Local 334, Laborers Int'l. Union

LOCAL 334, LABORERS INTL. UNION 523 Local 334, Laborers International Union of North America, AFL-CIO and Carpenters District Council of Detroit, Wayne and Oakland Counties and Vicinity , United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO and James Jackson and Arthur Sibert , A Co-Partnership, d/b/a Exquisite Construction Company. Cases 7-CC-517, 7-CP-104, 7-CC-518, and 7-C P-105 June 17, 1970 DECISION AND ORDER BY MEMBERS MCCULLOCH, BROWN, AND JENKINS On March 16, 1970, Trial Examiner Herbert Sil- berman issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that Respondents had engaged in certain unfair labor practices and recommending that they cease and desist therefrom and take cer- tain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Decision. Thereafter both Re- spondents filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision and supporting briefs. 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 these cases, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recom- mendations 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 Respondents , Local 334, Laborers In- ternational Union of North America , AFL-CIO, and Carpenters District Council of Detroit, Wayne and Oakland Counties and Vicinity , United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America. AFL-CIO, their respective orficers , agents, and representatives , shall take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner 's Recommended Order. ' In their exceptions both Respondent Laborers Union and Respondent Carpenters Union take issue with the refusal of the Trial Examiner to pass upon the validity of the election and resulting certification of incumbent Local 124 in Case 7-RM-761 The Carpenters Union contends addi- tionally it is entitled to litigate the representative status of Local 124 because it was not a party in the underlying representation proceeding Respondent Laborers rucreiy seeks to relitigate the validity of its objections 183 NLRB No. 62 which were overruled in the basic representation case It offers no previ- ously unavailable or newly discovered evidence in support of its position in this regard Accordingly, and as we have made an independent review of the record in Case 7-RM-761 and find that the Regional Director's findings therein are correct, we are of the opinion that Respondent Laborers exceptions raise no material issue affecting the validity of the cer- tification or requiring a hearing We also find that Respondent Carpenters Union, in the instant proceeding, has no standing to contest the validity of the certification or Local 124's representative status among the employees of Exquisite See Roman Stone Construction Company, 153 NLRB 659 TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE HERBERT SILBERMAN , Trial Examiner: Upon charges filed by James Jackson and Arthur Sibert, a Co-Partnership, d/b/a Exquisite Construction Com- pany, herein called the Company, on June 25, 1969, against Local 334, Laborers International Union of North America, AFL-CIO, herein called the Laborers Union, and on June 30, 1969, against Carpenters District Council of Detroit, Wayne and Oakland Counties and Vicinity, United Brother- hood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO, herein called the Carpenters Union, a complaint, dated July 25, 1969, was issued alleging that the Respondents have engaged in and are en- gaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8(b)(4)(C), 8(b)(7)(A), and 8(b)(7)(B) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended. In substance, the complaint alleges that each of the Respondents since April 7, 1969, has sought recognition from and bargaining with the Company as the collective-bargaining representative of cer- tain classifications (unspecified in the complaint) of employeees within a unit for which another labor organization was later certified and in furtherance of these objectives since May 12, 1969, has picketed the Company's construction site at 1730 Magnolia,_ Detroit, Michigan, that thereafter. fol- lowing an election held on June 10, 1969,1 the Re- ' The election followed the filing on May 27, 1969, by the Company of a charge in Case 7-CP-102 alleging that the Laborers Union was engaged in conduct constituting unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(b)(7)(C) of the Act and a representation petition in Case 7-RM-761 Without providing for any hearing the Regional Director on June 4, 1969, issued a Direction of Election in Case 7-RM-76 I purportedly under the authority given in Sections 8(b)(7)(C) and 9(c) of the National Labor Relations Act and Section 102 77 of the National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations The petition in Case 7-RM-761 named Local 124 as the recognized bargaining agent and stated that the Company had been picketed by the Laborers Union Local 124 and the Laborers Union (which sought to have its name removed from the ballot on the ground that it had not and was not requesting recognition ) were listed on the ballot The results of the election were 19 votes cast for Local 124, no votes cast for the Laborers Union, and no votes cast against participating labor organiza- tions The Laborers Union duly filed objections to conduct affecting the results of the election which were overruled by the Regional Director who, on June 23, 1969, issued a Supplemental Decision on Objections and a Certification of Representatives certifying Local 124 as the collective-bar- gaining representative for the described unit The charge in Case 7-CP-102 was withdrawn by the Company with the approval of the Re- gional Director on June 4, 1969 See Section 102 81 of the Board' s Rules and Regulations and Section 101 24 of the Board's Statements of Procedure The Laborers Union on June 25, 1969, duly filed with the Board a request for review of the Supplemental Decision on Objections The Board on July 3, 1969, issued an order denying the request for permis- sion to appeal 524 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD gional Director, on behalf of the Board, on June 23, 1969, certified Local 124, United Construction and Trades Union of Michigan, Allied Workers Interna- tional Independent Union, herein called Local 124, as the exclusive bargaining representative of the employees of the Company in the following unit: All employees of the Employer' engaged in building and construction work, employed at or operating out of the Employer's Detroit, Michigan location, but excluding office clerical employees, guards and supervisors as defined in the Act, and all other employees, that each of the Respondents by its picketing and by other means has engaged in and has induced and encouraged individuals employed by the Company and other employers to engage in strikes or refusals in the course of their employment to transport or otherwise handle or work on goods or to perform services and has threatened, coerced, and restrained such employers; and that by reason of such conduct each of the Respondents has violated Section 8(b)(4)(C),3 8(b)(7)(A), and 8(b)(7)(B) of the Act.' A hearing in this proceeding was held on October 1, 2, 6, and 7, 1969, in Detroit, Michigan. Thereafter, a brief and a supplemental brief were filed by General Counsel and a brief was filed by the Laborers Union. Upon the entire record in the case, and from my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor, I make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY James Jackson and Arthur Sibert are copartners doing business under the name Exquisite Construc- tion Company. The partnership is a general con- tractor engaged in construction work in the metropolitan area of Detroit, Michigan. During the times material hereto it was engaged in remodeling a building located at 1730 Magnolia, Detroit, Michigan. Within the calendar year 1969 materials valued in excess of $50,000 were shipped directly to the Magnolia project from points located outside the State of Michigan. I find that the Company is an employer within the meaning of Section 2(2) of the Act engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. II. THE RESPONDENTS Laborers Union and Carpenters Union are labor The Employer is engaged in construction projects in Detroit at other lo- cations in addition to the project at 1730 Magnolia ' While the complaint does not specifically state the date on which the violation of Section 8(b)(4)(C) of the Act commenced, such date cannot be any earlier than June 23, 1969, the date of issuance of the Certification of Representatives ' While the complaint does not allege the date on which the violations of Section 8 (b)(7)(A) and 8(b)(7)(B) of the Act began, General Counsel specifically stated at the hearing that he does not contend that it was before organizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES The Company, pursuant to a contract which it had obtained to rehabilitate the apartment house located at 1730 Magnolia, Detroit, Michigan, com- menced preliminary work thereat in February 1969. In April of the same year the Company en- tered into the following agreement with Local 124: Working Agreement I undersign due agree to employ all Local 124 members when they are available for all new and rehabilitate Construction work. From May 1, 1969 to April 30, 1970. [sic] 5 Representatives of the Respondents and of Wayne, Macomb and Oakland Building and Con- struction Trades Council, AFL-CIO (herein called the Trades Council), beginning in April had various contacts with the Company concerning its employ- ment practices. On May 12, 1969, various labor or- ganizations affiliated with the Trades Council, in- cluding Respondents, began to picket the Magnolia project.' General Counsel contends that the picket- ing by Respondents was for a recognitional objec- tive. The picketing resulted in refusals by some em- ployees of suppliers for the Company to make deliveries of materials to the Magnolia project. On May 27, 1969, the Company filed a charge alleging violations of Section 8(b)(7)(C) of the Act and also filed a representation petition.7 Pursuant thereto, an election was held on June 10 with Local 124 and Laborers Union (despite Laborers Union disclaimer of interest in representing the Com- pany's employees) on the ballot. Local 124 won the election and a Certification of Representatives was issued on June 23, 1969. The principal issue of fact litigated at the hearing relates to whether the picketing of the Magnolia project was for "an object" of "forcing or requiring [the Company] to recognize or bargain with [each of the Respondents] as the representative of [its] employees." The largest part of the testimony and the other evidence adduced at the hearing in this case was given by or involved the following persons in their capacities as agents for their respective principals: For the owners of the Magnolia property: June 10, 1969, the date of the election According to James Jackson, the above-quoted agreement superseded an identical agreement (except for misspelled words ) entered into earlier in the month of April a Picketing continued until it was enjoined by an order, dated August 13, 1969, of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division, pursuant to Section 10(1) of the Act 7 See fn I, supra LOCAL 334, LABORERS INT'L. Nicholas Hood ; Clarence Charles White. For Local 124: Calvin Stubbs , president. For the Company: James Jackson and Arthur Sibert, copartners. For the Laborers Union: William Carter, business manager; John Mitchell and Jerome Davis , field representa- tives. For the Carpenters Union: John Harrington , secretary-treasurer; Joseph (Jack ) Felker and Daniel J. Kelley [sic], busi- ness agents. For the Trades Council: Jack Wood, secretary and business manager; Raymond Glowski, assistant to Jack Wood. Authority of the Trades Council The complaint alleges that "Wood and Glowski have acted on behalf of Respondents and were their agents within the meaning of Sections 2(13), 8(b)(4) and 8(b)(7) of the Act." To prove this al- legation General Counsel sought to establish that a general agency relationship exists between the Trades Council and the Respondents. The only per- tinent evidence introduced by General Counsel in support of this contention is the constitution and bylaws of the Trades Council.8 This instrument states that: "The object of this organization is to promote harmony and good feeling between the trades engaged in the building industry in Wayne, Macomb and Oakland Counties and bring about a better understanding between the trades and their employers." It imposes certain inhibitions upon its membership regarding jurisdictional disputes but otherwise does not purport to regulate the activities of its membership. Wood testified that approximately 40 local unions are members of the Trades Council and its function "is to help and assist in whatever way possible all of the affiliated local unions." He also testified that he has no authority to bind any af- filiate of the Trades Council to any agreement. John Harrington testified that the Trades Council has never been authorized to solicit or to negotiate a collective-bargaining agreement for the Carpen- " General Counsel also introduced in evidence the constitution of the Building and Construction Trades Council , AFL-CIO " As the work progressed at the Magnolia project the Company hired ad- ditional people so that about 20 men were employed there by May 1969 " The testimony of Jackson indicates that , during the times material 525 ters Union, and approval of the Trades Council is not required before the Carpenters Union may establish a picket line. Similarly, Willie H. Carter testified that neither Wood nor Glowski was ever authorized to speak for the Laborers Union with respect to its dealings with the Company or with Local 124, that Jack Wood has no authority to act for the Laborers Union, that the Trades Council is not in any way involved in the Laborers Union con- tract negotiations, and that authorization of the Trades Council is not required before the Laborers Union may establish a picket line at any location. The Company's Relationship with Local 124 The Company began to hire employees sometime in February 1969. The Company then was reha- bilitating a single-family unit. James W. Jackson, who is in charge of hiring for the Company, testified that he asked Calvin Stubbs, president of Local 124, to send him five men, two carpenters and three laborers. When the Company later began work at the Magnolia project two of the laborers were transferred to that job and three additional men, also referred to the Company by Local 124, were hired. According to Jackson, "[t]wo were members of local 124 and I think the other three joined sometime later."9 Thereafter, the Company entered into the work- ing agreement with Local 124 which is quoted above. Jackson was uncertain as to when the agree- ment, which is undated, was executed. He testified that he signed the agreement "around the first part of April." He then explained that another contract preceded the quoted working agreement, but the terms of the earlier agreement were identical ex- cept for misspellings. According to Jackson, the substance of the agreements was that "they could supply men and we would use them."10 The Magnolia job had the benefit of Government financing. As a consequence the Company was required to pay its employees the Davis-Bacon rates." The testimony of Jackson indicates that the so-called Davis-Bacon rates for the Magnolia pro- ject were less than the rates being paid to members of the Respondents who were working under the terms of the collective-bargaining agreements which Respondents had negotiated with employers in the area. Jackson testified further that as men whom he hired demonstrated that they possessed the skills of their crafts he advanced their rates of hereto, the Company established and changed the rates of pay and the other terms and conditions of employment of its employees unilaterally, that is, without negotiating with Local 124 " According to the evidence once Davis - Bacon rates are established for a job the rates do not change while the job is in progress 526 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD pay from the Davis-Bacon rates to the "jour- neymen's rate."12 Investigation of the Magnolia Project by the Trades Council Jack Wood testified that, at a regular meeting of the Trades Council held early in April 1969, someone reported with respect to the Magnolia project that "either members of Local 124 were on the job or non-union people." The Trades Council was asked to investigate the situation.13 Ac- cordingly, Wood asked his assistant, Glowski, to visit the job with some other business agents and find out what was going on. Glowski later reported that he had talked to some of the men on the Mag- nolia job and that some said that they were mem- bers of Local 124 and others would give him no answer. Wood further testified that the subject was discussed at another meeting of the Trades Council and, in addition, Glowski had meetings with the various affiliates of the Trades Council. Wood also had discussions, which are summarized below, with representatives of the Company and of the owners concerning the Magnolia project and testified that he made reports at regular meetings of the Trades Council concerning his discussions. f" The Visit to the Magnolia Project on April 7 On April 7, 1969, Raymond Glowski, Joseph Felker, Jerome Davis, and John Mitchell visited the Magnolia project.15 They drove to the site together.16 Arthur Sibert testified without contradiction that Glowski, Davis, and Mitchell spoke with him on the occasion of their visit." According to Sibert, "I was asked by Ray Glowski to sign a working agreement The first meeting together of some of the persons involved in this case occurred at a Howard Johnson's Restaurant in December 1968 The sub- ject was not related to the affairs of the Company but concerned a dispute which Goldfarb Construction Company had with the Laborers Union and with Local 124 concerning a job referred to as the Seward project Accord- ing to Willie H Carter, present at this meeting, in addition to himself and his field representatives, John Mitchell and Jerome Davis, were Calvin Stubbs, president of Local 124, a gentleman who introduced himself as the vice president of Local 124, James Jackson, who introduced himself as a second or third vice president of Local 124, and Joe Goldfarb, owner of Goldfarb Construction Company According to Carter's further testimony, at this meeting, he had a discussion with Stubbs and the two agreed that they would not have "a mix-up again on the laborers " Stubbs and he agreed further that all laborers doing the type of work being performed at the Seward project would "come into" the Laborers Union and would receive the rates of pay established by the Laborers Union contracts Stubbs said that his organization had other work and that the laborers would come under the Laborers Union scale A result of the meeting was that the laborers on the Seward project signed up with the Laborers Union and began to pay dues to the Laborers Union The further understanding between Carter and Stubbs was that Local 124 would not represent laborers on future jobs According to Jackson, Goldfarb invited him to attend the meeting Stubbs and he drove to the meeting together in Jackson's car At that time the Company had begun operations although it had not yet hired any con- struction workers Jackson testified that "we were feeling [Stubbs] out to see if he was going to be a union that we could have, that would be the ad- vocate for the people that worked for us " Jackson denied that he in- troduced himself at the meeting as a vice president of Local 124 He testified that he introduced himself as a contractor To the extent that the with the AFL Building Trades and I explained to him that this was impossible ... since we had al- ready signed a working agreement with 124 and he further asked me to talk with my partner, discuss with my partner to see if we could make arrange- ments to sign a working agreement with them, and he asked me if I would call him the next morning and let him know." Davis testified that present at the meeting with Sibert were Mitchell, Felker, and Glowski. He was unable to remember what anybody said other than himself. According to Davis, after he had in- troduced himself he asked Sibert about a contract with the Laborers Union. Sibert replied that he would have to speak to his partner before he could make any agreement with anyone. Felker testified that while he was at the project he spoke to three men separately who appeared to be doing carpenters' work and ascertained that they were not being paid as high an hourly rate and were not receiving the fringe benefits as were provided for by the Carpenters Union contracts in the area. After these conversations he went into the office to speak with Sibert.'8 Felker asked Sibert how the rates of pay for the carpenters were fixed because it seemed that each carpenter was receiving a dif- ferent rate of pay. Sibert replied that his partner, Jackson, took care of such matters. Felker asked Sibert to inquire of Jackson how the rates of pay were determined and to telephone Felker with such information. Some days later, about the middle of April, Sibert received a telephone call from David Joseff requesting him to meet with Joseff at the latter's of- fices.19 An appointment was made for the next morning. When he arrived at Joseff's office Sibert found Raymond Glowski present as well as Joseff. Glowski stated that Sibert carries an AFL card,20 testimony of Jackson and Carter conflict, I credit Jackson whom I find was the more reliable witness 19 John Harrington testified that he probably was the one who requested the investigation to be made " Harrington testified that he recalls no report from Wood concerning the investigation of the Magnolia project prior to May 12, 1969, but that he doesn't attend all the Trades Council's meetings However, Harrington testified that as the Carpenters Union had established a picket line at the Magnolia project the subject undoubtedly was discussed at a meeting of the Trades Council He did not recall what was said in regard thereto 's Felker testified that the visit was made in early May I find Felker erred as to the date " The offices of the Trades Council and of the Carpenters Union are in the same building, and the offices of the Laborers Union are across the street it Sibert did not testify to any conversation at which Felker was present However, Felker testified he spoke with Sibert " According to Felker, he asked one of the men on the job who his boss was and the man pointed to an office Felker went into the office where he spoke with Sibert who introduced himself as the representative of the Com- pany This conflicts with Felker's testimony on cross-examination that when he arrived at the project he and Glowski went directly into Sibert's office i' David Joseff is the business manager of Local 1513 of the Brotherhood of Carpenters This organvation is a constituent member of the Carpenters Union. John Hamngton testified that, although Joseff is on the Carpen- ters Union negotiating committee, he is not an officer or agent of the Car- penters Union °" Sibert is a member of Local 1513 LOCAL 334, LABORERS INT'L. and he wanted the Company to sign a working agreement with the AFL building trades. Sibert replied that he had a working agreement with Local 124 and saw no reason to break it. After some further conversation, Glowski said "they would have to take whatever steps were necessary." April 23 Meeting On April 23 a meeting was held at the offices of the Trades Council among representatives of the Trades Council, the owners, and the Company. Present at the meeting were: Jack Wood, Raymond Glowski, Nicholas Hood, Clarence Charles White, and James W. Jackson. Among other things that took place at the meeting, according to White's testimony which I credit, either Glowski or Wood said there was no need for Local 124, there was not room enough in the city of Detroit for two con- struction trades unions, the AFL construction trades unions were better qualified to do the job than Local 124, and therefore the representatives of the owners and the Company should discontinue their relationship with Local 124.21 May 2 Meeting Subsequently, on May 2, there was another meet- ing which was attended only by Glowski, Hood, and White. According to White's uncontradicted testimony, Glowski stated that there was no need or room for two building craft unions in the city of Detroit and that "they were the best qualified." Glowski showed Hood and White documents in- tending thereby to prove that Local 124 was en- gaged in improper practices such as receiving kickbacks and that contractors using men from Local 124 were not paying proper wages. Hood testified that Glowski also said that the fringe benefits being given the employees at the Magnolia project were inferior to those provided by the Laborers Union. The Decision To Picket the Magnolia Project Both Respondents and other unions who are members of the Trades Council began to picket the Magnolia project on May 12, 1969. The explana- tion given by Felker for the fact that all the unions began picketing at the same time is that the deci- sion arose out of a chance meeting on May 8 in the hallway of the building in which the Trades Council has its offices. Present were Felker, Mitchell, and several other business agents whom he no longer remembers. There was a discussion of the wages being paid at the Magnolia project and, according White's testimony was corroborated by the testimony of Hood and Jackson Wood's testimony is substantially consistent with the credited testimony of White According to Wood, "We asked them to help do what- ever was possible to have the employees become members of the Building Trades Courcil in various categories " According to Wood's further testimony, Jackson said that he didn't want anything to do with the Build- ing Trades Council and that he had signed a contract with Local 124 At this meeting Wood also said that the Company's present employees would be accepted as members in the various AFL Building Trades Unions 527 to Felker, "at that time it was decided that possibly picket action should be instituted ... there was a date set for Monday [May 12]." However, con- tradicting Felker is the testimony of Wood that the decision to picket the Magnolia project was made at a meeting of the Trades Council.22 Felker testified further that he did not have authority to establish a picket line. He had reported to Harrington what he had learned from his visit to the Magnolia project on April 7. After the hallway meeting on May 8 he recommended to Harrington that the Carpenters Union should join the other unions in picketing the Magnolia project beginning Monday, May 12. Harrington agreed and authorized Felker to picket the project Harrington testified that whenever investigation discloses that a contractor employing carpenters is not paying his carpenters the rate established for the area by the Carpenters Union the Carpenters Union will picket the job with an informational picket sign advertising such fact. Kelly listed 11 projects which were picketed by the Carpenters Union to protest the fact that the wages and benefits being paid to carpenters on the jobs were substandard. However, both Harrington and Kelly testified that, except for one instance involving col- lege students, these disputes were resolved by the carpenters, on the jobs in question, joining the Car- penters Union or one of its affiliated locals.23 Carter testified that some time prior to April 1969 Mitchell told him that the laborers on the Magnolia project were being paid less than the union scale. Carter instructed Mitchell to return to the project and see what he could do to get the rate for the laborers on the job increased to the union scale. According to Carter, Mitchell understood from these instructions that he also would try to get the laborers to join the Laborers Union. Mitchell subsequently reported to Carter that the laborers on the project were represented by Local 124 and were being paid less than the Laborers Union rate. Mitchell also reported to Carter that Mitchell had spoken to one of the owners of the Company and had told him about the agreement between the Laborers Union and-Local-172-4 pursuant to which Local 124 would not send men to jobs if the rate was less than the Laborers Union scale. While Carter was out of town, according to Carter, Mitchell reported to him by telephone that Mitchell had not been successful in his effort to get the Company to pay the laborers on the Magnolia job the union rate and requested authority from Carter to picket the job on the following Monday. Carter acceded.24 'Z Wood further testified that the Trades Council concerned itself with the Magnolia project at the specific request of some of the trades =' Harrington explained that "their employer may in turn have wished them to join [the Carpenters] and they [the employees] reconciled them- selves to the fact " Carter further testified that in the same conversation Mitchell reported that he had asked one of the principals of the Company to sign a contract with the Laborers Union and was refused for the stated reason that the Company had a working agreement with Local 124 528 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD The Picketing the site of the Magnolia project Davis stated, " [ W ] e want a contract with this contractor and In the morning of May 12, 1969, various unions sign the laborers up in 334." which are members of the Trades Council began picketing the Magnolia project , including the Laborers Union, the Carpenters Union, Cement Masons, Plasterers, and Electricians. The legend on the Laborers Union sign said, "This contractor un- fair to Local 334." The legend on the Carpenters Union sign said, "Exquisite Construction Company does not pay wages and fringe benefits as established by Carpenters in this area." The picket- ing interrupted deliveries of materials to the jobsite. Thus, Sibert testified that between May 12 and the end of the month the driver for Cashway Lumber Company refused to deliver a load of lumber con- signed to the project. A similar incident occurred in June involving a driver of Currier Lumber. Without specifying the date on which this event happened, Sibert testified that employees for Friendship Win- dows refused to deliver screens consigned to the project. Jackson testified that because of the picketing some of the AFL contractors and subcon- tractors would not cross the picket line so that the Company had to change from drywall construction to lathe and plaster . He also testified that the Teamsters stopped delivering materials so that the Company had to hire its own trucks to pick up goods. There is some evidence indicating that the picketing activities of the various unions were han- dled cooperatively. Jackson testified that a different individual was picket captain for each day of the week. He also observed Glowski escort pickets to the jobsite who were carrying signs including signs for the Laborers Union and for the Carpenters Union. Stated Reasons for the Picketing Jackson , whom I credit , testified that, when he arrived at the Magnolia project about 8:30 a.m. on May 12, he discovered pickets patrolling the premises and he invited them inside . Included in the group who responded to his invitation were Mitchell , Davis, and Felker. Jackson asked why they were there and Davis said that he was there to get a contract and they were going to stay until they got one . Jackson asked Davis what the real reason was that the Company was picked on as the subject of the picketing and Davis said he didn 't know, he was just ordered to go to the project . Jackson testified that he also spoke to Felker in the presence of Davis, Mitchell, and some others. Felker said, according to Jackson , "[ H]e intended to sign up all of the men , he was going to sign up the Carpenters, because we weren't paying them proper wages." The next day , May 13, in a television interview at " Wood testified that his recollection of what transpired at the meeting was poor and that it was possible he said that he would like to have the May 28 Meeting On May 28, 1969 , a meeting was arranged by the business agent of the Bricklayers Union . Attending the meeting , in addition to said business agent, was Wood, Glowski, Calvin Stubbs, Jackson, and several other people , including Karl D . Gregory. Gregory, who is a professor at Oakland University and chairman of the board and president of Ac- cord, Incorporated, which organization is engaged in a joint venture with the Company in the reha- bilitation of the Magnolia project, testified that he opened the meeting by saying that the purpose was to see what could be done to remove the pickets at the Magnolia project. At one point during the meeting Stubbs asked what was the reason for the picketing. He was told by Wood and Glowski that there was room in the State of Michigan for only one Building Trades Council . At a later point dur- ing the meeting, Wood said that every legal and moral means would be used to maintain only one Building Trades Council in Detroit . Athough pressed several times to state what could be done to stop the picketing , the only responses from Wood or Glowski, according to Gregory, "related to the existence of Local 124. Toward the end, in a parenthetical way, there was some mention of wages, of the allegation of wages below area stan- dards ... that was towards the end when it was clear that the meeting was about to break up because there was an impasse. "25 Laborers Union Disclaimer The picket signs which were being used by the Laborers Union at the Magnolia project were removed about noon on June 3 and the next morn- ing new signs were substituted which read, "Exquisite does not pay area rate to laborers." The name of the Laborers Union appeared in large let- ters at the bottom of the sign . Carter testified that prior to the change of the picket sign he had received a letter from the National Labor Relations Board and then consulted with his attorney who suggested the revised language for the picket signs. On June 3 the attorney for the Laborers Union wrote the following letter to the Company, a copy of which was sent to the National Labor Relations Board: I am the attorney for Local 334, Laborers International Union of North America, AFL-CIO, and I am authorized to send this letter on its behalf. Based upon the allegations contained in cer- tain papers filed by you with the National Company's employees who were working on the Magnolia project become members of the unions which belong to the Trades Council LOCAL 334, LABORERS INT'L. Labor Relations Board, we believe that there has accidentally or purposely been a misun- derstanding or misconstruction of the purpose of the picketing being conducted by the Local at your jobsite at 1730 Magnolia, Detroit. The fault may be, in part , ours . To the extent it is, this letter is being sent for the purpose of making crystal clear the objective of the picketing. Laborers Local 334, in an effort to represent those engaged in laborers ' work in the building and construction industry in the metropolitan Detroit area and to improve the lot of disad- vantaged brothers who have frequently in the past been exploited by irresponsible contrac- tors and , sometimes , ruthless labor racketeers, has worked diligently and collectively over many years to establish a rate comparable to those enjoyed by others working in the con- struction industry and to establish the means for financing fringe benefit programs to pro- vide a measure of health and retirement securi- ty for laborers . We are proud of our record and intent upon preserving the gains we have made together. Based upon information received from peo- ple previously employed as laborers on pro- jects in which Local 124 was involved, we un- derstand that the rate that you are paying your laborers is substantially below the rate in the area generally enjoyed by those our union represents and, therefore , poses a threat to the wage structure gained over years of hard work, hard collective bargaining , and occasionally strikes. The gross wage, including fringe benefits, for an ordinary construction laborer represented by Local 334 is $5 .65 an hour for regular shift employees and $5 .95 and $6.25 for second and third shift employees. Rates for men classified, on the basis of skills, in other laborer classifica- tions run from a low of $5 . 75 an hour to a high of $7.00 an hour , depending upon classifica- tion and shift. Whatever you may have heard or been told before now , the purpose of the picket line we are maintaining , as reflected in the signs which will hereafter be carried by our pickets, is to protest the substandard wages being paid your laborers . The previous additional purpose of asserting our jurisdictional claim is hereby ex- plicitly withdrawn . If you pay your laborers an amount equivalent to that required under our collective bargaining agreement , we will, upon ascertaining this fact to be true , withdraw the picket line and keep it off as long as the area rate is being paid. 529 July 2 Meeting On July 2 a meeting was held at the offices of Donald Prebenda, attorney for the Trades Council. Present, in addition to Prebenda, were Wood, Glowski, Jackson , Sibert, and Theodore Stephens, attorney for the Company . The discussion con- cerned the conditions under which the picketing of the Magnolia project would be discontinued. Wood stated that the pickets would be removed if any agreement that the Company signs with Local 124 does not exceed a term of 1 year in order that the AFL unions would have an opportunity to organize the Company's employees at the expiration of the year. Conclusions as to the Object of the Picketing The principal factual issue in the case concerns the object of the picketing . Subordinate to this question is the extent , if any, to which the conduct of Wood and Glowski can be relied on as tending to reveal such object. General Counsel argues in ef- fect that the Trades Council is the general agent of the Respondents and therefore the conduct of Glowski and Wood automatically, regardless of absence of specific authority , binds Respondents. I find General Counsel has failed to prove any such general agency relationship . This finding, however, does not determine the issue. The picketing in this case was a coordinated-if not a cooperative-venture. Both Respondents and other labor organizations began to picket the Mag- nolia project at the same time pursuant to prear- rangement. Wood testified: Q. With respect to the Magnolia project, did you and your assistant, Mr. Glowski , enter into this dispute and problem on the specific request of any of your affiliates? A. There was a meeting-whether it was at a regular meeting or a specially-called meet- ing-there was a decision made to picket the project. Q. Let me ask you this, Mr. Wood . In this particular case involving the Magnolia Project, did you and Mr. Glowski , your assistant, enter into this dispute at the request of the affiliated trades of your Council? A. Mr. Fischer, I already answered that. Q. Would you please answer it again. I am sorry if I didn't understand your answer. A. At a meeting at, at either a regular meet- ing of the delegates of the Council or at a spe- cially-called meeting of the affiliates , called for the purpose of discussing this problem, the decision was made to picket the job. Q. Did they request you personally, Mr. Wood , to enter into the dispute? A. Well, I can't say that they asked me per- 530 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD sonally to enter into it, but they asked our of- fice to.26 While each union which picketed the Magnolia project may have furnished and paid its own pickets, only one individual, who was changed daily, served as picket captain for all the pickets. Also, although no picket sign was carried on behalf of the Trades Council, Glowski appeared regularly at the picket line and on a number of occasions escorted pickets to the jobsite. Contemporaneously with the inauguration of the picketing, representatives of the Respondents stated that the reason for the picketing was to sign up the employees on the Magnolia project. Thus, on May 12 Davis told Jackson that the Laborers Union was there to get a contract. The next day in a television interview Davis stated , "We want a contract ... and [to] sign up the laborers in 334." Similarly, Felker told Jackson on May 12 that "he intended to sign up all of the men, he was going to sign up the [ c]arpenters , because [the Company wasn 't] paying them proper wages." On the various occasions described above Wood indicated that the object of the picketing was to cause the Company to cease dealing with Local 124 and to sign agree- ments with members of the Trades Council. The evidence shows that the members of the Trades Council discussed the non-AFL character of the Magnolia project at meetings of the Trades Council, directed Wood and Glowski to investigate the situation , and, after receiving their reports, de- cided at a Trades Council meeting to picket the project: In these circumstances , regardless of any general agency relationship between the Trades Council and its membership , I find that the Trades Council and the Respondents were joined in a com- mon undertaking in seeking to exert pressure upon the Company to recognize and to bargain with Respondents as representatives of the Company's employees and to cease dealing with Local 124.27 I further find that the meetings between Wood and I" I find incredible the testimony of Felker, Harrington, and Carter as to how it happened that the various unions began picketing the Magnolia pro- ject at the same time According to Felker, as a result of an accidental meeting with Mitchell and other business agents, whose names he could not remember, in the hallway of an office building "it was decided that possibly picket action should be instituted and [t]here was a date set for Monday [May 12] " This testimony was not corroborated by Mitchell or by any other business agent who attended the hallway meeting Further- more, Felker testified that he did not have authority to establish a picket line and Carter's testimony indicates that Mitchell also lacked such authority Thus, despite the fact that the business agents who on May 8 agreed among themselves to begin picketing the Magnolia project on May 12 had no authority to implement their decision, they were successful in quickly obtaining authorizations from the senior officials of their respective unions without any further personal contacts or other collaboration among the various unions This does not ring true and the testimony of Harrington and Carter adds nothing to the credibility of Felker's explanation Thus, Harrington testified that, because Felker reported that the Company was not paying its carpenters the area rate and that other craft unions were con- templating picket action, he gave Felker authority to picket the Magnolia project If Harrington is to be believed, either he is accustomed to acting rashly in such matters or he is a figurehead who rubber stamps the deci- sions already arrived at by his subordinates It is my opinion that neither is the case Similarly, Carter's testimony also reflects an unbelievable absence of concern as to the consequences which might attend the ill-considered Glowski on the one hand and the Company and the owners on the other hand , described above , were in furtherance of such common undertaking and therefore the statements made by Wood and Glowski at such meetings are competent evidence of Respondents' object in picketing the Magnolia project.28 The Laborers Union argues that , if it had an ob- ject offensive to the strictures of the Act when it commenced picketing, such object changed on or about June 3 . I am not persuaded by this argument. The only change that occurred was a change in the language of the picket sign and the self-serving letter which the counsel for the Laborers Union sent to the Company and to the Board . These ac- tions were taken in response to unfair labor prac- tice charges which had been filed against the Laborers Union and to a representation petition which had been filed by the Company . These ac- tions on the part of the Laborers Union reflect a change in tactics in order to combat the charges and the petition but alone do not demonstrate any change in objective. It is not to be expected that Respondents would advertise a purpose to violate the law . The reasons stated by them at the hearing for picketing the Magnolia project after June 10, 1969 , I find insin- cere , at least to the extent that they seek to dis- claim a recognitional objective . It does not follow that the absence of direct evidence negates the proof of a violation of the Act. "A fact may be established as surely by presumptions which natu- rally and logically flow from a chain of events and circumstances as by positive direct proof." N.L.R.B . v. Glenn Berry Manufacturers , Inc., 422 F.2d 748, 750 (C.A. 10). I find, as alleged in the complaint, that at all times material hereto an ob- ject of the picketing of the Magnolia project by Respondents was to force or require the Company to recognize or bargain with Respondents as the representatives of the Company 's employees. picketing of a building project According to Carter , he had received a re- port from Mitchell that the laborers on the Magnolia project were being paid less than union scale He instructed Mitchell to return to the project and make an effort to get the laborers' rate increased to scale and if possi- ble to sign up the laborers in the Laborers Union Later, while he was out of the city , he received a telephone call from Mitchell who stated that he (Mitchell ) had had no success with the Company and requested authority to begin picketing on Monday ( May 12 ), to which Carter acceded It strains credulity to accept the testimony of Harrington and Carter that in the discharge of their duties as the principal officers of their respective unions they act so offhandedly and casually in authorizing the establish- ment of picket lines In general, I am of the opinion that Felker , Harring- ton, and Carter were unreliable witnesses who were not reluctant to give contrived versions of events and colored descriptions of their motivations in order to support their defenses to this case Contrary to their testimony, the more plausible explanation is the one given by Wood, namely , that the decision to picket the Magnolia project was reached at a meeting of the Trades Council after investigations had been made and after reports of the results of the investigations had been given to the Trades Council's con- stituency " It is unnecessary to decide whether Respondents had as an additional object a desire to cause the Company to raise the wages of its employees '" Local 513, International Union of Operating Engineers , AFL-CIO (Kiewit-Centennial ), 163 NLRB 400, 404 LOCAL 334, LABORERS INT'L. 531 'Conclusions as to the Alleged Unfair Labor Practices 9, I also find that Respondents have violated Sec- tion 8(b)(4)(i ) and (ii )(C) of the Act. In its brief the Laborers Union advances various legal arguments as to why the complaint herein must fail . All the arguments involve either an attack upon the validity of the certification issued to Local 124 on June 23 or an attack upon the procedure which led to the issuance of the certification. In- cluded in these arguments is the contention that the working agreement which the Company entered into with Local 124 in April 1969 is an impermissi- ble preferential hiring arrangement and therefore the election conducted on June 10 should be deemed a nullity because Local 124 was an unlaw- fully assisted union . I do not pass upon the merit of any of these arguments. I deem myself bound by the certification which was issued on June 23.29 I have no authority to set aside or ignore such certifi- cation . Respondents , of course , may raise these is- sues with the Board by appropriate exceptions to this Decision. As I have found that during the times material hereto Respondents picketed the Company's Mag- nolia project where an object of such picketing was to force or require the Company to recognize or bargain with Respondents as the representative of the Company's employees within a period less than 12 months after a valid election was conducted under Section 9(c) of the Act '30 I further find that Respondents thereby have violated Section 8(b)(7)(B) of the Act. The Company's recognition of Local 124, at least subsequent to the issuance of the certification on June 23, 1969, must be deemed lawful (at least until the certification is set aside by the Board ).31 As a question concerning representa- tion may not appropriately be raised within 1 year after an election which gives rise to a certification, the picketing of the Magnolia project in these cir- cumstances also violated Section 8(b)(7)(A) of the Act. Finally, as the picketing constituted induce- ment and encouragement of individuals employed by persons engaged in commerce to engage in a strike or a refusal in the course of their employ- ment to use, transport , or to otherwise handle or work on goods, articles, materials , or commodities or to perform services and constituted a threat, coercion, and restraint of the Company32 for an ob- ject of forcing or requiring the Company to recog- nize or bargain with Respondents as the representa- tives of the Company 's employees at a time when Local 124 had been certified as the representative of such employees under the provisions of Section " Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, Section 102 67(f) ,o Laborers Union cites no authority to support its contention that the election conducted in Case 7-RM -76I, being an expedited election pur- suant to the provisions of Section 8(b)(7)(C), is not an election under Sec- tion 9 ( c) I find no merit to this argument The very language of Section 8(b)(7)(C) of the Act contemplates that the election procedure covered by its provisions is a procedure under Section 9(c) of the Act " As the certification was issued after the parties had entered into the IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of Respondents set forth in section III, above , occurring in connection with the Com- pany's operations described in section I, 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 of commerce. V. THE REMEDY Having found that Respondents have engaged in unfair labor practices in violation of the Act, I shall recommend that they cease and desist therefrom and that they take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record in this case, I make the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. By picketing the construction project of James Jackson and Arthur Sibert, a Co-Partnership, d/b/a Exquisite Construction Company, at 1730 Magnolia , Detroit, Michigan, on and after June 10, 1969, where an object of such picketing was to force or require the Company to recognize or bar- gain with Respondents as the representatives of their employees when on said date a Board-con- ducted election was won by Local 124 following which Local. 124 was certified as the collective-bar- gaining representative of the Company's employees in the appropriate unit described above, Respon- dents have violated Section 8(b)(7)(A ) and (B) of the Act. 2. By picketing the construction project of the Company at 1730 Magnolia, Detroit, Michigan, on and after June 23, 1969, and thereby inducing or encouraging individuals employed by the Company and other persons engaged in commerce or in in- dustries affecting commerce to engage in a strike or a refusal in the course of their employment to use, transport, or otherwise handle or work on any goods, articles , or commodities or to perform any services , and also thereby threatening , coercing, and restraining the Company where, in either case, working agreement quoted above, I am bound to recognize the certifica- tion as being valid and the Company 's recognition of Local 124 while the certification is outstanding as being lawful , regardless of the fact that the Company's antecedent conduct may have constituted objectionable assistance to Local 124 11 International Hod Carriers, Building and Common Laborers' Union of America, Local No 1140, AFL-CIO (Gilmore Construction Company), 127 NLRB 541 427-258 O-LT - 74 - 35 532 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD the object of such conduct was to force or require the Company to recognize or bargain with Respon- dents as the representatives of their employees when Local 124 had been certified as the represen- tative of such employees under the provisions of Section 9 of the Act, Respondents have violated Section 8 (b)(4)(i) and (ii)(C) of the Act. 3. 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 foregoing findings of fact and conclu- sions of law, and the entire record in the case, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, I hereby recommend that the Respondents , Local 334, Laborers International Union of North America, AFL-CIO, and Carpenters District Council of Detroit, Wayne and Oakland Counties and Vicinity, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO, their respective officers, representatives , and agents, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Picketing, causing to be picketed, or threatening to picket any premises or construction project of James Jackson and Arthur Sibert, Co- Partnership , d/b/a Exquisite Construction Com- pany, where an object thereof is to force or require said Company to recognize or bargain with either of the Respondents as the representative of their employees in circumstances violative of Section 8(b)(7)(A) of the Act, that is, where the Company has lawfully recognized in accordance with the Act any other labor organization and a question con- cerning representation may not appropriately be raised under Section 9 (c) of the Act. (b) Picketing , causing to be picketed, or threatening to picket any premises or construction projects of the above-named Company for a period of 1 year from June 10, 1969, and at other times where an object of such picketing is to force or require the Company to recognize or bargain with either of the Respondents as a representative of their employees if within the preceding 12 months a valid election under Section 9(c) of the National Labor Relations Act has been conducted in a unit in which such Respondent seeks recognition, at a time when such Respondent has not been certified to represent the employees in such unit. (c) Engaging in, or inducing or encouraging any individual employed by the Company or by any other person engaged in commerce or in an indus- try affecting commerce to engage in, a strike or a refusal in the course of his employment to use, transport, or otherwise handle or work on any goods, articles, materials , or commodities or to per- form any services , and from threatening , coercing, or restraining the Company or any other person en- gaged in commerce or in an industry affecting com- merce where, in either case , an object thereof is to force or require the Company to recognize or bar- gain with either of Respondents as a representative of their employees during any times when Local 124, or any other labor organization, has been cer- tified as the representative of such employees under the provision of Section 9 of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action which will effectuate the purposes of the Act: (a) Post at Respondents ' respective business of- fices and meeting halls copies of the attached notices marked "Appendix A and Appendix B."33 Copies of said notices, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 7, after being duly signed by said labor organizations' respective authorized representatives, shall be posted by them immediately upon receipt thereof, and be main- tained by them for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to their 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) Mail to the Regional Director for Region 7 signed copies of said notices for posting by the Company, if the Company shall be willing to post such notices, at all places where notices to their employees are customarily posted. (c) Each of the Respondents shall notify said Regional Director, in writing, within 20 days from the receipt of this Decision, what steps have been taken to comply herewith.34 "" 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 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 " " In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board, this provision shall be modified to read "Notify said Regional Director, in writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps Respondents have taken to comply herewith " APPENDIX A NOTICE TO MEMBERS POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government WE WILL NOT picket, cause to be picketed, or threaten to picket any premises or construc- tion project of James Jackson and Arthur Sibert, a Co-Partnership, d/b/a Exquisite Con- struction Company, where an object of the picketing is to force or require said Company to recognize or bargain with us as the represen- LOCAL 334, LABORERS INT'L. tative of their employees in circumstances violative of Section 8(b)(7)(A) of the Act, that is, where said Company has lawfully recognized in accordance with the Act any other labor organization and a question con- cerning representation may not appropriately be raised under Section 9 (c) of the Act. WE WILL NOT picket , cause to be picketed, or threaten to picket any premises or construc- tion projects of the above-named Company for a period of 1 year from June 10, 1969, and at other times , where an object of such picketing is to force or require the Company to recog- nize or bargain with us as a representative of their employees if within the preceding 12 months a valid election under Section 9(c) of the National Labor Relations Act has been conducted in a unit in which we seek recogni- tion , at a time when we have not been certified to represent the employees in such unit. WE WILL NOT engage in , or induce or en- courage any individual employed by the above- named Company or by any other person en- gaged in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce to engage in, a strike or a refusal in the course of his employment to use , transport, or otherwise handle or work on any goods, ar- ticles, materials , or commodities or to perform any services , and WE WILL NOT threaten, coerce, or restrain the Company 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 the Com- pany to recognize or bargain with us as a representative of their employees during any times when Local 124, United Construction and Trades Union of Michigan , Allied Workers International Independent Union , or any other labor organization , has been certified as the representative of such employees under the provisions of Section 9 of the Act. LOCAL 334, LABORERS INTERNATIONAL UNION OF NORTH 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 , 500 Book Building, 1249 Washing- 533 ton Boulevard, Detroit, Michigan 48226, Telephone 313-226-3200. APPENDIX B NOTICE TO MEMBERS POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government WE WILL NOT picket, cause to be picketed, or threaten to picket any premises or construc- tion project of James Jackson and Arthur Sibert, a Co-Partnership, d/b/a Exquisite Con- struction Company, where an object of the picketing is to force or require said Company to recognize or bargain with us as the represen- tative of their employees in circumstances violative of Section 8(b)(7)(A) of the Act, that is, where said Company has lawfully recognized in accordance with the Act any other labor organization and a question con- cerning representation may not appropriately be raised under Section 9(c) of the Act. WE WILL NOT picket , cause to be picketed, or threaten to picket any premises or construc- tion projects of the above -named Company for a period of 1 year from June 10, 1969, and at other times, where an object of such picketing is to force or require the Company to recog- nize or bargain with us as a representative of their employees if within the preceding 12 months a valid election under Section 9(c) of the National Labor Relations Act has been conducted in a unit in which we seek recogni- tion, at a time when we have not been certified to represent the employees in such unit. WE WILL NOT engage in , or induce or en- courage any individual employed by the above- named Company or by any other person en- gaged in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce to engage in, a strike or a refusal in the course of his employment to use , transport, or otherwise handle or work on any goods, ar- ticles, materials, or commodities or to perform any services , and WE WILL NOT threaten, coerce, or restrain the Company 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 the Com- pany to recognize or bargain with us as a representative of their employees during any times when Local 124, United Construction and Trades Union of Michigan , Allied Workers International Independent Union, or any other labor organization , has been certified as the representative of such employees under the provisions of Section 9 of the Act. 534 Dated By DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD CARPENTERS DISTRICT COUNCIL OF DETROIT, WAYNE AND OAKLAND COUNTIES AND VICINITY, UNITED BROTHERHOOD OF CARPENTERS AND JOINERS OF AMERICA , AFL-CIO (Labor Organization) (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, 500 Book Building, 1249 Washing- ton Boulevard, Detroit, Michigan 48226, Telephone 313-226-3200.