Painters' Local Union No. 77

PAINTERS' LOCAL UNION NO. 77 Local Union No. 77 of International Brotherhood of Painters and Allied Trades, AFL-CIO (Colorite, Inc.) and Larry Lee Cornelisen. Case 27-CB-888 January 27, 1976 DECISION AND ORDER BY MEMBERS JENKINS , PENELLO, AND WALTHER On November 21, 1975, Administrative Law Judge Earldean V. S. Robbins issued the attached Decision in this proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent filed ex- ceptions and a supporting brief, and the General Counsel filed an answering brief. 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 'd 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 her recommended Order as herein modified.' 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 as modified below and hereby orders that the Respondent Local Union No. 77 of International Brotherhood of Paint- ers and Allied Trades, AFL-CIO, Salt Lake City, Utah, its officers, agents, and' representatives, shall take the action set forth in the said recommended Order, as so modified: - 1. Substitute the following for paragraph 1(c): "(c) In any other manner restraining or coercing employees in the exercise of their rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act." 2. Substitute the attached notice for the Adminis- trative Law Judge's notice. i In par. 1(c) of her recommended Order, the Administrative Law Judge uses the narrow cease and desist language, "like or related manner," rather than the broad injunctive language, "in any other manner," the Board tradi- tionally provides in cases involving serious 8(b)(2) discrimination conduct See Glaziers and Glassworkers Local Union No 513, affiliated with Interna- tional Brotherhood of Painters and Allied Trades, AFL-CIO (Joseph J Cer- mak, d/b/a-Southern Glass Company), 200 NLRB 617 (1972), Morrison- Knudsen Company, Inc, 122 NLRB 1147 (1959). Accordingly, we shall mod- ify the Order to require Respondent -to cease and desist from in any other manner infringing upon employee rights. This change is also made ,in the revised notice. APPENDIX NOTICE POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government 607 NOTICE TO ALL MEMBERS AND OTHER PERSONS USING THE HIRING HALL OF LOCAL UNION NO. 77 OF THE INTERNA- TIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF PAINTERS AND ALLIED TRADES, AFL-CIO. After a hearing at which all sides had the opportunity to present their evidence, the National Labor Rela- tions Board has found that we violated the National Labor Relations Act, and has ordered us to post this notice and we intend to carry out the Order of the Board. WE WILL NOT maintain, enforce, or otherwise give effect to an exclusive hiring hall contractual arrangement with Painting and Decorating Con- tractors of America, Salt Lake City Chapter, its employer-members and nonmember employees, which grants preference in referrals and employ- ment opportunities to applicants for employ- ment based on prior work experience with employers signatory to collective-bargaining agreements with us. WE WILL NOT cause or attempt to cause Color- ite, Inc., or any other employer to discriminate against Larry Lee Cornelisen, or any other em- ployee, based on considerations of prior union representation. WE WILL NOT in any other manner restrain or coerce applicants for employment through our hiring hall in the exercise of their rights guaran- teed by Section 7 of the Act. WE WILL make Larry Lee Cornelisen whole for any loss of earnings he may have suffered by reason of our discrimination against him. LOCAL UNION No. 77 OF INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF PAINTERS AND ALLIED TRADES, AFL-CIO DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE EARLDEAN V.S. ROBBINS, Administrative Law Judge: This case was heard before me in Salt Lake City, Utah, on Sep- tember 30 and October 1, 1975. The charge was filed by Larry Lee Cornelisen, an individual, and served on Re- spondent on November 20, 1974. The complaint, which issued on April 25, 1975, alleges that the Respondent has violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) and (2) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, herein called the Act. 222 NLRB No. 95 608 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD The primary issues herein are whether the contractual hiring hall arrangement maintained by Respondent grants an illegal preference in employment based on prior work experience with employers signatory to collective-bargain- ing agreements with Respondent, and, if so, whether Re- spondent caused Colorite, Inc., to discharge Cornelisen be- cause of said discriminatory hiring practices. Upon the entire record, including my observation of the witnesses, and after due consideration of the posthearing briefs filed by Respondent and by the General Counsel, I make the following: lowing conditions: 1. Selection of applicants for referral to jobs shall be on a non-discriminatory basis and shall not be based on or in any way affected by Union member- ship, by-laws, regulations, constitutional provisions or any other aspect or obligation of Union member- ship, policies or requirements. * C. The following procedures shall govern all em- ployment: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. JURISDICTION Colorite, Inc., a Utah corporation with its principal of- fice and place of business located in Ogden, Utah, is en- gaged in business as an industrial and commercial painting contractor. Colorite, in the course and conduct of ,its busi- ness operations during the year preceding the issuance of the complaint herein, purchased and received paints and other materials valued in excess of $35,000 directly from suppliers located outside the State of Utah and purchased paint valued in excess of $50,000 from suppliers located in the State of Utah which paint originated outside the State of Utah; and during the same period of time performed services outside the State of Utah valued in excess of $50,000. The complaint alleges, and I find, that Colorite, Inc., is, and at all times material has been, an employer engaged in operations affecting commerce within the meaning of Sec- tion 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act. II. LABOR ORGANIZATION The complaint alleges, Respondent admits, and I find that Respondent is, and at all times material has been, a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Facts For a number of years, Respondent has been party to successive collective-bargaining agreements with Painting and Decorating Contractors of America, Salt Lake City Chapter, herein called the Master Agreement. Two of these agreements are pertinent herein. The first, effective by its terms from April 1, 1972, until August 31, 1974, provides inter alia: SECTION VII EMPLOYMENT, DISPATCHING AND QUALIFICATION PROCE- DURES A. The employers shall requisition all employees who are to be employed from the local hiring hall of the Union. The Union will immediately dispatch such employees as having been requisitioned in accordance with this section, subject,to and governed by the fol- * 2. Any employer desiring to hire any particular qualified person by name may make a request to this effect by personal contact or by telephone to the hiring hall, and such requested personnel, if available, on hiring list, and desirous of employ- ment, shall be dispatched by the hiring hall for em- ployment. If no specific request is made by name, it shall be the duty of the hiring hall to dispatch avail- able qualified personnel. A written referral shall be given to each workman dispatched from the hiring hall under this Agreement. This is not a Union "clearance" but rather written evidence in the workman's possession that he has been dispatched in accordance with this Agreement. 2.(a) "A" LIST: Where an employee has not been specifically re- quested by name, the hiring hall shall dispatch available personnel from the "A" list which will consist of qualified employees who have previously worked for employers signatory to this Agreement for at least six (6) months during the two (2) years preceeding [sic] dispatch or referral. "B" LIST All other employees registered at the dispatch of- fice of the Local Union will be placed on the "B" list. 2.(b) If qualified personnel cannot be obtained from the "A" list, they may be drawn from the "B" list as required and all other personnel subject to the above limitations will be referred or dispatched on a first-in first-out basis. 3. It is recognized that by arrangements of conve- nience in the past, employees have in fact been re- ferred on a telephone basis, and the hiring hall is free to continue this practice to the extent that it continues to be practicable. * * * * G. Should any contractor employ a workman (ex- cept under section B) who cannot produce a referral from the Union, such employer shall pay as stipulated damage the sum of $50.00 for the first of such viola- tions, $150.00 for the second-violation, and $500.00 for the third and all subsequent violations during the term of this Agreement, said sums to be contributed to one PAINTERS' LOCAL UNION NO. 77 609 of the trusts established under [t]his Agreement as the Board shall direct. Likewise, any workmen undertak- ing any employment without having been duly re- ferred for employment shall pay as stipulated damages to the Local Union or District Council the amounts indicated herein provided that charges are filed against him and he had been found guilty of such vio- lation by the Local Union or the District Council Trial Board. On September 1, 1974,' upon the termination of the above agreement, the Union engaged in a strike against the employer-members of the Salt Lake City Chapter P.D.C.A. which continued until about November 14, when agree- ment was reached on a collective-bargaining agreement to be effective from November 14, 1974, until August 31, 1977. The hiring hall provisions of this new master agree- ment are identical to those of the prior contract except that requests by name are restricted to those persons on the "A" list,2 posting of the "A" list at the union hall is required, and employer fines are required to be paid into the Deco- rating Industry Promotion Fund. Employers who are not members of P.D.C.A. sign a counterpart agreement whereby they agree to be bound by the terms of the Master Agreement. Colorite is a member of the Ogden P.D.C.A. Chapter and thus party to a collective-bargaining agreement with Respondent's sister Local 22. Because Colorite operates a shop in Salt Lake City and performs work within the geo- graphic jurisdiction of Respondent, it is party to a memo- randum of understanding with Respondent which provides that with respect to work performed within Respondent's jurisdictional area, it will be bound by the provisions of the Master Agreement. Colorite is also party to a tripartite agreement, effective since December 19, 1973, between Re- spondent, Local 22, and Colorite which provides, inter aka: 4. Should the Ogden "shop" send men to the area of Local Union No. 77 such men shall receive travel time i All dates herein are 1974 unless otherwise stated 2 The provisions read SECTION VII EMPLOYMENT, DISPATCHING AND QUALIFICATION PROCEDURES C. The following procedures shall govern all employment 2 Any employer desiring to hire any particular qualified person by name may make a request to this effect from the "A" list by personal contact or by telephone to the hiring hall, and such requested person- nel if available, on hiring list, and desirous of employment, shall be dispatched by the hiring hall for employment If no specific request is made by name, it shall be the duty of the hiring hall to dispatch available qualified personnel A written referral shall be given to each workman dispatched-from the hiring hall under this Agreement This is not a Union "clearance" but rather written evidence in the workman's possession that he has been dispatched in accordance with this Agreement. and/or subsistance [sic] as per the Ogden Agreement. The Ogden "Shop" shall adhere to the 75-25 3 proviso of the Agreement on the job to which Ogden men are sent provided Local Union # 77 shall have men avail- able. The men sent into Local Union # 77 area shall be governed by the sixty (60) day section of the Broth- erhood Constitution (working out of home area for home employer). While Ogden men are working in the area of Local Union # 77 the Employer shall deduct from each employee's pay the current amount of Ad- ministration Dues Check-off and remit same to Local Union # 77 as per Agreement. On September 23, Colorite and Respondent entered into an interim agreement extending the terms of the 1972-74 Master Agreement, with certain specified changes, until the execution of a new Master Agreement. Cornelisen has been a member of the International Brotherhood of Painters and Allied Trades, AFL-CIO, for several years. On August 28, 1974, he transferred his mem- bership from another local to Respondent, at which time he signed Respondent's out-of-work list and was designat- ed as being on the "B" list 4 Thereafter, Cornelisen sought to obtain employment with various employers without waiting to be referred in turn from the hiring hall. On November 13 or 14, accord- ing to Cornelisen, he talked to someone from PW Painters who told him he could start work for PW and that he should obtain a referral slip. Cornelisen telephoned Man- ning and asked for a referral to PW. Manning said Corneli- sen could not be referred because he had not previously worked for PW. Manning explained the "A" and "B" list and told Cornelisen he was on the "B" list. Cornelisen in- quired how to get off the "B" list. Manning said when he decided he would take Cornelisen off that list. Cornelisen's testimony is rather confused as to the number of conversa- tions he had with Manning that date and what was said in which of two or three conversations. However, his testimo- ny is consistent as to what was said during the course of all of the conversations. He is also fairly consistent that the first conversation concerned PW and the others concerned 7 This is an apparent reference to sec X(A) of the Master Agreement which provides A. When engaged in work outside the geographical jurisdiction of this Agreement the said contractors agree, subject to their rights, to reject any applicant for cause, that not less than 75% of the men em- ployed on such work will be residents of the area where the work is performed, or who are customarily employed a greater percentage of their time in such area, and further provided that these men are quali- fied to meet the job requirements 4 Max Manning, Respondent's business representative, and his secretary, Helen Hansen, both testified that Manning explained to Cornelisen at this time the requirements for the "A" and "B" list and that Cornelisen would be on the "B" list. Manning testified that he made available to Cornelisen a copy of the contract to be read in the office, and asked him to read the hiring hall provisions. Cornelisen denies that he was either told about the "A" and "B" list or given anything to read with regard to such list. It is undisputed that everyone signs the same list and the designation "A" or "B" is appended to each signature It is also undisputed that Manning placed the "B" designation opposite Cornelisen's signature. Considering Cornelisen's admitted heated reaction when Manning later discussed "A" and "B" list with him, the fact that Cornelisen appears eligible for the "A" list as de- scribed in the Master Agreement, and his demeanor on the witness stand, i credit Cornelisen's denial that Manning explained the "A" and "B" list to him on August 28 or gave him a description of such to read. 610 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Colorite. During the second conversation, he inquired if he could work for anyone for whom he had previously worked. Manning replied that he could. Cornelisen made a rather heated protest concerning the "A" and "B" list, and Manning replied that if Cornehsen did not like the way Manning ran the Salt Lake City area he could get his union card and get out of Utah, that there were a number of people more deserving of employment who were on the "A" list. Cornelisen asked if he could work for Colorite. Manning said yes, Cornelisen has worked there previously and could return. In either the second or third conversa- tion, Cornehsen again asked if he could work for Colorite and Manning said no, he had changed his mind.' Manning recalls only one conversation with Cornelisen on November 13 or 14, the one concerning PW. According to him, he told Cornelisen Respondent was on strike against PW and there was no chance of working there until the strike ended. He conceded that he may have attempted to explain the "A" and "B" list and admits that he said many people out of work as a result of the strike had the right to return to work. He denies saying he had changed his mind, Cornelisen could not work for Colorite. He does not deny the remainder of Cornelisen's testimony as to the discussion as to Colorite.6 On or about November 14, Cornelisen secured employ- ment through Colorite's Ogden shop to work on a job in Salt Lake City, and he began work on November 15. On the afternoon of November 15; Respondent Business Rep- resentative Max Manning discovered Cornelisen working at Colorite's Salt Lake City jobsite. According to Corneli- sen, Manning inquired what he was doing on the job. Cor- nelisen replied he was working. Manning said Cornelisen did not have a referral. Cornelisen said he had spoken to Colorite's Superintendent William Carlos who was going to "square it away." Manning said Carlos had not spoken to him, that Cornelisen was in direct violation of the contract and he was going to prefer charges against him for working without a referral slip. Manning further said he did not want Cornelisen back on the job, that even if he had to pull the men off the job Cornelisen was not going to work. Cornelisen asked if he could have a work order. Manning said no, Cornelisen was on the "B" list and was not in line to be referred out. Cornelisen said he had worked for Co- lorite in excess of 6 months during the past 2 years. Man- ning did not respond. Manning testified in essential agreement as to his state- ments about Cornelisen not having a referral slip, being in violation of the Agreement, and filing intraunion charges.' He denies that he threatened to pull the men off the job. 5 It is unclear whether this was before or after Cornehsen _had been hired by Colorite 6I credit Cornelisen . He impressed me as an honest , forthright witness and much of his account is either corroborated by Manning or undenied Also, from the timing of these conversations, the strike was either over or the end imminent, which appears more consistent with Cornelisen 's testimo- ny as to the reason Manning gave that he could not work for PW than it does with Manning's testimony that he said Respondent was on strike against PW On January 27, 1975, Manning did file intraunion charges against Cor- nehsen for various violations of the union constitution The charge refers to a previous charge on November 17 "for violation of the Hiring Hall proce- dure of the Local Union Agreement for going to work without a referral- He does not deny that Cornelisen told him he had worked for Colorite in excess of 6 months during the past 2 years. He does state that on November 15 he was aware that Cornehsen had worked for Colorite in the past but was not aware that he had worked for the period required to quali- fy for the "A" list. When specifically asked if Cornelisen did not tell him so, Manning replied, "I don't know that he did." Manning further testified that on November 15 Carlos telephoned him protesting his request that Cornelisen be terminated. Manning told Carlos that Cornelisen was re- moved from the job because he was in violation of the hiring hall provision of the contract and also reminded Carlos that Cornelisen was a member of Respondent and had no right being referred out of Local 22. Following this telephone conversation, Carlos instructed Colorite's supervisor in Salt Lake to terminate Cornelisen and Cornelisen was discharged on November 19 pursuant to Manning's request. B. Conclusions The record established that Respondent and the Salt Lake City Chapter of P.D.C.A. are parties to a collective- bargaining agreement which requires employer-members to obtain employees exclusively through Respondent's hir- ing hall. This agreement has been adopted by nonmember employers by signing a counterpart agreement. It is undis- puted that applicants for employment sign one out-of-work list from which they are referred to jobs both with employ- er-members of P.D.C.A. and with nonmenber employers, and that preference is granted based on prior employment with both member-employers and nonmember employers signatory to collective-bargaining agreements with Re- spondent. Experience with nonsignatories is not counted. Thus it is clear that the preference in employment is not based on length of service with a particular employer or within a multiemployer bargaining unit,8 but rather on considerations of prior union representation. Such a prefer- ence is violative of Section 8(b)(1)(A) and (2) of the Act. International Photographers of the Motion Picture Industries, Local 659 of the International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees and Moving Picture Machine Operators of the United States and Canada (MPO-TV of California, Inc., Y- A Productions, Inc.), 197 NLRB 1187 (1972), enfd. 477 F.2d 450 (C.A.D.C., 1973), cert. denied 414 U.S. 1157 (1974); Directors Guild of America, Inc. (Association of Motion Pic- ture & Television Producers, Inc.), 198 NLRB 707 (1972), enfd. 494 F.2d 692 (C.A. 9, 1974); Nassau-Suffolk Chapter of the National Electrical Contractors' Association, Inc., 215 NLRB No. 125 (1974). Respondent argues that it caused Cornelisen's discharge solely because he had not obtained a referral as required by the contract. I am not persuaded by this argument. out of turn on the hiring list." The charge further states that instead of following constitutional procedures, Cornelisen filed an unfair labor prac- tice charge claiming that Manning "had discriminated against him by not putting him to work, when in fact he was not in line to be dispatched for some period of time because of his position on the `B' list" Subsequently, on February 13, 1975, the January 27 charges were dropped The record does not indicate the status of the November 17 charge. 8 A priority permissible under Sec 8(f) of the Act PAINTERS' LOCAL UNION NO.77 611 Manning's statement to Cornelisen on November 14 that he could not be referred to PW becuase of his position on the "B" list and that other persons were more entitled to jobs than he was; Manning's admitted statement to Carlos that Cornelisen was a member of Respondent and had no right being referred out of Local 22, even though the con- tract permits a certain number of employees from the home area; Manning's description of Cornelisen's offenses in the January 27, 1975, intraunion charge which specifi- cally referred to his position on the "B" list; Cornelisen's and Carlos' testimony, which I credit, that referrals were often obtained after a person began work; the contractual provision recognizing and approving the practice of tele- phone referrals; all convince me that Manning demanded Cornelisen's discharge at least in part because he was on the "B" list. Since the "A" and "B" list violate the Act, causing Cornelisen's discharge because he was on the "B'; list also violates the Act. I find inapposite the cases cited by Respondent. Those cases did not involve referral sys- tems which established preferences found by the Board to be illegal. Accordingly, I find that Respondent violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) and (2) of the Act by causing Cornelisen's discharge. Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and the entire record, I make the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Colorite, Inc., is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act. 2. Respondent is a labor organization within the mean- ing of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3. By maintaining, enforcing, and otherwise giving ef- fect to an exclusive hiring hall arrangement which gives preference in referrals and employment opportunities to applicants for employment who have previously worked for employers who had collective-bargaining agreements with Respondent, Respondent has violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) and (2) of the Act. 4. By causing Colorite, Inc., to discharge Larry Lee Cor- nehsen based on considerations of prior union representa- tion, Respondent has violated Section 8(b)(l)(A) and (2) of the Act. 5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Sec- tion 2(6) and (7) of the Act. THE REMEDY Having found that the Respondent has engaged in cer- tain unfair labor practices, I shall recommend that Respon- dent cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirma- tive action in order to effectuate the policies of the Act. Having found that the Respondent unlawfully caused Larry Lee Cornehsen to be discharged by Colonte, Inc., I will recommend that it make him whole for any loss of earnings he may have suffered by reason of the discrimina- tion against him. All backpay is to be computed on a quar- terly basis as prescribed in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289 (1950), and shall include interest at the rate of 6 percent per annum as provided for in Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716 (1962). Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and con- clusions of law, and upon the entire record in this case, I hereby issue the following recommended: ORDER9 Respondent, Local Union No. 77 of the International Brotherhood of Painters and Allied Trades, AFL-CIO, Salt Lake City, Utah, its officers, agents, and representa- tives, shall: 2. Cease and desist from: (a) Maintaining, enforcing, or otherwise giving effect to an exclusive hiring hall contractual arrangement with Painting and Decorating Contractors of America, Salt Lake City Chapter, its employer-members and nonmember employers, which grants preference in referrals and em- ployment opportunities to applicants for employment based on previous work experience with employers signato- ry to collective-bargaining agreements with it. (b) Causing or attempting to cause Colorite, Inc., or any other employer to discriminate against Larry Lee Cornell- sen, or any other employee, based on considerations of prior union representation. (c) In any like or related manner restraining or coercing employees in the exercise of their rights guaranteed in Sec- tion 7 of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action designed to ef- fectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Make Larry Lee Cornelisen whole for any loss of earnings he may have suffered by reason of the discrimina- tion against him in the manner provided in the section of this Decision entitled "The Remedy." (b) Notify all employers signatory to collective-bargain- ing agreements with it that it will cease granting preference in referrals and employment opportunities to applicants for employment based on prior work experience with employ- ers signatory to collective-bargaining agreements with it. (c) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the Board or its agents, for examination and copying, all hiring hall records necessary to analyze the amount of backpay due. (d) Post at its business offices, hiring hall and meeting places, copies of the attached notice marked "Appen- dix." 10 Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 27, after being duly signed by its authorized representative, shall be posted by it im- mediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, in- cluding all places where notices to members are custom- ' 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. 10 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" 612 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD arily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by it to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (e) Promptly after receipt of copies of the said notice from the Regional Director , return to him signed copies for posting by Colorite , Inc., all employer-members of Paint- ing and Decorating Contractors of America, Salt Lake City Chapter, and all other employers with whom it has exclu- sive hiring hall contractual arrangements, if they be willing, at their places of business, including all places where no- tices to employees are customarily posted. (f) Notify the Regional Director for Region 27, in writ- ing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps it has taken to comply herewith.