City Roofing Co.

786 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD City Roofing Co. and R. O. Pyle Roofing Co. and Robert L. Dixon, a sole Proprietor, d/b/a Custom Roofing and Deloris Terhaar and Marvin Terhaar, d/b/a Inland Empire Roofers and United Slate, Tile & Composition Roofers, Damp & Waterproof Workers' Association, Local No. 189, AFL-CIO. Cases 19-CA-7679, 19-CA-7680, 19-CA-7760, and 19-CA-7761 February 6, 1976 DECISION AND ORDER BY MEMBERS FANNING, PENELLO, AND WALTHER On October 29, 1975, Administrative Law Judge Earldean V. S. Robbins issued the attached Decision in this proceeding. Thereafter, Respondents City Roofing Co. and R. O. Pyle Roofing Co. filed excep- tions and supporting briefs. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na- tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au- thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. The Board has considered the record and the at- tached Decision in light of the exceptions and briefs and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings, and conclusions I of the Administrative Law Judge and to adopt her 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 City Roofing Co., Spokane, Washington ; Respondent R. O. Pyle Roofing Co., Pullman, Washington ; Respondent Robert Dixon, d/b/a Custom Roofing, Spokane, Washington; and Respondent Deloris Terhaar and Marvin Terhaar, d/b/a Inland Empire Roofers, their officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the said recommended Order. Respondents City Roofing and Pyle Roofing contend that these pro- ceedmgs against them are barred by Sec 10(b) of the Act They note that certain circuit courts have rejected the Board's holding that the refusal to honor a collective-bargaining agreement constitutes a continuing violation for the term of the agreement See, e.g., N L R B v. Field and Sons, Inc 462 F 2d 748 (C.A 1, 1972), and N L.R B v. Serv-All Co, Inc, 491 F.2d 1273 (C.A. 10, 1974), but cf. N.L.R B v Joseph T. Strong, d/b/a Strong Roofing and Insulating Co, 386 F.2d 929 (C.A. 9, 1967). However, in this case, we need not reach the issues raised by Respondents' contentions. Here, based on the Administrative Law Judge's credibility resolutions which we adopt, it is clear that Respondents City Roofing and Pyle Roofing did not unequivo- cally repudiate the 1974-77 collective-bargammg agreement until January 1975. Prior to that time, these Respondents had only indicated a possibility that they might not comply with the agreement. Inasmuch as the charges were filed against these Respondents on April 16, 1975, we conclude that the violations found herein clearly occurred within the 10(b) period DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE EARLDEAN V.S. ROBBINS, Administrative Law Judge: These cases were heard before me in Spokane, Washing- ton, on September 3 and 4, 1975. The charges in Cases 19-CA-7679 and 19-CA-7680 were filed by United Slate, Tile & Composition Roofers, Damp & Waterproof Work- ers' Association, Local No. 189, AFL-CIO, herein called the Union and served on Respondent City Roofing Co., herein called City Roofing, and Respondent R. O. Pyle Roofing Co., herein called Pyle Roofing, respectively, on April 16, 1975. The charges in Cases 19-CA-7760 and 19-CA-7761 were filed by the Union and served on Re- spondent Robert L. Dixon, a -sole Proprietor, d/b/a Cus- tom Roofing Co., herein called Custom Roofing and Re- spondent Deloris Terhaar and Marvin Terhaar, d/b/a Inland Empire Roofers, herein called Inland Roofers, re- spectively, on June 4, 1975. The consolidated complaints which issued on May 22, 1975, in Cases 19-CA-7679 and 19-CA-7680, and on July 10, 1975, in Cases 19-CA-7760 and 19-CA-7761, allege that City Roofing, Pyle Roofing, Custom Roofing and Inland Roofers, herein collectively called Respondents, each has violated Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the National Labor Relations Act. On July 10, 1975, an order issued consolidating these cases for the purposes of hearing and decision by an administrative law judge. Oral argument was made by General Counsel and Pyle Roofing and a posthearing brief was filed by City Roofing. The basic issues herein are whether Respondents are bound by a collective-bargaining agreement between the Union and Inland Empire Roofing Contractors Associa- tion, herein called the Association; and whether Respon- dents' conduct is outside the Section 10(b) period. Upon the entire record, including my observation of the witnesses and after due consideration of the brief filed by City Roofing and the oral arguments made by General Counsel and Pyle Roofing, I make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. JURISDICTION Pyle Roofing with its principal place of business in Pull- man, Washington, and City Roofing, Custom Roofing, and Inland Roofers each with its principal place of business in Spokane, Washington, are each engaged in the business of roofing houses and buildings. The complaint alleges, the Respondents stipulate, and I find that the Association is a multiemployer association with offices in Spokane, Washington, which exists for the purpose, inter alia, of representing certain employers, here- in called employer-members, in collective bargaining with the Union. The employer-members annually have com- bined sales of goods and services valued in excess of $500,000 and annually purchase goods and materials val- ued in excess of $50,000 which originate from points direct- ly outside the State of Washington. Upon the pleadings and the evidence, I find that at all times material herein, Respondents each has been a mem- 222 NLRB No. 119 CITY ROOFING CO. her of the Association and each has authorized the Associ- ation to represent it in collective bargaining with the Union. I further find that the Association and its employ- er-members, including Respondents, are now, and have been at all times material herein, employers within the meaning of Section 2(2) of the Act, engaged in commerce and in a business affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. II. LABOR ORGANIZATION The complaint alleges and I find, based on admissions and stipulations by the Respondents, that at all times mate- rial herein, the Union has been a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Facts The Association and the Union have been parties to suc- cessive collective-bargaining agreements for more than 20 years. For the past 15 or 17 years, prior to the commence- ment of negotiations, the Association has secured from its employer-members an assignment of bargaining rights. During this same period of time, it has been the practice for the Association, rather than the employer -members, to sign the collective-bargaining agreement.' Custom Roofing, Pyle Roofing, and Inland Roofers ad- mit that their employees were covered by the 1971-74 col- lective-bargaining agreement 'between the Union and the Association. City Roofing admits that it abided by the terms of that agreement but denied that it was obligated to do so inasmuch as' it did not sign the contract .2 The expiration date of the 1971-74 collective-bargaining agreement was June 30, 1974.3 On March 8, the Associa- tion notified the Union that negotiations on its behalf would be conducted by a four-person negotiating commit- tee which included Robert Dixon, owner of Custom Roof- ing. Around the third week in March, the Union notified the Association and its employer-members of its intent to negotiate changes in wages and working conditions. On March 3, 4, and 24, and May 10, respectively, Pyle Roof- ing, City Roofing, Custom Roofing, and Inland Roofers executed an assignment of bargaining rights, the body of which states: ASSIGNMENT OF BARGAINING RIGHTS We hereby, this day of 19 do assign our bargaining rights to the Inland Empire Roofing Contractors Association. i This is from the undisputed testimony of Robert Brandt , president of the Association, whom I credit 2 The current owners of City Roofing acquired the business in 1970. City Roofing admits that upon acquisition of the business, it signed a written ratification of the collective -bargaining agreement which expired in June 1971. The new owners did not join the Association until March 1972. 3 All dates hereinafter are in 1974 unless otherwise indicated 787 We hereby authorize the Labor Committee of the Inland Empire Roofing Contractors Association to carry on negotiations on our behalf for labor rates and working conditions with Roofers' Locals in the Inland Empire with whom it may become necessary for the Association to negotiate. Negotiations began on May 4. On July 1 the Union com- menced a strike against members of the Association. On July 17, agreement was reached on a contract to be effec- tive July 1, 1974, through June 30, 1977, subject to ratifica- tion by the union membership. The agreement was ratified on July 214 It is undisputed that none of the Respondents, prior to commencement of negotiations or even prior to the reach- ing of the agreement, gave the Union notice of intent to withdraw from the multiemployer bargaining unit. Roy Pyle 5 and Frank Thiery 6 contend that they so notified the Association. However, according to Association President Brandt, what conversations he had with them regarding an intent not to be bound by the 1974-77 agreement, were either prior to their execution of the assignment of bargain- ing rights forms or subsequent to the commencement of negotiation. During the course of the strike, on July 18, Custom Roofing signed an interim agreement, the body of which reads: Interim Agreement with Local Union 189 July 1, 1974-June 30, 1975 The undersigned agrees to the terms of the prior contract except for the exclusions listed below until such time that the new contract agreement is finalized by normal channels between Roofer's Local Union #189 and Inland Empire Roofing Contractors Associ- ation. Pension . 15¢, Health and Welfare .25¢, Dental .106, and Wages $7.95 for a total of $8.45. For all jobs outside the City Limits, the Employee shall receive .154 a mile Travel-Pay. Subsistence shall be $15.00 a day. An addendum attached thereto states: In the event that Roofer's Local Union # 189 and In- land Empire Roofing Contractors Association, do not come to a final contract agreement by Jan. 1, 1975 the wage package shall be increased .30¢ for a total of $8.75. According to Dixon, he signed the interim agreement so that his employees would return to work on Friday, July 19, prior to the ratification of the contract by the union membership? On July 10, also during the course of the strike, City Roofing resumed operations with nonunion help . On about 4 The agreement was signed by the Union and the Association on about November 10. 5 Part owner of Pyle Roofing 6 Part owner of City Roofing. 7 It rained on July 19 so Custom Roofing did not resume operations until Monday, July 22. 788 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD July 22, Max Kinsey Robinson, union business agent, tele- phoned Thiery with regard to City Roofing's delinquent vacation fund payments. According to Robinson, during the course of the conversation, he advised Thiery that the contract had been ratified and asked if City Roofing was going to honor it. Thiery said he was not certain. Accord- ing to Thiery, Robinson inquired if he was going to contin- ue operating nonunion or if he intended to affiliate again with the Union. Thiery said he had not seen the contract and he would not commit himself without knowing what was in it. After discussing the vacation fund matter, Rob- inson again asked Thiery if he was going to be affiliated with the Union. Thiery said until he saw a contract he wasn't. Robinson said he required an immediate answer. Thiery replied under the circumstances s Robinson and the Union could go to hell. Robinson's undenied testimony, which I credit, is that sometime in the latter part of August, on a visit to a con- struction site, he noticed that City Roofing was utilizing nonunion employees. Robinson asked City Roofing's fore- man and part-owner, Abelman, if City Roofing was planning on honoring the contract and operating union. Abelman said he was not sure. According to Robinson, on October 11, he had a conver- sation with Roy O. Pyle, owner of Pyle Roofing. He asked Pyle if he was going to comply with the contract. Pyle said he would comply on union jobs but not on nonunion jobs. Pyle denies making this latter statement. According to him, Robinson said he wanted to explain some of the benefits of the contract to Pyle. Pyle said he was not interested. During the first week in October, on a visit to a construc- tion site, Robinson noticed that Inland Roofers had some nonunion employees. He complained to the foreman who told him that these employees would be required to join the Union and would be reported to the Union in November.9 In December, the Union was notified that Respondents had failed to make the contributions to the various benefit funds as required by the collective-bargaining agreement. On December 30, the Union sent identical letters to each of the Respondents, the body of which states: Because of your consistent refusal to honor the col- lective bargaining agreement of July 1, 1974, between the Inland Empire Roofing Contractors Association and Roofers Local Union #189, we find it necessary to invoke the grievance procedure as outlined in sec- tion 26 of the said agreement. Your company has allegedly violated the following sections of the agreement: (5, 6, 8, and 9). I expect a meeting with you at a mutually conven- ient time to discuss the enforcement of the collective bargaining agreement. If no response is forthcoming within 10 days of the date of this letter, I will consider it necessary to request a special meeting before the Labor Relations Committee in order to settle the dis- pute. On January 23, 1975, the Union and all Respondents, except Pyle Roofing, met with the Labor Relations Com- S Referring to the requirement of an immediate decision 9 The collective-bargammg agreement contains a union-security clause mittee established by the contract to handle grievances and disputes arising under the contract. Though present at the meeting, Thiery stated that he was there as a matter of courtesy and did not consider that City Roofing was bound by the contract. B. Concluding Findings General Counsel contends that Respondents are part of a multiemployer bargaining unit, that they did not timely withdraw from said unit and are thus bound by the collec- tive-bargaining agreement negotiated by the Association and the Union. The law is well established in this area. A multiemployer bargaining unit can only be established by an unequivocal agreement by the parties to be bound by group action or by a controlling history of bargaining on such basis. Once the multiemployer unit is established, the employer-members and the Union are bound by multiem- ployer bargaining absent compliance with the rules gov- erning withdrawal from multiemployer bargaining set forth in Retail Associates, Inc., 120 NLRB 388, 393-395 (1958). In Retail Associates the Board stated that while mutual consent of the unions and employers involved is a basic element to establishing a multiemployer bargaining unit, the stability requirement of the Act dictates that reason- able controls limit the parties as to the time and manner that withdrawal will be permitted from such a unit. The Board therefore held that prior to the date set by the con- tract for modification, or to the agreed-upon date to com- mence negotiations, withdrawal can only be effected by an unequivocal written notice expressing a sincere intent to abandon, with relative permanency, the multiemployer unit, and to embrace a different course of bargaining on an individual employer basis. Once actual bargaining negotia- tions on a multiemployer basis have begun, withdrawal can be effected only on the basis of "mutual consent" or when "unusual circumstances" are present. Here, it is undisputed that each of the Respondents au- thorized the Association to negotiate on its behalf with the Union as to "labor rates and working conditions." It is also undisputed that, prior to the commencement of negotia- tions, none of the Respondents made any attempt to cancel such authorization or to otherwise indicate an intent to abandon the multiemployer unit and bargain on an indi- vidual basis. There is no contention or evidence that the element of "mutual consent" or "unusual circumstances" exist. City Roofing contends, however, that the issue here is not one of timely withdrawal. Rather, it contends it never consented to be bound by multiemployer bargaining. Al- though the other Respondents are not represented by counsel and made no formal argument as to the merits of the complaint, it appears from the testimony of Pyle, Ter- haar, and Dixon that they are making the same argument. They all testified essentially the same, as did Thiery, that by signing the assignment of bargaining rights form, they understood that they were agreeing not to bargain individ- ually but rather to have the Association bargain for them. However, they contend that they did not thereby consent to be bound by the outcome of such bargaining. City Roof- ing argues that since the authorization does not specifically CITY ROOFING CO. state that- it consents to be bound by any agreement reached, the element of consent basic to multiemployer bargaining is missing. I find no merit in this argument. There are no "magic words" required to effect a delegation of bargaining au- thority. In fact, no formal delegation is required. N.L.R.B. v. Dover Tavern Owners' Association and its 15 Constituent Members; Idle Hour, Highway Tavern, et al., 412 F.2d 725, (C.A. 3, 1969). All that is necessary is an unequivocal indi- cation of intent to be bound by group rather than individu- al action. Here, not only did Respondents sign written delegations of authority to the Association's negotiating committee, but they also participated in Association meet- ings where various proposals and counterproposals were considered and voted upon. Terhaar, Dixon, and Thiery attended most of the Association meetings. Thiery was a very active participant.10 Dixon was one of the four-person negotiating committee and he signed an interim agreement. The fact that Pyle did not attend many of the Association meetings is irrelevant. He knew that a principal purpose of the meetings was to make decisions for the guidance of the Association's negotiation committee. That he chose not to participate in such decisions does not insulate him from the obligations flowing therefrom. Thus, it is clear that the As- sociation was bargaining for its members as a group, and that Respondents understood, and intended, that they be part of that group. A multiemployer group has the same obligation as an individual employer to clothe its bargaining agent with suf- ficient authority to culminate an agreement. Negotiators are presumed to have the authority to reach final agree- ment unless limitations are specifically stated. Here the written authorizations contained no limitations and there is no contention or evidence that the Association communi- cated any such limitations to the Union. The Union indi- cated that any agreement reached by its negotiation com- mittee must be ratified by its membership. That the Association made no similar limitation is evidenced by the fact that they reached a tentative agreement subject only to ratification by the union membership. Once that ratifica- tion occurred, the agreement became binding. In view of the history of bargaining on a multiemployer basis and the delegation of bargaining authorizations ob- tained by the Association from its employer-members, in- cluding Respondents, prior to the commencement of the 1974 negotiations in accord with its longstanding practice, I find that the following unit is appropriate for the purpose of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act: All journeyman roofers, waterproofers, registered ap- prentices, and working foremen employed by the em- ployer-members of the Association's who have author- ized the Association to bargain with the union on their behalf. 10 I do not credit Thiery's testimony that he was not an active participant in matters relating to the union negotiation The minutes of these meetings indicate otherwise and while it might be plausible that he was erroneously named as the maker or seconder of a motion once, I find it difficult to believe that such an error would be made several times particularly as Thi- 789 I further find that the Union represents a majority of the employees in said unit,11 that Respondents were part of that unit and did not effect timely withdrawals therefrom and that any later attempts to withdraw were without the consent of the Union or the existence of "unusual circum- stances. " Accordingly, I find that Respondents were obligated to honor the 1974-77 collective-bargaining agreement be- tween the Association and the Union. All of the Respon- dents admit that within the 10(b) period and continuing to date, they have failed and refused to abide by the provi- sions of said agreement. However, Pyle Roofing and City Roofing allege, as an affirmative defense, that further pro- ceedings against them are barred by Section 10(b) of the Act inasmuch as they repudiated the contract outside of the 10(b) period. I find no merit in this contention. It is true that City Roofing and Pyle Roofing first indicated the possibility 12 that they would not abide by the contract out- side the 10(b) period. However, the obligation to honor the contract is a continuing one, N.L.R.B. v. Joseph T. Strong, d/b/a Strong Roofing & Insulating Co., 386 F.2d 929 (C.A. 9, 1967), and admittedly, within the Section 10(b) period, Respondents have failed and refused to abide by the provi- sions of said collective-bargaining agreement. Accordingly, I find that the Respondents have each re- fused to bargain with the Union in violation of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The Association and its employer-members, including Respondents, are employers engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act. 2. The Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act. 3. All journeyman roofers, waterproofers, registered ap- prentices, and working foremen employed by the employ- er-members of the Association who have authorized the Association to bargain with the Union on their behalf, in- cluding Respondents, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act. 4. At all times material herein, the Union has been, and is now, the exclusive representative of all employees in the aforesaid appropriate unit for the purpose of collective bar- gaining within the meaning of Section 9(a) of the Act. 5. By failing and refusing to accept and to abide by the provisions of the collective-bargaining agreement between the Association and the Union effective from July 1,',1974, through June 30, 1977, Respondents each has engaged in, ery received copies of all minutes and never sought to correct the alleged errors. i i This finding is based on the presumption of continued majority flowing from the recently expired 1971-74 contract which contained a union securi- ty clause. That contract is not a part of the record, however, the record evidence herein indicates that the union security clause of the 1974-77 con- tract was carried over from the previous contract 12 I credit Robinson's account of his conversations with Thiery and Pyle outside the 10(b) period and find that they indicated only the possibility of future noncompliance with the contract and did not flatly repudiate it. 790 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD and is engaging in, unfair labor practices within the mean- ing of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act_ 6. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. THE REMEDY Having found that Respondents each has engaged in certain unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act, I shall recommend that Respondents be ordered to cease and desist therefrom and from like or related unfair labor practices and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. Having found that Respondents each has violated Sec- tion 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act by refusing to accept and abide by the 1974-77 collective-bargaining agreement be- tween the Association and the Union, I shall recommend that Respondents comply with the terms and conditions of said agreement, both retroactively to its effective date and for the balance of its term; including payment to the ap- propriate source of the health and welfare and dental fund payments, pension fund payments and vacation fund pay- ments provided for therein. I shall also recommend that each of the Respondents make whole its employees in the aforesaid bargaining unit for any loss of pay which they may have suffered by reason of the Respondents' refusal to abide by and give effect to the aforesaid collective-bargaining agreement between the Union and the Association in a manner consistent with Board policy set forth in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289 (1950), and Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716 (1962). Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, conclu- sions of law and the entire record in this proceeding, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act as amended, I hereby recommend the following: ORDER 13 Respondents R. O. Pyle Roofing Co., Pullman, Wash- ington, City Roofing Co., Robert Dixon, a sole Proprietor, d/b/a Custom Roofing and Deloris Terhaar and Marvin Terhaar, d/b/a Inland Empire Roofers , Spokane, Wash- ington, their officers, agents, successors, and assigns shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Refusing to accept and abide by the terms and con- ditions of the agreement negotiated between the Union and the Association effective from July 1, 1974, through June 30, 1977. (b) In any like or related manner interfering with, re- straining, or coercing employees in the exercise of their rights under the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action which will ef- fectuate the purposes of the Act: (a) Forthwith accept and comply with the terms and conditions of the 1974-77 collective-bargaining agreement between the Association and the Union as indicated in the "Remedy" section of this Decision. (b) Make whole its employees in the bargaining unit found appropriate herein for any loss of pay which they may have suffered by reason of the Respondents' refusal to abide by and give effect to the aforesaid collective-bargain- ing agreement in the manner and to the extent set forth in the section herein entitled "Remedy." (c) Post at their respective, places of business in Spo- kane, Washington, and Pullman, Washington, copies of the appropriate one of the attached notices marked "Appendix A, B, C, and D." 14 Copies of said notices, on forms provid- ed by the-Regional Director for Region 19, after being duly signed by Respondents' representative, shall be posted by Respondents immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by them for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondents to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (d) Notify the Regional Director for Region 19, in writ- ing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps have been taken to comply herewith. 13 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 14 In the event 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 A NOTICE To EMPLOYEES POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government After a hearing at which all sides had the opportunity to present their evidence, the National Labor Relations 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 accept and abide by the terms and condi- tions of the collective-bargaining agreement effective from July 1, 1974, through June 30, 1977, between In- land Empire Roofing Contractors Association and United Slate, Tile & Composition Roofers, Damp & Waterproof Workers' Association, Local 189, AFL- CIO, both retroactively and for the balance of its term, including making to the appropriate sources the health and welfare and dental fund payments, the va- cation fund payments and the pension fund payments provided for therein. WE WILL make whole our employees in the bargain- ing unit for any loss of pay they may have suffered by reason of our refusal to abide by the terms and condi- tions of the aforesaid collective-bargaining agreement. CITY ROOFING CO. CITY ROOFING CO. 791 APPENDIX B NOTICE To EMPLOYEES POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government After a hearing at which all sides had the opportunity to present their evidence, the National Labor Relations 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 accept and abide by the terms and condi- tions of the collective-bargaining agreement effective from July 1, 1974, through June 30, 1977, between In- land Empire Roofing Contractors Association and United Slate, Tile & Composition Roofers, Damp & Waterproof Workers' Association, Local 189, AFL- CIO, both retroactively and for the balance of its term, including making to the appropriate sources the health and welfare and dental fund payments, the va- cation fund payments and the pension fund payments provided for therein. WE WILL make whole our employees in the bargain- ing unit for any loss of pay they may have suffered by reason of our refusal to abide by the terms and condi- tions of the aforesaid collective -bargaining agreement. R. O. PYLE ROOFING CO. APPENDIX C NOTICE To EMPLOYEES POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government After a hearing at which all sides had the opportunity to present their evidence, the National Labor Relations 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 accept and abide by the terms and condi- tions of the collective-bargaining agreement effective from July 1, 1974, through June 30, 1977, between In- land Empire Roofing Contractors Association and United Slate, Tile & Composition Roofers, Damp & Waterproof Workers' Association, Local 189, AFL- CIO, both retroactively and for the balance of its term, including making to the appropriate sources the health and welfare and dental fund payments , the va- cation fund payments and the pension fund payments provided for therein. WE WILL make whole our employees in the bargain- ing unit for any loss of pay they may have suffered by reason of our refusal to abide by the terms and condi- tions of the aforesaid collective; bargaining agreement. ROBERT DIXON, A SOLE PROPRIETOR d/b/a CUSTOM ROOFING APPENDIX D NOTICE To EMPLOYEES POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government After a hearing at which all sides had the opportunity to present their evidence, the National Labor Relations 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 accept and abide by the terms and condi- tions of the collective-bargaining agreement effective from July 1, 1974, through June 30, 1977, between In- land Empire Roofing Contractors Association and United Slate, Tile & Composition Roofers, Damp & Waterproof Workers' Association, Local 189, AFL- CIO, both retroactively and for the balance of its term, including making to the appropriate sources the health and welfare and dental fund payments, the va- cation fund payments, and the pension fund payments provided for therein. WE WILL make whole our employees in the bargain- ing unit for any loss of pay they may have suffered by reason of our refusal to abide by the terms and condi- tions of the aforesaid collective-bargaining agreement. DELORIS TERHAAR AND MARVIN TERHAAR, d/b/a INLAND EMPIRE ROOFERS