Carpenters Local Union 1260

628 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Carpenters Local Union 1260, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America , AFL-CIO and Selzer Construction Co., Inc. Case 18-CP-127 May 13, 1974 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS FANNING AND JENKINS On January 31, 1974, Administrative Law Judge Frank H. Itkin issued the attached Decision in this proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent filed exceptions and a supporting brief, General Counsel filed a brief in support of the Administrative Law Judge's Decision and Order, and Charging Party filed a brief in answer to Respondent's exceptions and 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 briefs 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, Carpenters Local Union 1260, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO, its officers, agents, and representatives, shall take the action set forth in the said recommended Order. i The Respondent has excepted to certain credibility findings made by the Administrative Law Judge It is the Board's established policy not to overrule an Administrative Law Judge's resolutions with respect to credibility unless the clear preponderance of all of the relevant evidence convinces us that the resolutions were incorrect . Standard Dry Wall Products, Inc, 91 NLRB 544, enfd 188 F 2d 362 (C A 3) We have carefully examined the record and find no basis for reversing his findings DECISION FRANK H. ITKIN, Administrative Law Judge: This case was tried before me at Iowa City, Iowa, on October 30, 1973. The unfair labor practice charge was filed by Selzer Construction Co., Inc. ("Selzer Construction"), on August 16 and the complaint issued on October 2, 1973. The principal issue presented is whether Carpenters Local Union 1260, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO ("Respondent Union"), violated Section 8(b)(7)(C) of the National Labor Rela- tions Act by picketing Selzer Construction for more than 30 days for an organizational or recognitional object without filing a petition for a representation election. Upon the entire record before me, including my observation of the witnesses, and after due consideration of the briefs filed by all counsel, I make the following findings of fact and conclusions of law: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. INTRODUCTION; RESPONDENT UNION PICKETS SELZER CONSTRUCTION 1 Selzer Construction, an Iowa corporation, has its office and principal place of business in Iowa City where it is engaged in the construction industry. During the past year, Selzer Construction's sales were in excess of $1,000,000. Selzer Construction purchased, during this same period, goods and materials valued in excess of $50,000 which goods and materials were shipped to it directly from outside of Iowa for use in connection with the Company's construction operations in Iowa . I find and conclude that Selzer Construction is therefore an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6) and (7) of the Act. Further, I find and conclude that Respondent Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. Thomas Verry has been at all times material business representative for Respondent Union. I find and conclude that Verry is an agent of Respondent Union within the meaning of Section 2(13) of the Act. R.E. Crider has been at all times material business manager for Millwrights Local 2158, International Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO ("Millwrights Local 2158"). Respondent Union denies that Crider has been or is its agent within the meaning of Section 2(13) of the Act. Selzer Construction has been engaged, at all times material to this proceeding, as general contractor at both the Plamor Lanes and Highlander Motel construction sites in Iowa City. Since about July 23, 1973, and continuously until about October 15, 1973, Respondent Union has picketed Selzer Construction at the Plamor Lanes con- struction site. Since about August 13, 1973, and continu- ously until about October 15, 1973, Respondent Union also has picketed Selzer Construction at the Highlander Motel construction site.2 The picket sign used by Respon- dent Union at the above sites read as follows: I The findings of fact and conclusions of law recited in this section are based essentially upon admissions set forth in the pleadings and stipulations by the parties 2 Picketing stopped at both sites about October 15 following service of a 210 NLRB No. 103 temporary inJuction order issued by the United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa, pursuant to Section 10(1) of the Act. (Wilson v. Carpenters Local 1260, Civil No 73-43 D, Oct 11, 1973, D C. S D Iowa.) CARPENTERS LOCAL UNION 1260 Selzer Const. Co. Inc. Only Fails to Pay Prevailing Wages And Meet Prevailing Conditions Carpenters Local 1260, AFL-CIO Respondent Union has not been certified as collective- bargaining representative for any of Selzer Construction's employees. And, Respondent Union has engaged in the foregoing picketing for more than 30 days without the filing of a representation petition under Section 9(c) of the Act. Respondent Union, in its answer to the unfair labor practice complaint, alleges that at no time material has it sought, nor does it now seek, to organize or represent any of Selzer Construction's employees and that its picketing at the above sites was solely for a permissible area standards object. The evidence pertaining to the object of Respon- dent Union's picketing is discussed below. II. THE EVIDENCE PERTAINING TO ORGANIZATIONAL OR RECOGNITIONAL OBJECT John Reed is manager of Kennedy and Company, the acoustical ceiling contractor working at the Highlander construction site . Reed credibly testified that on August 13 one of his carpenter employees advised him that there was a picket at the Highlander site. Reed then went to Respondent Union's business representative , Thomas Verry. Reed testified: I [Reed] asked him [Verry] what was going on at the Highlander. . . . I asked Verry what we could do to get the picket off and he wrote a number on a piece of paper and he said, "give this to Max [Selzer ] if he wants to settle his problems." Reed took this piece of paper containing a telephone number and gave it to John Werle , foreman and job superintendent for Selzer Construction . Reed recalled that he told Werle, "to tell Max [Selzer ] if he wanted to settle his problems he'd have to call the number." The telephone number on this piece of paper was the number of Millwrights Local 2158 and its business manager, R.E. Crider, in Davenport, Iowa.3 Max Selzer credibly testified that during the morning of August 14, he called the telephone number which had been given to him by Werle and Reed . A lady answered the 3 John Werle credibly testified that on August 13 Reed handed to him a piece of paper with a telephone number on it and said, " I was to give it to my boss, Mr Selzer " Werle asked Reed, "what it was " Reed responded "It was to give to Mr Selzer and that would take care of the pickets " Werle gave this piece of paper to Selzer later that day 4 Later that same day , Werle brought another telephone number to Selzer while Selzer was working at Highlander Werle had received a telephone call for Selzer on Selzer's construction telephone at the Highlander Werle wrote down the telephone number on a piece of cardboard and gave the piece of cardboard to Selzer Apparently, Werle made a mistake in writing down this number Selzer attempted to place the call without success S Respondent Union's business representative , Verry, was present at the 629 telephone. Selzer explained to the lady that he had been given this number to call. She replied that Selzer "should be talking to Mr. Cnder" ; that Crider was not then in the office ; and that she would as requested have Crider return Selzer's call.4 Selzer further testified that during the afternoon of August 14, he was present in the Highlander office with Robert McGerk, a partner and general manager of Highlander Supper Club and Highlander Inn. Selzer recalled that McGerk was talking on the telephone to Respondent Union's business representative, Thomas Verry, "about the possibility of getting the pickets removed." During this conversation , McGerk apprised Verry that Selzer "was trying to get hold of Mr . Crider." Verry then relayed to McGerk Crider's telephone number. Thereafter, during the late afternoon of August 14, Selzer telephoned and spoke with Crider. Selzer credibly related his conversation with Crider as follows: I [Selzer] told him [Cnder] who I was and I told him that the reason I placed the call was because I had received this telephone number through Mr. Reed from Mr. Verry to call this number, and finally I just said, "what do you want?" And Mr. Crider's response was, "We want to organize Selzer Construction Co. and I [Cnder] would like for you to call Mr. Bernard Mamet in Chicago and Mr. Mamet will set down some guidelines for you for Selzer Construction Co. and the unions will be fair and equitable to both parties." Selzer then apprised Crider of Selzer's earlier meeting with the Cedar Rapids Building Trades Council in August 1972 concerning the Highlander project. Selzer asserted that at that meeting the "owners had decided that they would open the bidding up . . . that the job would be open bidding...." Selzer told Crider that, in view of the understanding assertedly arrived at during the Trades Council meeting, the current picketing was "morally wrong."5 Cnder again "urged [Selzer] to contact Mr. Mamet . . . . [Crider] also told [Selzer] that many of his strongest supporters in the Quad City area were former open shop contractors who had been organized." Crider "again asked [Selzer] to contact Mr. Mamet and set up the guidelines so that we could come to some sort of an agreement that would be fair and equitable to both parties."6 McGerk was seated next to Selzer during all or a portion of the above conversation. Robert McGerk credibly testified that on August 13 he telephoned Very urging Verry to remove the pickets. McGerk called Verry again on August 14. Selzer was seated next to McGerk during a portion of this latter Cedar Rapids Building Trades Council meeting of August 1972 The Trades Council, according to its letter to Selzer dated July 21, 1972, had requested the meeting in order to discuss the Highlander job and "point out the advantages to you of using well-trained skilled union craftsmen on your project 6 During this conversation , as Selzer credibly recalled, Selzer asked Crider "what his horsepower was" and Crider responded that "he had been assigned a situation " When Selzer asked Crider to remove the pickets, Crider said that "he couldn't, he'd have to talk to Mr Mamet " There was testimony, discussed infra, that Cnder had agreed to obtain legal assistance for Very in the defense of the proceedings against Respondent Union. 630 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD conversation. Verry asked McGerk during the August 14 conversation, ". . . why don't you call Crider in Daven- port?" McGerk replied that Selzer "was trying to" call Crider. During this conversation, Verry furnished McGerk with Crider's telephone number.? III. DISCUSSION Section 8(b)(7), enacted as part of the 1959 amendments to the National Labor Relations Act, constitutes a comprehensive code governing recognitional and organiza- tional picketing. N.L.R.B. v. Drivers, Chauffeurs and Helpers Local Union No. 639 (Curtis Bros.), 362 U.S. 274, 291 (1960). Subsection (C) of Section 8(b)(7), which is involved here, prohibits picketing by an uncertified union where an object thereof is "forcing or requiring an employer to recognize or bargain with a labor organization as the representative of his employees" or "forcing or requiring the employees of an employer to accept or select such labor organization as their collective bargaining representative" if such picketing has been conducted for more than 30 days without the filing of an election petition. As the Board, the courts, and the commentators have repeatedly pointed out, Section 8(bX7) was enacted as a corollary to the Federal policy of ensuring employees a free choice in the selection of a bargaining representative. Dayton Typographical Union No. 57 [The Greenfield Printing and Publishing Co.] v. N.L.R.B., 326 F.2d 634, 646-649 (C.A. D.C., 1966); Local 542, Operating Engineers (R.S. Noonan, Inc.), 142 NLRB 1132 (1963), enfd., 331 F.2d 99, 107 (C.A. 3, 1964), cert. denied 379 U.S. 889 (1964); Lebus v. Building & Construction Trades Council of New Orleans, 199 F. Supp. 628, 631-632 (E.D. La., 1961); Cox, The Landrum-Griffin Amendments to the NLRA, 44 Minn. L. Rev. 257, 262-266 (1959); Meltzer, Organizational Picketing and the NLRA, 30 U. of Chi. L. Rev. 78, 79-80, 83 (1962). Prior to the enactment of the 1959 amendments, a union could lawfully picket an unorganized employer for an unlimited length of time, either to compel the employer to recognize it as the bargaining representative of his employees or to force or require the employees to select it as their representative. Section 8(b)(7)(C) removes this threat to employee free choice by encouraging prompt resort to the Board's election machinery, rather than the ' Respondent Union's Business Representative Verry testified, inter alto, that Reed had asked him on August 13 "how to get the picket off", that Verry told Reed "to get hold of my legal counsel", that Verry gave Reed the telephone number of the Millwnghts Local 2158 office in Davenport, that Verry asked Crider for legal assistance in these proceedings; and that Bernard Mamet, as a result of Crider's efforts, agreed to take the case. Verry claimed that Crider had nothing to do with the above picketing, other than putting Verry in touch with Mamet. Verry denied any unlawful organiza- tional or recognitional object of the picketing and, further, asserted that Crider was not authorized to speak for Respondent Union Verry claimed. I gave the Millwrights office number to Mr Reed to get the telephone number of my legal counsel because Mr Reed seemed to be in a rush to get his material off thejob Verry acknowledged that McGerk had telephoned him on August 13 and 14. Verry denied, inter alga, telling McGerk. "call Crider, this is the way that you can get the picket off " Verry gave to McGerk Cnder's telephone number on August 14. Robert Crider testified, inter alto, that he spoke with Selzer on August 14 Crider denied the various statements pertaining to organizational or economic pressures of picketing, as the method for resolving questions of representation. In sum, as the Court stated in Department & Specialty Store Employees Local 1265 v. Brown, 284 F.2d 619, 626 (C.A. 9, 1960), cert. denied 366 U.S. 934 (1961), "there is no doubt that the purpose of this legislation was to place rather severe and drastic limitations on picketing, other than informational, and to provide for a representation election without delay." However, when a union pickets an employer for the sole purpose of compelling compliance with prevailing area wage and benefit standards, the Board regards the picketing activity-so-called "area standards" picketing -as nonrecognitional and outside the proscription of Section 8(b)(7). See, e.g., Local Union 741, Plumbers (Keith Riggs Plumbing and Heating Contractor), 137 NLRB 1125 (1962); Houston Building and Construction Trades Council (Claude Everett Construction Company), 136 NLRB 321 (1962). The Board has reasoned, and the courts have concurred, that a union has a legitimate interest apart from recognition and bargaining that employers meet prevailing pay scales and employee benefits, for otherwise employers paying less than the prevailing wage scales could ultimately undermine area standards. [Local Union 741, Plumbers (Keith Riggs Plumbing and Heating Contractor), 137 NLRB 1125, 1126 (1962).] And see, N.L.R.B. v. Carpenters Local No. 2133, 356 F.2d 464, 465-466 (C.A. 9, 1966); N.L. R. B. v. Local 182, International Brotherhood of Teamsters [Woodward Mo- tors], 314 F.2d 53, 58-59 (C.A. 2, 1963). In the instant case, Respondent Union argues that the picketing at the Plamor and Highlander sites was motivated by a permissible area standards object and, further, that any declarations of union representatives and the picket signs are consistent with this purported objective. But in determining whether a union has picketed for a proscribed object, the Board is not bound by the Union's self-serving declarations. N.L.R.B. v. Local 182, Teamsters, sera; N.L.R.B. v. Carpenters Local No. 2133, supra; Operative Plasterers' & Cement Masons' Local 44 (Penny Construction Company, Inc.), 144 NLRB 1298, 1300 (1963). Moreover, Section 8(b)(7)(C) of the Act applies if "an object" of the picketing is recognition or organization. For, as with the comparable language in Section 8(b)(4) (cf. N.L.R.B. v. Denver Building and recognitional object which had been attributed to him by Selzer. Crider recalled that Verry had asked Crider if Mamet, Crider's attorney, could handle this case. Crider called Mamet as "a friendship to Tom Verry" Crider asserted that during his August 14 conversation with Selzer, Selzer asked how he could "get the picket off of the Highlander." Crider gave Selzer "Mamet's number and said ... you call him right away ." Crider admitted that "we did have a conversation basically about non-union contractors in general joining unions." Crider claimed, however, that there was no intention to organize Selzer Construction. Bernard Mamet also testified. Mamet explained, inter alga, how he came to represent Respondent Union. Mamet also gave his recollection of certain testimony given before the District Court in the Section 10(1) proceeding. The testimony of Selzer, McGerk, Reed, and Werle as summarized above is in part mutually corroborative. The testimony of Verry, Crider, and Mamet substantiates in part the testimony of Selzer, McGerk, Reed, and Werle as stated above. I credit the above-stated testimony of Selzer, McGerk, Reed, and Werle as a reasonable and trustworthy account of the incidents related. Insofar as the testimony of Verry, Crider, and Mamet differs from the above testimony of Selzer, McGerk , Reed, and Werle, I am persuaded on this record that the testimony of the latter witnesses as stated herein is more reasonable and reliable. CARPENTERS LOCAL UNION 1260 631 Construction Trades Council [Gould & Preisner], 341 U.S. 675, 688-689 (1951); IBEW, Local 501 [Samuel Langer] v. N.L.R.B., 341 U.S. 694, 700 (1951), as long as one of the Union's objects is illegal, it is immaterial that it may also have other, legitimate objects. National Packing Company v. N.L.R.B., 377 F.2d 800, 803 (C.A. 10, 1967); Dayton Typographical Union No. 57 v. N.L.R.B., supra, 326 F.2d at 645 (C.A. D.C., 1966); Dallas Building and Construction Trades Council [Dallas County Construction Employers Association, Inc.] v. N.L.R.B., 396 F.2d 677, 682 (C.A. D.C., 1968). Upon the credited evidence of record summarized above, I find and conclude that Respondent Union's picketing was for a proscribed organizational or recognitional object. Thus, on August 13 John Reed, manager of the acoustical ceiling contractor at the Highlander site, asked Thomas Verry, Respondent Union's business representative, "what we could do to get the picket off...... Verry said nothing about prevailing area wage and benefit standards. Instead, Verry gave Reed the telephone number of R.E. Crider, business manager of Millwrights Local 2158. Verry told Reed: "Give this to Max [Selzer] if he wants to settle his problems." Verry admittedly had solicited legal assistance from Crider and Millwrights Local 2158 as a result of these proceedings . Thereafter, on August 14, Verry asked McGerk, a partner and general manager of Highlander, "why don't you call Crider in Davenport?" McGerk explained to Verry that Selzer was in fact "trying to" call Crider. Verry furnished McGerk with Crider's number. Later that same afternoon on August 14, Selzer and Crider spoke on the telephone. During their conversation, Crider apprised Selzer: e.g., Local 584, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, et al. (Fairway Farms, Inc.), 141 NLRB 638, 639 (1963); N.L.R.B. v. Local 815, International Brotherhood of Teamsters (Montauk Iron & Steel Corp.), 290 F.2d 99, 103-104 (C.A. 2, 1961); N. L.R.B. v. Local 3, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers [New York Telephone Co.], 467 F.2d 1158 (C.A. 2, 1972). In addition, C Board has consistently held that one factor to be considered in testing whether a union's picketing is really aimed at protesting substandard wages and working conditions is whether the union actually knows or has made an effort to discover whether the employer's wages and working conditions are in fact substandard. See Construction, Shipyard and General Laborers, Local 1207 (Alfred S. Austin Construction Compa- ny, Inc.), 141 NLRB 283, 284 (1%3); Centralia Building & Construction Trade Council (Pacific Sign & Steel Building Co.), 155 NLRB 803, 806 ( 1965), enfd. 363 F.2d 699, 701 (C.A. D.C., 1966). Here, Respondent Union made no such effort. Thus, Verry admittedly had made no inquiry of Selzer Construction to determine the employer 's wages and working conditions . Verry generally asserted that he had determined that Selzer Construction provided substandard wages from what he had heard "some carpenters .. . discussing with their fellow workers ....."8 Verry was unware of what fringe benefits if any Selzer Construction provided for its employees . Under all the circumstances, Verry's failure to make any real effort to ascertain whether Selzer Construction was providing substandard wages and working conditions further buttresses the foregoing finding of unlawful object.9 We want to organize Selzer Construction Co. and I [Crider] would like for you to call Mr. Bernard Mamet in Chicago and Mr. Mamet will set down some guidelines for you and Selzer Construction Co. and the unions will be fair to both parties. . . . [Cnder] also told [Selzer] that many of his strongest supporters in the Quad City area were former open shop contractors who had been organized. . . [Cnder] again asked [Selzer] to contact Mr. Mamet and set up the guidelines so that we could come to some sort of an agreement that would be fair and equitable to both parties. The foregoing evidence sufficiently establishes an organ- izational or recognitional object . Respondent, however, argues that Crider is not an agent of Respondent Union. This contention is without merit . Here, Respondent Union's agent, Verry, gave Crider's telephone number to Reed with the instructions, "Give this to Max [Selzer] if he wants to settle his problems ." Under settled principles of agency law, Respondent Union cannot now be heard to complain that it is not responsible for Cnder's August 14 instructions to Selzer on how to remove the pickets. See, 8 When asked if he was "aware of where your members got their information," Verry responded "probably through idle conversation as you pass the time of day working." 9 Respondent Union relies in part on the Regional Director's dismissal of the instant charge against Respondent , the dismissal of the CP charge against Millwrights Local 2158 and the dismissal of related CC charges against Respondent Union and Millwrights Local 2158. The office of CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Selzer Construction is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act. 2. Respondent Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3. Respondent Union violated Section 8(bX7XC) of the Act by picketing Selzer Construction at the Plamor Lanes and Highlander Motel construction sites in Iowa City with an object of forcing or requiring Selzer Construction to recognize or bargain with Respondent Union as the representative of Selzer Construction's employees or forcing or requiring the employees of Selzer Construction to accept or select Respondent Union as their collective- bargaining representative, although Respondent Union at no time material has been certified as the representative of such employees and although Respondent Union has not filed a petition under Section 9(c) of the Act within 30 days from the commencement of said picketing. 4. The unfair labor practices affect commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. appeals subsequently sustained the dismissals except with respect to the instant charge As stated at the hearing below, the only issue before me is whether the General Counsel has proven by sufficient competent evidence that Respondent Union violated Section 8 (bX7XC) as alleged in the instant unfair labor practice complaint. Charging Party's motion to correct the transcript, which is unopposed, is hereby granted. 632 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD THE REMEDY Having found that Respondent Union violated Section 8(b)(7)(C) of the Act, I shall recommend that it be ordered to cease and desist from engaging in the unfair labor practices found herein and from engaging in like and related conduct. I shall also recommend that Respondent Union take certain affirmative action designed to effectu- ate the policies of the Act. ORDER 10 Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, and upon the entire record in this proceeding, Respondent Carpenters Local Union 1260, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO, its officers, agents, and representatives, shall: 1. Cease and desist from picketing or causing to be picketed, or threatening to picket or causing to be picketed, Selzer Construction Co., Inc., at the Plamor Lanes or Highlander Motel construction sites in Iowa City, Iowa, or at any other facility, where an object thereof is to force or require Selzer Construction to recognize or bargain with Respondent Union, Carpenters Local Union 1260, as the representative of Selzer Construction's employees, or to force or require the employees of Selzer Construction to accept or select Respondent Union as their collective- bargaining representative, unless Respondent Union is currently certified by the National Labor Relations Board as the representative of such employees. 2. Take the following affirmative action to effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Respondent Union shall post at its business offices and meeting halls copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix." ii Copies of the notice to be furnished by the Regional Director for Region 18 shall be duly signed and posted by Respondent Union immediately upon receipt thereof and maintained in conspicuous places including all places where notices to members are customarily posted for a period of 60 consecutive days. Reasonable steps shall be taken to insure that the notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (b) Respondent Union shall mail or deliver to said Regional Director signed copies of said notice for posting by Selzer Construction if said employer is willing to do so. (c) Notify said Regional Director, in writing, within 20 days from the date of the receipt of this Decision what steps have been taken by Respondent Union to comply herewith. 10 In the event that 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. I i In the event that the Board's Order is enforced by a Judgment of the 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." APPENDIX NOTICE To EMPLOYEES POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government WE WILL NOT picket or cause to be picketed, or threaten to picket or cause to be picketed, Selzer Construction Co., Inc., at the Plamor Lanes or Highlander Motel construction sites in Iowa City, Iowa, or at any other facility, where an object thereof is to force or require Selzer Construction to recognize or bargain with us as the representative of Selzer Con- struction's employees, or to force or require the employees of Selzer Construction to accept or select us as their collective-bargaining representative, unless we are currently certified by the National Labor Relations Board as the representative of such employees. CARPENTERS LOCAL UNION 1260, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF CARPENTERS AND JOINERS OF AMERICA, AFL-CIO (Labor Organization) Dated By (Representative) (Title) This is an official notice and must not be defaced by anyone. This notice must remain posted for 60 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, 316 Federal Building, 110 South 4th Street, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401, Telephone 612-725-2601.