Carpet, Linoleum & Soft Tile Layers Union, Local 1238

CARPET, LINOLEUM & SOFT TILE LAYERS UNION, LOCAL 1238 41 Carpet, Linoleum and Soft Tile Layers Union, Local 1238, affiliated with the International Brother- hood of Painters, Decorators and Paperhangers of America, AFL-CIO and Northwest Floor Cover- ing Association , Inc. Case 19-CB-1394 June 5, 1970 DECISION AND ORDER BY MEMBERS MCCULLOCH, BROWN , AND FANNING On March 3, 1970, Trial Examiner George H. O'Brien issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent had en- gaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices and recommending that it cease and de- sist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Deci- sion. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the Decision and a supporting brief, and the General Counsel filed an answering brief. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na- tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three- member panel. The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made at the hearing 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 the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommenda- tions of the Trial Examiner. ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board adopts as its Order the Recom- mended Order of the Trial Examiner and hereby orders that the Respondent, Carpet, Linoleum and Soft Tile Layers Union, Local 1238, affiliated with the International Brotherhood of Painters, Decora- tors and Paperhangers of America, AFL-CIO, its officers, agents, and representatives, shall take the action set forth in the Recommended Order of the Trial Examiner. entitled matter in Seattle, Washington. The com- plaint, issued November 6, 1969, is based on a charge filed March 14, 1969, by Northwest Floor Covering Association, Inc., and alleges that Car- pet, Linoleum and Soft Tile Layers Union, Local 1238, affiliated with the International Brotherhood of Painters, Decorators and Paperhangers of Amer- ica, AFL-CIO, by demands on Miller's Interiors and on Interior Supply Company that they with- draw from and cease using Northwest Floor Cov- ering Association, Inc., as their collective-bargain- ing representative and by demands that each sign a separate individual contract, refused to bargain with the Association in violation of Section 8(b)(3) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, and restrained and coerced employers in the selection of their representatives for purpose of collective bargaining in violation of Section 8(b)(1)(B) of the Act. Upon the entire record in this proceeding, in- cluding my observation of the witnesses, and in consideration of the oral argument by the General Counsel and of Respondent's posthearing brief, I make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYERS Northwest Floor Covering Association, Inc., herein called Association, is a nonprofit Washing- ton corporation whose membership consists of vari- ous employers in the Puget Sound area of Washing- ton, including, inter alia , Interior Supply Company, Inc., and Miller's Interiors, Inc., engaged in the retail sale, distribution, or installation of floor coverings. The Association was established and ex- ists, inter alia , for the purpose of negotiating collec- tive-bargaining agreements with Respondent on be- half of its employer-members and on behalf of such other employers as have given to the Association written power of attorney. Employer-members of the Association annually receive in excess of $500,000 from their operations and cause to be transported and delivered to their places of busi- ness in the State of Washington carpets, tile, and other goods and materials valued in excess of $50,000 which are transported and delivered in in- terstate commerce directly from points outside the State of Washington. II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE GEORGE H. O'BRIEN, Trial Examiner: On Janu- ary 13, 1970, a hearing was held in the above- Carpet, Linoleum and Soft Tile Layers Union, Local 1238, affiliated with the International Brotherhood of Painters , Decorators and Paper- hangers of America, AFL-CIO, herein called Re- spondent or Union , is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 183 NLRB. No. 7 42 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. The Bargaining In December 1968 the Association and Respon- dent began negotiations for a new contract to suc- ceed the 3-year agreement which would expire pur- suant to its terms and proper notice on March 1, 1969. There were a series of meetings and on February 25, 1969, the negotiators arrived at an agreement, subject to ratification by their respec- tive principals. At a meeting held on Saturday, March 1, the Respondent's membership voted to reject the contract. The Association was notified by telephone that, in the view of Respondent, the provisions of the proposed contract on wages, on pay for Saturday work, on overtime pay, and on the timing of the dental plan contribution were un- satisfactory. The strike began Monday, March 3. There was po picketing during the first week of the strike. From the second week of the strike until its termination, March 25, 1969, pickets were sta- tioned at the places of business of four of Respon- dent's members. These were Interior Supply, Fryer- Knowles, L & R Floors, and Mortrude Floor Com- pany. There is no evidence in this record of any picketing at any construction site. While the strike was in progress the negotiators had further meetings under the auspices of the ,United States Commissioner of Conciliation. On March 25, 1969, the "Association Agreement" was signed by Robert Q. Olsen on behalf of all members of the Association and all other employers who had given the Association a written power of attorney- a total of about 35 employers, including Miller's In- teriors, Interior Supply, and other comparatively large employers. The "Association Agreement" was signed by Robert T. Wolf, business manager for the Union, and the strike ended. The Association made concessions to Respondent on overtime, on the ef- fective date of the dental increase , and on the amounts and effective dates of the wage increases. Respondent acceded to a change in the "audit" clause requested by the Association. In addition to the 35 employers represented by the Association there are in the same area about 120 independent flooring contractors whose em- ployees are represented by Respondent. Bargaining between the Respondent and the independents is described by Business Representative Anderson as follows: There was no formal negotiations with them as a group, as independent, they come in and negotiated as individual owners. They come in and they were given a copy of the proposed contract, they read it over, and they either signed it or they did not. Prior to the strike the Union had prepared 500 mimeographed copies of the "Independent Con- tract" and a separate "Strike Addendum." As each independent signed these two documents, his em- ployees returned to work. Two members of the As- LABOR RELATIONS BOARD sociation signed the "Independent Contract" and the "Strike Addendum" and their employees also returned to work before the end of the strike. B. The Bargaining Unit, the Association Agreement, the Independent Contract, and the Strike Addendum The parties stipulated that the bargaining unit described in the "Association Agreement" is an ap- propriate unit for collective bargaining. The em- ployer scope of the unit is described therein as fol- lows: ARTICLE 2-BARGAINING UNIT Section 1. This is a collective bargaining agreement between Carpet, Linoleum and Soft Tile Layers Union Local No. 1238 (referred to as the Union) and Northwest Floor Covering Association, Inc. (referred to as the Associa- tion). This Agreement shall be binding upon all persons, firms and corporations who have (1) signed this agreement, or (2) expressly or im- pliedly authorized some other person to sign on their behalf, or (3) who have made any trust fund contributions to any of the trust funds referred to in Article 15 of the Agree- ment, provided, however, that this stipulation shall not be applicable if the Employer's agree- ment has been cancelled. Section 2. The Union and the Employer by entering into this Agreement intend to and do hereby establish a multi-employer collective bargaining unit. Such unit shall include, and this agreement shall apply to all Employers who are contractor members of the Associa- tion on the date of the execution of this Agree- ment. Any Employer who joins the Association as a contractor member during the term of this Agreement shall also by virtue of such mem- bership be a part of such collective bargaining unit and shall be subject to the terms of this Agreement. Any Employer who is bound by this Agreement, regardless of whether such Employer is or becomes a member of the As- sociation , shall thereby become a member of the multi-employer collective bargaining unit established by this Agreement. The Independent Contract recites: ARTICLE 2: BARGAINING UNIT Section 1: This is a collective bargaining agreement between Carpet, Linoleum and Soft Tile Layers Union Local No. 1238 (referred to, as the Union) and (referred to as the Em- ployer). This Agreement shall be binding .... The remaining text of section 1 and the entire text of section 2 is the same as the corresponding clauses of the "Association Agreement." The differences between the "Association Agree- ment" and the "Independent Contract" are sub- CARPET, LINOLEUM & SOFT TILE LAYERS UNION, LOCAL 1238 43 stantial . The "Association Agreement" is between the Association and the Union . No employer is named therein . The signature of executive secretary binds all employers whom the Association represents . The "Independent Contract" is a private agreement between the Union and the in- dividual employer . The "Independent Contract" also reserves to the Union rights and privileges which are severely restricted and circumscribed in the "Association Agreement ." These factors negate the provision of article 2 , section 2 , in the "Inde- pendent Contract " which purports to make the in- dividual signer thereof a part of a multiemployer unit. The strike addendum recites: It is agreed that the following terms and condi- tions will be observed from this date until a collective bargaining agreement between Northwest Floor Covering Association and the Union is signed. * * 3. If the direct cost package agreed to between the Union and Northwest Floor Covering Association is less than that provided for in the collective bargaining agreement between the Employer and the Union, then the latter agreement shall be automatically amended to incorporate such cost package. On some date during the strike the Union added the following words in manuscript to some copies of the "Strike Addendum": also Section 6 & Section 7 of Article 15 will revert to N.W. Floor Covering Association lan- guage. The effect of this manuscript addition was to incor- porate the "audit clause " of the Association Agree- ment in the Independent Contract. In explanation of this concession to the independents Anderson testified: We had made up a whole bunch of that inde- pendent contract, so to speak , except the front cover was not on there , but basically the same wording, and this was the contract that we were going for. Subsequently , we ran into a lot of opposition to this clause about the auditing, and we felt that it merited some attention, that we were willing to change it and modify it and rather than physically reprinting 500 of these agreements , we had this thing made up, that we would sign when we signed a contract with the independent firm , whoever wanted to sign a contract, we would sign one of these and present to him along with the independent con- tract. C. Conduct of Respondent and Arguments of Counsel 1. Respondent's conduct at Miller's Interiors The complaint alleges and the answer denied: On or about March 15, 1969, Respondent, by its business representative and agent Al Ander- son, demanded that Miller 's withdraw from the Association , cease using the Association as its collective bargaining representative , and sign a separate individual collective-bargaining agree- ment with Respondent. On the first day of the strike , Monday, March 3, 1969, Allen Anderson, a union business agent, received a telephone call from Ken Furness, a foreman employed by Miller's Interiors of Lyn- wood, Washington . Furness told Anderson that "they wanted to get back to work there" and asked Anderson to come to the shop. When Anderson ar- rived, within 20 minutes, he was told that Mr. and Mrs. Miller had left for Honolulu that morning. An- derson told Furness and others present that the only way to get the employees of Miller's Interiors back to work was for Mr. Miller "to take this inde- pendent contract, we will mail it to Mr. Miller in Honolulu." On Saturday, March 15, Anderson called on Wil- liam Wallace Miller, president of Miller 's Interiors. Miller testified: Well, my main complaint on this strike was the, what I considered the unfair audit clause, and the overtime , Saturday. I had come to the realization we were going to have to buy the overtime package , the audit clause package, I would not buy. Q. Would you describe the audit clause to us? A. It is a little hard for me to describe in detail . I felt it was a very unreasonable clause, it gave them access to the records in our busi- ness that they had really no right to examine, namely , the time cards, tax reports , almost everything that we have . And at the meetings of Northwest Floor Covering Association, I was perhaps the one that was the most violently against this. And A] came in on Satur- day morning and as near as I can recall his words was that he understood that the audit clause was the thing that was keeping me from signing or the thing that I was against , and I ad- mitted that, and he said would you consider signing the contract, that we have prepared a contract or would you consider signing a con- tract which would eliminate these audit clauses in relation to you . And the group of us stood around and talked, and I asked if this was going to be a revised contract that would in- volve everybody in the Northwest Floor Cover- ing Association, and he said, no, this was a separate contract for you. Then the subject came up of what would happen if I signed it at this time and then the negotiations were ter- minated and a new contract signed with Northwest Floor Covering Association, what would happen to this contract, and he said that this contract would hold in relation to Miller's Interiors, regardless of what the new contract 44 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD would be. I had to refuse that .... I said that I couldn't sign it unless it was for everybody. As a member of Northwest Floor Covering As- sociation, I felt I would be subject to suit, and I won't sign it on, under any circumstances un- less it was a contract for everybody. Anderson testified: Well Mr. Miller indicated that the clause that he objected to very strenuously was the audit clause, as we referred to it as. And I asked him, I says, "Will you sign it without that clause?" and Mr. Miller didn't answer directly on that. Then I says, "Well, we can substitute, attach a rider to this agreement, that will make the clause binding. It will be the same one that will be negotiated with Northwest Floor Covering Association on that particular item, the audit- ing clause. We would substitute the same clause that Northwest Floor Covering Associa- tion had agreed to have in their contract." That was one point we had agreed to at that time. That clause, no, it had not been ratified or submitted to the memberships, between the groups, they had agreed on this wording, and I offered him to this rider with the agreement that we would change that clause to the one there in the Northwest agreement. Q. And what did Mr. Miller say to you in response to this offer, as I characterize it? A. He told me he was bound by the Northwest Floor Covering Association Agree- ment and he could not sign the contract, so I said, "That is fine." We left, and that is as far as I recall, that is how it was left. Q. Did you at any time demand that they sign a separate indivisual collective bargaining agreement with Local 1238 or face continued strike of its employees? A. Demand, no. Anderson specifically denied making any demand that Miller's Interiors withdraw from the Associa- tion or cease using the Association as its collective- bargaining representative. Called as a rebuttal witness, Gary Wick, a salesman, testified that Anderson called at the premises about a week after the strike started and in the absence of both Furness and the Millers spoke to the superintendent, Leroy Jacobson. Wick's testimony consisted entirely of general im- pressions and is discredited insofar as it tends to contradict the testimony of Anderson. Neither Jacobson nor Furness was called as a witness. The Testimony of Miller that he was assured by Ander- son that the "Independent Contract" with the spe- cial concessions which Anderson was authorized to offer would "hold" regardless of the outcome of the negotiations with Association is credited. 2. Respondent's conduct at Interior Supply Company The complaint alleges and the answer denies: On or about March 3 and 15, 1969, and other dates presently unknown during the month of March, 1969, Respondent, by its business representative and agent Raymond Squires and by other agents presently unknown, demanded that Interior withdraw from the Association, cease using the Association as its bargaining representative, and sign a separate and in- dividual collective-bargaining Agreement with Respondent or face a continued strike of its employees and continued picketing of its Seat- tle, Washington place of business. The owner of Interior Supply, Gary Miller, testified on direct examination: A. I believe just prior to the strike, Mr. Squires came out and gave us a copy of the union's contract, the contract that they were negotiating for, after the strike, I would say within a week, he came out again. I don't have total recall, but I do remember that he was out three or four times. I can't remember exactly what he said the first time, but I know on one of the trips he came out, we discussed the interim agreement that the union was trying to get all the flooring contractors to sign, I told him then that, how- ever I was willing to discuss with him, but I did tell him that we were a member of the Floor Covering Association, he made some sug- gestions in regards to some local dealers who had signed the interim agreement, therefore able to work their mechanics and possibly ap- proach some of our builders. He also suggested that some Tacoma dealers, the Tacoma local was not on strike, also possibly could approach some of our builders, and while we were out on strike, this would be very disadvantageous to us. Upon being asked whether he could identify the paper entitled "Strike Addendum," Miller testified: A. Yes, I believe so, I am not positive of it, I think that this was submitted to me by Mr. Squires, I believe, the last time he was out prior to the end of the strike. We also were completely against the audit clause, as well as the amount of money that was requested or sought by the union. Mr. Squires brought, I be- lieve, this out, and told us that they could omit the audit clause if we would be willing to sign the interim agreement, or at least revise it. * * * Q. Did this longhand writing [the words "al- so section 6 & section 7 of article 15 will CARPET, LINOLEUM & SOFT TILE LAYERS UNION, LOCAL 1238 45 revert to N .W. Floor Covering Association lan- guage "] have anything to do with your conver- sation with Mr . Squires? A. Yes, this, I believe , if I am not mistaken, is directly associated with the audit clause, as I recall , here again , I am not positive , but as I re- call, Mr . Squires wrote this in , or possibly he left and came back with this written in at a later date . Then I made a copy of, after refus- ing to sign it I made a copy of this, and gave it to Mr . Olsen. Under cross-examination Miller testified that during the year prior to the strike Squires had visited the shop on several occasions and that on at least one of these apprentices were discussed. Miller also testified that he had made a trip to Phoenix about the time that the strike started and that picketing of his establishment began about 1 week after the strike started. Squires testified that on February 21 or 22 Gary Miller called him out to talk about an apprentice- ship problem and that in the course of the discus- sion Miller stated that he was dissatisfied with the progress of negotiations and wanted Squires to see him again after Miller returned from a projected trip to Phoenix. During the second week of the strike Squires made a second call bearing with him the independent contract and the strike addendum. When Miller asked what the other employers were signing, Squires produced these documents. In Squires' words: He said he would look it over, and let me know if he had any further thought , but at that time, he was going to stick with the Association. Squires denied that he had asked Miller to sign any contract, denied asking Miller to withdraw from the Association, and denied asking him to cease using the Association as his bargaining representative. Squires further testified that Miller's store and warehouse were picketed from the second week of the strike to its termination because the Union be- lieved that Interior Supply had individuals perform- ing work covered by the contract on various jobsites during the course of the strike. Both Gary Miller and Squires testified truthfully to the best of their respective recollections . The un- certainty of Miller's testimony is reflected in the words of the complaint, "by other agents presently unknown." His testimony that Squires presented a contract to him before the strike is clouded by his frank admission on cross-examination that he discussed with Squires an apprenticeship problem, corroborating Squires on this detail. His testimony indicating that the "Strike Addendum" was presented to him toward the end of the strike is ex- tremely unlikely in view of the fact that the Union was then picketing his establishment in protest of the fact that he was operating with temporary replacements . Insofar as any of the testimony of Gary Miller tends to contradict the testimony of Squires, I credit Squires. 3. Argument of the General Counsel The General Counsel argues in substance: Respondent approached Miller 's Interiors and In- terior Supply Company, members of the Associa- tion with solicitations to sign the Independent Con- tract, which was separate and distinct from the As- sociation Agreement for which the Association and Respondent were then negotiating . By these solici- tations Respondent attempted to force employer- members of the Association to bypass their designated collective-bargaining representative and thereby violated Section 8 ( b)(3) and 8 ( b)(1)(B) of the Act . Ice Cream , Frozen Custard Industry Em- ployees, Drivers, Vendors and Allied Workers Union Local 717, etc., 145 NLRB 865: United Slate, Tile & Composition Roofers, Damp & Waterproof Workers Association , Local No. 220, 177 NLRB 632; General Teamsters Local Union No. 324 (Cascade Employers Association, Inc.), 127 NLRB 488. 4. Argument of Respondent Counsel for Respondent argues in substance: (I) The complaint alleges that Respondent "de- manded " that employers withdraw from the As- sociation and sign a separate contract. Since there is no evidence that Respondent "demanded" anything, since no other unlawful act is alleged, and since there was no motion to amend the complaint, there is a complete failure of proof and the com- plaint must be dismissed. (2) Respondent's willingness to enter into a separate contract with individual employers cannot be construed as "restraint" or "coercion ." The re- jection by the Union of the contract recommended by its negotiators created an " impasse " in bargain- ing. During such impasse the Union was free to negotiate separately with any employer . Westchester County Executive Committee, 142 NLRB 126. D. Concluding Findings 1. Anderson did suggest to William Miller that he sign a separate contract with the Union and did assure Miller that this separate contract would hold regardless of what agreement might ultimately be reached with the Association. In connection therewith Anderson offered a guarantee as part of the separate contract, or as an addendum thereto, that Miller's Interiors would not be bound by the terms of the "audit clause " to which Miller ob- jected . Anderson also implied, if he did not express- ly state, that as soon as Miller signed this separate agreement his employees would return to work. 2. Squire did suggest to Gary Miller that he sign a separate contract with the Union on the express or implied assurance that this would terminate the strike at Interior Supply. 46 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL 3. The strike coerced and restrained all em- ployers against whom it was directed. Insofar as the purpose of the strike was to cause independent em- ployers to sign the "Independent Contract" it was protected by Section 13 of the Act. Insofar as the purpose of the strike was to cause the Association to meet the economic demands of the Union, it was protected by Section 13 of the Act. 4. The statements of Anderson and Squires demonstrate that a second purpose of the strike was to compel individual members of the Association to sign separate individual contracts with the Union. 5. At no time was there any impasse in bargain- ing. Any momentary impasse created by the Union's rejection on Saturday of the contract recommended by its negotiators was broken by the strike which began on the following Monday. N.L.R.B. v. United States Cold Storage Corporation, 203 F.2d 924, 928 (C.A. 5). 6. The Union's offer to call off the strike at Mil- ler's Interiors and Interior Supply in exchange for separate individual contracts is a "strong or authoritative request" and fully satisfies this defini- tion of the word "demand" in Webster's New World Dictionary. 7. Cascade Employer Association (supra) and Westchester County Executives Committee (supra) contain square holdings that a union violates Sec- tion 8(b)(1)(B) and (3) of the Act if it strikes or threatens to strike individual employer-members of a multiemployer association to force them to enter into individual contracts at a time (before impasse) when the Union is obligated to bargain for an as- sociationwide agreement. The destructive effect on the multiemployer unit is the same whether the offer of a separate contract is made prior to and under threat of a strike or whether the offer to call off the strike is condi- tioned upon the signing of a separate contract. The purpose and the effect of both actions is the frag- mentation of the unit and conduct in derogation of the Association's status as the representative of all its members and all others who had given the As- sociation written power of attorney. IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of the Respondent set forth in sec- tion III, above, occurring in connection with the operations described in section 1, above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relationship to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow thereof. ' In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Section 102 46 of the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the findings, conclusions, recommendations, and Recommended Order herein shall, as provided in Section 102 48 of the Rules and Regulations, be adopted by the Board and become its findings, conclusions, and order, and all objections thereto shall be deemed waived for all purposes In the event LABOR RELATIONS BOARD V. THE REMEDY Having found that Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices, I shall recommend that it be ordered to cease and desist therefrom and to take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Respondent is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 2. Northwest Floor Covering Association, Inc., and the employers represented by it in collective bargaining with Respondent are employers engaged in commerce and in business affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. 3. By dealing directly with Miller 's Interiors and Interior Supply Company, and by exerting strike pressure to force or require Miller 's Interiors and Interior Supply Company to sign individual con- tracts with the Respondent and to abandon bargain- ing with the Respondent through Northwest Floor Covering Association, Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(b)(l)(B) and ( 3) of the Act. 4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2 ( 6) and (7) of the Act. RECOMMENDED ORDER Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law and upon the entire record in this proceeding, I recommend that Carpet, Linoleum and Soft Tile Layers Union, Local 1238, affiliated with the International Brotherhood of Painters, Decorators and Paperhangers of America, AFL-CIO, its officers, agents, and representatives, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Refusing to bargain with Northwest Floor Covering Association, Inc., by dealing directly with individual employers represented by said Associa- tion. (b) Resorting to strike pressures or other coer- cive conduct to force or require employers represented by Northwest Floor Covering Associa- tion, Inc., to sign separate individual contracts with the Union. 2. Take the following affirmative action which will effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Post at its offices and meeting places copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix." I Co- pies of said notice, on forms provided by the Re- that the Board 's Order is enforced by a Judgment of a United States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by Order of the Na- tional Labor Relations Board " shall be changed to read "Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board " CARPET, LINOLEUM & SOFT TILE LAYERS UNION, LOCAL 1238 gional Director for Region 19, after being duly signed by Respondent Union 's authorized represen- tative, shall be posted by it immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 con- ^secutive days thereafter , in conspicuous places, in- cluding all places where notices to members are customarily posted . Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered , defaced , or covered by any other material. (b) Provide the Regional Director for Region 19 sufficient signed copies of the attached notice for posting by all employers represented by Northwest Floor Covering Association , Inc., these employers willing , in places where notices to employees are customarily posted . These copies of said notice, which the Regional Director for Region 19 shall provide, shall be returned forthwith to the Regional Director for distribution to such employers after being duly signed by a responsible officer of Respondent. (c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 19, in writing, within 20 days from the receipt of this Decision , what steps have been taken to comply herewith.2 3 In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board, this provision shall be modified to read " Notify the Regional Director for Region 19, in writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps Respondent taken to comply herewith " APPENDIX NOTICE TO MEMBERS POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government 47 WE WILL NOT negotiate separately with , nor sign any individual collective -bargaining agreement with , any employer who is represented , for the pur- poses of collective bargaining with Local 1238, by Northwest Floor Covering Association, Inc. CARPET , LINOLEUM AND SOFT TILE LAYERS UNION, LOCAL 1238, AFFILIATED WITH THE INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF PAINTERS , DECORATORS AND PAPERHANGERS OF AMERICA , AFL-CIO (Labor Organization) Dated By (Representative ) (Title) This is an official notice and must not be defaced by anyone. This notice must remain posted for 60 consecu- tive days from the date of posting and must not be altered , defaced , or covered by any other material. Any questions concerning this notice or com- pliance with its provisions may be directed to the Board's Office , Republic Building , 10th Floor, 1511 Third Avenue , Seattle , Washington 98101, Telephone 583-7473.