Associated Musicians of Greater N.Y., Local 802

198 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Associated Musicians of Greater New York, Local 802, AFM, AFL-CIO and National Association of Orchestra Leaders. Case 2-CC-1070 May 28, 1969 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN MCCULIOCH AND MEMBERS FANNING AND BROWN On February 14, 1969, Trial Examiner Max Rosenberg issued his Decision in the above-entitled case, finding that the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Decision. Thereafter, the General Counsel filed limited exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision and a supporting brief. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National 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 limited exceptions and brief,' and the entire record in this case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner, with the limited modification in the Order noted herein.' ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board hereby adopts as its Order the Recommended Order of the Trial Examiner, as modified herein, and orders that the Respondent, Associated Musicians of Greater New York, Local 802, AFM, AFL-CIO. New York, New York, its officers, agents, and representatives, shall take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order , as so modified. A. Substitute for the last clause of the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order, in paragraph l(a) beginning with "where in either case an object thereof," the clause "where in either case an object thereof is to force Joe Carroll or any other self-employed person or employer to join the Respondent." B. Substitute for the last clause in paragraph 1(b) of the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order, beginning with "where an object thereof," the clause "where an object thereof is to force or require Joe Carroll or any other self-employed person or employer to join the Respondent." C. In the notice attached as an Appendix to the Trial Examiner's Decision, in the first indented paragraph thereof replace the last clause beginning "where in either case an object thereof" with the clause substituted in A above. D. In the notice attached as an Appendix to the Trial Examiner's Decision in the second indented paragraph thereof, replace the last clause beginning "where an object thereof" with the clause substituted in B above. 'As the Respondent has filed no exceptions, we find it unnecessary to pass on the General Counsel 's contention that the Trial Examiner should have resolved an alleged credibility conflict over what the Union did or did not tell Carroll vis-a-vis rejoining the Union. 'We find merit in the General Counsel 's exception to the failure of the Trial Examiner to recommend a "broad" rather than a "narrow" Order. We agree with the General Counsel that such "broad" Order is warranted in view of our finding of a similar violation in another recent case, Associated Musicians of Greater New York. Local 802, AFM, AFL-CIO (Random Travel, Inc.), 171 NLRB No. 149, and the admission that it is Respondent's policy to unionize all conductors TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE MAx ROSENBERG, Trial Examiner: With all parties represented, this case was tried before me in New York City, New York, on October 28, 1968, on complaint of the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board and an answer filed by Associated Musicians of Greater New York, Local 802, AFM, AFL-CIO, herein called the Respondent or the Union.' At issue is whether Respondent violated Section 8(b)(4)(i),(ii)(A) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, by certain conduct to be detailed hereinafter. At the conclusion of the hearing, the parties orally argued their respective causes . A brief has been filed by the Charging Party, National Association of Orchestra Leaders, which has been duly considered. Upon the entire record in this proceeding, I hereby make the following:' FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER A. Jurisdictional Facts The complaint alleges that Joe Carroll, doing business under the trade name of "Joe Carroll Orchestras" and herein called Carroll, is and has at all times material been a self-employed person and an employer engaged in 'The complaint, which issued on February 27, 1968, is based upon a charge which was filed and served on January 3, 1968. 'I have taken official notice of the transcript in a proceeding instituted under Sec. 10(1) of the Act by Ivan C. McLeod, Regional Director for case. 2 of the National Labor Relations Board , against Respondent, which was heard on March 8, 1968, before the Honorable William B. Herlands, District Judge for the Southern District of New York . Judge Herlands ruled, after hearing, that there was reasonable cause to believe that Respondent had engaged in unfair labor practices within the proscriptive ambit of Sec. 8(b)(4(i), (hXA) and he issued a temporary restraining order against Respondent pending final disposition of the instant proceeding. The findings of fact made herein are based upon the evidence adduced before the District Court, as well as the exhibits proffered in this case. 176 NLRB No. 29 ASSOCIATED MUSICIANS OF GREATER N.Y., LOCAL 802 199 commerce and in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of Sections 2(l), (2), (6), and (7) and 8(b)(4) of the Act. In its responsive pleadings, the Union denies that Carroll is either a person who is self-employed or an employer engaged in commerce within the purview of the statute. It is undisputed and I find that Carroll is the founder and sole proprietor of an enterprise styled as "Joe Carroll Orchestras" which is registered to and does business in New York County, New York, and also transacts business in the States of New Jersey, Connecticut, Virginia, North Carolina, and South Carolina. Carroll maintains his principal office in New York City where he is engaged in providing bands, orchestras, musical entertainment and variety talent to night clubs, conventions, country clubs, hotels, private parties, universities, and industrial establishments. During 1967, which year is representative of his annual operations generally, Carroll performed services valued at approximately $246,000, of which $58,000 was derived from engagements undertaken outside the State of New York. In addition, Carroll has performed services in an undisclosed monetary amount for such commercial clients as International Telephone and Telegraph Company, Equitable Life Insurance Company, General Motors Corporation, Borden Company, and Reynolds Metals Company, all located within the State of New York, and all of which have previously been found by the Board to be engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act under its direct inflow or outflow jurisdictional standards. In light of the foregoing, I find that Carroll is, and has at all times material herein been, engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.' B. The Status of Carroll transportation and overnight expenses, such as hotel accommodations and meals. Moreover, Carroll's musicians are recompensed by payroll checks which are issued by him and from which he withholds social security and other taxes. So far as appears, his remuneration consists of the difference between his costs in providing the entertainment and the amount he receives under his agreement with the client.' When an event is scheduled, Carroll personally oversees the arrangement of the orchestra on the bandstand and monitors the quality of the performance. From time to time, he acts in the capacity of a leader of his orchestra and, if the occasion arises, he may fill in on the drums while he conducts.' Carroll testified without contradiction and I find that he has never performed as a "side-man," i.e., a rank-and-file musician, in any other orchestra. In view of Carroll's relationship to the musicians who are presented under his auspices, as evidenced by his authority to hire, discipline, and discharge them, by his control over the manner and style of their performance and the matter of their attire, by his procurement of customer-contracts which afford productive employment for the musicians, by the fact that he compensates them, withholds assorted taxes from their income, and pays their travel and living expenses , and by the further fact that he conducts their musical groups or otherwise supervises their musical efforts to insure the requisite quality of performance, I am convinced and find that Carroll is an employer within the meaning of Section 2(2) and 8(b)(4)(A) of the Act.' Moreover, as Carroll is the sole proprietor of his enterprise and garners his income from selling musical services to purchasers for a price, I find that he is also a self-employed person within the scope of Sections 2(1) and 8(b)(4)(A) of the statute.' II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED The evidence is uncontroverted and I find that Carroll has been engaged in the business of supplying musical services and entertainment for clients since 1945. In the course of his operations, Carroll maintains an office in New York City which is staffed by his wife and some clerical employees, from whence he solicits business both telephonically and by mail. All office equipment, telephones, lighting, fixtures, stationery, and advertising, as well as a music library of special arrangements valued in the thousands of dollars, are paid for by Carroll.' During 1967, he utilized approximately 225 musicians to perform for his clients. In the main, Carroll contracts for "single" engagements which, in the jargon of the industry, refers to engagements which last for less than a week. Although Carroll retains a full-time employee who is known as a "contractor" in the trade to procure musicians for particular performances, it is Carroll who ultimately hires, disciplines, or discharges these individuals, and who determines whether to reemploy certain musicians because of their peculiar talents. When an orchestra is hired for a special function, Carroll decides the style of music to be played and dictates the type of uniform to be worn by the musicians, occasionally bearing the, cost of unusual attire. Each orchestra is identified by plastic decals as either "Joe Carroll Orchestra of New York" or "Joe Carroll Music New York." If his performers are required to travel to distant engagements, Carroll foots the bill for all 'See Associated Musicians of Greater New York, Local 802, AFM, AFL-CIO (Random Travel. Inc.), Ill NLRB No. 149. 'Carroll's telephone bill averages $4,500 annually . He also advertises his orchestras in the "Redbook" for which he is charged $25 per month. The complaint alleges, the answer admits, and I find that Respondent is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. Ill. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. The Contentions and the Evidence In his complaint, the General Counsel asserts that Respondent violated Section 8(b)(4)(i),(ii)(A) of the Act by (1) maintaining and enforcing bylaw provisions which prohibit its members from performing in orchestras or bands conducted by Carroll, or in which Carroll performs as a musician; (2) regularly publishing in its official monthly publication styled "Allegro" a notice proclaiming that Carroll had been expelled from Respondent's ranks, and reminding its members that they may not play in Carroll's orchestras; and, (3) insisting that Carroll join and remain a member of Respondent, all with an object of 'Cf. Carroll v. American Federation of Musicians of U.S. & Can., 372 F.2d 155, 159 (C.A. 2) ,it is Carroll's undemed testimony that he frequently employs a subleader to direct the orchestra rather than conduct the group himself, in which event he stations himself behind a screen on the bandstand to observe the performance. See Associated Musicians of Greater New York, Local 802. AFM. AFL-CIO (Random Travel, Inc.). 171 NLRB No. 149 ; Carroll v. American Federation of Musicians of U.S. & Can., 372 F.2d 155, 159 (C.A. 2). 'See Painters Local Union No. 249, Brotherhood of Painters, Decorators and Paperhangers of America. AFL-CIO (John J Reich ), 136 NLRB 176. 200 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD forcing or requiring Carroll to reacquire membership in Respondent. The Union challenges the foregoing contention, professing that it has not in fact attempted to wean Carroll's membership, an, claiming that its entire course of conduct was designed solely to prohibit its members from working with Carroll, a path which it could lawfully trod. Carroll was a member of Respondent in good standing from 1945 until 1961. On June 15, 1960, Respondent announced that, henceforth all union members should receive a wage increase of $4 per man per engagement, and in April, 1961 it struck to enforce payment of the increase . However, Carroll refused to pay his musicians this added increment, in consequence of which Respondent brought intra-union charges against him and, after a trial, he was expelled from membership in 1961. The parties stipulated and I find that, commencing in the latter year, the Union regularly published in "Allegro," a monthly publication distributed to some 32,000 members, the following notice: EXPELLED MEMBER JOSEPH (Joe) CARROLL (Drums) Members may not play in orchestras conducted by him or in orchestras in which he performs.' The parties further stipulated and I find that, at all times material to this proceeding, Respondent maintained bylaws which rendered it "a violation and detrimental to the welfare" of Respondent for a member "To perform in or with a band or orchestra which is led or conducted by a nonmember of the Union or in which a nonmember plays an instrument or performs any other work of a musician." The Union concedes and I find that these bylaw provisions have been enforced by the expulsion of certain members who performed with Carroll. It is uncontroverted and I find that, on various occasions between 1961 and the end of 1963, Carroll unsuccessfully petitioned both State and Federal courts to compel Respondent to reinstate his membership. Then, in 1965, Carroll and Respondent's President Max Arons lunched together on two occasions during which the subject of Carroll's reacquisition of membership was discussed . Carroll informed Arons that it was embarrassing to the former that, pursuant to an understanding reached during litigation before the New York Federal Circuit Court of Appeals, Carroll was unable to conduct his orchestras or play the drums in his bands. Carroll sought to work out an arrangement similar to the one which a fellow orchestra leader named Cutler had made with Respondent whereby, upon payment of the back wages to his musicians which had been established in 1960, he could remain a member of the Union and appear on the bandstand. Arons noted that the matter was no longer in his hands and suggested that Carroll make peace with the American Federation of Musicians by filing an application for readmission to Respondent with the International's Executive Board. Whereupon, Carroll did so and tendered a check in excess of $100 along with his application for reinstatement. Sometime thereafter, Arons 'At tunes, the names of other expelled members appeared in the notice. returned the application and check to Carroll with the notation that conditions were not ripe for Carroll's readmission to membership. Events apparently abided until 1967, when Arons and Carroll again met for lunch. It is the undisputed testimony of Frank LiVolsi, the president of a sister local in Stamford, Connecticut, and chairman of the American Federal of Musicians' Legislative Committee, that he arranged for the meeting as a result of the following happenstance. The son of the Charging Party's attorney, Godfrey P. Schmidt, was employed in LiVolsi's office. During a conversation with the son in the summer of 1967, LiVolsi was informed of the familial connection and the son inquired whether LiVolsi cared to "meet my dad who represents the orchestra leaders." LiVolsi expressed delight at the suggestion , and, shortly thereafter, he and Attorney Schmidt dined together. In the course of the meal, Schmidt asked LiVolsi whether the latter knew Carroll and Charles Peterson, who is also an orchestra leader as well as an official of the Charging Party, and who was expelled along with Carroll from membership in the Union in 1961. When LiVolsi replied that he had never met these men, Schmidt volunteered to schedule a luncheon date and LiVolsi avidly accepted the offer. According to LiVolsi's further testimony, I find that he lunched with Carroll and Peterson as arranged by Schmidt. During the repast, the diners "discussed our national problems and we also discussed the [Respondent's] problem which Carroll was involved in." Carroll stated that "it was getting tiresome, fighting back and forth, and he had hoped that something could be done to squash all this." Carroll then inquired whether there was "anything he could do" to pacify the situation, to which LiVolsi responded that he, too, wished to bring the parties amicably together. Thereupon, LiVolsi remarked that he "would try to get hold of Max Arons and have luncheon some day where the four of us could get together. . . . " Following this luncheon, LiVolsi telephoned Arons to report that he had met with Carroll and Peterson, and LiVolsi invited Arons to join "us for luncheon to see if we could explore some friendly program ," an invitation which Arons initially declined with the comment that "I will not meet with them [Carroll and Peterson]. I am not interested." Four or five weeks later, LiVolsi again pressed Arons to accept the former's earlier invitation. On this occasion, LiVolsi advised Arons that "I think it would be nice if we sat down because I think we are all tired of all this fuss that is going on all over from coast to coast, and I think I convinced Max [Arons] to sit down with us." According to Arons, he was prompted to attend the luncheon by LiVolsi's declaration that "Carroll wants to sit down and have lunch with you and discuss with you - this whole litigation that is costing the Union a lot of money," to which Arons responded "well, in that way I will set down with you and Carroll." It is LiVolsi's testimony that no mention was made in this conversation with Arons of any expressed desire by Carroll to gain readmittance to the Union. Following his second conversation with Arons, LiVolsi placed a call to Carroll to finalize plans for the luncheon. After some prodding, Carroll consented to meet with Arons and a date was set for August 20, 1967. Meanwhile, by letter of July 13, 1967, the International's Executive Board apprised Arons that Carroll's application for reinstatement in the Union had been rejected. This intelligence was reflected in the minutes of Respondent's executive board meeting of July 20, 1967, and was ASSOCIATED MUSICIANS OF GREATER N.Y., LOCAL 802 reproduced in the September 1967 issue of the publication "Allegro" which read as follows: Executive Board Minutes, Thursday, July 20, 1967: The following decision of the Ihternational Executive Board was read before the Board. Consideration is given to the request of Joseph Carroll for permission for reinstatement in Local 802, New York, New York. On motion and passed it is decided that the request is denied. According to Carroll, he first learned that his application had been formally rejected when he read "Allegro" either in late September or early October. The August 20 session took place as scheduled. In attendance at the luncheon were Arons, LiVolsi, Carroll, and an individual named Vincent Badale, who is a member of the Union's trial board. It is Carroll's testimony that, at the outset of the discussion, LiVolsi made a general statement concerning his desire that the entire matter between Carroll and Respondent be resolved in a friendly and constructive manner, and indicated that this was his purpose for scheduling the meeting . Because LiVolsi was foreign to the controversy between Arons and Carroll, the latter proceeded to recount the events which transpired in 1965 when Carroll met with Arons and essayed to regain his union membership. At the conclusion of this presentation, Arons remarked that the International parent body had not yet acted on Carroll's 1965 application although Arons, by his own admission on the stand, acknowledged that he had received written notification from the International Executive Board as early as July 13, 1967 that Carroll's application had been turned down. Carroll then reminded Arons that Respondent's new contract forms which appeared in early 1967 were under challenge in the Federal courts as being violative of the Federal Anti-Trust Laws. At this juncture, Arons inquired whether Carroll would agree to reimburse his musicians for the difference in wages which the Respondent had negotiated in 1960 and which Carroll had withheld over the course of the years. Inasmuch as the withholding of the negotiated increases had occasioned Carroll's expulsion from the Union, Arons explained that it might facilitate the former's reinstatement to membership if the issue was presented to the International Executive Board in this light. Carroll promptly replied in the negative, and the luncheon terminated with the understanding that any further colloquy would have to be initiated by Respondent's officers. Carroll further testified that, shortly before Labor Day in 1967, he unsuccessfully attempted to contact Arons to pursue the matter of his reinstatement further. However, he did manage to speak with Badale and , during their conversation, he informed Badale that he had experienced a change of heart concerning the payment of back wages and requested that Badale convey this information to Arons. A few days after Labor Day, Carroll again telephoned Badale to remind the latter that Carroll stood ready to recompense his musicians for the difference in wages which he had declined to afford them since 1960. Carroll was assured that this information had reached Arons. Arons' version of the August 20, 1967, luncheon meeting is as follows. LiVolsi opened the discussion by relating that he had arranged for the confrontation in order to achieve "peace and [have] all the litigations settled with the orchestra leaders." Carroll broached the subject of the new Union contracts and the litigation which had ensued concerning them. He then inquired, 201 "how do I get back into the Union?" Arons replied that Respondent was not opposed to readmitting him to membership and explained that it was the International union which barred the door to his reinstatement. Carroll suggested that the Respondent exert pressure upon its parent body to effect his readmission, to which Arons replied that Respondent would undertake such action provided Carroll reimbursed his employees for the back wages due and owing them under the earlier Union agreement . In this connection, Arons made it clear that the only stumbling block facing Carroll's reacquisition of membership, so far as Respondent was concerned, was Carroll's failure to satisfy this debt which amounted to approximately $2,500 and Arons pledged that he "will have the Executive Board favor his application and put up a fight with the [International union] to get him back," adding that "I would go, on behalf of Mr. Carroll to the Federation, and fight to get him back as he suggested." According to Arons, Carroll remarked "I will go along, I will pay the back wages. You go ahead." At the conclusion of the luncheon, Arons suggested that Carroll resubmit his application for membership. LiVolsi, who sponsored the luncheon, recounted on the stand that he opened the discussion by addressing Carroll and commenting that "I think he [Arons] is fair and I think he is a good president; and he is trying to do a lot for a lot of people that think they are fighting against him." Turning to Arons, LiVolsi remarked that "Carroll, in the short time that I know him, seems to be a pretty sincere guy, and I think he wants to get together, and even though there are many problems on an international level, that at least we might be able to get together on a local level." On this note, Arons and Carroll took up the conversation and the topic of backpay was discussed. LiVolsi remembered that Arons told Carroll that if the latter "paid whatever he owed the Union, that he would be restored to membership." Carroll replied, "well, let me know what it is; find out what the amount is and maybe we can get together." LiVolsi interjected and asked, "what can we do to get you both together so Carroll can come into the Union?" Arons stated that "if Joe Carroll pays up his back dues, whatever he owes, I think we can take him back into membership." Carroll's parting comment was "what do I owe? And get back to me and maybe we can get together."10 Continuing the narrative, Carroll had contracted to perform for the Iona College Board of Lay Trustees at its annual dinner scheduled to be held at 8 p.m. on November 1, 1967, at the Americana Hotel in New York City. For this event, he had programmed an orchestra comprised of 10 men. During the morning hours, he telephoned several of his favorite musicians, including Ted Reade on drums, Charles McCarty on trumpet, and Phil Olivella and Rocky Gaglano on saxophone. These side-men had been alerted in the spring of 1967 regarding this engagement and, at all times material to this proceeding, were members of Respondent in good standing . During his conversations with the men, Carroll exclaimed that "I intend to be there [at the Americana Hotel] personally, I was going to conduct that orchestra with my arms more outstretched than they had been in the last 20 years, I wasn't going to be down on the floor where I had been crawling for 4 or 5 years, but I was going to be there in front of that band." Carroll inquired whether these musicians would play with him that evening. "Badale, who was privy to this conversation, was not called as a witness in the 10(1) proceeding. 202 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Each replied that he had communicated with Respondent for clearance, and had decided not to accept the engagement. Because Carroll had anticipated this response, he had previously contacted replacements for these side-men and they filled in for the recalcitrants." Believing that he might encounter opposition in some form from Respondent, Carroll invited Charles Peterson, an official of the Charging Party, to assist in policing the Americana performance. At 7:45 p.m., while Carroll was setting up the orchestra, Union officials Louis (Russ) Russo and Vincent Grande entered the Americana ballroom and approached the bandstand. Peterson, who had been standing guard at the hotel entrance, was informed by one of the musicians that Russo and Grande were in the ballroom, in consequence of which Peterson repaired to that locale. Before Peterson arrived, Carroll descended from the bandstand and asked the officials the reason for their presence. Russo countered that, in accordance with Respondent's established practice of which Carroll was aware, he and Grande had come to "check the musicians," by which he meant that his purpose was to insure that all of Carroll's musicians were members of Respondent in good standing. Carroll retorted that "I do not belong to your Union, you are not going to talk to employees, you have no right to be in this private banquet room in the first instance, and if you don't leave immediately I will have you thrown out bodily." While Russo or Grande sought to defuse the situation, Peterson approached the bandstand and joined in the discussion. It is Carroll's testimony that, at this juncture, Russo blurted, "We want you back in the Union," to which Carroll responded, "Well, that's a switch isn't it? If you read the minutes of the Executive Board dated July 20, 1967 you will see that my application for reinstatement was definitely turned down." Grande took issue with Carroll's observation, but was corrected by Russo who remarked that Carroll's rejection as a Union member had appeared in "Allegro." Russo then told Carroll, "But never mind all that . we want you back in the Union." Before Russo and Grande were led away to an adjoining room by Peterson to continue the discussion, Russo requested that Carroll telephone Respondent's office the following morning to continue the dialogue. Carroll gave no assurance that he would do so. The engagement was fulfilled that evening without further incident.' I Charles Peterson testified that, in his capacity as a "trouble-shooter" for the Charging Party, he was summoned to the Americana Hotel on the evening of November 1, 1967, by Carroll who had anticipated that his engagement would be interrupted by Respondent's business agents. Upon arriving at the hotel, he was informed that the union officials had already entered the ballroom, and he proceeded to Carroll's assistance. Observing that Carroll, Russo and Grande were engaged in a conversation, Peterson approached the group and, placing his hand on Russo's arm, Peterson cautioned that "You don't belong here" and ordered Russo and Grande to leave the ballroom. Russo rejoined, "now hold it Charley; we want to settle this matter. We want Joe Carroll back in the Union." Peterson expressed shock at "According to Carroll's uncontradicted testimony, four of the replacements were on tenderhooks with the Union, either because they had filed suit against that labor organization under the Act or because they had been brought up on charges by the Respondent for having previously performed with Carroll. "Carroll played the drums at this event and, from his drummer's throne, conducted the orchestra. this pronouncement because , in his words, "this was something I didn 't expect." Carroll then took over and advised Russo and Grande to leave the ballroom. After protesting that they simply sought to obtain the names and membership status of the musicians in Carroll's orchestra, the Union emissaries were led by Peterson to an adjoining room where their conversation was continued. Russo stated that "they [Respondent] want to get this mess out of the way, and they want Carroll back in the Union and have Carroll send his application to the Federation ; it will be accepted." Russo added that "he has many complaints from members of the Union that jobs were taken by nonmembers ," and that "the Union is losing money. I can't even get a raise for myself. Send the application to the Federation . It will be accepted." After repeating this request, Russo exhorted Peterson to persuade Carroll to telephone Arons the following day. Peterson replied that he would have to be a witness to any conversation between Carroll and Arons. Russo agreed to this condition and again asked whether Carroll would communicate with Arons on November 2. Peterson responded inconclusively , commenting that "I'm not sure whether we will or not . We will let you know." The three men then proceeded toward the ballroom where Russo once more sought to enter . Peterson objected to Russo's entry and the discussion concluded with the former stating "Let's stop where it is now and then we will decide what to do within the next few days." With this, Russo and Grande left the premises. Russo testimonially related that, in the course of his duties as a general organizer for Respondent , he accepted an invitation from Grande to visit the Americana Hotel on November 1, 1967, to determine whether the musicians who were engaged to perform that evening were members of the Union . When they arrived in the ballroom, they encountered Carroll at the bandstand who exclaimed "you son of a bitch get out of here . You have no right in this hotel." Russo protested that Respondent had a contract with the establishment which permitted him to enter upon the premises , to which Carroll rejoined that he had no contract with the Union and once more he ordered Russo to leave . Carroll then apologized for his rudeness and Russo remarked, "why don 't you cool it? I am only here to make a routine check to see the condition of this job and the personnel of the orchestra . Don't blow your cork, there is no need for it ." At this point, Carroll stated, "I want to join your Union . I want to get back to your Union." Russo replied , "if you really mean that, Joe, I will extend my personal invitation to intercede for you through my president through the Executive Board if you really mean this." Peterson entered the ballroom and joined the discussion, after first grabbing Russo 's arm and proclaiming "we were prepared for war." Russo commented , "hold it Charley, please, I've got no business with you, I am checking the job. I am talking to Joe Carroll. Joe was very happy to find out that I extended an invitation." With this news, Peterson also expressed pleasure and the Union representatives and Peterson adjourned to a vacant room to converse further. During their conversation , the men recapitulated all of the litigation which had taken place between the Charging Party and Respondent over the years, with Peterson noting that "It is a pain in the neck to all of us; we are all losing money and this thing should be done away with." Russo concluded the conversation by telling Peterson that "if you really mean that and if Joe really means that he wants to come back I will do everything in my power to go to bat for him." ASSOCIATED MUSICIANS OF GREATER N.Y., LOCAL 802 203 Carroll did not place a call to the Union 's office on November 2, 1967, as Russo had suggested . However, it is Carroll' s uncontradicted testimony that, at 10 a.m. on that date, he received a telephone call from Russo who inquired whether the former would visit the union office "to process that reinstatement application , so that we can act on it at the regular Board meeting this afternoon." Although he harbored no intention of doing so , Carroll falsely told Russo that he would appear as requested. The following day, November 3, Carroll dispatched a messenger to the union hall to procure a membership application blank . On the same day, he placed a call to Arons and announced that "There are many things that require discussion before I go any further with the question of filing a new application for membership in the Union or for reinstatement in the Union." Carroll went on to relate that he was scheduled to perform with his orchestra at the St. Regis Hotel in New York City on the evening of November 4, an engagement which he had obtained annually, and informed Arons that "Depending upon the outcome of this conversation , I will handle that job in one of two ways. I will play the drums personally, although I don't and I have always conducted the orchestra at this particular dance -- I will play the drums personally and I will use the same bunch of rebels I used in the Americana Hotel on November 1, or I will use my favorite musicians , Ted Reade, drummer, with me for 20 years and Charles McCarty, trumpet, and it is entirely up to you depending on the outcome of this conversation." Carroll asked that there be "peace and quiet" for the next few days and assured Arons that the former would communicate with Arons on November 6 to arrange for a meeting between the parties. Arons acquiesced in Carroll's request and stated that he would instruct his agents to inform the musicians that they would not be penalized by Respondent for performing under Carroll's personal direction. However, Arons told Carroll that the Union's permission for Carroll to conduct his orchestra on this occasion was not to be construed as setting a precedent. Carroll agreed that this arrangement was to be only a temporary expedient until the men met on the following week. Carroll, Arons, Russo, and Peterson next met in Arons' office on November 8, 1967. According to Carroll, he drew the membership application blank from his pocket which his messenger had obtained from the Union on November 3 and which he had not executed and, holding it in his hand , he informed Arons that "I think there are many things that should be discussed before I go into the matter of rejoining this Union ." Carroll then embarked upon a recapitulation of all pending litigation brought against Respondent, and told Arons that he would not sign the application blank until the litigation had been laid to rest because the courts might determine that Carroll need not be a union member in order to conduct his orchestras or play drums in his musical groups. However, Carroll conceded that, while the only order of business on November 8 as far as he was concerned was to discuss the matter of his reinstatement in Respondent , he, Carroll, "took the initiative all the way" on this subject at the meeting and acknowledged that Arons did not at any time broach the matter. Carroll further testified that, toward the end of the meeting , Arons guaranteed that Carroll would henceforth be permitted to conduct orchestral groups comprised of union members without opposition from Respondent, and would be allowed to perform on the drums in bands composed of Union men , without having to join Respondent . Arons further assured Carroll that the former would notify all members, upon inquiry, that it was permissible for them to work with Carroll as a conductor as well as a performer. Carroll thereupon asked Arons whether there was anything that could be done about the notice in "Allegro" relating to Carroll's status as a nonunion member . Arons replied that the next issue of the publication was to be printed on November 15. Carroll did not press Arons on the matter of removing the notice, and it continued to be printed in that journal until February 1968. As Carroll and Peterson prepared to leave Arons' office, Carroll inquired whether he could utilize the services of three named "guys you threw out of the Union," stating that "I would rather use those 3 men rather than new men or strangers." Arons responded, "They can play [with you] too." Finally, Carroll admitted that, as a result of this conference, he was never thereafter inhibited by Respondent from conducting orchestras composed of Union members or from playing the drums in union-staffed musical combinations. Arons testified that he had learned of the Americana Hotel incident from Russo and on November 3, 1967, he received a call from Carroll and Peterson in which Carroll reported that he had experienced some difficulties in carrying out his engagement at that location on November 1. Carroll stated that he had scheduled an important performance at the St. Regis Hotel for the next Saturday evening and requested that he be permitted to conduct his orchestra rather than hide behind a screen. He also promised that, if he was allowed to direct his musical group, he would meet with Arons on the following Monday, November 8, to discuss "the orchestra leaders' attitude with you." Arons replied, "All right, Joe, I will tell the business agent not to embarrass you. You can conduct and I will take it up with my [executive] board and explain to them." Arons further related that Carroll and Peterson appeared at his office on November 8 and a discussion ensued concerning the Americana Hotel episode . According to Arons , no reference was made in their conversation about Carroll's application for membership in Respondent inasmuch as this subject "was a dead issue because the [International union] refused to take him into the Union." Carroll and Peterson asked that peace prevail between the parties and the "status quo" maintained until the pending Federal Anti-Trust suit was resolved by the United States Supreme Court. Arons inquired as to when a decision by that tribunal could be expected, and Carroll indicated that it might take 3 or 4 months . Arons then declared that he would recommend to his executive board that Carroll be permitted to conduct his orchestras and to play in his bands as though he were a Union member, and that he would instruct his delegates not to interfere with Carroll's performances until the Supreme Court had rendered its opinion in the lawsuit. With this, the parties shook hands and the meeting ended. Russo maintained in his testimony that, following his visit to the Americana Hotel on November 1 and his conversations with Carroll and Peterson , he reported the events which had transpired to Arons. Russo told Arons that the former "was very much surprised to hear Mr. Carroll say, I want to get back in the Union and I said if you really mean this, Joe, I will extend my personal invitation." Russo also informed Arons that Carroll was told to file an application for readmission in the Union. On November 8, Russo met with Carroll and Peterson in Arons' office. Russo testified that Carroll and Peterson "were expressing their happiness at the intentions we were showing to get them back into our Local," and that "I explained we would do everything we could to process it." 204 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Arons indicated that he had recommended to Respondent's officers that Carroll's application be approved. Russo then reminded Carroll that his readmission into union membership depended upon approval by the International union, and Russo expressed the hope that "everything works out fine." Carroll importuned Arons to permit the former to fulfill three or four engagements which had been scheduled during the ensuing months by conducting and playing the drums. Arons readily agreed to this entreaty, pending resolution of the Anti-Trust proceeding before the Supreme Court. Carroll's next communication with an official of the Union occurred on December ll. On this occasion, Carroll spoke with Respondent's Secretary Louis Critelli who informed Carroll that he had given incorrect information to a bass violinist. Critelli reported that the musician had telephoned to inqure whether it was permissible for him to play in an orchestra conducted by Carroll without drawing the Union's wrath, and Critelli advised the performer that he would be subjected to charges by Respondent in the event that he fulfilled the engagement . Carroll related in his testimony that the pu rpose of Critelli's telephone conversation was to assure Carroll that Critelli was in error in rendering this advice and that he had so informed the musician. Carroll's concluding conversations with Arons took place in a National Labor Relations Board hearing room on January 10 and 11, 1968 during a hearing on unfair labor practice charges which the Charging Party had filed against Respondent under the Act. When the hearing recessed on January 10, Arons approached Carroll and said, "I have the matter of your reinstatement all straightened out. I had a big fight with Kennin and Adler," the parent union's president and counsel, respectively. Arons added that, "If I [Carroll] signed the application blank for reinstatement, before it went to the [international union] it would be clearly marked with having been approved by [Respondent's] Executive Board, and then it would be sent on to the [international union]," and Arons concluded the conversation with the remark that "then you can withdraw the charge" which Carroll filed in the instant case. The following day at the conclusion of the hearing, Arons and Carroll again conversed , this time in company with Respondent's Attorney, Eugene Victor. Speaking first to Victor, Arons stated, "I told Carroll the big fight we had . you [Victor] were there - the big fight I had with Kennin and Adler over the matter of this reinstatement," to which Victor replied, "But, Mr. Arons, you know it doesn't make any sense for Carroll to rejoin the Union at this time." Arons then remarked, "I want him to have what Cutler has," a reference to another bandleader whose membership in Respondent had not been placed in jeopardy because he had reimbursed the Union for back wages which he had withheld from his musicians. As the men were about to leave the hearing room, Arons told Carroll, "Don't forget to call me now and we will get this matter straightened out." Since this date, Carroll has had no further conversations with any Union officials regarding the matter of his reinstatement to membership. Arons testified that, at the hearing on January 10, 1968, he expressed his surprise and dismay to Carroll at the latter's having filed additional unfair labor practices against Respondent which gave rise to this proceeding. In this conversation, Arons told Carroll, "Joe, I am shocked. Here I just had an argument with the general counsel of the AFM - the house counsel, as he put it - Mr. Adler and Mr. Kennin, and Gene Victor was with me, and I told him that Joe Carroll wants to come back, Local 802 is going to approve his application, and you fellows refused to take him in, and here we get a citation that we are unfair, Joe." Carroll replied, "That can always be withdrawn." Rounding out Arons' testimony, he conceded and I find that it is Respondent's general policy to require that all conductors who lead an orchestra or band which is composed of Union members must themselves be members of Respondent. He further admitted that Respondent's purpose in forbidding its members to perform in orchestras which are directed by Carroll was to insure that the position of conductor was filled by a Union member. Arons further acknowledged that "the effect of enforcing this policy may be to bring pressure on Mr. Carroll to join," although he insisted that this was not the Respondent's object. Finally, Arons allowed as how it is the policy of Respondent "to reinstate into membership any expelled or former member who makes restitution or who pays up or who comes back into good graces by complying with the bylaw which he violated and for which he was expelled," and that the topic of restitution was discussed with Carroll during their meetings. B. Conclusions In pertinent part, Section 8(b)(4) of the Act makes it an unfair labor practice for a labor organization (i) to engage in, or to induce or encourage any individual employed by any person engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce to engage in , a strike or a refusal in the course of his employment to use, manufacture, process, transport, or otherwise handle or work on any goods, articles, materials, or commodities or to perform any services; of (ii) to threaten, coerce, or restrain any person engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce, where in either case an object thereof is: (A) forcing or requiring any employer or self-employed person to join any labor organization.... The complaint alleges, the parties stipulated, the evidence establishes, and I have heretofore found that, commencing in 1961, Carroll was expelled from membership in Respondent because he declined to pay his musicians who were Union members the wage scale which Respondent had imposed the preceding year. Following his expulsion, and for a period of approximately 7 years, Respondent published in its official organ "Allegro," which was distributed monthly to some 32,000 members within its jurisdiction, a notice announcing that Carroll had been suspended from its ranks and cautioning them against playing "in orchestras conducted by him or in orchestras in which he performs." During a similar period, and, indeed, continuing to date, Respondent admittedly maintained bylaws which made it a violation of those strictures and detrimental to the welfare of the Union for any member "To perform in or with a band or orchestra which is led or conducted by a nonmember of the Union or in which a nonmember plays an instrument or performs any other work of a musician." As Arons testified and I have found, Respondent actually enforced these bylaws by expelling musicians who performed in Carroll's musical groups . Moreover, Arons admitted and I have found that it was and is the Union's policy to require that all orchestra and band conductors be members in good ASSOCIATED MUSICIANS OF GREATER N.Y., LOCAL 802 205 standing, and that that was the reason for exerting pressure on its, members to refrain from performing in Carroll's groups. In light of these Union-imposed sanctions against Carroll and the member-musicians who performed or contemplated performing for him, I conclude that their inexorable effect was to induce and encourage Union members to refrain from performing services for Carroll, and to threaten, coerce and restrain Carroll within the purview of Section 8(b)(4)(i), (ii) of the Act." The General Counsel asserts that an object of the foregoing conduct by Respondent was to force or require Carroll to join the Union. He maintains that Respondent's bylaws, its expressed policies, and the notice which appeared in "Allegro," without more, clearly support a conclusion that Respondent's entire course of conduct vis-a-vis Carroll was designed to bring about his reconversion to membership. The General Counsel further maintains that, when this conduct is weighed together with the conversations in which Carroll engaged with Respondent's officials between August 20, 1967, and January It, 1968, the Union's ultimate object of forcing Carroll to regain his union membership becomes manifest. For its part, Respondent counters that, far from seeking Carroll's coerced membership, it steadfastly did not desire Carroll as a member. As chronicled heretofore, Carroll and Peterson testified that, during various conversations with Arons and Russo, the latter stated that Respondent wanted Carroll to join the Union. In their testimony, these Union officials denied that they urged Carroll to regain membership, claiming that it was Carroll who sought to recapture his status as a Union member. I deem it unnecessary to resolve this credibility conflict for, in my opinion, the record contains ample evidence otherwise to substantiate the General Counsel's position that an object of Respondent's efforts was to force Carroll's Union membership." Arons testimonially made it clear that the Union pursued a policy of requiring all conductors who lead an orchestra comprised of Union men to be members of Respondent. He also acknowledged that Respondent's design in prohibiting members from performing in orchestras led by Carroll was to insure that the position of leader in those musical groups was assumed by a Union member. Arons even went so far as to admit that "the effect of enforcing this policy may be to bring pressure on Mr. Carroll to join" Respondent. In my view, it requires utilization of a peculiar brand of dialectic to arrive at any conclusion other than that an object of Respondent's policies and actions was to force or require Carroll's membership. As Judge Herlands so aptly put it in his opinion: Respondent's president, Max L. Arons, testified that it is respondent's `policy to unionize all people who .. . conduct;' that it is respondent's policy not to permit a non-union musician to conduct even when the members "See Associated Musicians of Greater New York, Local 802. AFM, AFL-CIO, 171 NLRB No. 149. Respondent seemingly does not take issue with this conclusion. "In his decision following the 10 ( l) hearing, Judge Herlands credited the testimony of Carroll and Peterson and found that the Union directed Carroll to perfect his membership. At the hearing before me , the General Counsel produced Carroll and Peterson with a view to having them testify to the identical conversations which they had spread upon the earlier record . In the belief that the record contained sufficient evidence to support a finding on this issue . I did not take their testimony. of the orchestra belong to respondent; and that any member of respondent who played in an orchestra led by Carroll `would be subject to charges.' Distinguishing between the `object' of the respondent's by-law and its `effect,' Arons claimed that it was respondent's sole purpose or object in carrying out its by-law and policy to create openings for conductors who are members of respondent and that it was not respondent's purpose or object to get Carroll to join respondent. Respondent must be taken to have intended the accomplishment of the obvious, immediate and direct effect of its conduct. This obvious, immediate and direct object and its obvious, immediate and direct intended effect are equatable in a casual relationship. That intended object and effect are to bring coercive pressure on Carroll in order to make him rejoin respondent on terms acceptable to it. Respondent's ultimate objective and broader purpose is to unionize all orchestra leaders in order that only union members will fill the jobs of leading orchestras. The immediate object and effect vis-a-vis Carroll is one step toward the achievement of the ultimate objective and broader purpose vis-a-vis all orchestra leaders.'s In sum , I am convinced and conclude that, by the maintenance and enforcement of its bylaws against Carroll forbidding members to perform in his orchestras, by the publication of the notice in "Allegro" notifying members that Carroll had been expelled from membership and warning them not to perform in his musical groups, and by the advancement of its policy requiring that all conductors and leaders of orchestras and bands employing Union musicians must be members of Respondent in good standing, Respondent induced and encouraged its members not to work for Carroll, and threatened, coerced and restrained Carroll, all with an object of forcing Carroll, as a Statutory employer and self-employed person, to join Respondent's ranks. By the foregoing conduct, I conclude that Respondent thereby violated Section 8(bX4)(i), (ii) (A) of the Act. IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of Respondent set forth in section III, above, occurring in connection with the operations of the Employer set forth in section I, above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relations 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. V. THE REMEDY Having found that Respondent had violated Section 8(b)(4)(i), (ii)(A) of the Act, I shall recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. In Associated Musicians of Greater New York, Local 802, AFM, AFL-CIO (Random Travel, Inc.), 171 NLRB No. 149, a case involving Respondent and misconduct not dissimilar from that portrayed herein, the Board ordered Respondent to publish the notice attached to its decision in three consecutive issues of "Allegro" which, as chronicled heretofore , is an official publication which the "283 F.Supp . 176, 181-182 (S.D.N.Y.) 206 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Respondent distributes to all members on a monthly basis. In the instant proceeding, the General Counsel prays that I fashion a remedy which would require Respondent to publish the notice attached hereto in six consecutive issues of "Allegro" and display it with the same degree of prominence as the notice concerning Carroll which appeared in that journal. In justification for this remedial request, the General Counsel points out that the notice pertaining to Carroll's loss of union membership was published on a monthly basis for almost 7 years and was prominently displayed on the final page of the publication where union notices customarily appear. Under the circumstances of this case, I deem the General Counsel's request both reasonable and necessary to remedy the impact of Respondent's unfair labor practices, and I shall fashion the remedial order accordingly. Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions, and upon the entire record in the case, I make the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Joe Carroll is an employer engaged in commerce and in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act, and has at all times material been a self-employed person within the meaning of Section 2(1) and Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (iiXA) of the Act. 2. Associated Musicians of Greater New York, Local 802, AFM, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3. By maintaining and enforcing bylaw provisions prohibiting its members from playing in any orchestra led or conducted by a nonmember of Respondent or in which a nonmember plays an instrument or performs any other work of a musician; by publishing in its official publication "Allegro" a notice announcing that Joe Carroll had been expelled from membership in Respondent and that members may not play in any orchestra conducted by him or in which he performs as a musician ; and, by maintaining and enforcing a policy of requiring Union membership of any person seeking to perform as a band leader or conductor irrespective of whether that person is the employer of the musicians in the performing orchestra, and opposing any performance by its members in an orchestra led or conducted by such person , Respondent had induced and encouraged individuals employed by Joe Carroll, who is engaged in commerce and in an industry affecting commerce, to engage in a strike or refusal in the course of their employment to perform services for him, and hag threatened, coerced, and restrained Carroll. 4. Respondent engaged in the aforesaid conduct with an object of forcing or requiring Joe Carroll to join Respondent. 5. By the aforesaid acts, Respondent engaged in conducwhich offended Section 8(b)(4Xi) and (ii)(A) of the Act. 6. The aforesaid acts constitute unfair labor practices which affect commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. RECOMMENDED ORDER Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law and the entire record in this case , and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, I recommend that Respondent, Associated Musicians of Greater New York, AFM, AFL-CIO, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Inducing or encouraging any individual employed by Joe Carroll, or any other person engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of the Act, to engage in a strike or a refusal in the course or his employment to use, manufacture, process, transport, or otherwise handle or work on any goods, articles, materials, and commodities or to perform any services; or threatening, coercing, or restraining Joe Carroll, or any person engaged in commerce or any industry affecting commerce, where in either case an object thereof is to force Joe Carroll to join the Respondent. (b) Applying or enforcing its bylaws in such a manner as to induce and encourage the members of the Respondent, or otherwise inducing or encouraging members of the Respondent, through publications of notices in "Allegro," or in any other unlawful manner, to engage in a strike or concerted refusal in the course of their employment to perform services for Joe Carroll, or any other person engaged in commerce or in any industry affecting commerce where an object thereof is to force or require Joe Carroll to join the Respondent. 2. Take the following affirmative action which I deem is necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Post at its office, place of business, and meeting places, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix." 16 Copies of said notice, on forms to be provided by the Regional Director for Region 2, shall, after being duly signed by Respondent's representative, be published in six consecutive issues of "Allegro" on the final page of that official organ, which page shall not be encumbered by any other written material. In addition, the notice shall be posted by Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and shall be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to all members are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (b) Mail to the Regional Director for Region 2 signed copies of said notice for posting by Joe Carroll, if willing. (c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 2, in writing, within 20 days from the date of this Decision, what steps Respondent has taken to comply therewith." "In the event that this Recommended Order be adopted by the Board, the words "A Decision and Order" shall be substituted for the words "a Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner " in the notice In the further event that the Board's Order be enforced by a decree of a United States Court of Appeals, the words "a Decree of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the words "a Decision and Order." "In the event that this Recommended Order be adopted by the Board, this provision shall be modified to read : "Notify said Regional Director, in writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith." APPENDIX Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor Relations Board and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, we hereby notify you that: WE WILL NOT induce or encourage any individual employed by Joe Carroll, or any other person engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce ASSOCIATED MUSICIANS OF GREATER N.Y., LOCAL 802 within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act, to engage in a strike or a refusal in the course of his employment to use, manufacture, process, transport, or otherwise handle or work on any goods, articles, materials, and commodities or to perform any services; or threaten, coerce, or restrain Joe Carroll, or any other person engaged in commerce or any industry affecting commerce, where in either case an object thereof is to force Joe Carroll to join our union. WE WILL NOT apply or enforce our bylaws in such a manner as to induce or encourage our members, or otherwise induce or encourage our members , through publications of notices in "Allegro," or in any other unlawful manner , to engage in a strike or concerted refusal in the course of their employment to perform services for Joe Carroll , or any other person engaged in commerce or in any industry affecting commerce, where an object thereof is to force or require Joe Carroll to join our union. Dated By ASSOCIATED MUSICIANS OF GREATER NEW YORK, LOCAL 802, AFM, AFL-CIO (Labor Organization) 207 (Representative ) (Title) This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. If members have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions, they may communicate directly with the Board' s Regional Office, 36th Floor, Federal Building, 26 Federal Plaza, New York, New York 10007, Telephone 212-264-0330.