? It is undisputed that Riddick was still employed at the time of the hearing. Wimberly acknowledged that he is a member of the Respondent Union and that he went to the union hall, after the strike was settled in June 1963, to obtain clear- ance to resume work. Strickland credibly 8 testified that Wimberly called him in the early part of June, advised him that Wimberly had intended to put him to work on Monday "but the Union won't let me put you to work." Wimberly then advised Strickland that he should go to the Union and get things straightened out, asserting "if you do, I will put you to work Monday." Strickland related that, during the week of June 10, he went to the union hall and talked to Arconti. Strickland advised Arconti that he had a chance to go to work, if Arconti would give him permission. Arconti re- sponded that he had too many men out of work at that time. Strickland asserted that Arconti said he could not "set me in the Union." Strickland responded that he had been working for Thorpe and had been trying to get into the Union ever'since 6 To the extent Arconti's testimony is at variance with that of John Thorpe relative to this request, I credit Thorpe. 8In view of the other evidence in the record, I find Wimberly's Inability to identify Arconti as the person to whom he spoke at the union office of no Importance Similarly, while Wimberly set June 19 as the approximate time of the conversation, and this date conflicts with dates asserted by Strickland, I find the precise date In June, unimportant. ° It is clear from Wlmberly's testimony that he simultaneously Inquired about Grover Goodwell. According to Wimberly he was uncertain whether lie was going to use Goodwell, who held a semiskilled classification , or Strickland , a laborer. The record Is clear that Goodwell was hired In the following month and Riddick, a laborer , was hired in June. 8In finding Strickland a credible witness, I am not unmindful of his admission that be had been found guilty of the crime of arson. INTERNATIONAL HOD CARRIERS', ETC., LOCAL 894 61 he came out of service. Strickland advised Arconti, inter alia, that Arconti had previously let him work without joining the Union, because Arconti did not want him in the Union, but now Arconti did not want him in the Union and did not want him to work. Arconti, according to Strickland, advised him to come back in a month, that maybe he would have men back to work at that time and might let Strickland work. When Strickland pointed out that Wimberly could not hold the job open for Strickland, Arconti responded "that is the best I can do, I can't talk to you." The following Monday, Strickland related, Wimberly asked him if he had gotten himself straightened out. Strickland advised Wimberly that Arconti told him to come back the first of the month. Wimberly then advised Strickland that he would have to get somebody because they could not wait that long, but, when Strickland got "straight," Wimberly would try to save a space for him. Strickland related that about June 27 or 28 he again went to the union office and talked to Arconti. At this time Strickland reminded Arconti of his promise that if Strickland came back the first of the month, Arconti would let Strickland go to work or make some arrangement for him to go to work. Strickland asserted that Arconti responded "if Thorpe thinks that I am going to let a nonunion man come down and go to work he can forget it." Strickland advised Arconti that Thorpe was the only place he could work at that time, because he had been promised a job. Strickland further pointed out that he had been working for Thorpe "all these years." Arconti responded, "well there is nothing else I've got to say about it." 9 3. Events relative to Lomelo On Saturday, July 6, 1963, Strickland had a further conversation with Arconti, at the union office. At that time Strickland inquired whether Arconti would permit Strickland to work on a "traveling card," if Strickland were to join another local of the Union and return to Akron to work. Arconti, according to Strickland, advised Strickland that it would not do any good as far as Arconti was concerned, since Arconti would not accept credentials from any local, insofar as Strickland's working in Summit County was concerned. Strickland, nevertheless, went to Massillon, Ohio, on July 6, and joined Laborers Union Local 498, a sister local of the Respondent. Strickland asserted that he had talked to Leo Gary, a superintendent for Lomelo, on Friday, July 5. Gary at that time advised Strickland that if he would get squared with the Union they would put him to work on Monday. Strickland obtained a re- ceipt for the payment of $20, inferentially a payment on account for initiation and dues.' On Monday, July 8, Strickland exhibited the receipt to Gary and was put to work.io Leo L. Gary credibly testified that he has been a superintendent for r,omelo for 2 years. He has authority to hire and fire. Gary related that Stricklaud came in looking for employment about July 2, 1963. Gary advised Strickland that he was hiring and "that he had to be good with the Local before I could put him to work." Gary asserted that he had been hiring all union men and had not had trouble with the Union. That, Gary stated, is the reason he told Strickland he had to be "straight" with the Union. Gary asserted that when Strickland came back with a union book, on July 8, Gary took for granted that Strickland was okay with the Union and put him to work with the concrete crew. About 9:30 a.m., on July 8, Gary received a telephone call, from Arconti, advising Gary that he had a man on the job, by the name of Strickland, that does not belong to the Union and that Gary should get rid 9 Arconti asserted he had a conversation with Strickland, at Arconti's office, in early July. Arconti's version of the conversation was: Strickland inquired, "Tommy, why won't you let me go back to work for Thorpe Construction 9" to which Arconti asserts he replied, "Moon, the Thorpe Construction Company can recall all of its former em- ployees on the same basis that it has in the past. As far as we are concerned if you have a job to go to you should go and be working." Arconti asserted, "I think . .. I did sug- gest a grievance if he was not satisfied with the procedure That he file a grievance through the union." To the extent Arconti's testimony conflicts with that of Strickland, I credit Strickland. 10 However, Strickland explained that another contractor, who was working on State Route 21, had advised him that he would put Strickland to work if Strickland joined the Union. It was for this reason that Strickland went to Massillon. When Gary advised Strickland he would put him to work in Akron, on July 8, Strickland saw no reason to drive 40 miles to work, having lived in Akron for 50 years. 62 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD of him 11 Gary then advised Strickland, about 11:30 a.m., that Arconti had advised Gary that Strickland was not a member of the local and that Gary would have to get him off the job. Strickland left.12 John A. Lomelo is vice president and general manager of Lomelo and has been for 6 years. John Lomelo related that on July 8, about 10 a.m., he had called Arconti relative to some existing problems. At that time Arconti advised Lomelo that he should let Strickland go. John Lomelo asserted that if he was requested to let a man go he did not go into too many details of why. "I usually let them go be- cause I realize we had to keep ourselves straight with the Union or there would be pressure brought to bear. So all I could say is that possibly he might have men- tioned that he (Strickland) wasn't in the good graces of the Union or something of that fashion. I don't take notes of the why." 13 The same afternoon John Lomelo talked to Gary and told him of Lomelo's conversation with Arconti. Gary advised Lomelo that it had been taken care of, and "I sent the man home." 14 Sometime on or after July 22, 1963, Strickland was rehired at Lomelo.15 John A. Lomelo asserted that Lomelo's work is seasonal, that the season begins in April or May. In response to a question as to the practice or procedure Lomelo followed in hiring workers he responded, "Well, I'd say we get our men through the Union. Of course, we take our oldtimers back and the men we think are reliable. Some men wander in and ask for jobs. I usually ask them if they belong to the Union. If they say yes, then I ask them what union they belong to. If they don't belong to the Union, why, there's no use in talking to them." John Lomelo then asserted that he had informed the foreman to hire union men. He admitted that sometimes the schedule piles up and there are not enough oldtimers so they have hired men who did not belong to the Union. John Lomelo asserted that "sometimes" we will tell them to go back and request to get into the Union. John Lomelo related that when they start a new job, a union representative inquires where they are working, goes to the job, sometimes with John Lomelo, and goes down the line inquiring as to whether the employees belong to the Union. If an employee is working who is not a member of the Union the union representative will request him to either come down and join, or tell him that he cannot work. John Lomelo identified George Idley, a busi- ness representative of Respondent, as the individual who customarily checks on the jobs. John Lomelo acknowledged that when former employees are rehired he had not instructed anyone to investigate as to whether they were members of the Union, asserting "I think we all assumed if they are old members they should be paid (paid up members) and we never had any trouble before." John Lomelo acknowledged that there were times when he gave the foremen so much work to do that they hire men whether they are union or not, asserting "I know that the Union is going to be there to check to see if they are." John Lomelo acknowledged that when Idley came on the job he would tell employees to get themselves straightened out or they would have to get out. John Lomelo then asserted that about 3 years ago Idley had sent a man home immediately because he was not a member of the Union. Superintendent Gary related that, about 3 or 4 weeks prior to July 8, he had a conversation with Arconti in which Arconti specified that he should employ only union members. Gary related that it is his practice to recall old employees first, be- cause they worked for him in prior years and he feels they are entitled to get their jobs back. He does not check with the Union at that time to see whether or not they 11 Gary asserted that the caller identified himself as "this is Tommy" ; Gary asserted that he is familiar with -Arconti's voice and stated "I can almost identify him, but I wouldn't swear to it." Gary asserted that at the same time Arconti told him that another employee, named Gray, was not a paid-up member either and would have to be let go. Gary acknowledged that Gray had been employed more than 8 days '2 Arconti admitted that he called Gary on July 8 but denied the conversation related to Strickland I do not credit this denial. 13 He also testified, "If he [Arconti] wants a man to go, the only way I could stay in the good graces of the Union, I will let them all go." 14 Ai coati's denial of the conversation with John Lomelo on July 8, and Arconti's denial that he knew that Strickland was working for Lomelo on July S are not credited 15 A Tri County Building Trades Welfare Fund Report, made monthly to the fund by each employer in the construction industry, with a copy thereof being furnished to the Union, reflects those employed by each employer in the particular month. The report of Lomelo for the month ending July 31, 1963, reflects that Strickland worked 361/2 hours in the fourth week of the month. INTERNATIONAL HOD CARRIERS', ETC., LOCAL 894 63 are members, being advised by the employees that they are "all right" with the Union. Gary then asserted "anybody else we called the hall for." When Gary hired Strickland, on July 8, Strickland advised Gary that he had worked for Thorpe. Strickland related that in the latter part of July 1963 he was again hired by Lomelo, being hired by a foreman named Oather Lee Burney,is under whom Strickland had worked previously at Thorpe.17 John Lomelo asserted that Strickland, after rehiring, worked approximately 8 weeks and was then laid off due to lack of work "for that particular crew " However, John Lomelo stated, if Strickland had not been dis- charged on July 8, "He had a chance at that time to possibly get on the main crew. But of course since he was discharged at that time, on July 8, when he came back he wasn't on the main crew." The main crew was still working when Lomelo testi- fied on October 4, 1963. John Lomelo related that it was several days, after Strickland had been rehired, before he learned of the rehiring. John Lomelo, having received a copy of the amended charge herein tried to reach Arconti to ascertain what procedure Arconti wished Lomelo to follow, relative to Strickland. On July 29, 1963, having failed to reach Arconti by telephone, John Lomelo inquired by letter, what the Respondent proposed to do about Strickland's charge, filed with the Board. In the same letter John Lomelo advised Arconti that Strickland had been rehired and "I want to know what you want me to do." On September 30, 1963, Arconti advised Lomelo that Burney and Strickland were nonmembers of Respondent , had been employed in the industry for the past several years "under our contract," and that it was the position of Respondent that both individuals had been hired by the Employer and that Re- spondent "has waived only its right of requiring membership on these men." Re- spondent further advised that Burney and Strickland "would continue in your em- ployment subject to all other terms of the Agreement and Union membership is waived." 18 4. Respondent's contentions Respondent asserts that General Counsel has failed to establish that there was an agreement, arrangement, practice, or understanding "that required that the employers herein involved hire and retain as employees only those persons who are members of Respondent Union." Respondent relies on a provision of the collective -bargaining agreement identified as article VI.19 'Respondent also relies on the testimony of wit- nesses George Martter, John Lomelo, and Thomas J. Arconti. Martter, secretary of the General Contractor's Association of Akron and Vicinity, had no knowledge of 19 Misspelled in portions of the record as Arthur Bernie. The record is corrected accordingly 17 Strickland Identified Burney as one of the group w hose union cards were pulled, by Respondent, because they had jobs in the rubber plants Strickland asserted that Re- spondent "fixed it so that they couldn't work no place but Thorpe." Article VI, section 2, of the collective -bargaining agreement, infra, inferentially would have application in such circumstances 18 This letter however did not eliminate the effect of the discrimination against Strick- land, by reason of his discharge on July 8 18 Article VI provides , in substance , under the title of "Union Security": SECTION 1. Each employee , in the unit represented by the Union , shall as a condi- tion of employment, make application for membership, or remain a member of the Union, on or before the seventh day following the commencement of such employment or following the effective date of the agreement, whichever is the later. It is further provided that such employees shall retain membership in the Union for the duration of the Agreement, as a condition of employment. Failure of any employee to comply with the provisions of this Article shall, upon request of the Union, result in the termination of such employment. The section provides, also, "It is further agreed that the Union will make available to employees membership on the same terms and conditions applicable to other members." It is undisputed that, on January 23, 1962, the provision for application for meni- bership was modified to read "no later than the eighth day following the commence- ment of such employment, or following the effective date of this agreement, whichever is the later" Section 2 specifically provides: - It is understood between the parties to this agreement that the Union may exercise its right to deny membership to employees who work two or more jobs and employees who remain members of organizations that boycott and restrict the use of outside Contractors within Industrial Plants. " 64 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD any practice, procedure, or agreement other than that outlined in the collective- bargaining agreement 20 Arconti's denial that the Union had any practice or agree- ment other than that contained in article VI and article VIII, in the light of other credible evidence herein, is not credited. John Lomelo's testimony, as a whole, does not support Respondent's contention21 Respondent contends "the only issue in this case is whether or not laid-off em- ployees (within a year) may be hired prior to new employees." Respondent urges that it only seeks to insure the protected layoff feature in its contract, even though a far-reaching unforeseeable result of decision may be to encourage or discourage union membership in some slight degree. Obviously this is not the contention in the case, and General Counsel has made no such contention. Simply stated, the issues relate to the failure of the Union to permit the recall of Strickland, by Thorpe, if the recall provisions contain such a "right of recall." There is no evidence which would support a finding that the Union's urging of the discharge of Strickland, by Lomelo, was motivated by the Union's desire to require Lomelo to recall employees who had not been recalled. Respondent contends that in the instant case the employer is free to hire whom- ever he may choose and employees are not supplied by the Union. Respondent con- tends that the two exceptions to this rule are contained in the agreement as written "and unchanged by any oral practice or procedure " Reference is made to the re- quirement for union membership after 8 days' employment, and the right of recall after layoff. I find no merit in this contention in view of the credible evidence to the contrary. Respondent submitted copies of monthly reports, of Thorpe and Lomelo, to Tri County Building Trades Welfare Fund to substantiate its contention that both con- tractors, in fact, hired individuals who were not members of the Respondent.22 The evidence does not permit any conclusion as to whether the employees were, in fact, new employees or employees recalled because they had been employed in the prior year, and presumably were members of Respondent, in good standing, at the time of their termination of employment in the prior year.23 Assuming the record reflects that Thorpe and Lomelo, in fact, had nonunion member employees, this fact, at most, is a matter of the weight to be given to evidence reflecting the circumstances under which Strickland was denied employment by Thorpe and discharged by Lomelo. Concluding Findings General Counsel urges that there exists between Respondent and Thorpe an agree- ment, arrangement, practice, or understanding which provides that Thorpe shall hire and retain as its employees only those persons who are members of Respondent Union and/or only those persons who have obtained clearance for work from the Union I have found, supra, that Respondent, through Arconti, demanded that the Company not hire anyone, including former employees, without clearance from the Union. I have found from the testimony of John Thorpe, president, corroborated by William Thorpe, vice president, that Thorpe acquiesced in such an agreement, as part of a strike settlement, in June 1963. General Counsel contends that the Union's re- quirement, acquiesced in by Thorpe, that Thorpe not hire anyone without clearance from the Union is a violation of Section 8(b) (2) and (1) (A) of the Act. The Board has held that the practice of requiring applicants for employment to obtain clearance from the Union as a condition of employment is unlawful. See Brotherhood of 20 While I find Martter a credible witness, his knowledge is obviously confined to matters reported to him as secretary of the Association There is no evidence that Martter had firsthand knowledge of the conditions actually existing, as testified to by other witnesses. m While Lomelo responded "the way the question has been asked the answer is no," In answer to a question of whether he had any practice, agreement, or procedure with Re- spondent other than that outlined in article VI and article VIII, the bulk of Lomelo's testimony was to the contrary == These monthly reports reflect the name of each employee, his social security number, and the hours each employee worked during each week in the month reported. These re- ports were the basis of the employer's contribution to the welfare fund, covering the vari- ous trades. x' Strickland's undisputed testimony is enlightening in this regard. Strickland related that for several seasons, including 1962, at the close of the season the Union required all of those who were working, and were not members of the Union, to join "if they expected to go to work the following year." Strickland related that it was on such an occasion that Arconti advised Strickland that Arconti was not bothering him, when Strickland sought to join the Union in 1960. INTERNATIONAL HOD CARRIERS', ETC., LOCAL 894 65 Painters, Decorators and Paperhangers of America, Local Union No. 419, et al. (Spoon Tile Co.), 114 NLRB 1171. I find accordingly. I have found that Osborne Wimberly, superintendent of Thorpe, was advised by either John Thorpe or William Thorpe of the existence of the arrangement found in the paragraph preceding. I have found that pursuant thereto Wimberly sought to obtain clearance from Respondent in order to hire Strickland, in June 1963. Wimberly was advised by Respondent that Strickland was not in good standing with the Union, and that Strickland should see Business Agent Arconti, in order to obtain the neces- sary clearance, before Wimberly should hire him. Thereupon, Respondent dis- patched Eugene Riddick, a laborer, who had not worked for Thorpe in 1962, to meet Wimberly's requirements. Meanwhile Strickland's efforts to obtain clearance from Arconti were met by a refusal on the part of Arconti to grant such clearance. Simi- larly, Arconti refused to allow Strickland to put himself in good standing with the Union, for reasons other than a failure to tender customary initiation fees and dues. While the Respondent relies on an alleged statement of Arconti that if Strickland had an opportunity to work for Thorpe he should be working, no claim is made that Arconti advised Strickland or Thorpe that the agreement, found in the preceding paragraph, had no application in the matter of hiring Strickland. General Counsel urges that even in the absence of the established agreement, arrangement, practice, or understanding, Respondent violated Section 8(b) (2) and (I) (A) of the Act, by causing Thorpe not to hire Strickland, by specifically stating that he was not to be hired wi thout clearance from Arconti. The Board has found that where respondent followed an unlawful practice of requiring applicants for employment to obtain clearance from a union as a condition of employment, such practice is a violation of Section 8(b)(2) and (1)(A) of the Act24 I find accordingly. General Counsel urges that the refusal of Respondent to grant clearance to Strick- land, and the dispatch of Riddick, constitutes a preference to members in good stand- ing of Respondent Union, in the matter of hiring It is not disputed that under the terms of the collective-bargaining agreement, relative to the rehiring of employees, Strickland was entitled to reemployment when Thorpe, through Wimberly, under- took to obtain his reemployment. It is patent that Respondent, by refusing to grant clearance, caused Thorpe to engage in unlawful discrimination, in violation of Sec- tion 8(a)(3), and said conduct is a violation of Section 8(b)(2) and (1)(A) of the Act. I so find. It is alleged, in the complaint, that Respondent and Lomelo, on or about Janu- ary 9, 1963, entered into and thereafter maintained in effect an agreement, arrange- ment, practice, or understanding which provides that Lomelo shall hire, or retain as employees, only those persons who are members of Respondent Union, and/or only those persons who have obtained clearance from Respondent Union in the form of a referral slip, permit, or otherwise. General Counsel, correctly urges that it is not essential to establish an-explicit agreement, that an understanding, even though not articulated, is sufficient to make the Union responsible for an unlawful practice. Where a union refused to grant clearance for employment, because of the employees' protected concerted activities, the Board found a "tacit arrangement or implicit understanding" between respondent and an employer, and found a required clear- ance or referral, as a condition of employment to be a violation of Section 8(b)(2) and (1) (A) of the Act. International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 624 A-B (D. S. McClanahan & Son, Inc.), 141 NLRB 615 25 I have found, supra, on the basis of the testimony of John A. Lomelo, that Lomelo's practice was to get employees through the Union, other than former employees. John Lomelo's testimony was unqualified in asserting "if they don't belong to the Union, why, there's no use in talking to them." I have also found that Superin- tendent Gary had a conversation with Arconti 3 or 4 weeks prior to July 8, in which Arconti specified that Gary should employ only union members. Accordingly, I find that there was, as a minimum, a "tacit arrangement or implicit understanding" that Lomelo would hire only individuals who were members of the Union or cleared by the Union. The events of July 8 permit no other conclusion. It is well established that such an arrangement or understanding is unlawful, as a violation of Section 8(b)(2) and (1)(A) of the Act. I find accordingly. " See Seabright Construction Company, 108 NLRB S; Haddock-Engineers, Limited, et at., d/b/a Haddock-Engineers, Limited, and Associates IV, Joint Venturers, 104 NLRB 994; Local 542, International Union of Operating Engineers , AFL-CIO (Elmhurst Con- tracting Co., Inc ), 141 NLRB 53 See also Local 568, Hotel, Motel & Club Employees Union, AFL-CIO ( Warwick Hotel, Inc.), 141 NLRB 310 760-577-65-vol. 148-0 66 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD General Counsel does not contend that the provisions of article VI of the collective- bargaining agreement, as amended in January 1962, are violative of the Act. This article provides that an employee shall make application for membership on the eighth day following such employment. The evidence herein is undisputed that Strickland was discharged by Lomelo on the first day of employment, solely because of his nonmembership in the Union, pursuant to a demand upon Superintendent Gary and Vice President John Lomelo, in each instance this demand was made by Respondent's representative Arconti. I find Respondent's conduct in causing the dis- charge of Strickland, on July 8, 1963, constituted an act of- causing an employer to discriminate against an employee in violation of Section 8(a)(3) and accordingly was a violation of Section 8(b)(2) and (1)(A) of the Act. That the discrimination was against an employee with respect to whom membership in such organization had been denied on a ground other than his failure to tender periodic dues and the initia- tion fees uniformly required as a condition of acquiring or retaining membership is patent. I have so found. Accordingly, I find that Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices in viola- tion of the provisions of Section 8(b) (2) and (1) (A) of the Act. The credibility determinations herein are based upon: the demeanor of the wit- nesses; the consistency or inconsistency of the testimony of a particular witness, or as compared to the testimony of other witnesses; the plausibility or implausibility of the testimony of a particular witness in the light of the record as a whole, includ- ing apparent discrepancies, faulty memories, and evident exaggerations. III. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of Respondent set forth in section II, above, occurring in connection with the business operations of Thorpe Construction Company and Lomelo Con- struction Company, set forth in section I, above, have a close, intimate, and substan- tial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce, among the several States, and such of them as have been found to be unfair labor practices tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce. IV. THE REMEDY Having found that the Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices, I shall recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and that it take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. I shall recommend (1) that Respondent notify Thorpe Construction Company and Lomelo Construction Com- pany, in writing, with a copy to Strickland, that the Respondent has no objection to the employment of Strickland by either Company, or any other employer, and (2) that the Respondent make Strickland whole for any loss of pay he may have suffered, alternatively, either as a result of Respondent having caused Thorpe Con- struction Company not to hire him,26 or the result of Respondent having caused Lomelo Construction Company to discharge Strickland on July 8, 1963, by payment to him of a sum of money equal to that he normally would have earned as an em- ployee of Thorpe Construction Company, between the date Strickland would have been hired and a date 5 days after notification by the Respondent to the Thorpe Construction Company, and Strickland, as provided above, less his net earnings 27 during said period, or alternatively by payment to him of a sum of money equal to that which he normally would have earned as an employee of Lomelo Construction Company between July 8, 1963, and a date 5 days after notification by the Respond- ent to the Lomelo Construction Company, and Strickland, as provided above, less his net earnings during said period, whichever is the greater , the payment to be com- puted on a quarterly basis in the manner established in N.L.R.B. v. Seven-Up Bottling Company of Miami, Inc., 344 U.S. 344. Interest on backpay shall be computed in the manner set forth in Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716.28 In view of the nature of the unfair labor practices committed, the commission of similar and other unfair labor practices reasonably may be anticipated. I shall there- 20 The record establishes nothing more than the approximate date of hiring as June 24, 1963 . However, the date is determinable , from the records of Thorpe Construction Com- pany , as the date Eugene Riddick , Strickland 's replacement, reported for work. 7 Crossett Lumber Company, 8 NLRB 440, 497-498. 28 Local No 4, United Slate, Tile and Composition Roofers, Damp and Waterproof Work- ers Association, AFL-CIO (Avon Sheet Metal Co ) 140 NLRB 384 - INTERNATIONAL HOD CARRIERS', ETC., LOCAL 894 67 fore recommend that the Respondent be ordered to cease and desist from causing or attempting to cause Thorpe Construction Company, Lomelo Construction Company, or any other employer, as defined in the Act, within their jurisdictional area, to dis- charge, layoff, decline to hire , or otherwise discriminate against employees or appli- cants for employment by reason of lack of union membership or union clearance, except in accordance with the provisions of Section 8(a) (3) of the Act. Upon the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record in the case, I make the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Thorpe Construction Company and Lomelo Construction Company are em- ployers within the meaning of Section 2(2) of the Act. 2. International Hod Carriers', Building and Common Laborers' Union of Amer- ica, Local 894, AFL-CIO , is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3. By maintaining and enforcing and attempting to maintain and enforce a dis- criminatory arrangement requiring union membership or other clearance as a condi- tion of employment; by causing Thorpe Construction Company to refuse to hire for employment William O. Strickland , pursuant to such an agreement, arrangement, or practice; and by causing Lomelo Construction Company to terminate the employ- ment of William O. Strickland , because he was not a member of the Respondent or, alternatively, had not received clearance for work from Respondent ; Respondent Union violated the provisions of Section 8(b) (2) and (1) (A) of the Act. 4. The foregoing unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com- merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. RECOMMENDED ORDER Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law , and pursu- ant to Section 10(c) of the Act, I hereby recommend that International Hod Carriers', Building and Common Laborers' Union of America, Local 894, AFL-CIO, its offi- cers, agents, and representatives, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Causing or attempting to cause Thorpe Construction Company to refuse to hire a worker in violation of Section 8(a) (3) of the Act, or otherwise to discriminate against employees or applicants for employment in violation thereof. (b) Causing or attempting to cause Lomelo Construction Company to terminate the employment of an employee in violation of Section 8(a) (3) of the Act, or other- wise to discriminate against employees or applicants for employment in violation thereof. (c) Otherwise causing or attempting to cause Thorpe Construction Company, Lomelo Construction Company, or any other employer, as defined in the Act, within their jurisdictional area, to discharge, lay off, decline to hire, or otherwise. discrimi- nate against employees or applicants for employment for lack of union membership or union clearance, except in accordance with the provisions of Section 8 (a)( 3 ) of the Act. (d) In any other manner restraining or coercing employees or applicants for em- ployment in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action which is necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Notify Thorpe Construction Company and Lomelo Construction Company that the Respondent has no objection to the employment of Strickland, in the manner set forth in "The Remedy." (b) Make Strickland whole for any loss of pay, as set forth in "The Remedy." (c) Post in conspicuous places ' in all of its offices and union halls , including all places where notices to its members are customarily posted, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix." 29 Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for the Eighth Region, shall, after being duly signed by the Respondent's ° In the event that this Recommended Order be adopted by the Board, the words "a Decision and Order" shall be substituted for the words " the Recommendations of a Trial Examiner" in the notice. In the further event that the Board's Order be enforced by a decree of the United States Court of Appeals, the words "a Decree of the United States Court of Appeals, Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the words "a Decision and Order." 68 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD authorized representative, be posted by the Respondent immediately upon receipt 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 to insure that such notices are not altered , defaced, or covered by any other material. (d) Sign and mail sufficient copies of said notice to the Regional Director for the Eighth Region for posting by Thorpe Construction Company and Lomelo Construc- tion Company, at all locations where notices to its employees are customarily posted, if either or both companies are willing to do so. (e) Notify the said Regional Director, in writing, within 20 days from the date of the receipt of this Trial Examiner's Decision, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith 30 It is further recommended that, unless on or before 20 days from the date of re- ceipt of this Trial Examiner's Decision, the Respondent notify ' the said Regional Director, in writing, that it will comply with the Recommended Order, the National Labor Relations Board issue an order requiring the Respondent to take the action aforesaid. "In the event that this Recommended Order be adopted by the Board , this provision shall be modified to read: "Notify said Regional Director, in writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order , what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith." APPENDIX NOTICE TO ALL OUR MEMBERS, OFFICERS, REPRESENTATIVES, AND AGENTS; TO ALL EMPLOYEES OF THORPE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY; TO ALL EMPLOYEES OF LOMELO CONSTRUCTION COMPANY Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Rela- tions Act, as amended, you are notified that: WE WILL NOT cause or attempt to cause Thorpe Construction Company or Lomelo Construction Company, or any other employer over whom the Board would assert jurisdiction, to discharge or deny employment to William O. Strickland, or any other employee or applicant for employment in violation of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act. WE WILL NOT in any other manner restrain or coerce employees or applicants for employment of Thorpe Construction Company, or Lomelo Construction Company, or any other employer over whom the Board would assert jurisdic- tion, in the exercise of their rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. WE WILL notify, in writing, Thorpe Construction Company and Lomelo Con- struction Company that we have no objection to the hiring or employment of William O. Strickland without regard to his union membership. WE WILL notify, in writing, William O. Strickland that we have no objection to his employment with the Thorpe Construction Company, or Lomelo Con- struction Company, or any other employer over whom the Board would assert jurisdiction, and henceforth we will not coerce or restrain him' by unlawfully in- fringing upon the rights guaranteed him by Section 7 of the Act. WE WILL make William O. Strickland whole for any loss of pay he may have suffered as a result of our having caused Thorpe Construction Company not to hire him, or in the alternative, any loss of pay he may have suffered by our having caused Lomelo Construction Company to discharge him, whichever amount is greater. INTERNATIONAL HOD CARRIERS ', BUILDING AND COMMON LABORERS' UNION OF AMERICA, LOCAL 894, AFL-CIO, Union. Dated------------------- By------------------------------------------- (Representative ) (Title) This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting and must not be altered , defaced, or covered by any other material. Employees may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, 720 Bulkley Building, 1501 Euclid Avenue, Cleveland, Ohio, Telephone No. Main 1-4465, if they have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions.