Dallas Building and Construction Trades Council

938 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Dallas Building and Construction Trades Council and Dallas County Construction Employers' Association, Inc. Case 16-CP-32. May 24,1967 DECISION AND ORDER Upon a charge filed August 11, 1966, and amended August 17, 1966, by the Dallas County Construction Employers' Association, Inc. (Association), the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board, by the Regional Director for Region 16, issued a complaint dated September 9, 1966, against the Dallas Building and Construction Trades Council (Council), alleging that the Council had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Sections 8(b)(7)(A) and 2(6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended. Copies of the charges, complaint, and notice of a hearing before a Trial Examiner were duly served on the Council and the Association. On September 23, 1966, the Council filed its answer admitting certain allegations of the complaint, but denying the commission of any unfair labor practices. Thereafter, on October 31, 1966, the parties agreed to submit the case to the Board for decision on a complete stipulation of facts which expressly waived a hearing before a Trial Examiner and a Trial Examiner's recommended findings of fact, conclusions of law, and order. The Board, having authorized such submission of the case on November 7, 1966, and having received and considered briefs filed by the General Counsel, the Council, and the Association, hereby finds the facts to be as stipulated. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE EMPLOYERS ' ASSOCIATION Dallas County Construction Employers' Association, Inc., the Charging Party, is a Texas corporation with its principal office and place of business at 1432 Life Building, Dallas, Texas. At all times material herein it has functioned as collective- bargaining agent for its general contractor and subcontractor members who employ labor at job- sites in the building and construction industry, and has recognized and has collective-bargaining agreements with the following labor organizations as the exclusive bargaining representatives of the employees of its members engaged in the classes of work over which those labor organizations claim jurisdiction: Bricklayers, Cement Masons, Operating Engineers (Locals 714 and 819), Iron Workers, Laborers, Floorlayers, Millwrights, and Carpenters. Although lawfully recognized, none of these labor organizations is currently certified under Section 9 of the Act. II. THE TRADES COUNCIL Dallas Building and Construction Trades Council has been a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act, and a labor organization in the construction industry within the meaning of Section 8(e) of the Act, at all times material herein. The following 20 labor organizations are affiliated with and members of the Council: Dallas Local Union No. 5, Bricklayers, Stone Masons and Plasterers International Union; Cement Masons Local Union No. 549, Operative Plasterers and Cement Masons International Association; Hoisting and Portable Engineers' Local 714; Hoisting and Portable Engineers' Local 819; Local 481, International Association of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Iron Workers; International Hod Carriers, Building and Common Laborers' Union of America, Local 859; Carpet, Linoleum and Resilient Floor Covering Workers Local 1870 of the Brotherhood of Painters, Decorators and Paperhangers of America; Millwright Local 421; Sheet Metal Workers International Association, Local Union No. 25; International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local Union No. 59; International Association of Heat & Frost Insulators and Asbestos Workers, Local No. 21; Plumbers & Steamfitters, Local No. 100; Wood, Wire & Metal Lathers International Union, Local No. 140; United Slate, Tile & Composition Roofers, Damp & Waterproof Workers Association, Local No. 123; Marble Setters of the Brick Masons and Plasterers International Union, Local No. 29; International Union of Elevator Constructors, Local No. 21; Plasterers Local No. 61; Brotherhood of Painters, Decorators & Paperhangers of America, Local No. 53; and Glaziers Local No. 1837; International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America, Local No. 745, herein respectively called the Bricklayers, Cement Masons, Local 714, Local 819, Iron Workers, Laborers, Floorlayers, Millwrights, Sheet Metal Workers, Electricians, Asbestos Workers, Plumbers, Lathers, Roofers, Marble Setters, Elevator Constructors, Plasterers, Painters, Glaziers, and Teamsters. III. THE PICKETED CONTRACTORS Henry C. Beck Company (Beck), a Delaware corporation, is engaged at Dallas, Texas, and elsewhere as a general contractor in the building and construction industry. In the operation of its business, Beck receives in the State of Texas materials and supplies purchased and shipped from outside the State of Texas the value of which exceeds $50,000 annually. At all times material herein Beck has been engaged in the erection of a shopping center known as North Town Mall in Dallas, Texas. Materials and supplies valued in 164 NLRB No. 139 DALLAS BLDG. & CONSTR. TRADES COUNCIL 939 excess of $50,000 produced outside the State of Texas have been or will be used in the construction of this project. George Bock and Abe Bock d/b/a George Bock Construction Co. (Bock) is engaged at Dallas, Texas, and elsewhere as a general contractor in the building and construction industry. In the operation of its business, Bock received in the State of Texas materials and supplies purchased and shipped from outside the State of Texas the value of which exceeds $50,000 annually. At all times material herein Bock has been engaged in the erection of an office building located in Dallas, Texas, known as the Gifford-Hill Construction Project. Materials and supplies valued in excess of $50,000 produced and shipped from outside the State of Texas have been or will be used in the construction of this project. Hyatt Cheek, Builders-Engineers (Cheek), a Texas corporation, is engaged at Dallas, Texas, and elsewhere as a general contractor in the building and construction industry. In the operation of its business, Cheek receives in the State of Texas materials and supplies purchased and shipped from outside the State of Texas the value of which exceeds $50,000 annually. At all times material herein, Cheek has been engaged in the erection of a staff residence at Parkland Hospital in Dallas, Texas. Materials and supplies valued in excess of $50,000 produced and shipped from outside the State of Texas have been or will be used in the construction of Parkland. Robert E. McKee General Contractors, Inc. (McKee), a Nevada corporation, is engaged at Dallas, Texas, and elsewhere as a general contractor in the building and construction industry. In the operation of its business McKee receives in the State of Texas materials and supplies purchased and shipped from outside the State of Texas the value of which exceeds $50,000 annually. At all times material herein McKee has been engaged in the construction of buildings for Texas Instruments, Inc., at Dallas, Texas, and for Atlantic Southwest Research Center at Plano, in Collin County, Texas. Materials and supplies valued in excess of $50,000 produced and shipped from outside the State of Texas have been or will be used in the construction of each of the above projects. Beck and Bock since 1948 , McKee since 1952, and Cheek since July 1, 1966 , have been members of the Association . The Association , Beck , Bock , Cheek, and McKee were employers engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act at all times material herein. IV. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES The Respondent Council is governed by representatives of the 20 local unions that are affiliated with it. The members of those locals work for general contractors and subcontractors in the construction industry in the Dallas area. The Council has not bargained on behalf of any of these unions; each bargains separately. The Association, the Charging Party, bargains for its members with some unions,' but employer-members also make collective-bargaining agreements with unions (individually or through other employer groups) in which the Association takes nWpart. The Council, acting separately from its member unions, proposed to the Association, in July 1966, an agreement restricting subcontracting in crafts where the Council's member unions had jurisdiction, to employers that had collective-bargaining agreements with the appropriate Council-affiliated unions. This agreement could be adopted by Association members either singly or collectively, according to the Council's proposal. The Council threatened to picket if the agreement were rejected. The Association formally refused to enter into the proposed agreement by a letter to the Council dated July 28. By letters dated August 10, the Council proposed to four Association member contractors (Beck, Bock, Cheek, and McKee) each of whom was already bound to a subsisting contract, an ' Of the nine Unions listed in I, above, that have contracts with the Association, all but the Carpenters are Council affiliates 940 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD agreement2 which included a revised subcontracting clause. The letters threatened picketing if the agreement should be rejected . When the Council's deadline had passed without acceptances from Beck, Bock , Cheek, or McKee, the Council picketed jobs these contractors had in progress with signs reading: Dallas Building and Construction Trades Council picketing [name of general contractor] for subcontractor agreement. From August 15 until September 1, 1966, the Council picketed Beck at North Town, Bock at Gifford-Hill, and Cheek at Parkland. The Council also picketed McKee from August 15 until August 22 at Instruments , and from August 22 until September 1, 1966 , at Atlantic. At their last contract negotiations with the Association, the Floorlayers and Local 819 proposed subcontracting clauses similar to the one at issue here. They were dropped at the Association's insistence , and the unions accepted contracts with other economic benefits . The Bricklayers, Millwrights, and Local 714 also raised the subcontracting issue during contract negotiations, without advancing specific proposals ; they accepted contracts with other economic benefits, but no subcontracting provisions , after the Association had stated its opposition to any form of subcontracting clause. (The Iron Workers proposed a clause-which the Association rejected-touching on different areas of subcontracting practice from those covered by the provisions at issue here.) A. Issues 1. Was an object of the Council's picketing to force the picketed general contractors to "recognize or bargain" with the Council "as the representative of [their] employees?" 2. Could "a question concerning representation ... appropriately be raised under Section 9(c)" regarding employees of the picketed general contractors? Y The text of the proposed agreement is. AGREEMENT This Agreement entered into this .. . day of 1966, by and between the signatory contractor, hereinafter referred to as the "Contractor" and the Dallas Building and Construction Trades Council, hereinafter referred to as "Council", WITNESSETH Whereas, the Contractor and the Council are engaged in the construction industry in Dallas County and the surrounding area, and Whereas, Section 8(e) of the Labor-Management Relations Act of 1947, as amended , provides with respect to the unfair labor practices defined therein, "That nothing in this subsection (e) shall apply to an agreement between a labor organization and an employer in the construction industry relating to the contracting or subcontracting or work to be done at the site of the construction , alteration , painting or repair of a building, structure or other work," and Whereas, the Contractor and the Council desire to make an agreement applying only in the event of subcontracting of such work in accordance with the aforesaid Section 8(e) of the Labor-Management Relations Act, 1947, amended, and Whereas, it is understood that by this agreement the Contractor does not grant, nor does the Council seek, recognition as the collective -bargaining representative of any employees of the signatory contractor or of any other employer, it being specifically understood that the Council is not the collective-bargaining representative of the Contractor's employees, and neither claims nor seeks to be such representative. ARTICLE I The Contractor and the Council mutually agree with respect to work to be done at the site of construction, alteration , painting or repair of any building, structures or other works within Dallas and the surrounding area , that, if the Contractor should contract or subcontract any of the aforesaid work falling within the trade jurisdiction of local unions affiliated with the Council, said Contractor shall contract or subcontract such work only to persons, firms, partnerships, and corporations that are parties to an executed , current agreement with the appropriate union having the trade and territorial jurisdiction. ARTICLE II It is agreed and understood that this contract shall in no way interfere with or supersede any present or future collective bargaining agreements to which the Contractor may be a party. In the interpretation of this contract it is agreed and understood that in the event there is a conflict between the terms of this contract and any collective bargaining agreement to which the Contractor is a party, that this contract shall be interpreted in a manner harmonious with said collective bargaining agreement and in a manner not to interefere with the lawful application and implementation of said collective bargaining agreement. It is further agreed and understood that this contract shall not be interpreted in any fashion to interfere with the Contractor's selection of a representative for the purposes of collective bargaining or the adjustment of grievances. ARTICLE III It is agreed and understood that the terms and provisions of this contract do not apply in any manner to employees of the signatory contractor This contract shall not be interpreted to apply any limitation or restriction upon the Contractor in the determination of the wages , hours and other working conditions of its own employees Nor shall this agreement be interpreted to restrict the Contractor in the exercise of its business judgment as to whether or not to subcontract any particular work ARTICLE IV Any portion of this agreement found to be in violation of existing federal or state laws shall become inoperative, and the balance of the agreement as such shall continue in full force and effect until the date of expiration In the event of such a finding this agreement may be immediately reopened for the negotiation of amendments to the affected portion. ARTICLE V This agreement shall remain in full force and effect until . 196 . , and shall continue in full force and effect from year to year thereafter unless written notice is served by either party at least sixty (60) days prior to the anniversary date of the agreement CONTRACTOR DALLAS BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION TRADES COUNCIL DALLAS BLDG. & CONSTR. TRADES COUNCIL 941 B. Contentions of the Parties The General Counsel contends that the Council's subcontracting proposal to the Association had an object of making the Council a bargaining agent concerning subcontracting, and thus intruded on the exclusive bargaining rights of the unions the Association had lawfully recognized in behalf of the employees of Association members in certain crafts. If allowed to picket for this objective, the General Counsel argues, the Council could preempt a mandatory subject of bargaining,3 take away an opportunity for the recognized unions to either bargain for or trade off subcontracting controls, and obtain a long term written agreement on subcontracting which would necessarily involve a continuing bargaining relationship to handle matters of interpretation and application. The Respondent Council asserts that the greatest, and almost the only, effect of the proposed subcontracting agreement would be on work the picketed general contractors never do with their own employees, and as to which they recognize no unions (plumbing and electrical work, for example). The general contractors' employees, and their union representatives, have little interest in the terms of these subcontracts, the Council argues. The proposed agreement aimed only to influence subcontracting; it expressly disclaimed any influence over an employer's decisions on wages and conditions of his own employees, and even his choice of whether to subcontract, the Council points out. Although the unions that bargain collectively with the Association might also have sought the same results, in Fanelli Fordo picketing for reinstatement of an employee was held not to seek recognition or bargaining rights, and thus not to violate 8(b)(7), even though a recognized union-had there been one-could have sought the same object. The Council also argues that the General Counsel's position is "irrational," since Congress worded Section 8(e) so as to allow trades councils to seek 8(e) agreements, but the General Counsel would make picketing for such an agreement illegal. Finally, the Council suggests that the picketed general contractors' agreements with unions representing their own employees were of the prehire type, which are made lawful only by Section 8(f). Since Section 8(f) states that agreements which otherwise would be invalid because majority status had not been established will not bar representation petitions, the Council argues that a question concerning representation could have been raised at the time it was picketing for subcontracting agreements, and therefore that the General Counsel had failed to prove an essential element of an 8(b)(7)(A) violation. C. Conclusions Section 8(b)(7) makes it an unfair labor practice for a labor organization or its agents: to picket or cause to be picketed, or threaten to picket or cause to be picketed, any employer where an object thereof is forcing or requiring an employer to recognize or bargain with a labor organization as the representative of his employees ... unless such labor organization is currently certified as the representative of such employees: (A) where the employer has lawfully recognized in accordance with this Act any other labor organization and a question concerning representation may not appropriately be raised under section 9(c) of this Act .... The stipulated record here shows that the Council threatened the Association and Beck, Bock , Cheek, and McKee with picketing , and picketed Beck, Bock, Cheek, and McKee , with an object to force these employers to accept the Council's subcontracting clause, at a time when the employers had lawfully recognized and were bound to collective-bargaining agreements with other unions representing their employees.5 The Council admits that the recognized unions could raise the same subcontracting demands, and in fact at least five6 of the eight Council-affiliated unions that deal with the Association raised subcontracting questions at their last contract negotiations. When the Association stated its opposition to any subcontracting clause, the employees ' representatives chose to abandon the subcontracting point and to agree on contracts containing other improvements in wages and working conditions , so the Association's collective- bargaining agreements contain no prohibition on subcontracting work to nonunion employers. It is clear , therefore, and we find that by threatening to picket and picketing with an object to impose a subcontracting agreement , the Council sought to represent and bargain for the employees of the employers involved as to subcontracting, within the meaning of Section 8(b)(7)(A). The Council argues that the threats and picketing did not have an object of recognition or bargaining because its proposed agreement about the subcontracting of work would have little or no effect on the employees of the picketed general contractors . This is so, argues the Council, since laborers, for example , if employed by a general 3 See, e g, Fibreboard Paper Products Corp V N L R B , 379 U S 203(1964) 4 Local 259, UAW (Fanelli Ford Sales), 133 NLRB 1468 5 The parties stipulated to the Council's status as a labor organization , distinct from the 20 local labor organizations whose officials determine Council policy 6 A sixth union proposed a clause that also dealt with subcontracting, but seems to affect different aspects of the issue than the Council's proposal 942 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD contractor, would neither gain nor lose if their employer initiates a new policy regarding plumbing subcontractors. This work could never be theirs, the Council asserts, for under industry practices it is always done by subcontractors' employees, whose wage scales are independent of laborers' rates. The Council did not limit its subcontracting proposal to trades such as plumbing, however; the proposal also applied to work which the general contractor might either do with his own employees or by subcontract. Contrary to the Council's argument, the subcontracting proposal would significantly affect employees of the picketed general contractors to the extent that it regulated subcontracting of such work. For example, laboring and millwrights' work is usually done by general contractors with their own employees, but it is sometimes subcontracted. If the subcontracting agreement proposed here were in force, all laboring and millwrights' work would be done under union wages and conditions. Without such an agreement, the general contractors might choose to employ fewer laborers and millwrights, obtaining the remainder of the requisite manpower through subcontractors not bound to unions affiliated with the Council. Thus a subcontracting agreement limited to such Council affiliates may mean the difference between working in a project or losing the job for members of unions recognized by the Association who work for the general contractors. Such an interest cannot be dismissed as inconsequential to these employees and their unions.' We deem it immaterial that the Council-affiliated unions that have contracts with the Association would not consider the proposed subcontracting clause an intrusion on their status as collective- bargaining representatives. Employers in the Association said the clause would intrude on their collective-bargaining relationships. Even if we were to find that the unions had waived their rights here, and that such waiver should influence the Board's unfair labor practice conclusions, the employers are entitled to the protection of Section 8(b)(7)(A) against actions which tend to erode or even destroy their right to operate, unimpeded by outsiders' threats and picketing, under the collective-bargaining terms lawfully negotiated with their employees' representatives. The Council relies on International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local No. 903 (Pass Development, Inc.),8 where the Board found no violation of Section 8(b)(7)(C) in a trades council's picketing of a general contractor conducted with an "overriding aim" to get a nonunion electrical subcontractor off a job.9 But there the only employees of the general contractor, if any, were laborers; the Board found that the trades council did not have an object to force the employer to recognize or bargain concerning laborers. Also, it was not shown that the respondent council there sought to remove from the job any nonunion subcontractor employing laborers. In the instant case, other labor organizations were representing employees of the picketed general contractors in several trades, and the Council sought a clause which would have regulated subcontracting practices as they affected employees in these trades. The Council also relies on Fanelli Ford" and Claude Everett." In Fanelli Ford a union picketed to force reinstatement of an employee, and in the Claude Everett case the picketing had an object of forcing a nonunion employer to pay the same wages as unionized employers in the area: the Board found no 8(b)(7)(C) violation in either case. Unlike the Council here, the union sought only a particular act from the employer in Fanelli Ford and Claude Everett, rather than a long term, legally enforceable contract. The Board observed in Fanelli Ford that the employer could have ended the picketing by reinstating the dismissed employee "without recognizing or, indeed, exchanging a word with the Respondent." Similarly, in Claude Everett, the union demanded neither recognition nor an agreement; only that the employer raise his wages to the area standards. Here, however, the Council sought a formal agreement, enforceable throughout its term, with the concomitant obligation to discuss implementation and compliance upon request, which naturally devolves upon the parties to a contract. 12 Such conduct, we find, was for an object of recognition and bargaining within the meaning of Section 8(b)(7). Finally, we come to the Council's contention that there was no 8(b)(7)(A) violation because a question ' While the proposed clause states that it would not be interpreted to conflict with the existing agreements covering employees of the general contractors, the immediate effect of the clause would be to bar nonunion subcontracting awards that are not proscribed under current agreements In order to bring the provision against conflict with collective-bargaining agreements into effect, the general contractors would have to renegotiate settled agreements in order to insert provisions specifically permitting nonunion subcontracting " 154 NLRB 169 " The Board found violations of Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B) " Supra Houston Building and Construction Trades Council (Claude Everett Construction Company), 136 NLRB 321 'i Centralia Building & Construction Trades Council (Pacific Sign & Steel Building Co ), 155 NLRB 803 , enfd 363 F 2d 699 (CA.DC) DALLAS BLDG. & CONSTR. TRADES COUNCIL 943 concerning representation could have been raised.13 Even if we assume, arguendo, that the agreements in question here were of a type that would in other circumstances be unlawful but for the provisions of Section 8(f), it does not follow that successive renewals of such agreements would be subject to the second provisio to Section 8(f). The Association's contracts with local labor organizations here were not initial agreements, but the latest fruits of continuing bargaining relationships dating as far back as 1948. As we recently pointed out in Bricklayers & Masons International Union Local No. 3 (Eastern Washington Builders),14 "the legislative history of Section 8(f) reveals that the Congress envisioned its prehire provisions as applying only to the situation where the parties were attempting to establish a bargaining relationship for the first time." In the Bricklayers case we held that the duty to bargain in good faith, not applicable to initial negotiations for an 8(f) contract, was enforceable during negotiations for a renewal. A parallel situation obtains here. Under normal contract bar rules, therefore, no question concerning representation could have been raised in this case during the period of the agreements material herein. Upon the basis of all the findings of fact, and for all the reasons stated above, we find that the Respondent threatened to picket the Association, Beck, Bock, Cheek, and McKee, and picketed Beck, Bock, Cheek, and McKee with an object of seeking recognition and bargaining as the representative of employees of those employers in violation of Section 8(b)(7)(A) of the Act. THE EFFECTS OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of the Respondent set forth 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. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record in the case, we make the following conclusions of law: 1. The Association, Beck, Bock, Cheek, and McKee are engaged in commerce and in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 2. The Council is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3. The Bricklayers, Cement Masons, Local 714, Local 819, Iron Workers, Laborers, Floorlayers, Millwrights, Sheet Metal Workers, Electricians, Asbestos Workers, Plumbers, Lathers, Roofers, Marble Setters, elevator Constructors, Plasterers, Painters, Glaziers, and Teamsters are labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 4. By threatening to picket the Association, Beck, Bock, Cheek, and McKee, and by picketing Beck, Bock, Cheek, and McKee, with an object in both instances of forcing and requiring the Association, Beck, Bock, Cheek, and McKee to recognize and bargain with the Respondent as the collective- bargaining representative of their employees, at a time when the Respondent was not certified as such representative and the Association, Beck, Bock, Cheek, and McKee had lawfully recognized the Bricklayers, Cement Masons, Local 714, Local 819, Iron Workers, Laborers, Floorlayers, Millwrights and Carpenters as the collective-bargaining representatives of their employees, and a question concerning representation could not be raised under Section 9(c) of the Act, Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(b)(7)(A) of the Act. 5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. THE REMEDY Having found that Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices, we shall order it to cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action that we find necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act. ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the Respondent, Dallas Building and Construction Trades Council, its officers, agents, and representatives, shall: Cease and desist from picketing or causing to be picketed or threatening to picket Dallas County Construction Employers' Association, Inc., Henry C. Beck Company, George Bock and Abe Bock d/b/a George Bock Construction Co., Hyatt Cheek, Builders-Engineers, or Robert E. McKee 1 The Council's position is based on Section 8(f) of the Act, which states , in pertinent part It shall not be an unfair labor practice under subsection (a) and (b) of this section for an employer engaged primarily in the building and construction industry to make an agreement covering employees engaged (or who, upon their employment , will be engaged) in the building and construction industry with a labor organization of which building and construction employees are members because (1) the majority status of such labor organization has not been established under the provisions of section 9 of this Act prior to the making of such agreement Provided further, That any agreement which would be invalid, but for clause (1) of this subsection , shall not be a bar to a petition filed pursuant to Section 9(c) or 9(e). 14 162 NLRB 476 944 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD General Contractors, Inc., where an object thereof is forcing or requiring such employers, or any of them, to recognize or bargain with Respondent as the collective-bargaining representative of their employees, at a time when the Respondent is not certified as such representative and the employees of such employers are represented by lawfully recognized labor organizations , and when no question concerning representation of the employees of such employers may be raised under Section 9(c) of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action which is necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Post in conspicuous places ' at its business offices and all places where notices to its member labor organizations are customarily posted, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix."15 Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for Region 16, after being signed by a duly authorized representative of the Respondent, shall be posted by the Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in such conspicuous places. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to insure that the said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (b) Forthwith mail to the Regional Director for Region 16, signed copies of said notices for posting by Dallas County Construction Employers' Association, Inc., Henry C. Beck Company, George Bock and Abe Bock d/b/a George Bock Construction Co., Hyatt Cheek, Builders-Engineers, and Robert E. McKee General Contractors, Inc., if they, or any of them, so choose, in places where notices to their employees are customarily posted. (c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 16, in writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps have been taken to comply herewith. CONSTRUCTION TRADES COUNCIL, OF HENRY C. BECK COMPANY, GEORGE BOCK AND ABE BOCK D/B/A GEORGE BOCK CONSTRUCTION CO., HYATT CHEEK, BUILDERS -ENGINEERS , ROBERT E. MCKEE GENERAL CONTRACTORS, INC., AND DALLAS COUNTY CONSTRUCTION EMPLOYERS' ASSOCIA- TION, INC. 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 notify you that: WE WILL NOT picket or cause to be picketed or threaten to picket Dallas County Construction Employers' Association, Inc., Henry C. Beck Company, George Bock and Abe Bock d/b/a George Bock Construction Co., Hyatt Cheek, Builders-Engineers, or Robert E. McKee General Contractors, Inc., where an object thereof is forcing or requiring such employers, or any of them, to recognize or bargain with us as the collective -bargaining representative of their employees, at a time when we are not certified as such representative and the employees of such employers are represented by lawfully recognized labor organizations , and when no question concerning representation of the employees of such employers may be raised under Section 9(c) of the Act. DALLAS BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION TRADES COUNCIL (Labor Organization) Dated By (Representative) (Title) 15 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 OUR MEMBERS AND TO ALL EMPLOYEES OF DALLAS BUILDING AND 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 any persons have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions, they may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, Sixth Floor, Meacham Building, 110 West Fifth Street, Forth Worth, Texas 76102, Telephone ED 5-4211, Extension 2131.