Reinforcing Ironworkers Local Union No. 426

REINFORCING IRONWORKERS LOCAL UNION NO. 426 Reinforcing Ironworkers Local Union No. 426, Inter- national Association of Bridge, Structural and Or- namental Ironworkers, AFL-CIO and The Morri- son Company and Local 1191 , Laborers' Interna- tional Union of North America, AFL-CIO. Case 7-CD-287 November 6, 1974 DECISION AND ORDER By CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS JENKINS AND KENNEDY On July 22, 1974, Administrative Law Judge Charles W. Schneider issued the attached Decision in this proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent filed excep- tions and a supporting brief, and the Charging Party filed a brief in opposition to Respondent's excep- tions. 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 at- tached 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 Re- lations Board adopts as its Order the recommended Order of the Administrative Law Judge and hereby orders that Respondent, Reinforcing Ironworkers Local Union No. 426, International Association of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Ironworkers, AFL-CIO, its officers, agents, and representatives, shall take the action set forth in said recommended Order. DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE CHARLES W. SCHNEIDER, Administrative Law Judge: On October 17, 1973, The Morrison Company (the Charging Party), filed an unfair labor practice charge against Rein- forcing Ironworkers, Local Union No 426, International Association of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Iron- workers, AFL-CIO (the Respondent), alleging that the Re- spondent committed violation of Section 8(b)(4)(ii)(D) of the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. 151, et seq. On March 26, 1974, the Regional Director issued a com- 715 plaint and notice of hearing upon the charge. The Respon- dent thereafter filed an answer and amended answer deny- ing the commission of unfair labor practices. Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held before me at De- troit, Michigan, on June 10, 1974. The General Counsel, the Charging Party, the Respondent, and Markward & Karafilis-Blount Brothers (sometimes referred to herein as the Intervenor), appeared, were represented by counsel, and were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to intro- duce material evidence, to present oral argument, and to file briefs. Briefs were received from the Intervenor on July 8, 1974, from the Charging Party on July 9, 1974, and from the Respondent on July 10, 1974. A letter correcting the brief was received from the Respondent on July 12, 1974. Upon consideration of the entire record I make the fol- lowing: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANIES The Morrison Company, the Charging Party, is a Michi- gan corporation engaged as a contractor in the business of road construction and other related construction work with its principal office at 19366 Allen Road , Trenton, Michi- gan. At all times material herein, the Charging Party has been engaged, pursuant to a subcontract with Markward & Karafilis-Blount Brothers, the Intervenor and general con- tractor on the U.S. Post Office Bulk Handling Facility Job- site, Allen Park, Michigan, in the installation of reinforced concrete roads, driveways , and parking areas (including the work of unloading reinforcing wire mesh and supports, placing said mesh and supports adjacent to concrete pour- ing forms, and placing and fitting said mesh and supports into concrete pouring forms) at that jobsite. During the fiscal year ending February 28, 1973, which period is representative of its operations during all times material hereto, the Charging Party, in the course and con- duct of its business operations , had a gross revenue in ex- cess of $1 million and also during this same period pur- chased and caused to be transported and delivered at its Allen Park, Michigan, jobsite goods and materials valued in excess of $50,000, of which goods and materials valued in excess of $50,000 were transported and delivered to its Allen Park, Michigan, jobsite directly from points located outside the State of Michigan. The Charging Party is now, and has been at all times material herein, an employer and/or person 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. II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED Respondent Ironworkers and Local 1191 Laborers' In- ternational Union of North America, AFL-CIO, herein called Laborers' Local 1191, are and have been at all times material herein labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 214 NLRB No. 114 716 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. The Issue The issue is whether Henry Cooper, an international or- ganizer, and an admitted agent of the Respondent, made certain statements at a meeting on September 10, 1973, and, if so, whether those statements constituted threats against Morrison, the Charging Party, violative of Section 8(b)(4)(ii)(D) of the Act. B. Background: The Autolite Project In June 1970, Morrison contracted to install a reinforced concrete parking lot for the Autolite Division of Ford Mo- tor Company in Wayne County, Michigan. Morrison sub- contracted a portion of the work to Century Cement Com- pany, including the installation of reinforced wire mesh in the concrete. For a number of years, Morrison and Centu- ry have had collective-bargaining agreements with Labor- ers' Local 1191. Neither Century nor Morrison has a con- tract with the Respondent. In accordance with the con- tracts in existence at that time the work of installing the wire mesh in the concrete on the Autolite project was as- signed to Laborers' Local 1191. Thereafter the Respondent made a claim on Morrison on behalf of its members for the installation of the wire mesh on the Autolite project. When the Respondent's de- mands were not granted it set up a picket line at the project as a consequence of which work ceased on the project. Morrison then filed an 8(b)(4)(D) charge against the Re- spondent upon which, in accordance with the provisions of Section 10(k) of the Act, the Board held a hearing to de- termine who was entitled to the work.I On March 22, 1971, the Board issued its Decision and Determination of Dis- pute, in which it concluded that the employees of Morrison and/or Century who were represented by the Laborers, rather than workers represented by the Respondent, were entitled to the work in dispute.2 C. 1973. The Allen Park Project Markward & Karafilis-Blount is a joint venture , consist- ing of two construction companies : Markward & Karafilis, which is a member of the Detroit chapter of the Associated General Contractors of America (AGC), and Blount i Sec 10(k) provides as follows (k) Whenever it is charged that any person has engaged in an unfair labor practice within the meaning of paragraph (4)(D) of section 8(b), the Board is empowered and directed to hear and determine the dispute out of which such unfair labor practice shall have arisen, unless, within ten days after notice that such charge has been filed, the parties to such dispute submit to the Board satisfactory evidence that they have adjust- ed, or agreed upon methods for the voluntary adjustment of, the dis- pute Upon compliance by the parties to the dispute with the decision of the Board or upon such voluntary adjustment of the dispute, such charge shall be dismissed 2 Reinforced Iron Workers Local No 426 (The Morrison Company), 189 NLRB 187 (1971) The recital of facts given above with respect to the Auto- lite project is from the Board's Decision and Determination in that case Brothers, an Alabama concern . The venture is the general contractor for the United States Post Office Bulk Handling Facility at Allen Park, Michigan . It is this project which is involved in the instant controversy. By virtue of its membership in AGC, Markward & Karafilis is a party to a collective -bargaining contract with the Respondent which , according to the Respondent, cov- ers the type of work here in dispute. In addition , according to the Respondent, that contract contains a clause binding Markward & Karafilis not to subcontract that type of work to any contractor who does not have a collective -bargain- ing agreement with the Respondent.3 The record does not reveal whether Blount Brothers has any collective-bargaining agreements with labor organiza- tions. D. The May 30, 1973, Prejob Conference On May 30, 1973, a prejob conference was held to discuss and explain the Allen Park project, identify sub- contractors, and discuss plans and conditions and the as- signment of work. This meeting was attended by represen- tatives of Markward & Karafilis-Blount and by represen- tatives of the various trade unions involved in the project. Among those present were representatives of the Respon- dent and of Laborers' Local 1191. The Respondent's repre- sentative was Richard Wheeler, business agent. The min- utes of this meeting, prepared by Francis O'Neil,' labor relations manager for Blount Brothers, and O'Neil's testi- mony, indicate that, among other claims, both the Respon- dent and Laborers' Local 1191 asserted jurisdiction over the installation of the reinforcing wire mesh in the parking area. In response to inquiries as to what disposition the contractor would make of the conflicting claims concern- ing the parking area, O'Neil gave no definite response, say- ing merely that no subcontractors had as yet been desig- nated for that portion of the job. E. The September 10, 1973, Prejob Conference On September 10, 1973, another prejob conference was held concerning the Allen Park project. This meeting, like that of May 30, was attended by representatives of the interested trade unions, among them the Respondent and Laborers' Local 1191, and by representatives of the joint venture and the Detroit Chapter of the Associated General Contractors. Also present was Gordon Morrison, president of The Morrison Company. The Respondent had three representatives at this meeting: Business Agents Wheeler and Joe Lauwers, Jr, and Henry Cooper, an international organizer for the Ironworkers Union. At this meeting representatives of the joint venture an- nounced that the contract for the parking areas had been awarded to Morrison. Both Laborers' Local 1191 and the Respondent stated their claims to the reinforcing mesh work in the parking area. Gordon Morrison responded that Morrison had assigned that work to Laborers' Local 1191, pursuant to Morrison's past practice and the collective-bar- 3 The contract was not offered in evidence at the hearing before me 4 Incorrectly spelled O'Neal in the transcript REINFORCING IRONWORKERS LOCAL UNION NO. 426 gaining agreement which Morrison had with Laborers' Lo- cal 1191. Representatives of both the Laborers and of the Respon- dent are alleged to have made threats to Morrison at the meeting concerning assignment of the disputed work. It is the alleged threats by the Respondent's representative, Henry Cooper, which are the subject of the present com- plaint. That issue is resolved at a later point. On October 17, 1973, over a month after the September 10 meeting, and several days after Morrison had received a letter from Laborers' Local 1191 stating that if the disputed work was not assigned to Local 1191 the job would be shut down, Morrison filed charges of violation of Section 8(b)(4)(D) against both unions. It is the charge against the Respondent which is the subject of the present proceeding. F. The Second 10(k) Determination As a consequence of the new unfair labor practice charges, another 10(k) hearing was held by the Board on December 18, 1973, to determine who was entitled to the work in question. On February 28, 1974, the Board issued its Decision and Determination of Dispute in which it de- termined that Laborers' Local 1191, rather than the Re- spondent, was entitled to such work at the Allen Park pro- ject and at other locations within the geographic jurisdic- tion of the Respondent.' On March 12, 1974, the Respondent submitted a letter to the Board's Regional Director stating that it would not comply with the Decision of the Board in the 10(k) case, on the ground that the Respondent has not violated Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act, and that the Board therefore had no jurisdiction. On March 26, 1974, the Regional Director issued the instant complaint and the Respondent filed its answer and amended answer denying the allegations of unfair labor practices. G. The Alleged Threat The assertion in the complaint is that at the September 10, 1973, prejob conference, International Organizer Henry Cooper "threatened the Charging Party with unspecified reprisals and `trouble' if the work referred to . . was not assigned to the Respondent." The Respondent denies this allegation. The evidence is as follows. The General Counsel presented three witnesses in sup- port of the complaint: Gordon Morrison, president of the Charging Party, James Gray, construction manager of Blount Brothers, and Francis O'Neil, previously identified as labor relations manager of Blount Brothers. The Re- spondent presented two witnesses: Clay Langston, Jr., as- sistant director of labor relations, Detroit Chapter, Associ- ated General Contractors of America, and Business Agent 5 Local 1191, Laborers International Union of North America, AFL-CIO (The Morrison Company), 209 NLRB 310 (1974) The specific work awarded to Laborers' Local 1191 by the Board was unloading reinforcing wire mesh and supports, placing said mesh and support adjacent to concrete pouring forms, and placing and fit- ting said mesh and supports into concrete pouring forms 717 Richard L. Wheeler. All had been present at the September 10, 1973, meeting. Certain occurrences at the September 10 meeting are not disputed. Thus, after representatives of the joint venture confirmed that the parking lot work had been awarded to Morrison, Business Agent Wheeler protested that that was a violation of the Respondent's contract with the AGC. Discussion ensued regarding the conflicting jurisdictional claims of the Respondent and Laborers' Local 1191. It was suggested that the matter be submitted to the National Joint Board for the Determination of Jurisdictional Dis- putes for disposition. However Gordon Morrison, citing Morrison's contract with Laborers' Local 1191 as justifica- tion, declined to agree to accept a decision by the National Joint Board unless it was in favor of Local 1191. No action was taken by the Respondent after the Sep- tember 10, 1973, conference in the nature of interference with the performance of Morrison's contract on the Allen Park project. Following the September 10 conference the Respondent filed a grievance under its AGC contract re- specting the subcontracting. The record does not disclose its disposition. H. The Testimony as to the Threat The testimony indicates that prejob conferences are of- ten controversial, and that it is not unusual for threats to be made in the course of them. This was the first meeting between Gordon Morrison and Cooper. Cooper was de- scribed in testimony as a "two fisted sort of guy," "fright- ening," "threatening"; and his demeanor at the meeting was variously characterized as "a little hot under the col- lar," "loud and noisy," and "shouting away " The gist of the evidence of the General Counsel's wit- nesses as to Cooper's purported threat is that Cooper said that if Morrison persisted in its assignment of the disputed work to Laborers' Local 1191, Morrison would have "trou- ble," and that that was not a threat, it was a "promise." Clay Langston, Jr., testifying for the Respondent, could not recall whether such statements were made by Cooper or whether they were not. His testimony is therefore not construable either as a confirmation or as a denial of the testimony of the witnesses for the General Counsel. On direct examination Business Agent Wheeler did not deny that Cooper made the statements attributed to him by the General Counsel's witnesses. Asked on direct examina- tion whether he could recall Cooper making a statement to the effect that if the work was not assigned to the Respon- dent there would be trouble on the job, and that this was not a threat but a promise, Wheeler responded, "Not like that, no." 6 6 The testimony reads Q Now, you heard, Mr Wheeler, several witnesses testify to the effect that Mr Cooper made a statement that during the course of the meeting on September 10, that if this work on the parking lot, on the access roads was not assigned to Local 426, that there would be trouble on the job and then he was supposed to have said that, in response to a question that that was not a-threat but a promise or something to that effect Do you recall him making any such statement'? A Not like that, no 718 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Wheeler further testified on direct examination that Cooper made no "threats." 7 That testimony is also not construable as a denial that Cooper made the statements attributed to him by witnesses for the General Counsel. However, under searching cross- examination by the Charging Party and the Intervenor, ap- parently designed to secure admissions from Wheeler that Gordon Morrison asked Cooper whether Cooper' s state- ment was a threat, and that Cooper in fact made "threats," Wheeler ultimately testified, after repeated initial qualifica- tion,8 that Morrison did not ask the question, and repeated his conclusion that Cooper made no threats.9 After careful analysis of his testimony, I have concluded that Wheeler's ultimate denials were substantially Pavloni- an responses to repeated hostile interrogation on the same 7 The testimony reads Q (by Mr Klein) Did Mr Cooper say anything else that you recall Mr Wheeler9 A I don't remember Henry making any threats to there being prob- lems on thatjob as far as the awarding of the work going to Local 1191 or anybody else because I know one thing about Henry, he couldn't deliver that-that's the thing, that Henry couldn't deliver if there was a threat but there was no threat 8 Thus "In that particular way, no " I say no because I can't recall and I know Henry to be a little bit smarter than that • • • • I would say no because of the commotion or the climate that goes on in one of these meetings These meetings are not like this trial to the best of my recollection , I did not hear Mr Morrison ask that question or Henry answer in that particular way or any way • I don't think I would have paid attention to it because I can imagine there was all kinds of things that might have went on 9 He further testified Q You have testified that it did not happen and you were there A I was there. Q And it did not happen9 A Yes, sir Q And that is your testimony? A Yes, sir Q Okay Q But you were able to listen to Mr Cooper and Mr Morrison enough to testify that at no time were any threats made between the two of them? A I would say that, yes A. I would say this, if there were threats made on jurisdiction of my work or the dispute that I had with the Markward Karafilis people, I would most certainly know that point, reflective more of a determination to conclude the examination and to confound the questioner than of fixed conviction on the issue, and that in these circumstances his testimony that Cooper made no "threats" is merely his conclusion or interpretation as to the meaning of what Cooper said and not as to the fact of what he said. As to the question of whether Gordon Morrison asked Cooper if his statement was a threat, the issue is of little practical significance . Regardless of whether Morrison or someone else asked the question , indeed regardless of whether anyone did, the undenied testimony is that Cooper said in substance , however it be phrased, that his pre- diction of "trouble" was not merely a threat, it was a prom- ise.10 Neither International Organizer Cooper nor Re- spondent's Business Agent Joe Lauwers, Jr., who was also present at the September 10, 1973 conference, testi- fied. No explanation is proffered for their nonappearance. In the light of the issues, the failure of the Respondent to produce their evidence, or to explain their absence, reflects adversely on the Respondent's contentions as to the facts. While it is true that the contractors did not produce as witnesses all their representatives who were present at the conference, the substance of the testimony of the General Counsel's witnesses as to the specific statements made by International Organizer Cooper is, as we have seen, largely undenied. In such circumstances, further testimony in sup- port of the complaint would merely have been cumulative. In the Respondent's case , however, I deem the omission critical. See Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, 190 NLRB 84, 86, footnote 3 (1971); N.L.R.B. v. Monumental Life In- surance Company, 162 F.2d 340, 343 (C.A. 6, 1947). As a consequence, upon consideration of all the testimony and evidence in the record, and upon the basis of my observa- tion of the witnesses and their demeanor, I credit the testi- mony of the General Counsel' s witnesses . Arguments of the Respondent to the effect that those witnesses are not creditable for various reasons have been considered and are now rejected. I therefore find that International Organizer Cooper told Gordon Morrison, in substance , that if Morrison persisted in its assignment to Laborers' Local 1191 of the work of installing wire mesh in the concrete work on the Allen Park project, rather than to the Respondent, there would be trouble, and that this was not merely a threat but a prom- ise. In the light of the Respondent's prior picketing of the Autolite project in a similar dispute, and the consequent shutdown of thatjob, I interpret Cooper's statements to be a threat, as Gordon Morrison construed it, of interference by the Respondent with Morrison's performance of the Al- len Park project. It was thus a threat to force Morrison to assign work to the Respondent' s members rather than to members of Laborers' local 1191, under circumstances in which the Respondent was not entitled to insist upon such an assignment. Such conduct constitutes a violation of Sec- tion 8(b)(4)(ii)(D) of the Act. 10 Gordon Morrison's testimony is that he "thinks" that he asked Cooper the question Gray's testimony is that Morrison, "said are you threatening me", O'Neil's is that, "Mr Morrison asked him if it was a threat " After consideration, I credit the testimony of these witnesses on the point, though I do not deem the issue critical REINFORCING IRONWORKERS LOCAL UNION NO. 426 The Respondent contends that, in any event, Cooper's statements, as related by the General Counsel's witnesses, are not interpretable as threats-that they were not speci- fic, did not identify the particular conduct threatened, and at most are ambiguous-and that in such circumstances it was incumbent on Gordon Morrison to ask Cooper their meaning before a conclusion adverse to the Respondent can be drawn. I do not find that contention sustained. In the first place, though I do not deem the finding crit- ical, I have credited the testimony that Cooper was specifi- cally asked whether his statement that there would be trou- ble constituted a threat. In the second place, in the light of the experience on the Autolite project, if Cooper's state- ment was ambiguous, it was incumbent on the Respondent to make clear that the "trouble" referred to was not of a nature affecting Morrison's performance of the Allen Park job. Contrary to the Respondent, I find that in this state of facts the burden was not on Gordon Morrison to have Cooper clarify his meaning, but was on the Respondent to make clear Cooper's innocent intent, if such existed. In this respect it is to be noted that there is no evidence from the Respondent as to how Cooper's statements are to be inter- preted. In such a circumstance, the Respondent having produced the quandary, it is its burden to disentangle the elements and to establish the innocuousness of any of its conduct which it deems ambiguous. I do not find it controlling that threats are not unusual at prejob conferences, though according to the testimony of witness Gray, fewer materialize than do not. While Gordon Morrison's experience with these conferences was limited, and this was his first meeting with the assertedly custom- arily blunt Cooper, an objective interpretation of Cooper's words in the light of the background warrants the conclu- sion that his statements were threats. If, as the Respondent suggests, Cooper's belligerency impressed Morrison immo- derately because of Morrison's ignorance of the realities of the situation, Morrison's reaction was not unreasonable in the circumstance. Again, if there was fault, it was Cooper's, and not Gordon Morrison's. If there was misunderstand- ing, it was of Cooper's, and not Morrison's, making. Pre- sumably Cooper intended his performance to convey his position clearly. It is scarcely a defense to complain now because he succeeded. Additionally the Respondent contends that Business Agent Wheeler, and not International Organizer Cooper, was the spokesman for the Respondent. However, the com- plaint alleged, and the answer admitted, that Cooper was an agent of the Respondent. Whether he was or was not the principal spokesman for the Respondent, his state- ments are thus attributable to the Respondent. I do not find significance in Morrison's failure to file an unfair labor practice charge until it received the written threat from Laborers' Local 1191-a month or more after the September 10 occurrence. Viewed in the light most fa- vorable to the Respondent, this delay would establish no more than that Gordon Morrison did not regard Cooper's threat seriously, though I have previously found that he did. The failure of a person to be deterred by unfair labor practice conduct, to file an immediate charge protesting it, or even to understand that he is being subjected to ULPs, does not make the conduct lawful The employee who is 719 the unknowing object of surveillance of his union activities by an employer is nevertheless the victim of unfair labor practices. In any event, Gordon Morrison's opinion as to whether or not Cooper's conduct at the September 10 meeting constituted a threat designed to force or require Morrison to assign the disputed work to the Respondent is not binding on me or the Board, whose conclusion must be based upon an objective and reasonable interpretation of Cooper's actions. IV. THE REMEDY Having found that the Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act, I shall recommend that it be ordered to cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action de- signed to effectuate the policies of the Act. Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law, and the entire record in the case, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, I hereby issue the following recommend- ed: ORDER 11 Reinforcing Ironworkers Local Union No. 426, Interna- tional Association of Bridge , Structural and Ornamental Ironworkers, AFL-CIO, its officers, agents, and represen- tatives, shall: 1. Cease and desist from threatening, coercing, or re- straining The Morrison Company, or any other persons engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting com- merce, where an object thereof is to force or require The Morrison Company to assign the work of unloading rein- forcing wire mesh and supports , placing said mesh and supports adjacent to concrete pouring forms, and placing and fitting said mesh and supports into concrete pouring forms, to its members or to employees it represents. 2. Take the following affirmative action which is deemed necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Post at its business office and meeting halls copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix." 12 Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 7, after being duly signed by the Respondent's rep- resentative, shall be posted by Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof and maintained by it for 60 consecu- tive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to members are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to en- sure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. " In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec 10246 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. 121n 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 " 720 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD (b) Furnish to the Regional Director for Region 7 signed copies of said notice for posting by The Morrison Company, if the company is willing, in places where notice to employees are customarily posted. (c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 7, in wnt- ing, within 20 days from the receipt of this Decision, what steps have been taken to comply herewith. APPENDIX WE WILL NOT threaten, coerce, or restrain The Morri- son Company, or any other persons engaged in com- merce or in an industry affecting commerce, where an object thereof is to force or require The Morrison Company to assign the work of unloading reinforcing wire mesh and supports, placing said mesh and sup- ports adjacent to concrete pouring forms, and placing and fitting said mesh and supports into concrete pour- ing forms, to our members or to employees we repre- sent. NOTICE To EMPLOYEES AND MEMBERS POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government We hereby notify employees of The Morrison Company and our members that: REINFORCING IRONWORKERS LOCAL UNION No. 426, IN- TERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF BRIDGE, STRUCTURAL AND OR- NAMENTAL IRONWORKERS, AFL-CIO