Local 767, Laborers

586 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Local Union No. 767, Laborers International Union of North America, AFL-CIO and Florida Planned Communities, Inc. Case 12-CC-837 March 12, 1974 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS KENNEDY AND PENELLO On September 28, 1973, Administrative Law Judge Benjamin A. Theeman issued the attached Decision in this proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent filed exceptions 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 authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. The Board has considered the record and the attached Decision in light of the exceptions and brief and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings, and conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge and to adopt his recommended Order. ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board adopts as its Order the recommend- ed Order of the Administrative Law Judge and hereby orders that Respondent, Local Union No. 767, Laborers International Union of North Ameri- ca, AFL-CIO, West Palm Beach, Florida, its officers, agents, and representatives, shall take the action set forth in the said recommended Order. DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE BENJAMIN A. THEEMAN, Administrative Law Judge: The complaint i in this case which issued June 26, 1973,2 alleges i This term includes the complaint as amended at the hearing 2 The original charge was filed by Florida Planned Communities, Inc, on June 12, 1973 3 Unless otherwise indicated all dates hereafter are 1973 4 Sec 8(b)(4) of the Act makes it an unfair labor practice for a union (i) to engage in, or to induce any individual employed by any person . to engage in a strike or a refusal in the course of his employment to use process or otherwise handle or work on any goods . or to perform any services, or (u) to threaten, coerce, or restrain any person engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce, where in either case an object thereof is: (B) forcing or requiring any person to cease doing business with any other person, or forcing or requiring any other employer to recognize or bargain with a labor organization as the representative of his employees Provided, that nothing contained in this clause (B) shall be construed to make unlawful, where not otherwise unlawful, any primary strike or primary picketing that Local Union No. 767, Laborers International Union of North America, AFL-CIO (Respondent or Union), during the period May 1, 1973, through June 13, 1973,3 picketed Florida Planned Communities, Inc. (FPC), with signs bearing FPC's name though FPC employed no laborer employees, thereby threatening, restraining, and coercing FPC and inducing and encouraging individuals employed by FPC and other persons to engage in a strike or refusal to perform services, with an object of forcing or requiring FPC and other persons to cease doing business with E. & G. Construction Co., Inc. (E. & G.), in violation of Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, 29 U.S.C., Sec. 151, et seq. (the Act).4 The Union in its answer denies the unfair labor practices and admits "that it has had a primary labor dispute with FPC and/or E. & G." A hearing was held before me on July 16, 17, and 18, in Coral Gables, Florida, after due notice. All parties appeared and were represented by counsel. They were given full opportunity to participate, adduce evidence, and examine and cross-examine witnesses. The General Coun- sel argued orally and briefly at the close of the hearings .5 A brief was submitted by the Union which has been considered. Upon the record in the case, and from my observation of the witnesses,6 I make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT FPC, a Florida corporation, is engaged in the building business in West Palm Beach, Palm Beach County, Florida. It owns 470 acres of land on which it is constructing a 5,000-unit condominium known as Golden Lakes Village. Upon completion in about 6 years the project will be valued in excess of $100 million. During the 12 months prior to July 1973, a representative period, FPC purchased or received at the project goods and materials from outside Florida valued in excess of $50,000. E. & G., a Florida corporation, is under contract with FPC in the amount of $530,000 to provide labor and carpentry work for the project in accordance with certain 5 The General Counsel, though he understood that the Respondent was raising some novel issues, did not submit a brief though a brief was requested 6 The testimony of all witnesses has been considered. In evaluating the testimony of each witness and making credibility determinations thereon, pertinent testimony was considered as well as demeanor. On this basis it is concluded and found that Giardiello in certain aspects as specified hereafter was not a credible witness These conclusions are confirmed by a study and analysis of the testimony As to material matters, his testimony was vague, inconsistent, and contradictory Examples will be shown hereafter. In addition, Giardiello testified that he consulted Gopman , his counsel, about the picketing before May I. 1973. Gopman testified he had not heard from Giardiello on this matter until late in May after the picketing had started. The absence of a statement of resolution of a conflict in specific testimony, or an analysis of such testimony, does not mean that such did occur See Bishop and Marco Inc, d/b/a Walker's, 159 NLRB 1159, 1161. Further, to the extent that a witness is credited only in part, it is done upon the evidentiary rule that it is not uncommon "to believe some and not all of a witness' testimony " N.LR.B v. Universal Camera Corporation, 179 F.2d 749, 754 (C.A 2, 1950), reversed and remanded on other grounds 340 U S 474 (1951). 209 NLRB No. 96 LOCAL 767, LABORERS 587 plans and specifications more fully set forth in the contract. On the above facts and the record as a whole it is found that FPC and E. & G. are employers engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of Sections 2(2), (6), and (7) and 8(b)(4) of the Act. 11. THE UNION It is found as admitted that the Union, at all material times herein, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. The Issues The issues are sufficiently set forth in the Statement of the Case above. B. Background FPC, in addition to being the owner of Golden Lakes Village, is also the builder and general contractor. This project is FPC's first and only venture. As a general contractor, FPC was licensed under Florida law. Palm Beach County issued a building permit to FPC before construction started. This permit was tacked up on the jobsite as required. Allen J. Gluckstern is the president of FPC and Jack Taylor is secretary-treasurer. They are the only officers and stockholders. FPC, as general contractor, did no construction work at the jobsite. It employed clerical, managerial, and mainte- nance people and some casual labor but employed no construction employees.' FPC subcontracted out the work involved to all the trades. In addition to E. & G., other subcontractors were Rubin Construction Company, Hig- gins Electric Company, Harbeke Plumbing Company, and Belvedere Construction Company. These subcontractors were all nonunion. During the period commencing May I, these subcontractors maintained an employee force on the jobsite of between 100 and 115 employees .8 The tract upon which the condominium is being built is bounded on the north by Okeechobee Boulevard, on the east by Skees Road, on the south by Belvedere Boulevard, and on the west by vacant land. Golden Lakes Boulevard runs south through the project from Okeechobee Boule- vard to Belvedere Boulevard. A fence surrounds a good portion of the land. Gates on the different streets give egress from and ingress to the project or jobsite. These gates will be referred to hereafter by their street names. In September 1972 on the jobsite but near Okeechobee Boulevard gate, FPC started construction of its general offices and six model condominium units. The offices and models were completed about March 1. The models were furnished and made available for sales purposes. The offices housed FPC's staff and business records, etc. Its address was 1901 Golden Lakes Boulevard. In April, FPC started construction of its first development consisting of 250 condominium units. This development was about a one-fourth of a mile south of the offices and models. Near the construction, FPC maintained a trailer that was unmarked and was used in connection with the construc- tion. In it were permits, plans, specifications, and other miscellaneous items. C. The Subcontractors on the Model Units Construction of the model units and general offices was completed about March 1, 1973. FPC contracted out all the work to subcontractors. FPC did no work itself and employed no construction employees. The laborer and carpenter's work was subcontracted to a company known as South Coast Builders. Part of the duties of South Coast laborers was to clean up after the construction crews. To that extent they performed the same work as some casual laborers employed by FPC s Window cleaning, certain daily maintenance, and clean up on the models was orally subcontracted to one Fanny Foster. Foster was paid on an apartment basis. The window cleaners and other laborers employed by Foster had no mark on their clothes identifying them as Foster employees while on the jobsite. After May 1, 1973, Foster continued to supply one female laborer to the models to cleanup and for daily maintenance. Landscape and gardening performed at the models and offices were also orally subcontracted. The work was done by the employees of the different subcontractors. As with Foster, the employees wore no identifying markings. Trash hauling from the models was performed by a "B. & D." company. The trucks used by B. & D. bore the company's name.io D. Employees of FPC During the Construction of the Models and the Offices During this period, FPC employed administrative per- sonnel, construction supervisors, general superintendents, assistant superintendents, sales managers, and salesmen. In addition, as the models and offices were being finished, FPC hired casual labor to clean the models and the model area, to erect a billboard, to move furniture, and generally to assist the decorators in whatever work was needed to open the models to the public. There was a total of four such casual employees but not more than two were employed at one time. The FPC payroll records of these employees "identified them as laborers." Some were employed for as long as I week. They received a rate of pay of $3 per hour. All of them were discharged before the end of March. As with the employees of the subcontractors working at the models the FPC employees wore no mark identifying them as FPC employees. r For a listing of FPC employees see the next section. 8 The essential facts are not in dispute, the parties differing as to their legal effect The testimony as to some conversations are in conflict They are specifically considered and resolved hereafter 9 See sec D. 10 The record contains some vague indication that E & G also hauled some trash away from the models, but when or under what circumstances is not given 588 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD E. Employees of FPC After May 1, 1973 On and after May 1, 1973, the employees of FPC were in essence the same" as those employed while the models were being built. The record contains the statement that FPC employed no laborers on and after May 1, 1973. After May 1, 1973, certain additional employees were added by FPC. On May 2, 1973, Warren Stockweather was hired by FPC as a maintenance man. He was employed until June 29, 1973. His duties were to clean up outside the offices and the model units. Daily, he added chemicals as required to the pump that pumped water into the bathroom of the offices. Also, he did some repair work on the offices and models, such as painting, cleaning, changing bulbs, etc.i2 Stockweather performed no labor in connection with the 250 units. His labor was confined to the area of the models and the general offices. On May 5, 1973, FPC employed Raymond E. Bair as a night watchman. He was so classified and his duties were to walk or drive around the jobsite at night. On May 11, 1973, one Luard A. Dennison was hired. Gluckstern testified that he held the position of assistant superintendent 13 to assist and report to the general or construction superintendent. He did this by observation on the job and coordination of the supervisors of the subcontractors. One of Dennison's main duties was to transmit information from the construction supervisor of FPC to the supervisor of the subcontractor on the job and vice versa. This area included directives from the construc- tion superintendent to the sub that certain items were to be accomplished. Dennison made progress reports. Dennison was directed by FPC to speak to the supervisors of the subs only and not to speak to the employees of the subs. The record does not show that he did other than as directed. On May 18, 1973, one Donald Shor was hired by FPC as a material man in the construction department.14 His duties were to order and receive materials for the jobsite on behalf of FPC. Shor made certain that deliveries of materials to the jobsite for FPC were properly received, receipted for, stored, and distributed as necessary. He had authority to reject material or to accept it if improperly delivered. Shor did not participate in the physical unload- ing of deliveries. When a delivery arrived, Shor contacted the superintendent of the labor subcontractor who in turn supplied the labor necessary to unload the shipments. Shor reported directly to the FPC project manager. His salary was $130 a week. The record does not show that he performed any other duties or performed any other labors. On June 8, 1973, A. L. Grider was employed by FPC to be a watchman or guard at the Belvedere Boulevard gate. He was paid at the rate of $2 per hour. Grider's payroll record showed the word "laborer" crossed out and the word "guard" written in. This change occurred on July 17, 1973, when this hearing was in session. On two occasions, June 15 and June 22, 1973, Allan Orkman was hired by FPC as a maintenance man. Except 11 This takes into consideration replacements in the different positions. 12 The payroll records for Stockweather showed his rate of pay at $2 50 per hour crossed out and a rate of $125 a week inserted instead. 13 FPC payroll records show that Dennison is listed as a construction foreman and earns $300 a week This fact was pointed out to Gluckstern for repair work, Orkman generally did the same kind of work that Stockweather had done. But Orkman was paid $3 per hour. On Orkman's payroll records as with Grider above the word "laborer" was crossed out and the word "maintenance" written over it. This change in Orkman's record was also made on July 17. Like Stockweather, Orkman worked only at the models and general offices.15 F. E. & G. as a Subcontractor The subcontract between FPC and E. & G. was entered into on April 9. It provided that FPC was the contractor and E. & G. was the subcontractor. The subcontractor agreed "to do all the work and furnish all the materials required by the terms of the plans, specifications and drawings, of and from the Carpentry and Labor subcon- tractor; The contract contained an additional provision in an attachment designated as "Exhibit A" providing: All work performed by Sub-contractor and not a part of this contract is to be done under the following Wage Scale: Laborer: $6.00 per hour including all applicable taxes, overhead and profit. Carpenter: $8.00 per hour including all applicable taxes, overhead and profit. E. & G. supplied the laborers and carpentry work only to FPC as provided in the contract. Under the terms of "Exhibit A" FPC could and did request that E. & G. supply laborers and carpentry work to other subcontrac- tors, or directly to FPC for work not required under the "Carpentry and Labor" provision. Such demands were made by superintendents of FPC to superintendents of E. & G. E. & G. would supply the labor and charge FPC at the rate specified in "Exhibit A." Examples of the type of work not included in E. & G.'s subcontract were "back filling the trenches," "clean up of debris that does not come from [E. & G.'s] work," and the cleaning up of blocks left by the masonry contractor. The record shows that when E. & G. complied with FPC's requests the employees doing the work remained E. & G. employees. E. & G. has a trailer on the jobsite about one-fourth of a mile from the Okeechobee gate. Neither it, the trucks that were used to bring material to the jobsite for E. & G., nor E. & G.'s employees carried any marks identifying their connection with E. & G. Plywood forms used by E. & G. for construction work had E. & G. on them. It was doubtful that the general public was aware of or could see these markings. E. & G. continuously employed between 30 to 40 employees on the jobsite after May 1, 1973. Under Palm Beach County law certain contractors, such as electrical, plumbing, and air conditioning, are required to register with the county and "pull" (obtain) a permit who asserted his title was assistant superintendent. 14 The Company's payroll record did not indicate his title. 15 The record contains no evidence that any FPC maintenance man was ever used on thejobsite in connection with the 250 units LOCAL 767, LABORERS 589 before they can operate in the county. Such a requirement does not apply to the type of work performed by E. & G. Under county law contractors performing the E. & G. type of work are required to have occupational licenses. To obtain this license the contractor is required to take an examination. E. & G. had taken such an examination in February in Tallahasee and had passed it. There was a delay in transferring this information to Palm Beach County. However, the Palm Beach County officials had knowledge that E. & G. had passed the examination and E. & G. was permittec to continue to function as a subcontractor on the jobsite. G. Laborer's Local 767 The jurisdiction of the Union as to the type of employees covered is: 16 A. Just about almost every phase of construction as far as clean-up, pouring of concrete, assisting masons, assisting carpenters, we do have men in that classification that covers cleaning of models, cleaning of windows, bath tubs, apartments in general and general laborers' work. In addition, the Union's jurisdiction extends over employ- ees who are engaged in cleanup work, such as cleanup, removal of outside trash, moving of furniture, and the loading and unloading of trucks. The wage rate for laborers under the local contract was $6.20 an hour at the time of the hearing and $5.80 per hour in March. H. Contracts Between FPC and the Union 1. During the time the models and offices were in construction Jon Giardiello since 1965 was business agent for the Union. In early March 1973, he visited the model units at the jobsite. There he saw two employees sweating. Both had shovels in their hands.17 One was a member of Local 767 named Ron Pinta. Giardiello spoke to him. Pinta told Giardiello that he had been unable to find a job; men were out of work at the hiring hall; he had come out to FPC and got the job he was doing; and his pay was $3 an hour. Pinta did not state how long his job was to continue. At this time Giardiello spoke to no other employee at the jobsite nor to any person connected with FPC. Admittedly, he did not visit the work on the models to demand recognition for the Union from FPC. About the end of March, Giardiello visited the model 16 According to the testimony of John Giardiello. 17 The record is not clear as to exactly what work they were doing. Giardiello first testified they were "grading earth" but retracted this statement a little later, when questioned by his counsel Q. These laborers that you said had a shovel .. was this grading work they were doing? A. I couldn t honestly say They were cleaning debris and grading getting ready for sod, 1 guess. rs At the end of this conversation, Giardiello asked for and received permission to speak to Jim McGlamery who was then FPCs general unit again. There he recognized one of the working men he had seen on the earlier visit. The man was just "piddling around . . . just cleaning up, I guess ." Giardiello left without speaking to the employee or anyone else. On April 17, Giardiello again visited the jobsite. There he met and spoke with Ralph Howell, project manager for FPC. There is a conflict in testimony about the conversa- tion that followed. According to Giardiello he went to find out how the construction was going and who the contractor was that would be doing the construction work. When he met Howell the latter told him, ". . . that the work was subbed out to E. & G. Construction Company and I replied, `I guess I laid an egg.' ..." Then Giardiello pointed out that "Actually before ... -Mr. Howell said the work was subbed out he said that Big John was by the project .. . approximately two weeks prior looking for work and I just replied, `Well,' because I have a lot of Johns, I don't really know which one he meant ...: . According to Howell, he told Giardiello that FPC had a laborer contractor to handle FPC construction on the site; it was E. & G. out of Miami; that they were nonunion, and that Giardiello was welcome to go down to the site and see them. He also told Giardiello that a fellow named Big John had been in to see him about 2 weeks before requesting work as a laborer and mentioned that Giardiello had sent him. Howell further told Giardiello that "if he had anybody else to send down to send them to see E. & G. Construction because we [FPC] were not hiring direct labor." On cross-examination Howell added that Giardiel- lo responded that "he guessed he [Giardiello] had laid an egg out here." 18 Conclusions as to the Conversation of Howell and Giardiello In a memorandum filed with FPC immediately after the conversation with Giardiello, Howell set down the conver- sation that had occurred . In this memorandum he omitted any reference to the Big John incident and also any reference to the statement that "we are not hiring any direct labor." 19 These omissions will be dealt with in that order. The omission to mention Big John in the memorandum was not accounted for by Howell. However, there appears to be no question that "Big John" was mentioned. Giardiello admitted this when examined by his counsel and again on cross-examination. Howell admitted on cross-examination that he did not tell Giardiello that FPC "was not hiring direct labor." He explained, "It is essentially what I said. I didn't say it was superintendent Giardiello had known McGlamery for a good number of years. According to Giardiello, McGlamery said something about E. & G and said they were from Miami but he did not know too much about them. 19 The memorandum read as follows: Howell advised Johnny G. that the labor contractor on the Job was E. & G. construction and they were nonunion . Florida Planned Commu- mties have not been able to get a conscientious response to any union labor contractor. Gresch Bramuci did unrealistically bid our job for two or two and a half times our estimated cost . In lieu of the negative action of union labor contractors we entered into an agreement with E & G. who are presently working on our Job. 590 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD verbatum, the memorandum. I used the word essentially, and that's what it was, essentially what I said ... . Under the circumstances, it is considered that Howell did not use the words "we are not hiring direct labor" in the conversation with Giardiello. It is so found. This failure, however, does not in any way change the impact nor intent of what Howell said.20 Examination of the conversation as testified to by Howell with the words "direct labor" eliminated leave reasonably clear the statement that E. & G. was the labor subcontractor for FPC and that, if the Union had any laborers to send out to the jobsite for employment, they were to contact E. & G. for that purpose. From the above and from the record as a whole and as shown in the following paragraph, it was clearly evident to Giardiello on April 17 that E. & G. was the laborer subcontractor for FPC and that FPC was not hiring laborers directly. On cross-examination Howell accounted for the differ- ence in his testimony and the memorandum by stating that the reference to E. & G. was made at the same time he spoke of Big John. "I enumerated to him [Giardiello] that if he were to send anybody else out that they were to see E. & G." No greater significance is placed on the fact that this statement was not included in the memorandum than is placed on the fact that the reference to Big John was not included. Both items are tied into each other. On that ground, it is reasonable to conclude that, if Big John was mentioned in the conversation, E. & G. hiring was also mentioned. The omission to refer to the one in the memorandum has no greater sigmficance than the omis- sion to refer to the other. Finally, it is clear from the record that Giardiello was aware that Howell was referring to laborers and labor subcontractors when E. & G. was mentioned. Giardiello explained what he meant by "laying an egg" that "there was a contractor there I had never heard of working the area."21 He explained further he had never heard of E. & G. but he was familiar with contractors such as Arnold Construction and Gresch & Bramuci . He admitted they were contractors for laborers and carpenters. There is no question that Giardiello as business agent for the Union knew what the functions and operations of the different subcontractors were. It is noted in this connection that Gresch and Bramuci was the labor contractor mentioned by Howell in his memorandum.22 Clearly Giardiello told Howell that in coming out to see FPC about laborers in his capacity as the union representative he had made an error. Under the above circumstances and on the record as a whole, it is found that, on April 17, Giardiello knew that E. & G. was the laborer subcontractor for FPC and further knew that laborers on the project were employees of E. & G. not FPC and would be so in the future.23 It is so found. 20 Both Giardiello and Howell agree that E & G. was mentioned Howell's testimony goes further. 21 This does not appear to be a reasonable explanation of the term, either in the context of the conversation, or its meaning in the vernacular It is my understanding that the expression means that Giardiello "pulled a boner" or "made an error " 22 See In 19 2. The May I conversation between Giardiello and Gluckstern Giardiello had no other conversation with anyone from FPC until May 1, when he met Gluckstern, the day picketing at FPC started. According to Gluckstern, he arrived at the jobsite at Okeechobee Boulevard between 8:30 and 9 a.m. Picketing by the Union had already started. He saw Giardiello and the pickets and invited Giardiello to have a cup of coffee with him. They discussed the situation. According to the credited testimony of Gluckstern, he advised Giardiello he was sorry to see the Union take that kind of an approach rather than assisting in finding a competent and reputable union contractor to do the work that FPC was unable to do. Giardiello responded he was unaware that FPC could not obtain a reputable union contract and that he would look into the matter and contact Gluckstern in about 3 days. Giardiello in effect agreed with the foregoing. Giardiello denied that Gluckstern had said anything regarding the fact that FPC was not employing any laborers or any employees on the jobsite. Gluckstern did not testify that he had ever made such a statement.24 However, Gtardiello without specifying the type of work involved testified that Gluckstern had mentioned that FPC had had no other bid than Gresch & Bramuci "to do certain phases of the work ... . As already shown, Giardiello knew the type of work that Gresch & Bramuci did. Giardiello continued that E. & G. was discussed by name; that Gluckstern had stated that E. & G.'s price was reasonable; and that E. & G. had the manpower to do the job. Conclusions as to the May I conversation It is reasonable to conclude that Gluckstern told Giardiello about "the work that FPC was unable to do." Further, from the record as a whole, there is no question that Giardiello understood that Gluckstern was referring to the work that E. & G. was performing under the subcontract. Though not stated by Gluckstern, Giardiello admitted that the conversation dealt with E. & G. Very carefully and guardedly Giardiello cloaked his knowledge of the work in question by stating that Gluckstern referred to "certain phases of the work." The record shows clearly that before May 125 Gtardiello knew that E. & G. was the laborer subcontractor. It has been found that Howell had informed Giardiello to that effect on April 17. Nothing in the record has been brought out to change that finding or to show that circumstances at the jobsite had changed since. At an unspecified time after April 17, Giardiello checked with the county and was told that E. & G. was not licensed. He asserted he checked no further either at the county or at the jobsite. The lack of license caused him to figure "it was a shell and may be these people working there were 23 This is further supported by Giardiello's statement that he knew that E & G "would be-using laborers and carpenters " 24 This is another instance where Giardtello "protests too much " In effect, his denial of an unmade statement is evidence that he knew that FPC had no such employees 25 The day the picketing started. LOCAL 767, LABORERS working directly for Florida Planned Communities." This quoted statement is an admission by Giardiello that before May I he was aware that the laborers working at the jobsite were E. & G. employees. The record contains no clarification of the quoted statement. But it is considered most revealing of the knowledge that Giardiello had at the time concerning the employment situation. The most reasonable conclusion that can be drawn from the "shell" statement is that E. & G. was the publicized or known employer of the laborers but only so for the purpose of coverup of the real fact that FPC was the actual employer. This clearly shows that Giardiello was on notice that E. & G. was the subcontractor and employer of the laborers. It clarifies the use of his "laid an egg" term on April 17 and supports Howell's testimony that on that day he notified Giardiello of the E. & G. facts. It is so found. 1. The Picketing at Golden Lakes Village On May 1, about 7:45 a.m., pickets appeared at the jobsite bearing picket signs. Picketing took place at the gates located at Okeechobee Boulevard, Belvedere Boule- vard, and Skees Road.26 The pickets' signs at the Belvedere Road and Skees Road gates read as follows: Notice to Public, Florida Planned Communities and E. & G. Construction Company lowers the standards of conditions of Laborer's Local Union No. 767. For any information call Cy Gropman, Area Code 305 + 947-4521.27 For the period between May 1 and 15 some of the Union's picket signs bore the name of FPC or E. & G. singly in addition to the combination cited above. After May 15, only the cited sign was used. J. Materials Are Not Delivered Because of the Picketing On May 4, 1973, Rinker Materials28 Corporation attempted to make a delivery of concrete block and steel at the Belvedere Boulevard entrance. The delivery was stopped by the pickets and not made. On the evening of May 4, FPC posted a sign on the entrances to the jobsite on Skees Road stating that the entrance was for the use of Rinker Materials. On May 5, Rinker made some deliveries through Skees Road entrances. After each delivery pickets appeared carrying the same sign that was used on Belvedere Boulevard. At that time, Rinker advised FPC that they were unable to continue makmg deliveries to the jobsite and thereafter discontinued making any deliveries. FPC arranged to purchase materials from another contrac- tor but did their own trucking to accomplish delivery. 26 The picket signs at the Okeechobee gate read as follows. Notice to Public. Florida Planned Communities, E & G Construction Company, lower standards of carpenters We have no dispute with any other contractor on this job This picket is not intended to cause any other employees to stop work or stop deliveries Palm Beach Carpenters District Council Flyers were also distributed at the Okeechobee gate Neither the picketing nor the flyers at the Okeechobee gate are alleged by the General Counsel as violations 27 Cy Gropman was chief counsel for the Union The posted number was 591 K. Gates and Signs Established by FPC After May 1 After the picketing started, FPC established specific gates to be used by its employees and the employees of its subcontractors. All the employees were instructed to and did use separate gates. On May 3, at the Okeechobee Boulevard entrance, FPC put a sign stating that the gate (No. 1) was for the "exclusive use of the employees of the following companies only: E. & G. Construction Company, Harbeke Plumbing Company, Higgins Electric Company. All other employees are to use Gate No. 2." As stated above, on May 4 FPC posted signs on the Skees Road entrances that they were to be used by Rinker Materials Corporation. Later in May, the second gate was established for the exclusive use of the employees of FPC and E. & G. In the early part of June the gate signs were changed. At Okeechobee Boulevard one gate sign read: "E. & G. Construction, Florida Planned Communities, all other employees" to use another designated gate. Another sign for another gate nearby read: "For exclusive use of employees of Florida Planned Communities, Inc." The gate at Belvedere Road stated, "For use by employees of all contractors except Florida Planned Communities, E. & G. Construction Company." Employees of the named contractors were to use another designated gate only. L. On June 13, the Union Ceases Picketing FPC On June 13 , 1973, the attorneys for the Union sent a telegram to the Board at its Coral Gables office reading as follows: REGARDING FLORIDA PLANNED COMMUNITIES INCORPORATED CASE NUMBER 12-cc-337 ON JUNE 12, 1972 LABORERS LOCAL 767, THROUGH ITS UNDERSIGNED COUNSEL, WAS FIRST NOTIFIED BY YOU THAT FLORIDA PLANNED COMMUNITIES INC. DOES NOT EMPLOY ANY EMPLOYEES AT THE JOB SITE INVOLVED IN THE ABOVE CHARGE AND THE E AND G IS THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR AND DOES EMPLOYEE [SIC] EMPLOYEES WHO ARE THE SUBJECT OF OUR CURRENT DISPUTE. BASED ON THIS OFFICIAL NOTICE, WE ARE, THIS DATE, CHANGING OUR PICKETING SIGNS TO READ E AND G ONLY. On June 13, 1973, the picket signs were altered. Florida Planned Communities, Inc., was deleted from the signs on Belvedere Boulevard and Skees Road.29 The signs then read: Notice to Public: E. & G. Construction lowers the his telephone number. Reference is later made to his testimony in this proceeding 28 The Rinker incident was not alleged as a violation in the complaint and was not admitted to show a violation. The incident was received to show motivation and intent with regard to the alleged illegal conduct and to assist in framing the remedy if the violation alleged in the complaint were found. The General Counsel contended that the Rinker incidents flowed from the alleged illegal conduct 29 The picket sign on Okeechobee Boulevard was also altered to eliminate E. & G leaving only FPC. But as stated in In. 26, no violation is alleged as to that picket action 592 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD standards of conditions of Laborers Local Union No. 767. For any information call Cy Gropman, Area Code 305 + 947-2521. The picketing with the altered signs continued and was occurring at the time of the hearing. Analysis and Conclusions 1. Contentions of the parties The General Counsel's only contention in this proceed- ing is that the Union from May I on engaged in common situs picketing in violation of the fourth criterion30 established by the Board in Moore Dry Dock31 and summarized by the Supreme Court in Local 761, Interna- tional Union of Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers, AFL-CIO [General Electric] v. N.L.R.B., 366 U.S. at 677 (1961), as follows: (1) That the picketing be limited to times when the situs of the dispute was located on the secondary premises; (2) that the primary employer be engaged in his normal business at the situs; (3) that the picketing take place reasonably close to the situs; and (4) that the picketing clearly disclose that the dispute was only with the primary employer. The Union contends as its argument in chief that FPC was a primary employer not a secondary employer; that picketing in connection with a dispute between the Union and FPC was primary picketing and was not in violation of Section 8(b)(4)(i) or (ii)(B) of the Act. This contention is based mainly on the fact that the Union had no knowledge until June 13 that FPC employed no laborers. 2. Discussion The record shows that the Union was aware prior to May I that E. & G. was a nonunion employer and was paying its employees wages less than was called for under going union contracts. The Union admits that it was engaged in a primary dispute with E. & G. In furtherance of this dispute and apparently to protect the Union's wage scale and other conditions of employment, the Union picketed Golden Lakes Village where E. & G. was carrying out the terms of the subcontract. There is no question that as to E. & G. the picketing was in furtherance of the Union's recognized objective 32 It is undisputed that the Union was engaged in common situs picketing. As stated above, the only question raised is whether criterion four of the Moore Dry Dock criteria was violated. On the facts as presented, the inclusion of FPC's name on the picket signs at the Belvedere Boulevard and Skees Road gates clearly discloses that the dispute was not only with E. & G. the primary employer but also with FPC, another employer. Absent a showing that FPC is a party to 30 The original record did not contain the word "fourth" before the word "criteria." After receipt of the transcript the General Counsel moved to amend the record among other things to have the word "fourth" inserted. No objection was received. The motion is granted The Union also moved to amend the record That motion without objection is also granted. Both motions are ordered filed as part of the record herein. the dispute between E. & G. and the Union, FPC is a neutral employer. Thus, the picketing which was directed against FPC and E. & G. violated the fourth criterion of Moore Dry Dock in that it did not "clearly disclose that the dispute was only with [E. & G.] the primary employer." 3. The Union's contentions The Union, as stated above, defends its actions by asserting that it had a primary dispute with FPC. The record herein does not support the Union's contention. The record is clear that at no time while any work was going on at the jobsite did FPC employ any laborers except casual employees and a maintenance person. These latter when employed worked only at the model units and offices. FPC employed no laborers in connection with the construction of the 250 units of the first development. Admittedly, Giardiello was aware of the type of labor that was being used in connection with the construction of the model units. He visited the models twice in March, spoke to the casual employees, one of whom was a union member, and found out that they were being paid $3 per hour which was almost 50 percent of the union scale. The Union did nothing as a result of these visits and did not communicate with FPC in any way. During this time construction laborers were also working on the model site in connection with the building of the models and the offices. They were employees of the subcontractor South Coast Builders. The Union's inaction with regard to FPC during the time the models were being constructed was a clear indication that it was aware that the casuals were FPC employees and the laborers were South Coast employees. More importantly, the record clearly shows that, at least by April 17, the Union had knowledge that FPC was hiring no construction laborers either during the construction of the models or later when the 250 unit development started. In view of these facts, the defenses raised by the Union, in essence based on the absence of knowledge, cannot be taken seriously. On April 17, Giardiello and Howell held the conversa- tion which ended with Giardiello's statement that he had "laid an egg." As found, it was in this conversation that Howell notified Giardiello that the laborer and carpentry subcontract had been given to E. & G ., a nonunion subcontractor and that applications for employment by union members or others should be made to E. & G. To a man of Giardiello's experience this was clear notice that FPC was not hiring and in the future would not hire this type of labor. That Giardiello was in fact aware that E. & G. was doing the hiring was clearly shown by his "shell" statement after he had checked with the county licensing department and found that E. & G. was not registered. As the Union asserts in its brief, the Union did not have to take such "notification" at face value.33 But the record shows that other than checking with the county as stated 31 Sailors ' Union of the Pacific (Moore Dry Dock Company); 92 NLRB 547, 549(1950). 32 The contention that this was purely informational picketing is rejected. Cf. Local 3, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO (Mansfield Contracting Corporation) 205 NLRB No. 89. 33 See Plumbers' Local Union No. 519 United Association of Journeymen LOCAL 767, LABORERS 593 above, the Union, after April 17, made no reasonable attempt to verify Howell's statement, or to determine whether FPC did or did not employ construction laborers directly. The record shows no evidence that Giardiello or any union official at any time thereafter visited the.jobsite, questioned any employees as to their employer,34 ques- tioned any official of FPC to verify or inquire into the accuracy or validity of the April 17 statement, or questioned whether any change in the contract situation had or was going to occur. When he was put on notice by the licensing department that E. & G. had not been issued a license or permit, Giardiello did not come back to question Howell or any official of FPC on the subject. Had he done so his doubts would have been resolved. Such return would have been a reasonable and prudent action. His failure to do so supports the conclusion that he was aware of and accepted the accuracy of Howell's statement. It is concluded from the foregoing and the record as a whole that Giardiello t.nd the Union were at no time and in no way misled by the fact that FPC employed some casual labor and a female to do maintenance work at the models and the offices. It is further concluded that no action by FPC has been shown that misled the Union. Finally, it is concluded that the Union was given notice and had knowledge of the subcontracting situation. Any failure to verify or check that information is attributable only to the Union. Its subsequent actions based on such failure are the Union's responsibilities. The same line of reasoning applies to the assertion of the Union that they were unable to tell who the employees were that were working at the models and the jobsite. These employees were doing the kind of work that was within the Union's jurisdiction. They wore no identifying marks and insofar as the Umon was concerned they were employees of FPC. This is too naive a position for an old line experienced business agent to advance. In any event, as stated above, there was nothing that prevented the Union from finding out by inquiring or otherwise whose employees they were. As the hearing proceeded, the Union gave the definite impression that it was building up its case from the information first heard and gleaned from the records produced at the hearing which it had seen for the first time.35 It is concluded from the foregoing and the record as a whole that (1) Giardiello knew at all times that FPC employed at the models and offices some casual labor to clean up and do maintenance work including one female and (2) from the time work started on the first develop- ment of 250 units, Giardiello knew of no construction and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the United States and Canada, AFL-CIO (H L Robertson & Associates, Inc), 171 NLRB 251, 258. 34 In the manner that Giardiello did the casual employees in March 35 For example, the changes in the Company's employment records to delete "laborer." The reliance upon casual employees shown to have been employed after May 1, or the reference to the title "construction foreman." of Dennison employed on May II called "assistant supenntendent" by Gluckstern. 36 The record shows that on May II Dennison was hired (see sec. E, above), and on May 18 Shot was hired as a material man Giardiello first became aware of these employees at the hearing 31 The contention is also rejected as improbable that the dispute with FPC was over the employment of the clerical and other employees of FPC. Without questioning the legality of the position taken, there is nothing in the laborer or other laborer that was employed by FPC to work on that development 36 Thus, at the time the picketing started, the only FPC employees admittedly within the Union's jurisdiction were those employed at the models 37 The record clearly shows that no action was taken by the Union relative to those employees; nor is there any evidence that the Union had intended to take any action with regard to them. It is neither reasonable nor creditable on the basis of the foregoing and the record as a whole to find that the action of naming FPC on the picket signs on May 1, constituted the commencement either of primary picketing by the Union, or of a primary dispute between FPC and the Union. The Union also contends that it "had every right to assume FPC was continually employing laborers at the Golden Lakes Village jobsite ... and that duty lay with FPC to affirmatively notify [the Union] of the so-called absence of laborers from the jobsite." Having found that the Union was given affirmative notice there is no need to discuss the question of FPC's duty to inform the Union of the fact that FPC was not employing laborers. It has already been found that the Union' s actions after the notice were neither reasonable nor prudent with regard to that notice. The record does not show that FPC was playing a "cat and mouse" game with the Union as the Union asserts.38 The absence of construction laborers was permanent not temporary or intermittent. Both during the construction of the models and of the first development FPC subcontracted laborer and carpenter work first to South Coast Contractors and then to E. & G. Nothing in the record herein indicates that FPC intended to hire construction laborers, or that FPC in any way misled the Union or gave it any untrue information. The Union points to no evidence to that effect. Under the circumstances the Union engaged in its picketing campaign at its own peril 39 The Union alternatively takes the position that it has the right to engage in picketing activities at FPC's primary place of business, requesting FPC to enter into a subcontractor's agreement or clause agreeing to use only employers who are signatory to collective-bargaining agreements with the Union covering construction sites only. The Union asserts that this type of subcontractor's agreement or subcontractor's clause falls within the construction industry's proviso to Section 8(e) and that picketing to obtain such a clause is legal. It is considered that the 8(e) position taken by the Union in this proceeding is an afterthought and frivolous. No discussion is needed as to the right of the Umon to picket in order to obtain such an agreement or clause. The facts in record to show that, prior to May 1. the Union in any way indicated to FPC that it was interested in the other employees. It is considered reasonable to conclude that the Union advanced this contention after the fact or, to quote Giardiello, as a "shell" to cover its improper action of May I picketing 38 The cases cited by the Union to support this point are inapposite: Industrial Contracting Company, 192 NLRB 1188, enfd. 82 LRRM 2687 (C.A D.C, 1972); International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 640, AFL-CIO, 176 NLRB 150; New Power Wire and Electrical Corp., et al, 144 NLRB 1089, enfd. in pertinent part 340 F 2d 71 (C.A 2. 1965); International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 861, AFL-CIO (Brownfield Electric, Inc), 145 N LRB 1163 39 It is considered of no significance or weight that several weeks after May I counsel for the Union gave his legal opinion that FPC's picketing was legal 594 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD this case do not show in any way that a purpose of the picketing was to obtain such a clause from FPC. The Union's position is accordingly rejected. The Union, in its brief and at the hearing, listed a large number of items called the responsibilities of FPC as a general contractor in relation to the subcontractors. Some of these were that (1) subcontracts are performed in accord with FPC's obligation to the Palm Beach County Building and Zoning Department; (2) the Construction Board of Palm Beach County looks to FPC for responsibil- ity for all construction and for the project to see that (a) it is built in a safe and orderly manner; (b) the subcontrac- tors are licensed; (c) the work of the subcontractor is properly completed; and (3) FPC has overall financial responsibility and credit responsibility. Other responsibilities were (1) FPC has a fence around the project for protection of property and to keep the public out; (2) FPC has the right to terminate or discharge a contractor for improper work; (3) FPC is required to make certain that the subcontractors are licensed, have a certificate of competency, and carry workmen's compensa- tion and liability insurance for their respective work people; (4) FPC had the right to and ordered signs at the different gates to be used by subcontractors; (5) FPC coordinates the work of the subcontractors to maintain a reasonable and sequential flow of work; (6) FPC orders materials and supplies for the project but the labor to unload or deal with the same was supplied by E. & G.; and (7) FPC was responsible for safety conditions and required the subcontractors to comply with them under the contract. The Union contends that because of these responsibili- ties and obligations FPC, in effect or in essence, became the technical employer of the employees of E. & G. and other subcontractors. The Union contends that, as a result, the picketing by the Union of FPC became primary picketing and was not proscribed by Section 8(b)(4). This position is not supported by the record and is rejected.40 Nothing in the record herein supports the Union's position. The relationship between FPC and the subcontractors is clearly contractual. The employees of E. & G. and the other subcontractors are employees only of the respective employers. As a matter of fact the contract with E. & G. makes provision for the use of E. & G. employees by FPC and by other subcontractors on the jobsite. But the contract clearly sets forth that when they are so used they remain E. & G. employees. Arrangement for their use must be made through the superintendent of E. & G. and E. & G. makes a specific charge to the user of the employees payable to E. & G. The rate of this charge is higher than the rate paid to E. & G. employees by E. & G. because the overcharge takes into consideration overhead and other expenses of E. & G. in accommodating FPC and the other contractors.4 i 4. Final conclusions The foregoing analysis has dealt with some of the major defenses raised by the Union . Others have been considered and found wanting .42 It is concluded as a result of these analyses and the record as a whole that the Union was not engaged in a primary dispute with or primary picketing of FPC on May 1, when it picketed the Belvedere Boulevard and Skees Road gates carrying picket signs directed to FPC and E. & G. Accordingly, it is concluded and found that the Union's use of picket signs bearing both names of FPC and E. & G. was not permissible common situs picketing in that it did not clearly disclose that the dispute was only with E. & G. the primary employer. Respondent's admitted picketing of the Golden Lakes Village job plainly constituted inducement and encourage- ment of the employees of FPC and other subcontractors on the jobsite to engage in strikes or refusals in the course of their employment to perform services within the meaning of Section 8(b)(4)(i). That such inducement and encourage- ment also constituted restraint and coercion of the employers, within the meaning of Section 8(b)(4)(u), is also well settled . International Hod Carriers, Building and Common Laborers Union of America, Local No. 1140, AFL-CIO (Gilmore Construction Company), 127 NLRB 541, 545, footnote 6, enfd. 285 F.2d 397 (C.A. 8, 1960). On the entire record, it is found and concluded that an object of the Union's picketing was to force (at least) FPC to cease doing business with E. & G. Accordingly, the combined picketing of FPC and E. & G. at Golden Lakes Village violated Section 8 (b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B) of the Act. N. L. R. B. v. Denver Building & Construction Trades Council, 341 U.S. 675. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. FPC and E. & G. are engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of Sections 2(6) and (7) and 8(b)(4) of the Act. 2. The Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3. By picketing the Golden Lakes Village project with picket signs that did not clearly disclose that the Union had a dispute only with E. & G., the Union engaged in conduct violative of the Act. 4. By picketing the Golden Lakes Village project, the ,Union induced and encouraged individuals employed by FPC and other subcontractors on the project to engage in a strike or refusal in the course of their employment to use, manufacture, process, transport, or otherwise handle or work on goods, articles, materials, or commodities, or to perform services, and also by said picketing coerced and restrained FPC and other subcontractors. 40 International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 675 (Industrial Contracting Co) 192 NLRB 1188, enfd 82 LRRM 2687 (C A D C, 1972), is inapposite under the circumstances. 41 Cf N L R B v. General Drivers & Dairy Employees, Local Union No 563, et al, cert denied 404 U S. 912 (1971), Carpet, Linoleum, Soft Tile, and Resilient Floor Covering Layers, Local Union No 419 AFL-CIO v N L R B, 467 F.2d 392, 399-401, 405-406 (C.A.D C., 1972), N L. R B v Dallas General Drivers, etc, Local No 745, 264 F 2d 642, 647 (C A. 5, 1959), cert denied 361 U S 814 (1959), Retail Fruit & Vegetable Clerks Union v NLRB, 249 F.2d 591, 594-595 (C A 9, 1957), see generally NLRB v United Insurance Co, 390 US 254 (1968) 42 The Union in its brief stated that the "related work" issue raised at the inception of the trial has not been argued The Union made reference to N L. R B v Denver Building and Construction Trades Council, 341 U S 675 Further, the Union stated that the General Counsel was contending that the Union violated criterion two of the Moore Dry Dock cntena LOCAL 767, LABORERS 5. An object of the Union's picketing was to force or require FPC to cease doing business with E. & G. 6. By the conduct set forth in paragraphs 3, 4, and 5, the Union engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices proscribed by Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B) of the Act. 7. The said unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. THE REMEDY Having found that Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices proscribed by Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B) of the Act, it is recommended that the Union be ordered to cease and desist therefrom, and to take the affirmative action herein provided, designed to remedy the unfair labor practices herein found and to effectuate the policies of the Act.43 Upon the foregoing findings of fact, and conclusions of law, and the entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, there is issued the following recommended: ORDER44 Local Union No. 767, Laborers International Union of North America, AFL-CIO, its officers, agents, and representatives, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Inducing or encouraging employees or individuals employed by Florida Planned Communities , Inc., or any other person engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce with whom they have no primary labor dispute, to engage in a strike or refusal in the course of their employment to use, manufacture, process, transport, or otherwise handle or work on any goods , articles, materials, or commodities or perform any services where an object thereof is to force or require the above-named persons to cease doing business with E . & G. Construction Co., Inc. (b) Threatening, restraining, or coercing Florida Planned Communities, Inc., cr any other persons engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce , where an object thereof is to force or require FPC to cease doing business with E. & G. Construction Co., Inc. 2. Take the following affirmative action which is found necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Post at its offices, meeting halls , and all other places where notices to its members are customarily posted, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix." 45 Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 12 shall, after being duly signed by a representative of the Respondent, be posted by the Union immediately upon receipt thereof, and maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to members are customarily posted . Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Union to insure that said notices are not altered , defaced, or covered by any other material. (b) Promptly after receipt thereof, sign and return to the said Regional Director, the number of copies of the aforesaid notice the latter may request , for posting by 595 Florida Planned Communities, Inc., and E. & G. Construc- tion Co., Inc., at all places where notices to their respective employees are customarily posted. (c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 12, in writing, within 20 days from the receipt by the Union of a copy of this Decision, what steps the Union has taken to comply herewith. 43 This recommendation is made even though the illegal picketing of FPC by the Union at the project has ceased. The purpose of the remedy is to effectuate the preventive purposes of the Act Local Union No. 519, United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Industry of the United States and Canada, AFL-CIO (Center Plumbing and Heating Corp.), 145 NLRB 215. 44 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the findings, conclusions, and recommended Order herein shall, as provided in Sec. 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. 41, 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 read "Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board." APPENDIX NOTICE To EMPLOYEES AND MEMBERS POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government WE WILL NOT engage in or induce or encourage any individual employed by Florida Planned Communities, Inc., or by any other person engaged in commerce or in industry affecting commerce, to engage in a strike or refusal in the course of their employment to use, manufacture, process, transport, or otherwise handle or work on any goods, articles, materials, or commodities, or to perform services ; or threaten, coerce, or restrain Florida Planned Communities, Inc., or any other person engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce, where in either case an object thereof is to force or require it to cease doing business with E. & G. Construction Co., Inc. LOCAL UNION No. 767, LABORERS INTERNATIONAL UNION OF NORTH AMERICA, AFL-CIO (Labor Organization) Dated By (Representative) (Title) This is an official notice and must not be defaced by anyone. This notice must remain posted for 60 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, Room 706, Federal Office Building, 500 Zack Street, P.O. Box 3322, Tampa, Florida 33602, Telephone 813-228-7210.