Carpenters Local 891

CARPENTERS LOCAL 891 251 United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local 891 , AFL-CIO, and Laborers' International Union of North America, Local 490 , AFL-CIO, and Bryant Sheet Metal Co., Inc. Case 26-CC-103. were filed by the General Counsel and the Respondents. Upon the basis of the stipulation, the briefs, and the entire record in the case, the Board2 makes the following findings: May 2, 1967 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS FANNING AND BROWN Upon charges duly filed on September 6, 1966, by Bryant Sheet Metal Co., Inc., herein called Bryant Sheet Metal, the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board by the Regional Director for Region 26 issued a complaint dated September 21, 1966, against the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local 891, AFL-CIO, and Laborers' International Union of North America, Local 490, AFL-CIO, herein respectively called Carpenters Local 891 and Laborers' Local 490, and collectively called Respondents, alleging that the Respondents had engaged in and were engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended. Copies of the charge, complaint, and notice of hearing were duly served upon the parties. On September 27, 1966, the Respondents filed an answer admitting certain allegations of the complaint, but denying the commission of any unfair labor practices. On November 3, 1966, the Respondents, the Charging Party, and the General Counsel entered into a stipulation and filed a joint motion to transfer this proceeding directly to the Board for findings of fact, conclusions of law, and the issuance of a Decision and Order after the filing of briefs and without further hearing. The stipulation states in substance that the parties waive their rights to a hearing before a Trial Examiner and to the issuance of a Trial Examiner's decision, and that the charge, complaint, answer, stipulation, and the transcript of testimony and exhibits received in evidence at a hearing before a United States District Court, Western District of Arkansas, Hot Springs Division, in the case of John J. A. Reynolds, Jr., Reg. Dir. v. United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO, Local 891 and Laborers' International Union of North America, AFL-CIO, Local 490, Civil Case No. 1044,1 should constitute the entire record in this case. On November 10, 1966, the Board approved the stipulation, ordered transferral of the proceeding to the Board, and granted permission to the parties to file briefs. Briefs ' Pursuant to a proceeding under Section 10(1) of the Act, an order temporarily enjoining Respondents' picketing issued on October 1, 1966 2 Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER Bryant Sheet Metal is an Arkansas corporation with its only plant and place of business located in Hot Springs, Arkansas, where it is engaged in the building and construction industry as an installer and erector of sheet metal on various construction jobs. During the past year, Bryant Sheet Metal, in the operation of its business, performed services valued in excess of $50,000 in the State of Arkansas for firms engaged in interstate commerce within the meaning of the Act. At times material herein, Bryant Sheet Metal had contractual relations with Arkansas corporations Pickens-Bond, Inc. (herein called Pickens), Pharoah Construction Company (herein called Pharoah), John B. May Company (herein called May), Wall Heating & Plumbing Co., Inc. (herein called Wall), and The General Air Conditioning Co. (herein called General). In the operations of their business, Pickens, Pharoah, May, Wall, and General are all engaged in the building and construction industry and each annually receives products valued in excess of $50,000 directly from points located outside the State of Arkansas, and are engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. Earl Hall (herein called Hall), is an individual proprietor engaged in the building and construction industry as a general contractor in Hot Springs, Arkansas. On the basis of the foregoing, the parties admit, and we find, that Bryant Sheet Metal is, and has been at all times material herein, an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act, and that it will effectuate the policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein. We also find that Pickens, Pharoah, May, Wall, General, and Hall are persons engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce. II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local 891, AFL-CIO, and Laborers' International Union of North America, Local 490, AFL-CIO, are, and have been at all times material to this case, labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. Labor Relations Act, as amended , the National Labor Relations Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel. 164 NLRB No. 43 252 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. The Facts As noted, Bryant Sheet Metal operates as a sheet metal contractor in Hot Springs, Arkansas. Its four to seven employees are covered by a collective- bargaining agreement between the Company and Local 249 of the Sheet Metal Workers Union. In the period covered by the complaint, Bryant Sheet Metal was engaged in performing sheet metal work for May, a plumbing and air-conditioning subcontractor of general contractor Pickens, on the construction of an addition to the Arlington Hotel in Hot Springs, and for Wall and General, the respective subcontractors of general contractor Pharoah, for the construction of additions to the State of Arkansas Rehabilitation Center in Hot Springs and the Hot Springs Country Club. Sometime in June,3 William J. Bryant, the majority shareholder of Bryant Sheet Metal, acting in his individual capacity and not as an official or agent of Bryant Sheet Metal, contracted with Earl Hall for the construction of a personal residence. Prior to the selection of Hall, Bryant received a telephone call from Carl Dicus, business agent of Laborers' Local 490 and president of the Southwest Arkansas Building and Trades Council. Dicus, who had learned of Bryant's intention to build a house, asked Bryant to hire Floyd Berry, a contractor- member of Carpenters Local 891, to build Bryant's home. Although Bryant agreed to consider Berry, he subsequently awarded the contract to Hall, a nonunion contractor who had submitted the lowest bid. The parties stipulated that in July, shortly after Hall began work on Bryant's home, Dicus caused the homesite to be picketed with a sign which read as follows: INFORMATION ONLY Carpenters Local 891 & Laborers Local 490 Protest the undercutting of Union Wages and Conditions by EARL HALL our dispute only with EARL HALL and with no other Employer During the course of the picketing, Dicus arranged a meeting with Bryant , Duey Breckenridge , business agent of Carpenters Local 891 , and Charles Housley, owner of Housley Roofing Company. At that meeting, the union representatives protested the use of nonunion carpenters on the construction of Bryant's residence. Bryant asked "what the difference was if [he] built a house with nonunion carpenters if their people used nonunion sheet metal." Breckenridge replied that Bryant "didn't have any business doing all the work in town anyway," and Dicus added that he "was interested in looking out after his own people." Following the meeting, no further conversation was had between the union representatives and Bryant regarding the construction of his home. Albert King, treasurer of Pharoah, testified that in early August, Dicus and Breckenridge visited him, and Dicus stated that Bryant was building a home and was "using a nonunion contractor on it," and "he basically wanted to contact me [King] or the company [Pharoah] to see basically what they could do about having labor problems out there." Dicus further stated, according to King, that "if Bryant continued like he was they would consider him, or declare him an unfair contractor on commercial work that Bryant was doing either directly or indirectly for us [Pharoah] on our projects." Although the complaint does not allege Respondents' picketing of Hall at the home construction site as violative of the Act, the General Counsel contends that the foregoing evidence shows that it was the Respondents' intent to involve Bryant and other employers in their dispute with Hall. 1. Arlington Hotel project: On the afternoon of August 23, while Bryant Sheet Metal was working at the Arlington job, Jim Locklar, superintendent for Rickens, observed Dicus and Breckenridge talking to stewards of various crafts at the jobsite. When Locklar asked if anything was wrong, Dicus replied that they were just checking on job conditions. The following morning Bryant Sheet Metal employees appeared at the jobsite as usual, but the laborers and carpenters failed to report for work. As a result of their absence on August 24, the following telephone conversations occurred that day. Arlington Hotel Company's Vice President Burford inquired of Dicus why the laborers and carpenters had failed to report. Burford testified that Dicus replied that "there was no problem with the Arlingon Hotel or with Pickens-Bond," but indicated that the trouble was with Bryant Sheet Metal Company. In response to Burford's remark that Bryant was not working for Arlington or Pickens, but was "a subcontractor of a subcontractor," Dicus stated , according to Burford, that "he hoped to prevail on me and Jack Pickens to get Mr. Bryant to come sit down and have a meeting with him." Dicus did not, however, reveal to Burford the nature of the problem with Bryant. In a conversation with Superintendent Locklar the same day, Dicus' explanation for the absence of the laborers and carpenters was that "the Building and Trades Council had declared Bryant Sheet Metal an unfair contractor" for the reason that "Bryant was 9 Unless otherwise designated all dates refer to 1966 CARPENTERS LOCAL 891 253 building a home out here and using a nonunion contractor." Dicus also asked Locklar if he could keep Bryant Sheet Metal off the job until he could meet with Bryant, and Locklar informed him that Bryant's crew had completed its current work and would not have to come back to the Arlington job for 2 weeks. In a later conversation the same day, Dicus told Locklar that the laborers and carpenters "would be back on the job the next morning ... that this thing with Bryant can get serious, and it may even lead to picket lines." The laborers and carpenters reported to the Arlington jobsite the following day, but Bryant's crew did not work on that project again until September 6. Thus, the 1-day work stoppage on August 24 constituted the only incident at the Arlington Hotel project. 2. Rehabilitation Center jobsite: On August 26, when Bryant Sheet Metal employees Kilgore and Kimberly arrived at the Rehabilitation Center jobsite at 8 a.m., the laborers were on the job. However, after Bryant's employees unloaded their trucks, the laborers left the construction site and did not work the rest of that day. No work was performed over the weekend, August 27 or 28, but when Bryant's employees reappeared on August 29, 30, and 31, the laborers again walked off the job and refused to work on each of those occasions. Kilgore testified that on August 31, while he was standing with Woods, a lath and plaster contractor, at the Rehabilitation jobsite after all of the laborers except Boling had left the site , Boling approached them and said to Woods that "he had to go down to the Union Hall and that they would not let him work."4 Dicus also testified that he spoke with Boling in the union hall in the last part of August. On that occasion, according to Dicus, Boling asked "what is this all about ... am I supposed to work or not work," and Dicus replied, "you do what you want to do ... go to work, or stay, that is up to you." 3. The Country Club project: On September 2, the laborers and carpenters were at the Country Club jobsite before Bryant's employees arrived. When Bryant's crew began unloading materials, the laborers and carpenters stopped working and, after asking for and receiving their paychecks, left the jobsite. Bryant's employees did not work on September 3, 4, or 5. However, when they returned on September 6, the laborers and carpenters who were on the project again walked off the job. The laborers and carpenters returned to the jobsite the following day and worked alongside Bryant's employees thereafter. Kilgore gave testimony concerning a conversation with a laborer named Waterman on September 2 at the Country Club jobsite.5 Kilgore asked Waterman why the laborers were walking off, and Waterman replied, "I am just doing what I am told to do," and then changed his answer to, "I am just doing what is suggested." Although Waterman did not testify, Dicus' testimony contained a denial that he had ever instructed Waterman not to work on any specific job. The record also shows that at a meeting of the Southwest Arkansas Building and Trades Council on September 2, presided over by Dicus and attended by Breckenridge and L. B. Freeman, business agent for Local 249 of the Sheet Metal Workers Union, among others, Dicus raised the subject of Bryant' s using a nonunion contractor for the construction of his residence in Hot Springs. Freeman remarked at this meeting that he had no problems with Bryant, and that he did not try to tell Bryant how to build his home. Dicus stated that since Bryant would not work with any of the crafts on his house, "they intend to hurt Mr. Bryant all they could, as far as getting work." Freeman indicated his oppostion to the Council's position on the grounds that it would discriminate against the Sheet Metal Workers. Also, in response to a statement made in the same meeting to the effect that it had been heard that Bryant himself was paying substandard wages,6 Freeman said that to his knowledge Bryant was not paying substandard wages. After this meeting, there was a further work stoppage at the Country Club project on September 6, but as noted above, it only lasted 1 day. Thereafter, between September 9 and 30, picket Clifton Ussery, acting pursuant to orders by Dicus, patrolled Bryant Sheet Metal's place of business with the following sign: INFORMATIONAL ONLY Carpenters Local 891 & Laborers Local 490 Protests the Undercutting of Union Wages and Conditions by BRYANT SHEET METAL, INC. IN [sic] HIS ALLY* EARL HALL Our Dispute Only with BRYANT SHEET METAL, inc. IN [sic] HIS ALLY EARL HALL and with NO OTHER Employer With respect to this picketing activity, it is undisputed that all of Bryant 's employees crossed the picket line and continued to perform their work duties. Clifton Ussery testified that he instructed * Boling did not testify at the 10(l) injunction hearing 5 Waterman did not testify at the 10(l) injunction hearing 6 The testimony of employee Jerry Reed, former employee John Reed, and the latter's wife to the effect that Bryant Sheet Metal was paying substandard wages was , as indicated above, denied by Sheet Metal Workers ' Business Agent Freeman 254 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD drivers that it was all right to cross the picket line, and that there was no interference with deliveries by suppliers of Bryant. However, according to the testimony of Bryant employee Kilgore, Superior Van Lines, which customarily delivered to Bryant, refused to do so during the course of the picketing, and as a result, Bryant dispatched various employees including Kilgore to pick up needed supplies from Superior. B. Contentions of the Parties Respondents deny responsibility for the work stoppages by their members at the three jobsites on the grounds that the General Counsel has failed to establish that such stoppages were induced by any conduct on the part of the Respondents. They further contend that the picketing at the office of Bryant Sheet Metal was lawful primary picketing in furtherance of their dispute over substandard wages paid by Bryant Sheet Metal, and that the picketing was totally ineffective in any event. The General Counsel, on the other hand, asserts that the record clearly reveals that Respondents' real dispute involved the construction of Bryant's personal residence by nonunion contractor Earl Hall, and that Respondents' threats to neutral employers and inducement of employees of neutrals to withhold their labor from their employers had an unlawful objective of bringing pressure upon Bryant to cease doing business with Hall. The General Counsel also contends that the picketing at Bryant Sheet Metal had the same unlawful objective, and cannot be justified by Respondents' erroneous characterization of Bryant Sheet Metal as an ally of Hall. Moreover, the General Counsel argues that Respondents' assertion that the picketing of Bryant Sheet Metal was in protest of its alleged substandard wages was pretextual. Conclusions It is clear from the record, as evidenced by Respondents' picketing directed against Earl Hall, whom William Bryant had engaged to build his personal residence, that Respondents had a primary dispute with Hall because that company did not employ members of Respondents, and that Respondents' inducements of neutral employers and threats to neutrals, as found hereinafter, had as an object the cessation of the business relationship between Bryant and Hall.7 Thus, in our view, Respondents' requests for assistance from neutrals to resolve the "problem with Bryant"; their demand that Bryant Sheet Metal's employees be kept off the Arlington job until a meeting could be arranged with Bryant; and their warning that because Bryant was having a home built by a nonunion contractor, he would be declared an unfair contractor, and that the situation might even lead to picket lines, amply demonstrated Respondents' plan to enmesh neutrals in the controversy with Hall, with an objective of bringing pressure to bear upon Bryant to cease doing business with Hall. The remaining evidentiary question is whether the ensuing work stoppages at the three jobsites between August 23 and September 6 were attributable in each instance solely to the individual decisions of all of the carpenters and laborers, as urged by Respondents, or to inducements by Respondents. The latter explanation, in our opinion, is by far the most plausible. Indeed, we note that Dicus and Breckenridge visited the Arlington Hotel project on August 23, spoke to union stewards of various crafts, and departed. The following day the carpenters and laborers failed to report for work. When Dicus learned that Bryant's employees would not be needed for 2 weeks Dicus gave Superintendent Locklar assurances that the carpenters and laborers would return to work the next day, which they did. This episode, in our view, clearly demonstrates that decisions whether or not carpenters and laborers would work while Bryant's employees were on the job were, in fact, union decisions, not those of their members who coincidentally, although acting as individuals, all happened to be of one and the same mind. Accordingly, we are persuaded that the further walkoffs by Respondents' members, on the six subsequent occasions when Bryant's employees appeared at the Rehabilitation Center and Country Club projects, also occurred pursuant to Respondents' planned course of action.8 Furthermore, Dicus' announced intention on September 2, on behalf of the Southwest Arkansas Building and Trades Council, "to hurt Bryant all they could, as far as getting work,"9 makes it further evident that the subsequent work stoppages were induced by Respondents to implement the policy announcement. Moreover, the statements of laborers Boling and Waterman bolster our conclusion that the work stoppages at the Rehabilitation Center and Country Club were induced by Respondents' officials. As an object of Respondents' inducement of employees of neutrals to withhold their labor from their employers was to force the neutrals to cease ' See International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 9 We find that Dicus and the Council spoke on behalf of the No 12, AFL-CIO (B R Schedell Contractor, Inc) 145 NLRB Respondents on this occasion. Local 513, International Union of 351 Operating Engineers, AFL-CIO (Kiewit-Centennial), 163 NLRB 8 Cf Local 25, International Brotherhood of Electrical 400 Workers, AFL-CIO (New York Telephone Company), 162 NLRB 703, Local 349, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO (Dade Sound and Controls), 149 NLRB 430 CARPENTERS LOCAL 891 255 doing business with Bryant Sheet Metal so as to bring about a cessation of business between Bryant and Hall, we find that Respondents' conduct violated Section 9(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B) of the Act. First, we note that the evidence does not support Respondents' assertion, as depicted on the legend of the picket, that Bryant Sheet Metal was an ally of Earl Hall. For, there is no evidence that Hall had any financial interest in Bryant Sheet Metal or occupied any official position in that Company.10 Nor is there any evidence to support a finding that the construction of Bryant's personal residence was a joint venture of Hall and Bryant Sheet Metal or that Bryant Sheet Metal furnished any labor or materials for the home construction. Accordingly, there is no basis for concluding that an ally relationship existed between Bryant Sheet Metal and Hall. Nor can we accept Respondents' contention that their picketing of Bryant Sheet Metal was for a lawful object, i.e., to protest that company's alleged substandard wages. As noted, Freeman, the Sheet Metal Workers' business agent who serviced Bryant's union contract, was present at the meeting at which Bryant's alleged substandard rates were mentioned by Dicus, and specifically denied that such was the case. Furthermore, although the Respondents were admittedly concerned with the protection of the wages received by carpenters and laborers, they offered no explanation for their interest in sheet metal workers' wages, particularly when the sheet metal workers' own union representative voiced no such concern. It is therefore obvious that Respondents' picketing of Bryant Sheet Metal on the asserted claim that Bryant was paying substandard wages was adopted as a device to obscure their true unlawful object. Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record in the case, we adopt the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Bryant Sheet Metal Co., Inc., is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 2. Pickens-Bond, Inc., Pharoah Construction Company, John B. May Company, Wall Heating & Plumbing Co., Inc., The General Air Conditioning Co., and Earl Hall are persons engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 3. United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local 891, AFL-CIO, and Laborers' International Union of North America, Local 490, AFL-CIO, are labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 4. By inducing individuals employed by Pickens, Pharoah, May, Wall, or General to engage in a strike or refusal in the course of their employment to perform services, with an object of forcing William J. Bryant to cease doing business with Earl Hall, Respondents have engaged in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8(b)(4)(i)(B) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 5. By threatening, coercing, and restraining the aforesaid persons and Bryant Sheet Metal, with an object of forcing William J. Bryant to cease doing business with Earl Hall, Respondents have engaged in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8(b)(4)(ii)(B) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. ORDER IV. THE EFFECTS OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of Respondents set forth above occurring in connection with the activities of Pickens, Pharoah, May, Wall, General, and Hall as 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 burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce. THE REMEDY Having found that Respondents have engaged in certain unfair labor practices, we shall order that they cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action that we find necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act. Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended , the National Labor Relations Board orders that the Respondents, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local 891 , AFL-CIO, and Laborers' International Union of North America , Local 490, AFL-CIO, their officers, agents, and representatives , shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Engaging in, or inducing or encouraging employees of Pickens- Bond , Inc., Pharoah Construction Company, John B. May, Wall Heating & Plumbing Co., Inc., and The General Air Conditioning Co., or any other person engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce, to engage in, a strike or refusal in the course of their employment to use, manufacture , process, transport, or otherwise handle or work on any goods, 10 See Grain Elevator, Flour and Feed Mill Workers, International Longshoremen Association, Local 418, AFL-CIO (Continental Grain Company), 155 NLRB 402, 403-406. 256 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD articles, materials , or commodities , or to perform any services where an object thereof is to force or require William J. Bryant, or any other person, to cease doing business with Earl Hall, under circumstances prohibited by Section 8(b)(4)(i)(B) of the Act. (b) Threatening, coercing, and restraining Bryant Sheet Metal Co., Inc., Pickens-Bond, Inc., Pharoah Construction Company, John B. May Company, Wall Heating & Plumbing Co., Inc., and The General Air Conditioning Co., or any other person engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce where an object thereof is to force William J. Bryant to cease doing business with Earl Hall, under circumstances prohibited by Section 8(b)(4)(ii)(B) of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Post at their business offices and meeting halls, in Hot Springs, Arkansas, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix."" Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for Region 26, after being duly signed by authorized representatives , shall be posted by Respondents 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. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondents to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (b) Sign and mail to the Regional Director for Region 26 sufficient copies of said notice, to be furnished by him, for posting by Bryant Sheet Metal Co., Inc., Pickens-Bond, Inc., Pharoah Construction Company, John B. May Company, Wall Heating & Plumbing Co., Inc., and The General Air Conditioning Co., if willing. (c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 26, in writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps have been taken to comply herewith. ii In the event that this Order is enforced by a decree of a United States Court of Appeals , there shall be substituted for the words "a Decision and Order" the words "a Decree of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order " APPENDIX NOTICE To ALL MEMBERS OF UNITED BROTHERHOOD OF CARPENTERS AND JOINERS OF AMERICA, LOCAL 891 , AFL-CIO, AND LABORERS' INTERNATIONAL UNION OF NORTH AMERICA, LOCAL 490, AFL-CIO Pursuant to a Decision and Order of the National Labor Relations Board , and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended , we hereby give notice that: WE WILL NOT , in any manner prohibited by Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B) of the Act, (1) engage in, or induce or encourage employees of Pickens-Bond, Inc., Pharoah Construction Company , John B . May Company , Wall Heating & Plumbing Co ., Inc., and The General Air Conditioning Co., or any other person engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce , to engage in, a strike or refusal in the course of their employment to perform any services for their employers ; or (2) threaten, coerce, or restrain any of the above-named persons or Bryant Sheet Metal Co., Inc., or any other person engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce where in either case an object thereof is to force or require William J. Bryant to cease doing business with Earl Hall. UNITED BROTHERHOOD OF CARPENTERS AND JOINERS OF AMERICA, LOCAL 891, AFL-CIO (Labor Organization) Dated By Dated By (Representative) (Title) LABORERS' INTERNATIONAL UNION OF NORTH AMERICA, LOCAL 490, AFL-CIO (Labor Organization) (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. If members have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions, they may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, 746 Federal Office Building, 167 North Main Street, Memphis, Tenessee 38103, Telephone 534-3161.