McCready and Sons, Inc.

28 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD McCready and Sons , Inc. and Melco Construction, Inc. and Laborers' Local Union No. 1247, Laborers' International Union of North America, AFL-CIO. Cases 7-CA-8510 and 7-CA-8511 January 24, 1972 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS FANNING AND JENKINS On October 18, 1971, Trial Examiner Eugene E. Dixon issued the attached Decision in the proceeding. Thereafter, Respondents filed exceptions and support- ing 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 au- thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. The Board has considered the record and the Trial Examiner's Decision in light of the exceptions and briefs and has decided to affirm the Trial Examiner's rulings, findings,' and conclusions and to adopt his recommended Order. ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Re- lations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board adopts as its Order the recommended Order of the Trial Examiner and hereby orders that Respond- ents McCready and Sons, Inc., and Melco Construc- tion, Inc., their officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's recommended Order. I In adopting the Trial Examiner's finding that Respondent McCready did not have a good-faith doubt of majority based on objective evidence, we also rely on the fact that the signing of a petition by the laborers which stated they wished to return to work and to end the strike, and their return to work, is not the equivalent of a repudiation of the Union as their bargaining representative Frick Company, 175 NLRB 233 TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE EUGENE E. DIXON, Trial Examiner: This proceeding brought under Section 10(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended (61 Stat. 136), herein called the Act, was heard at Gaylord, Michigan, on June 22, 1971, pursuant to due notice. The consolidated complaint was issued on April 16, 1971, by the Acting Regional Director for Region 7 (De- troit, Michigan) on behalf of the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board, herein called the General Counsel and the Board. The complaint was based upon duly served charges filed by Laborers' Local Union No. 1247, Laborers' International Union of North America, AFL-CIO (herein called the Union), on February 23, 1971, in Case 7-CA-8510 (McCready and Sons, Inc., herein called McCready), and in Case 7-CA-8511 (Melco Construction, Inc., herein called Melco). 195 NLRB No. 18 The complaint alleged that Respondents had engaged in and were engaging in unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act by refusing to execute a written contract incorporating a full and complete agreement that had been reached on June 5, 1970, between the Respond- ents and the Union as the duly recognized collective-bargain- ing agent of Respondents' employees in appropriate units. In their duly filed answers Respondents denied the com- mission of any unfair labor practices and raised certain affir- mative defenses which will be disposed of herein. At the hearing most of the denials appearing on the answers were changed to oral admissions or stipulations. In fact Melco stipulated the entire case and put in no evidence whatsoever while McCready put in evidence only with respect to a sepa- rate defense it raises. Upon the entire record in the case including my observa- tion of the witnesses I make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT I RESPONDENTS' BUSINESSES At all times material McCready and Sons, Inc., has been a corporation duly organized under and existing by virtue of the laws of the State of Michigan. McCready has maintained its principal office and place of business in the city of Gaylord, Michigan, and has been engaged in the building and construc- tion industry as a general construction contractor. During the year ending December 31, 1970, which period is representative of its operations at all material times, McCready in the course and conduct of its business opera- tions purchased and caused to be transported and delivered at its Jobsites in Michigan paint, lumber, roofing materials, cement products, and other goods and materials valued in excess of $125,000 of which materials $50,000 worth were transported and delivered to said jobsites in Michigan and received from other enterprises, including Hector Bourrie, Inc., Cheboygan Cement Products, Evans Painting, Gaylord Lumber and Fuel, Gapinski Concrete Products, Grand Rap- ids Supply, Hunt Roofing, Kruckh Company, and Lancaster Electric, all located in the State of Michigan, and all of which had received said goods and materials directly from points located outside the State of Michigan. During the year ending December 31, 1970, which period is representative of its operations during all times material, McCready in the course and conduct of its business opera- tions in Michigan performed services valued in excess of $425,000, in excess of $50,000 of which were furnished to enterprises each of which annually derives gross revenues from the operation of its businesses exceeding $500,000 and receives or ships goods valued in excess of $50,000 directly across state lines. At all times material Melco Construction, Inc., has been a corporation duly organized under and existing by virtue of the laws of the State of Michigan and has maintained its principal office and place of business in Traverse City, Michi- gan. At all times material Melco has been engaged in the building and construction industry as a general contractor. During the year ending December 31, 1970, which period is representative of its operations at all times material, Melco in the course and conduct of its business operations pur- chased and caused to be transported and delivered at it job- sites in Michigan lumber, concrete and asphalt products, and other goods and materials valued in excess of $50,000, which goods and materials were transported and delivered and re- ceived from other enterprises including Red Mill Lumber, Concrete Service, Inc., and Peninsula Asphalt and Const. Co., all located in the State of Michigan and all of which had received said goods and materials directly from points located outside the State of Michigan McCREADY AND SONS, INC During the year ending December 31, 1970, which period is representative of its operations during all times material Melco in the course and conduct of its business operations in Michigan performed services valued in excess of $500,000, $250,000 worth of which were furnished to enterprises in- cluding National Bank and Trust Company and Stromberg- Carlson Products, each of which annually derives gross reve- nues from the operation of its businesses exceeding $500,000, and/or each of which annually purchases and causes to be delivered at its places of business in the State of Michigan goods and materials valued in excess of $50,000 which are transported to their Michigan locations directly from States of the United States other than Michigan, and/or each of which annually performs services valued in excess of $50,000 which are performed in States other than Michigan. For many years prior to issuance of the complaint herein Respondents McCready and Melco (and Melco's predecessor Koenig Construction Co.) together with other building con- struction contractors located in northwestern Michigan have bargained collectively on a multiemployer basis, with Labor- ers' Local Union No. 1247, Laborers' International Union of North America, AFL-CIO, in respect to hours, wages, rates of pay, and conditions of employment of their employees employed as laborers. Upon conclusion of the aforesaid joint negotiations, each employer-member of the "Association" has, individually, executed collective- bargaining agreements with the said Union.' During the calendar year of 1970, which period is repre- sentative of the business operations of employer-members of the multiemployer negotiations group referred to above, said group in the course and conduct of their business operations, derived an aggregate gross revenue in excess of $500,000 and purchased and caused to be shipped to their jobsites in Michi- gan products valued in excess of $50,000 which were shipped to said jobsites in Michigan directly from points located out- side the State of Michigan. Both Respondents admit that at all times material they have been employers engaged in com- merce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act and I so find. II THE LABOR ORGANIZATION Laborers' Local Union No. 1247, Laborers' International Union of North America, AFL-CIO, at all times material herein has been a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. III THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES As indicated, for a number of years prior to 1970 both Respondents together with other northwestern Michigan contractors had bargained collectively on a multiemployer basis with the Union as exclusive representative of their la- borer employees in admitted appropriate units within the leaning of Section 9(b) of the Act2 and individually executed ' This was an allegation of the complaint admitted by Melco but denied and not agreed to by McCready Notwithstanding that the record shows (and I find) that the allegation as to the past practice was true, McCready maintains that "the individual employers of Northwestern Michigan were not an association, that their spokesman had no authority, express or im- plied, to bind any individual contractor, that the agreement reached on June 5, 1970, [the one at issue] was a `tentative table agreement' subject to- individual contractor review and signature before such an agreement [became] final and binding " ' The appropriate unit for Respondent McCready was comprised of all its laborers employed in the counties of Antrim, Benzie, Charlevoix, Cheboygan, Crawford, Emmett, Grand Traverse, Kalkaska, Leelanau, Mis- saukee, Otsego, and Wexford, Michigan, exclusive of guards and and super- visors as defined in the Act and all other employees 29 collective-bargaining agreements with the Union at the con- clusion of such joint negotiations. These agreements, as re- flected by the one at issue (1970-1973) and the previously expired one (1969 to 1970), show on their face that they were "between individual contractors of Northwestern Michigan" and the Union and provided for execution of individual agree- ments by the individual contractors as distinguished from execution by a representative of the contractors as a group or even execution by all of the contractors on one and the same copy of the contract. An individual copy of the 1969 contract was signed by Walter McCready as secretary-treasurer of McCready and Sons, Inc. In the 1970 negotiations the Respondents together with other employers met with the Union on April 4 and 22, May 8, and June 5 to negotiate a new contract' to replace the old contract which had an expiration date of April 30, 1970. In these meetings the employers, as had been the past practice, had as their spokesman Hal Bell, an employee of the Michi- gan Chapter of the Associated General Contractors of America, Inc.4 On June 5, according to Melco's stipulation, the negotiat- ing contractors and the Union "reached full and complete agreement on all terms of a collective-bargaining agreement concerning their laborer employees" in the above appropriate units with "the only matter remaining being the ministerial act of executing the written embodyment of said agreement." According to a further stipulation between Melco and the General Counsel, "although requested by the Union, on or about August 3, 1970... Respondent Melco ... unequivoca- bly refused to execute a written contract incorporating the full and complete agreement that had been reached on or about June 5, 1970, and stated that the Company was going open shop. The Union at that time stated it would pursue its legal remedy." Thereafter, on various dates in August, Sep- tember, and November 1970 and January 1971 Respondent Melco, although requested by the Union to execute said agreement, reiterated its refusal to do so. Respondent McCready also refused the union's request to sign the agree- ment on August 3 and reiterated that refusal in September 1970 and also on February 8, 1971. Respondent Melco (as does McCready) denies the viola- tion alleged in the complaint on the grounds that the charge was filed and served more than 6 months after Respondent first announced to the Union that it was "going open shop" and had "unequivocally" refused to execute the contract finally agreed upon, and that therefore the issuance of the complaint was barred by Section 10(b) of the Act.' In claiming a violation of Section 8(a)(5) of the Act on the facts herein, the General Counsel relies on Strong Roofing and Insulating Co., 152 NLRB 9, decided by a three-member panel of the Board in 1965 and affirmed by the Ninth Circuit The appropriate unit for Respondent Melco was comprised of all laborers employed by Melco in the counties of Antrim, Benzie, Charlevoix, Cheboy- gan, Crawford, Emmett, Grand Traverse, Kalkaska, Leelanau, Missaukee, Otsego and Wexford, State of Michigan, exclusive of guards and supervisors as defined in the Act and all other employees Also stipulated by both Respondents was the fact that as of June 5, 1970, the Union was the representative of the employees in the aforesaid appropri- ate units In addition Respondent Melco admits the representative status of the Union as of August 3, 1970, and offered no evidence as to a change in the representative status since that date. Walter McCready attended all of the 1970 bargaining sessions ° Although not all of the negotiating contractors were members of the Associated General Contractors both Respondents were members. ' Section 10(b) contains a proviso which states in part "that no complaint shall issue based upon any unfair labor practice occurring more than 6 months prior to the filing of the charge with the Board and the service of a copy thereof upon the person against whom such charge is made " 30 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Court of Appeals in 1967, N.L.R.B. v. Strong Roofing and Insulating Co., 386 F.2d 924 (C.A.9). That case involved the same type of situation as here-the refusal by an employer to sign and honor an association negotiated collective bargain- ing agreement. There, as here, the first refusal to sign the agreement was made more than 6 months prior to the issu- ance of the complaint and as here, several subsequent refusals to sign were made by the employer well within the 10(b) period. In that case the Board affirmed in short form the Trial Examiner's finding of a refusal to bargain violation. The Trial Examiner's decision disposed of the Employer's 10(b) de- fense, which relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Local No. 1424, International Association of Machinists (Bryan Manufacturing Co.) v. N.L.R.B., 362 U.S. 411, with a foot- note comment that the Bryan case "is not deemed to be in point." Respondent Melco questions what it feels to be the Trial Examiner's cavalier disposition of the Employer's 10(b) de- fense in the Strong case and questions whether the Board panel which affirmed the Trial Examiner gave the matter proper consideration. On enforcement the Ninth Circuit affirmed the Board, ruling specifically that Bryan Manufac- turing Co., supra, was not controlling and that each refusal to execute the agreement within the 10(b) period "in and of itself constitutes, as a substantive matter, an unfair labor practice." Respondent Melco's excellent brief argues against this the- ory of continuing violation of Section 8(a)(5) and questions "whether the views of the 1965 panel decision should be deemed binding precedent today, particularly when the panel adopted without comment a poorly reasoned footnote of the Trial Examiner." What position the present Board may take on this matter is not for me to speculate since I am bound by prior Board precedent particularly when it has been so spe- cifically approved by the court. Accordingly I find that when Melco reiterated its refusal to sign the contract within the 10(b) period it violated Section 8(a)(5) of the Act. H. J. Heinz Company v. NL.R.B., 311 U.S. 514. This finding and conclu- sion also disposes, of course, of the same defense relied on by Respondent McCready. McCready, however, raises other defenses, (1) in substance that no final agreement had been reached as of the culmina- tion of the negotiations on June 5 and (2) that by the time the Union made a request that McCready sign the contract McCready had acquired a good faith doubt that the Union any longer represented its laborer employees. With respect to these defenses the following evidence was adduced: McCready admits that as of June 5 a "tentative table agree- ment" was reached which it claims "was not final and binding until the signature of the contractor was affixed ... because the 'table agreement' only represented the view of a majority of the contractors that took an interest in the negotiations some contractors sign, some do not." In this connection the evidence shows that not all the contractors personally participated in the negotiations and apparently relied on their spokesman Hal Bell and the other contractors who were participating in them. As shown, Walter McCready was one of those contractors and he took part in all of the 1970 negotiations. At no time did McCready voice any disagreement or oppo- sition either on June 5 or thereafter with the "tentative table agreement" or any part of it. Moreover, from the undenied and credited testimony of William C. Smith (the Union's business manager) who participated in the June 5 negotia- tions, it appears that when one of the contractors present at that final session became upset by a last minute demand of the Union and left the negotiations McCready said to him, "Frank, we are so close to closing it, don't leave now and ruin everything." Nonetheless the man left and McCready went after him. About 10 minutes later they both returned to the meeting and the Union's demand was granted. From the foregoing and considering the record as a whole it seems to me and I find that at the conclusion of the June 5 meeting between the contractors and the Union an accord had been reached on the terms of a collective-bargaining agreement and all that remained to be done was reducing it to writing and the ministerial act of executing it. Moreover, I find that McCready was fully aware of this fact. Indeed, this knowledge is implicit in McCready's testimony that but for his claimed good-faith doubt that the Union any longer repre- sented his employees after June 5 he would have signed the contract. On or about May 1, Respondents' carpenters, bricklayers, and laborers went on strike apparently because of a failure to secure new contracts. Although on or about June 9 the labor- ers union members approved the June 5 agreement and were ready to go back to work, they were stymied in this respect because the carpenters and the bricklayers unions had not yet reached agreement with the employers and were still on strike. On June 23 (right after the carpenter's union had turned down a contract proposal), five of McCready's carpenter em- ployees (all of whom were members of the carpenters union and four of whom were McCready's superintendents and supervisors within the meaning of the Act) had a meeting and drafted the following statement which the five signed and transmitted to McCready: Having witnessed the efforts for seven weeks of manage- ment and organized labor to settle the labor contract and not working when there was work to be done, we the undersigned in order to preserve our standing in our community both financially and morally, wish to return to our jobs with McCready and Sons and to end all stoppages caused by organized labor. Robert Hilliker Glen Roberts Russell K. Huff James E. Boughner Paul Jeruzel At the time the carpenters submitted this statement to McCready they told him that they had been to a carpenters union meeting the night before and were dissatisfied with what was happening and wanted to go back to work. Sometime thereafter Superintendent Hilliker called McCready from some job he was working on' and told McCready that he had some more men who wanted to sign the statement and asked McCready to bring it out to him. This McCready did and waited some 15 to 30 minutes while Hilliker secured the signatures of three additional employees, Walter C. Bastedo, Jr., Robert J. Powinski, and Marvin Boughner-all laborers. On another occasion thereafter Superintendent Hilliker again got in touch with McCready and informed him that another laborer, Walter D. Miller, who was working for Hil- liker on a job in Johannesburg wanted to sign the statement. Accordingly McCready took the paper to the job and person- ally secured Miller's signature. In addition to Miller two other McCready employees signed but the circumstances of their signing are not shown other than the fact that one of the ' There is no specific showing that the work in question was a McCready job, but the fact that it was McCready that Hilliker called about the matter demands an inference that it was a McCready job, that McCready had already gone nonunion, and that this action governed his repudiation of the agreement with the Laborers' Union McCREADY AND SONS, INC. 31 signers was McCready's son Kenneth. McCready denied ever discussing the matter with his son. Conclusions I agree with the General Counsel that the evidence here does not support McCready's claim that a good-faith doubt that the laborer's union represented his employees after June 5 absolved him from signing the agreement entered into with that union on that date. Even if the employees' statement on which McCready relies in this connection was directed to the laborer's union and unequivocally asserted that the signing members of that union were resigning from it (which was not the case), the fact that the statement originated with and the signatures were obtained by McCready's supervisors (or McCready himself) completely nullifies any possible good- faith defense here. Dayton Motels, 192 NLRB No. 112. Ac- cordingly, as with Respondent Melco, I find that by refusing to sign the agreement entered into with the Union on June 5, 1970, Respondent McCready refused and is refusing to bar- gain within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) of the Act. IV THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of Respondents, set forth in section III, above, occurring in connection with their operations de- scribed in section I, above, have a close, intimate, and sub- stantial 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 certain unfair labor practices, I shall recommend that they cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. It has been found that Respondents have refused to bargain with the Union as the duly designated representative of their employees in appropriate units. I shall therefore recommend that Respondents sign and honor the agreements negotiated between them and other Northwestern Michigan contractors and the Union covering the period 1970 to 1973 and that they pay to the appropriate sources any fringe benefits provided for therein. Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record in the case, I make the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. McCready and Sons, Inc., and Melco Construction, Inc., are employers within the meaning of Section 2(2) of the Act. 2. Laborers' Local No. 1247, Laborers' International of North America, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3. All laborers employed by McCready and Sons, Inc., in the counties of Antrim, Benzie, Charlevoix, Cheboygan, Crawford, Emmett, Grand Traverse, Kalkaska, Leelanau, Missaukee, Otsego, and Wexford, Michigan, exclusive of guards and supervisors as defined in the Act and all other employees and all laborers employed by Melco Construction, Inc., in the same counties of Michigan, exclusive of guards and supervisors as defined in the Act and all other employees constitute appropriate units for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act. 4. At all times since at least April 4, 1970, Laborers' Local Union No. 1247, Laborers' International Union of North America, AFL-CIO, has been the exclusive representative of all employees in the aforesaid appropriate units within the meaning of Section 9(a) of the Act. 5. By refusing after June 5, 1970, to bargain in good faith with the Union as the exclusive representative of their em- ployees in the aforesaid appropriate units, Respondents have engaged in and are engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act. 6. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. RECOMMENDED ORDER7 Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclu- sions of law, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, it is recommended that Respondent McCready and Sons, Inc., and Respondent Melco Construction, Inc., their agents, successors, and as- signs, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Refusing to recognize Laborers' Local Union No. 1247 Laborers' International Union of North America, AFL-CIO, as the representative of their employees in the above- described appropriate units and refusing to execute and honor the 1970 to 1973 contract between them and other Northwestern Michigan Contractors and the Union. (b) In any like or related manner interfering with, restrain- ing or coercing employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to form labor organizations, to join or assist the above-named or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, and to refrain from any or all such activities, except to the extent that such right may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of employment. 2. Take the following affirmative action designed to effectu- ate the policies of the Act: (a) Forthwith execute and honor the 1970 to 1973 agree- ment between the Union and them and other Northwestern Michigan Contractors. (b) Pay to the appropriate sources any fringe benefits pro- vided for in the above-described contract. (c) Post at their offices in Gaylord and Traverse City, Michigan, appropriate copies of the attached notices marked "Appendix A" and "Appendix B. "I Copies of said notices, to be furnished by the Regional Director for Region 7, shall, after being duly signed by Respondents, be posted immedi- ately upon receipt thereof, and maintained by them for a period of 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Re- spondents to ensure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (d) Notify the Regional Director for Region 7, in writing, within 20 days from the date of the receipt of this Decision and Recommended Order, what steps they have taken to comply herewith.' ' 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, 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 8 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 National 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 after exceptions have been filed, this provision shall be modified to read: "Notify the Regional Director for Region 7, in writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith." 32 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD APPENDIX A NOTICE To EMPLOYEES POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government WE WILL NOT refuse to recognize Laborers' Local Union No. 1247, Laborers' International Union of North America, AFL-CIO, as the representative of our laborer employees. WE WILL honor and sign the contract negotiated be- tween us and other Northwestern Michigan Contractors and the Union for the period between 1970 and 1973. WE WILL make whole the appropriate sources for any unpaid fringe benefits provided in the above contract. WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to form labor organizations, to join or assist the above -named or any other labor organi- zation, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection , and to refrain from any or all such activi- ties, except to the extent that such right may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organ- ization as a condition of employment. MELCO CONSTRUCTION, INC. (Employer) Dated By (Representative) (Title) This is an official notice and must not be defaced by any- one. 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. Any questions concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions may be directed to the Board's Office, 500 Book Building, 1249 Washington Boulevard, Detroit, Michigan 48226, Telephone 216-522- 3715. APPENDIX B NOTICE To EMPLOYEES POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government WE WILL NOT refuse to recognize Laborers' Local Union No. 1247, Laborers' International Union of North America, AFL-CIO, as the representative of our laborer employees. WE WILL honor and sign the contract negotiated be- tween us and other Northwestern Michigan Contractors and the Union for the period between 1970 and 1973. WE WILL make whole the appropriate sources of any unpaid fringe benefits provided in the above contract. WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of the n*ht to self-organization, to form labor organizations, to join or assist the above-named or any other labor organi- zation, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, and to refrain from any or all such activi- ties, except to the extent that such right may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organ- ization as a condition of employment. MCCREADY AND SONS, INC. (Employer) Dated By (Representative) (Title) This is an official notice and must not be defaced by any- one. 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. Any questions concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions may be directed to the Board's Office, 500 Book Building, 1249 Washington Boulevard, Detroit, Michigan 48226, Telephone 216-522- 3715.