Bldg. & Construction Trades Council of Delaware

National Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsDec 16, 1974

215 N.L.R.B. 624 (N.L.R.B. 1974)

624 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Building and Construction Trades Council of Delaware (Pettinaro Construction Co., Inc. ) and Thomas E. Waters , Jr. Case 4-CP-224 December 16, 1974 DECISION AND ORDER BY MEMBERS JENKINS, KENNEDY, AND PENELLO On July 31, 1974, Administrative Law Judge John G. Gregg issued the attached Decision in this proceed- ing. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions and a supporting brief,' The General Counsel filed cross- exceptions and a supporting brief, and the Respondent filed an answering brief to the cross-exceptions. 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 as modified herein.' ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Re- lations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board adopts as its Order the recommended Order of Respondent's request for oral argument is hereby denied, as the record, including the briefs, adequately presents the issues and positions of the parties. 2 We find, in agreement with the Administrative Law Judge, that Respon- dent's picketing violated Sec. 8(b)(7)(C). However, we do so for the follow- ing reasons: The Board has held that Sec. 8(b)(7), including subparagraph (C) of Sec. 8(b)(7), prohibits picketing for a recognitional or organizational object, and that the second proviso to Sec. 8(b)(7)(C) carves out an excep- tion from that prohibition and permits picketing which, although having an object of recognition or organization, meets the two conditions stated in the proviso; namely, (1) that "the purpose" of the picketing is to truthfully advise the public that an employer does not employ members of or have a contract with a labor organization, and (2) that file picketing does not have the proviso effect of inducing individuals employed by other persons in the course of their employment not to deliver or transport goods or to perform any services. Local 429, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO (Sam M. Melson d/b/a Sam Melson, General Contractor), 138 NLRB 460 (1962). Applying these principles to the instant case, we find that the picketing herein, although for a recognitional and organizational object, was for "the purpose" of advising the public that the Pettinaro project was being built by "non-union labor," and, therefore, that such picketing fell within the ambit of the second proviso. Based on the findings of the Administrative Law Judge, we conclude, however, that the effect of the picketing herein was to induce individuals employed by other persons in the course of their employment not to deliver or transport goods or to perform any services. 7 The General Counsel has excepted to the Administrative Law Judge's failure to include in his order a restriction against picketing of employers other than Pettinaro for the same 8(b)(7)(C) purposes. In the absence of any showing that Respondent has demonstrated a proclivity to violate Sec. 8(b)(7) of the Act, we find that Respondent's primary activity organizational and recognitional picketing--does not warrant the broad cease-and-desist order requested by the General Counsel. the Administrative Law Judge as modified below and hereby orders that Respondent, Building and Con- struction Trades Council of Delaware, Glasgow, Dela- ware, its officers, agents, and representatives, shall take the action set forth in the Administrative Law Judge's recommended Order, as herein modified: 1. Substitute the following for paragraph 1: "1. Cease and desist from picketing or causing to be picketed, or threatening to picket or cause to be pick- eted, Pettinaro Construction Co., Inc.,. where an object thereof is forcing or requiring said Employer to recog- nize or bargain with Respondent Council or its af- filiated locals, as the collective-bargaining representa- tive of its employees, or for the purpose of forcing or requiring the employees of said Employer to accept or select Respondent Council or its affiliated locals as their collective-bargaining representative, under cir- cumstances which would violate Section 8(b)(7)(C) of the Act, as amended." 2. Substitute the attached notice for the Administra- tive Law Judge's notice. APPENDIX NOTICE To MEMBERS POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government After a trial in which all parties participated and of- fered evidence, the National Labor Relations Board has found that we violated the law and has ordered us to post this notice and take the action indicated in it. We intend to carry out the Order of the Board and we hereby notify you that: WE WILL NOT pi"ket or cause to be picketed, or threaten to picket or cause to be picketed, Pet- tinaro Construction Co., Inc., where an object thereof is forcing or requiring said Employer to recognize or bargain with us or our affiliated lo- cals, as the collective-bargaining representative of its employees, or for the purpose of forcing or requiring the employees of said Employer t3 ac- cept or select us or our affiliated locals as their collective-bargaining representative, under cir- cumstances which would violate Section 8(b)(7)(C) of the Act, as amended. BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION TRADES COUNCIL OF DELAWARE DECISION JOHN G. GREGG, Administrative Law Judge : This case was heard at Wilmington , Delaware, on June 6, 1974 , based on charges duly filed and a complaint issued May 17, 1974, alleging that the Respondent violated Section 8(b)(7)(C) of 215 NLRB No. 54 BLDG. & CONSTRUCTION TRADES COUNCIL OF DELAWARE the Act. The Respondent denies any violations of the Act. (For the reasons explicated more fully hereinafter I find and conclude that the Respondent did indeed violate the Act as alleged in the complaint.) Upon the entire record in the case, including my observa- tion of the demeanor of the witnesses and careful considera- tion of the briefs filed by the parties, I make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT I THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER AND THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED Pettinaro Construction Co., Inc., is, and has been at all times material herein, a corporation duly organized under, and existing by virtue of, the laws of the State of Delaware, and is, and has been at all times material herein, engaged as a contractor in the building and construction industry with principal offices located in Wilmington, Delaware. During the past year, Pettinaro, in the course and conduct of its business operations has provided services and goods valued in excess of $50,000 to firms which in turn annually sell and ship goods valued in excess of $50,000 directly to points outside the State of Delaware. Pettinaro Construction Co., Inc., is now, and has been at all times material herein, an employer engaged in commerce wtihin the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. As set forth more specifically hereinafter, the Respondent, Building and Construction Trades Council of Delaware is, and has been at all times material herein, an unincorporated association composed of constituent labor organizations in the building and construction industry and is a labor organi- zation within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 11 THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES The complaint alleges essentially that: Since on or about April 8, 1974, and at all times material herein, the Respondent has picketed Pettinaro at the Newark Vocational School construction site where Pettinaro has been engaged pursuant to contract with the Newark, Delaware, School District as general contractor for construction of a school building known as the Newark Vocational School; that the Respondent and its constituent labor organizations have not been "currently certified" as the representative of any of Pettinaro's employees since said picketing began or at any other time material herein; that an object of the Respon- dent's picketing set forth above, was, and is, to force or require Pettinaro to recognize or bargain with the Respond- ent and its constituent labor organizations as the representa- tive of Pettinaro's employees and to force or require Pet- tinaro's employees to accept or select Respondent and its constituent labor organizations as their collective-bargaining representative The complaint alleges additionally that the picketing de- scribed above has been conducted for more than 30 days without the filing of a petition for a Board election under Section 9(c) of the Act; and that the aforesaid picketing has induced individuals employed by suppliers of Pettinaro and by other persons doing business with Pettinaro not to make pickups or deliveries at the Newark Vocational School con- 625 struction project or to perform services at said premises and that by the aforesaid acts the Respondent did picket, or cause to be picketed, the Employer with an object of forcing or requiring an employer to recognize or bargain with a labor organization as the representative of its employees , or forcing or requiring the employees of an employer to accept or select such labor organization as their collective -bargaining repre- sentative at a time when such labor organization was not certified as the representative of such employees , and Re- spondent thereby did engage in, and is engaging in, unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (b)(7)(C) of the Act. The issues presented herein are. (a) Is the Building and Trades Council of Delaware a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act and an agent of its constituent labor organiza- tions within the meaning of Section 2(13) of the Act. (b) Did the Building and Construction Trades Council of Delaware picket Pettinaro with an organizational and recognitional object for a period exceeding 30 days and thereby induce substantial economic impact in violation of Section 8(b)(7)(C) of the Act. A. The Facts The record establishes that Pettinaro is currently engaged at Glasgow, Delaware, as general contractor in the construc- tion of a multimillion dollar project known as the Newark Vocational School project. Construction work commenced around late March or early April 1974, with Pettinaro award- ing all subcontracts, coordinating the subcontractors, and generally overseeing the project scheduled for completion in December 1975. While Pettinaro has some 20 of its own employees on the project, including carpenters, laborers, cement masons, a site expediter, and superintendent, no labor organization has been certified as the representative of Pettinaro's employees As for the subcontractors committed to work on the project, the record establishes that approximately more than 50 percent of the subcontractors, about 17 of them, have bargaining relationships with labor organizations; the remainder have not. The record establishes that there are no union subcon- tractors employing carpenters, laborers, and cement masons. Almost contemporaneously with the commencement of construction at the project, Pettinaro received a letter dated March 29, 1974, from the Respondent notifying Pettinaro that the Respondent "intends to place Informational Pickets on the District Vocational School Project at Rte 896 and Rte 40, Glasgow, Delaware. These pickets are for information to the Public, and are not intended to induce or cause in any manner , a work stoppage. They are for informational pur- poses only." Following receipt of the Respondent's letter and on April 8, 1974, picketing in fact commenced at the project. Pickets carried picket signs declaring "This Picket Is To Advise The Public That This Project Is Being Built By NON-UNION LABOR. The Building Trades Council of Delaware." Gener- ally, about four to six pickets carrying such signs were present daily at the several construction site gates usually from 7:10 626 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD a.m. until about 3 :45 p.m . Picketing continued daily through June 6, 1974, a period well in excess of 30 days. Subsequent to commencement of picketing Pettinaro ad- vised suppliers and subcontractors, including Angerstein and Taylor-Davis, of the existence of the picket line. When they indicated refusal to cross the line Pettinaro, in order to induce said suppliers to cross the picket line, sent them copies of the Respondent's letter to show that the Respondent identified the picketing as informational. The record also establishes that during the time picketing was conducted a number of interruptions of deliveries and work took place. According to the testimony of Alfred Ber- tomeu, vice president of Pettinaro, prior to the commence- ment of picketing deliveries to the site were made on terms of "furnish and deliver to the work area." Subsequently there were occasions when the Respondent "had to meet truckdriv- ers at a diner down the road and drive his truck in," and when the Respondent had to take material off a supplier's truck on to a Respondent's truck and bring it in to the site. According to Bertomeu 's uncontradicted testimony , some unspecified amount of supplies originally purchased for delivery to the worksite were delivered to Respondent's warehouse located about 7 or 8 miles from the worksite. Bertomeu testified that deliveries of orders of lime, con- crete, brick, and grout, placed with A. H. Angerstein, Inc., were interrupted in the course of the picketing. Sometime around the end of April, Angerstein's truck with a load of grout to be delivered to the work area was approached on the opposite side of the project by one of the pickets and subse- quently Pettinaro brought up a truck, transferred the material from Angerstein's truck to Pettinaro's truck, and drove it on to the site without interference by the pickets. Adverting to delivery of Pettinaro's total needs for con- crete by Petrillo Brothers which was to be delivered to the work area, Bertomeu stated that Pettinaro's total needs in excess of 5,000 yards of concrete were not satisfied and that Pettinaro had to satisfy an unspecified portion of its needs through John F. Dugan and Sons at a higher cost. The record also discloses that a delivery to the site of cast iron soil pipe by a driver for Canron Corporation for delivery to the site was stopped at the entrance to the site, a picket conversed with the driver, and subsequently a Pettinaro driver took the truck into the site and unloaded it while the Capron driver stood by. After unloading, the Pettinaro driver drove the truck three-eighths of a mile from the site to the Sherwood Diner where the Canron driver again took the truck. The record discloses that similar incidents took place thereafter involving deliveries of cast iron soil fittings, con- crete brick, layout lime, discharge hose, Embico grout, con- crete, and fill. B. The Status of the Respondent Building and Trades Council of Delaware The record discloses that the Respondent Council is com- prised of approximately 18 affiliated local labor organiza- tions. Delegates appointed by the president of a local or elected by its membership attended monthly meetings. Busi- ness agents of each affiliated local labor organization at- tended weekly meetings . The Respondent's activities are fi- nanced by a per capita tax on each member of the affiliated local labor organizations. The function of the Respondent is essentially one of public relations, that is seeking passage of favorable legislation and acquiring more work for the building trades in the State of Delaware. The Respondent plays a role in the settlement of jurisdictional disputes between affiliated local labor organiza- tions and serves as an intermediary between unions. Theo- dore W. Ryan, the president of the Respondent Council testi- fied- If there are two unions that may have problems and they can't get the problem solved sometimes you can be instrumental in getting the problem solved. If not, we just meet with the two locals, or maybe with all crafts union representatives and try to iron the problem out. There may be a particular contractor, and they cannot resolve their problems, and sometimes we'll call a meet- ing and I am more or less the negotiator between them and get the problem settled. Ryan identified these problems as mostly jurisdictional, but included those problems involving discharge of em- ployees by contractors and personality clashes between union agents and contractors. Ryan stated his work also was heavily involved in public relations, legislative contact, and activity seeking legislation involving protection of jobs and increase in jobs for the 18 local members of the Building Trades. Ryan testified that in the year and a half that he has been President of the Respondent Council he has in fact to an extent dealt with employers in connection with grievances or labor disputes of wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, or conditions of work. Ryan stated, however, that he has no right to represent an employee or a member of a local. "If that member needs representation it will be his business agent or his International representative." Ryan stated further that he had no right to represent any local unions with respect to wages , rates of pay, hours of employment, or conditions of work with respect to dealings with employers, and that he never represented or helped out or worked along with a busi- ness agent because of an individual being fired-that in these circumstances the agent had either resolved the matter or it went to his International. The record discloses additionally that the Respondent is required to adopt the constitution and bylaws to govern local councils as provided for in the constitution of the Building and Construction Trades Department, AFL-CIO, and the Respondent is prohibited from adopting provisions inconsist- ent therewith. The Respondent's president is required to enforce the con- stitution and bylaws of the Building and Construction Trades Department and of the Respondent, and their policies and decisions. Included in the objects and principles set forth in the constitution of the Building and Construction Trades Department are the promotion of health and safety practices; the adjustment of trade and jurisdictional disputes; the prob- lem of industrial peace; and the aiding of all affiliated national or international unions in securing improved wages, hours, and working conditions through the process of collective bar- gaining. The Respondent files periodic reports with the Department of Labor as required of labor organizations by pertinent pro- BLDG. & CONSTRUCTION TRADES COUNCIL OF DELAWARE visions of the Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act, 29 U.S.C.A. 431 and claims exemptions under Section 501 (c)(5) of the Internal Revenue Code 26 U.S.C.A. 501 (c)(5) which section exempts from certain taxation agricul- tural, horticultural, and labor organizations. Additionally, the Respondent Council is included in the classification of labor organizations in the Yellow Pages of the Wilmington Telephone Directory. It is clear from the record that the Respondent Council is a labor organization for the purposes of exemption from cer- tain taxation under the Internal Revenue Code and for re- porting purposes under the Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act. However, the question herein is whether or not the Respondent Council is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the National Labor Relations Act, defining a labor organization as follows: (5) The term "labor organization " means any organi- zation of any kind, or any agency or employee represen- tation committee or plan, in which employees partici- pate and which exists for the purpose, in whole or in part, of dealing with employers concerning grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employ- ment , or conditions of work. In a case involving a secondary boycott on the construction of the Gateway Arch in St. Louis, the Board stated in perti- nent part- . . The Trades Council in the instant cases demon- strated clearly that it was dealing directly with the em- ployers herein with regard to a condition of employment (i.e, the presence of non-AFL-CIO members on the job). We find it sufficient that the Trades Council is the organization through which the affiliated crafts function as a unit , and find that it is a labor organization within the meaning of the Act. IBEW Local 1(E. Smith Plumb- ing Co.), 164 NLRB 313 (1967). The testimony and evidence of record herein amply sup- ports a finding that the Respondent Council is an organiza- tion through which the affiliated crafts function as a unit and that in the instant case the Respondent, as demonstrated by the minutes of its meetings, enunciated and furthered a policy of 100-percent union jobs; dealt directly with employers on a wide range of matters in the Wilmington area; forwarded its letter of March 29, 1974, to Pettinaro with copies thereof to other contractors; and planned, with its affiliated locals, coordinated, and executed the picketing of the Pettinaro job- site in furtherance of the Respondent's broad objectives. Accordingly, I find that the Respondent Building and Con- struction Trades Council of Delaware is a labor organization within the meaning of the Act. Wyoming Valley Building & Construction Trades Council (Altemose Wilkes-Barre Corp. etc.), 211 NLRB 1049 (1974). Additionally, I find that the Respondent Council in planning , coordinating, and executing the picketing herein within the broad scope of its functions under the constitution and bylaws to govern Local Councils as contained in the constitution of the Building and Construc- tion Trades Department AFL-CIO acted as agent for and on behalf of its affiliated local labor organizations. C. Analysis, Findings, and Conclusions 627 Section 8(b)(7)(c) of the Act provides in pertinent part that: Section 8(b)-It shall be an unfair labor practice for a labor organization or its agents- * * * * (7) to picket or cause to be picketed, or threaten to picket or cause to be picketed, any employer where an object thereof is forcing or requiring an employer to recognize or bargain with a labor organization as the representative of his employees, or forcing or requir- ing the employees of an employer to accept or select such labor organization as their collective bargaining representative, unless such labor organization is cur- rently certified as the representative of such em- ployees * * * * * -(C) where such picketing has been conducted without a petition under section 9(c) being filed within a reasonable period of time not to exceed thirty days from the commencement of such picketing: Provided, That when such a petition has been filed the Board shall forthwith, without regard to the provisions of section 9(c)(1) or the absence of a showing of a sub- stantial interest on the part of the labor organization, direct an election in such unit as the Board finds to be appropriate and shall certify the results thereof: Pro- vided further, That nothing in this subparagraph (C) shall be construed to prohibit any picketing or other publicity for the purpose of truthfully advising the public (including consumers) that an employer does not employ members of, or have a contract with, a labor organization , unless an effect of such picketing is to induce any individual employed by any other person in the course of his employment, not to pick up, deliver or transport any goods or not to perform any services. There is no dispute on this record that picketing was con- ducted continuously on a daily basis at the Pettinaro jobsite by or under the aegis of the Respondent for a period clearly in excess of 30 days Nor is there any dispute as to the fact that the Respondent is not currently certified as the represen- tative of any of Pettinaro's employees. The basic question is to determine the true nature of the picketing herein. As stated by the Board, unlawful motive in picketing situations is not often proved by admissions, but rather, the motive for the act in question must be ascertained from all the attendant circumstances. International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union, AFL-CIO (Coed Collar Company), 137 NLRB 1698 (1962). Analysis of the circumstances herein as disclosed by the record persuades me and I find that the picketing herein was conducted for recognitional and organizational purposes as alleged in the complaint .In this connection I have taken into-account and carefully analyzed the testimony and exhibits of record pertaining to the origin, nature, and the thrust of the picketing. It is clear from the record, indeed from testimony of the Respondent's President Ryan, that prior to the commencement of work by 628 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Pettinaro at the jobsite the Council at regular weekly business agent's meetings discussed the Newark Vocational School job in terms of the Council's "Target 74" program which had the object of "working on all lobs 100 percent union " It was noted in these meetings that the Newark Vocational School or Pettinaro job was not 100-percent union . According to Ryan , the decision was made to inform the people in the Newark School District that "the job is non-union." The decision was made to place informational pickets on that job with all locals participating , that the picket sign would be informational , and that pickets would be instructed on a daily basis that if there were any questions by anyone they were to be referred to Ryan in the Building Trades Additionally the record amply establishes that the primary underlying problem under attack by the Respondent and its affiliated local labor organizations was the problem of the nonunion general contractor awarding subcontracts to nonunion subcontractors thereby placing union contractors at a disadvantage in bidding jobs such as the Newark Voca- tional School project, and placing union general contractors at a disadvantage in bidding against nonunion general con- tractors. From the foregoing I am convinced that , while the Re- spondent denies any organizational or recognitional object in its picketing of the Pettmaro project and while the Respond- ent took pains to identify its picketing as informational, the picketing was in fact conducted for organizational and recog- nitional purposes . In this connection the picket signs carried throughout the picketing term proclaimed that the project was being built with "non-union labor." The Board has held that a picket sign bearing a legend referring to the nonunion character or nature of the labor employed on a project clearly implies a recognitional and organizational object San Fran- cisco Local Joint Executive Board, et al. (Jack-in-the-Box), 203 NLRB 744 (1973); Local Joint Executive Board of Hotel and Restaurant Employees and Bartenders, et al. (Crown Caf- eteria), 135 NLRB 1183 ( 1962). In my view this implication is strengthened and ripened into fact by analysis of the origin of the picketing as set forth above and by its linkage with Target 74, as explicated above, all of which convince me and I find that the picketing was indeed conducted for recognitional and organizational pur- poses. Accordingly , since it appears that such picketing oc- curred while Respondent was not certified as collective-bar- gaining representative of Pettinaro's employees and for a period in excess of the statutory 30 days, the Respondent thereby violated Section 8(b)(7)(C) as alleged in the com- plaint. In view of this, I find it unnecessary to determine whether the interruptions to deliveries and services herein had the proviso effect. Construction, Shipyard and General Laborers Local 1207 AFL-CIO, et al. (Alfred S. Austin Con- struction Co, Inc.), 141 NLRB 283, 285 (1963). However , assuming arguendo that the picketing herein had been considered to have been informative I would neverthe- less have found a violation of the Act, as the record clearly convinces me that an effect of the picketing herein was to induce individuals employed by other persons in the course of their employment not to deliver or transport goods or to perform any services. In this connection while the Respondent urges that the evidence of record relative to impedance of deliveries by pick- eting was of indeterminate quantum and economic impact and that such interruption of deliveries and services as there was not clearly caused by action of the pickets, there is ample evidence of record, indeed the Respondent concedes nine such incidents , taking place during the picketing period, in- cluding incidents of drivers failing to follow the normal pro- cedure of delivering their loads onto the jobsite, with result- ant necessity for Pettinaro to provide substitute drivers and equipment , clearly with attendant loss of time and cost in- volved, to convince me that the picketing was the cause of the failures to make deliveries by the truckdrivers and the cause of the failure of suppliers to provide services and supplies as more specifically set forth hereinabove , and that such disrup- tion of services, deliveries , and work at the jobsite occasioned by the presence of the pickets at thelobsite while not suscepti- ble of precise computation iii terms of time and cost amounted to a substantial interruption in the flow of essential supplies to the jobsite during construction . See Retail Clerks Union, Local 1404, AFL-CIO (Jay Jacobs Downtown, Inc.) 140 NLRB 1344 ( 1963); Retail Clerks Union Local 324 and Retail Clerks Union Local 770 (Barkers Bros. Corp. and Gold's Inc.), 138 NLRB 478 (1962). III THE REMEDY Having found that the Respondent, through picketing herein , has engaged in unfair practices violative of the Act, I will recommend that the Respondent be ordered to cease and desist from engaging in such conduct and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act including the posting of appropriate notices by the Re- spondent and each of its affiliated local labor organizations CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The Respondent, Building and Construction Trades Council of Delaware , is a labor organization within the mean- ing of Section 2(5) of the Act. 2. Pettinaro Construction Co., Inc, is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act 3. By picketing the Pettinaro Construction Company, Inc, jobsite (Newark Vocational School project) for an object of forcing or requiring Pettinaro to recognize or bargain with local unions affiliated with the Respondent Council as the representatives of its employees although the Respondent Council or these local unions are not certified collective- bargaining representatives , without a petition having been filed within 30 days after the commencement of such picket- ing, the Respondent Council has engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(b)(7)(C) of the Act 4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. Upon the above findings of fact, conclusions of law, and the entire record in this case and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, I hereby issue the following recommended- BLDG. & CONSTRUCTION TRADES COUNCIL OF DELAWARE 629 ORDER' Respondent, the Building and Construction Trades Coun- cil of Delaware, its officers, agents, and representatives, shall: 1. Cease and desist from picketing, or causing to be pick- eted, Pettinaro Construction Co., Inc., where an object thereof is forcing or requiring such employer to recognize or bargain with Respondent as the collective-bargaining repre- sentatives of its employees at a time when Respondent is not certified as such representative and where such picketing has been conducted without a petition under Section 9(c) being filed within a reasonable period of time not to exceed 30 days ' 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. 2 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." from the commencement of such picketing. 2. Take the following affirmative action which is necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Post in conspicuous places at its business office and all places where notices to its affiliated labor organizations are customarily posted, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix."2 Copies of said notices to be furnished by the Regional Director for Region 4, after being signed by the duly authorized representative of the Respondent, shall be posted by the Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in such conspicuous places. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Re- spondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (b) Furnish the Regional Director for Region 4 signed copies of said notice for posting by Pettinaro Construction Co., Inc., if willing, in places where notices to employees are customarily posted. (c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 4, in writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps Re- spondent has taken to comply herewith.