Local 275, Laborers International Union

LOCAL 275, LABORERS INTERNATIONAL UNION 279 Local 275, Laborers International Union of North America, AFL-CIO; and Painters District Council No. 20 of Westchester and Putnam Counties, New York, Brotherhood of Painters, Decorators and Paperhangers of America, AFL-CIO; and Local 55, Bricklayers, Masons and Plasterers Interna- tional Union of America, AFL-CIO and S. B. Apartments, Inc. Cases 2-CP-484 and 2-CB-5281 February 28, 1974 DECISION AND ORDER BY MEMBERS FANNING, KENNEDY, AND PENELLO On June 25 , 1973, Administrative Law Judge James M. Fitzpatrick issued the attached Decision in this proceeding. Thereafter, Respondents and the General Counsel filed exceptions and supporting briefs. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board has delegated its authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. The Board has considered the record and the attached Decision in light of the exceptions and briefs and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings,' and conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge and to adopt his recommended Order,2 except as modified below. As set forth more fully in the Administrative Law Judge's Decision, Respondents at a prejob confer- ence with the Employer attempted to organize the Employer's operation. Following the conference, Respondents picketed for 108 days between Novem- ber 1, 1972, and March 17, 1973. During the first 28 days, the picket signs read as follows: Notice to General Public-The General Contrac- tor doing carpentry work on this job does not have a signed collective bargaining contract with Local 323-Carpenters. This is in no way meant to encourage employees of any employer to refuse to perform services whatsoever.-7 The picket signs were then changed to read as follows: 1 Respondents' exceptions to the Administrative Law Judge's credibility findings as to the testimony of witnesses who appeared only in a proceeding under Sec. 10(1) of the LMRA in a Federal district court are without merit. The district court transcript was by stipulation made a part of the record before the Administrative Law Judge The Administrative Law Judge's credibility findings are consistent with the credibility findings of the district court, 357 F Supp. 1178 (1973), and the findings of the court of appeals, 479 F.2d 1033 (1973), which heard the case on appeal. 2 The Administrative Law Judge inadvertently used the plural "projects" To the Public Workers on this job for S & B Construction Company do not receive wages and working conditions as good as Local 275 Laborers, International Union. This sign is not directed to any Employer or to any Employee on this job.4 1. We agree with the Administrative Law Judge's findings that Respondents violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) by mass picketing, threatening employees with bodily injury, preventing an employee from leaving the jobsite, and interfering with deliveries. 2. The Administrative Law Judge found that an objective of Respondents' picketing since November 1 was to force or require the Employer to recognize or bargain with Respondents as the collective-bar- gaining representatives of the Employer's employees; that the entire 108 days of picketing had an informational purpose within the ambit of the second proviso of Section 8(b)(7)(C), despite the change in the picket sign format to an area standards message after the first 28 days of picketing; but that the proviso afforded Respondents no defense because an effect of the picketing was to interfere with deliveries to the Employer and that Respondents violated Section 8(b)(7)(C). We agree with the Administrative Law Judge that Respondents' picketing at all times was for the recognitional objective proscribed by 8(b)(7)(C), but we need not reach the question of whether Respon- dents' picketing had a sufficient impact on the Employer's operations to constitute an "effect" within the meaning of Section 8(b)(7)(C). Contrary to the Administrative Law Judge, we find the change in the signs' format to an area standards message to be significant because area standards picketing is not informational picketing protected by the second proviso. The Administrative Law Judge incorrectly relied on United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners, Local Union No. 2064, affiliated with the International Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO (Westra Construction, Inc.).5 to find that an area standards message of a picket sign falls within the intendment of the second proviso. The Board, in that case, at page 885, footnote 17, clearly stated that "the exemption of the [second] proviso, in any event, would not be applicable after in pars 1(a) and (b) of his recommended Order, rather than the singular form. We hereby correct both words to read "project " 3 Similar signs were occasionally earned protesting the lack of a contract with the Laborers Union and the Masons Union. 4 Similar signs were occasionally tamed protesting the inferior working conditions of employees for "S & B Construction Company" as compared to employees working under contracts with the Painters Union, the Carpenters Union, the Masons Union, and the Roofers Union. 5 175 NLRB 88I. 209 NLRB No. 45 280 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD the signs were changed . . . to so-called area standards signs." The Board in International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local Union No. 113, AFL-CIO (I. C.G. Electric, Inc.)a also held that a picket sign protest against "substandard" working conditions, with a recognitional object is not encompassed within the language or purport of the second proviso protecting picketing for the purpose of advising the public "that an employer does not employ members of , or have a contract with, a labor organization." We find, accordingly , that the Respondent violated Section 8(b)(7)(C) of the Act by picketing for more than 30 days for the purpose of securing recognition without filing an election petition. ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended , the National Labor Relations Board adopts as its Order the recommend- ed Order of the Administrative Law Judge, as modified, and hereby orders that Respondents, Local 275, Laborers International Union of North Ameri- ca, AFL-CIO; and Painters District Council No. 20 of Westchester and Putnam Counties, New York, Brotherhood of Painters , Decorators and Paperhang- ers of America , AFL-CIO; and Local 55 , Bricklay- ers, Masons and Plasterers International Union of America, AFL-CIO, their officers, agents, and representatives, shall take the action set forth in the said recommended Order, as modified below: 1. Add the following as paragraph 2(b) and reletter the remaining paragraphs accordingly: "(b) Sign and mail sufficient copies of said notice to the Regional Director for Region 2, for posting by S. B. Apartments Inc., and James A. Klein, Inc., if they are willing, at all places where notices to their employees are customarily posted." 2. Substitute the attached notices 7 for those of the Administrative Law Judge. 6 142 NLRB 1418. r The attached notices correct the Administrative Law Judge's inadvert- ent error by substituting "project" for "projects." APPENDIX A NOTICE To MEMBERS POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government WE WILL NOT restrain or coerce employees working on or delivering to the construction project of S. B. Apartments, Inc., and James A. Klein, Inc., by obstructing their entry to or departure from the project. by threats of trouble at the project, by threats of bodily harm, or by mass picketing in such manner as to cause them to fear bodily harm from entering, leaving, or working on the project. WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, coerce, or restrain such employees in the exercise of their rights under the National Labor Relations Act, as amended. WE WILL Nor picket or cause to be picketed S. B. Apartments, Inc., and James A. Klein, Inc., for an object of forcing or requiring them or other employers on their project to recognize or bargain with us as the representative of their employees, or forcing or requiring such employees to accept or select us as their bargaining representative in violation of Section 8(b)(7)(C) of the Act. LOCAL 275, LABORERS INTERNATIONAL UNION OF NORTH AMERICA, AFL-CIO (Labor Organization) Dated By (Representative) (Title) This is an official notice and must not be defaced by anyone. This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. Any questions concerning this notice or compli- ance with its provisions may be directed to the Board's Office, 36th Floor, Federal Building, 26 Federal Plaza, New York, New York 10007, Tele- phone 212-264-0306. APPENDIX B NOTICE To MEMBERS POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government WE WILL NOT restrain or coerce employees working on or delivering to the construction project of S. B. Apartments, Inc., and James A. Klein, Inc., by obstructing their entry to or departure from the project, by threats of trouble at the project, by threats of bodily harm, or by mass picketing in such manner as to cause them to fear bodily harm from entering, leaving, or working on the project. WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, coerce, or restrain such employees in the exercise of their rights under the National Labor Relations Act, as amended. LOCAL 275, LABORERS INTERNATIONAL UNION WE WILL NOT picket or cause to be picketed S. B. Apartments, Inc., and James A. Klein, Inc., for an object of forcing or requiring them or other employers on their project to recognize or bargain with us as the representative of their employees, or forcing or requiring such employees to accept or select us as their bargaining representative in violation of Section 8(b)(7)(C) of the Act. PAINTERS DISTRICT COUNCIL No. 20 OF WESTCHESTER AND PUTNAM COUNTIES, NEW YORK, BROTHERHOOD OF PAINTERS, DECORATORS AND PAPERHANGERS OF AMERICA , AFL-CIO (Labor Organization) Dated By (Representative) (Title) This is an official notice and must not be defaced by anyone. This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. Any questions concerning this notice or compli- ance with its provisions may be directed to the Board's Office, 36th Floor, Federal Building, 26 Federal Plaza, New York, New York 10007, Tele- phone 212-264-0306. APPENDIX C NOTICE To MEMBERS POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government WE WILL NOT restrain or coerce employees working on or delivering to the construction project of S. B. Apartments, Iiic., and James A. Klein, Inc.. by obstructing their entry to or departure from the project, by threats of trouble at the project, by threats of bodily harm, or by mass picketing in such manner as to cause them to fear bodily harm from entering, leaving, or working on the project. WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere I The complaints herein originally named Local 323, United Brother- hood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO, as the first named Respondent At the hearing, upon a motion of the Charging Party joined in by the General Counsel, that organization was dismissed as a Respondent Accordingly, the caption herein is amended to delete its name 2 By stipulation the record here includes, inter alia, evidence before Hon Lawrence W Pierce, District Judge. United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, in a proceeding under Sec. 10(1) of the Act styled Danielson v Local 323, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners 281 with, coerce, or restrain such employees in the exercise of their rights under the National Labor Relations Act, as amended. WE WILL NOT picket or cause to be picketed S. B. Apartments, Inc., and James A. Klein, Inc., for an object of forcing or requiring them or other employers on their project to recognize or bargain with us as the representative of their employees, or forcing or requiring such employees to accept or select us as their bargaining representative in violation of Section 8(b)(7)(C) of the Act. LOCAL 55, BRICKLAYERS, MASONS AND PLASTERERS INTERNATIONAL UNION OF AMERICA, AFL-CIO (Labor Organization) Dated By (Representative) (Title) This is an official notice and must not be defaced by anyone. This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. Any questions concerning this notice or compli- ance with its provisions may be directed to the Board's Office, 36th Floor, Federal Building, 26 Federal Plaza, New York, New York 10007, Tele- phone 212-264-0306. DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE JAMES M. FITZPATRICK, Administrative Law Judge: These consolidated proceedings under Section 10(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended (the Act), were tried before me in New York City on April 2 and 3, 1973. The complaint i in Case 2-CP-484, issued February 27, 1973, and alleging violations of Section 8(b)(7)(C) of the Act, was founded on charges initially filed January 10 and amended January 22. The complaint in Case 2-CB-5281, issued February 28 and alleging violations of Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act, was founded on charges filed January 19. Respondents, answering each complaint, denied the alleged unfair labor practices. By order of March 6 the Regional Director for Region 2 consolidated the cases. Upon the entire record,2 my observation of the witness- of America, AFL-CIO, et a!., 73 Civ 425, heard February 15, 16. 20, 22, and 23, 1973 The court's opinion is reported at 357 F Supp. 1178. After the close of the hearing before me the Charging Party moved to reopen the record and receive in evidence a copy of an unverified transcript of a tape recording purportedly taken during a meeting on October 31, 1972, and a copy of a pretrial affidavit of James A Klein in which a transcript of a tape recording is referred to. Because the proferred evidence does not appear to be newly discovered and appears to have been available at the time of the hearing before me, I deem the offer untimely and accordingly (Continued) 282 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD es, and consideration of the briefs filed by the parties, I make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT The Business of the Employer The Charging Party, S. B. Apartments, Inc. (herein S. B.), is a New York corporation with offices in Poughkeep- sie, New York. It is the owner and developer of real estate in the village of Cold Spring, Putnam County, New York. The site is an unfenced square, approximately 500 feet on each side, and bounded on two sides by public streets affording access at most points . The construction project involved in the present matter is located on that property and consists of the construction of 63 garden type apartment units in 7 buildings . S. B. has no employees working at the project. James A. Klein, Inc. (herein Klein), also a New York corporation, has its principal office at the same location as S. B. It is engaged as a general contractor in the building construction industry and at times material to the present matter has been the general contractor for, and has had employees working at, the construction of the apartments on the above-described property in Cold Spring owned by S. B. Klein annually receives at its jobsites in the State of New York building materials valued in excess of $50,000 from Miron Lumber Company, a supplier in the State of New York which receives the materials directly from outside the State. The complaints allege, and the answers deny, that S. B. and Klein are affiliated businesses with common officers, ownership, directors, and operators ; that they constitute a single integrated business enterprise with a commonly formulated and administered labor policy ; and that as an integrated business enterprise they are an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act . The evidence establishes these allegations beyond question, and I so find . Carpenters Local No. 2133, etc., 151 NLRB 1370, 1379; Siemons Mailing Service, 122 NLRB 81. II. THE LABOR ORGANIZA1IONS INVOLVED Each of the Respondents is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. They are individually referred to hereinafter as follows: Local 275, Laborers' International Union of North America, AFL-CIO, as the Laborers ; Painters District Council No. 20 of Westchester and Putnam Counties, New York, Brotherhood of Painters, Decorators and Paperhangers of America, AFL-CIO, as the Painters; Local 55, Bricklayers, Masons and Plasterers International Union of America, AFL-CIO, as the Masons. Collectively they are referred to as the Unions or Respondents. Each represents employees engaged in its respective craft in and around the area in which the construction project involved here is located . None is certified as the represent- ative of employees of, or has collective-bargaining agree- ments with, S. B. or Klein or any of Klein's subcontractors on the project . No petition pursuant to Section 9(c) of the Act involving employees of S. B. or Klein or any of its subcontractors has been filed with the Board. Further, no charges of unfair labor practices under Section 8(a)(2) of the Act have been filed against S . B. or Klein. III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Overview This case involves 108 days of picketing of the project between November 1, 1972, and March 17, 1973. For the first 28 days the picket sign legends were in the language of the second proviso of Section 8(b)(7)(C) of the Act. After that the legends used were what is commonly called area standard language . The key issue is the object of the picketing. Other questions are the effect of the picketing on deliveries and whether the Unions changed their purpose. Also, it is alleged that pickets on 4 days in December engaged in coercive conduct contrary to Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act. At the hearing I reserved ruling on Respondent's motion to dismiss the complaints for failure to establish a prima facie violation. I now deny that motion for the reasons set out hereinafter. B. The October 31 Meeting Klein started working on the Cold Spring project in mid- October 1972. About October 10 Walter Booth, the Laborers business manager, having learned of the forth- coming project, made a telephone call to Klein's office requesting a prejob conference. Not receiving a reply to his message, he called on Russell Wright, Klein's job superin- tendent at the site, and asked him to set up a meeting between the general contractor and representatives of the building trades unions. Wright arranged the meeting for October 31 . Booth then contacted representatives of other building trades to be present. The prejob conference convened at or about 9:30 a.m. on October 31 in Klein's office trailer on the jobsite. James Klein, president of both Klein and S . B., and Russell Wright, the job superintendent , were present on behalf of Klein and S. B. Respondent Laborers was represented by Booth and Lee Cordi, its secretary ; Respondent Painters by Fred Schrimpe, one of its business representatives; and Respondent Masons by Jack Giacchini, one of its business representatives. Representatives of other building trade locals, not parties to the present proceeding , also partici- pated. These included Dominic Papo representing Local 323 of the Carpenters ; Jerry Eggleston representing Local 127 of the Operating Engineers ; Otto Revellese represent- ing Local 456 of the Teamsters; and John Hickey (who arrived later) representing a local of the Plumbers. After Booth made the introductions he asked Klein how he was going to run the job. Klein then launched into a 15- minute discourse setting forth how he operated and his philosophy of doing business . In the words of Booth he said, "I will explain my job and I will explain my situation. I'm new in this area. I have worked up (in) Dutchess deny the motion . I have marked the motion, with the transcript of the tape and the affidavit attached, as ALI Exh 1, rejected LOCAL 275, LABORERS INTERNATIONAL UNION 283 County. I do some of my work. I sub most of my work out. I sub my work out to a contractor for the price and I award him the work whether he is union or nonunion. . . I have some employees with me for approximately 5 years. We have a profit-sharing plan and my employees are paid by the merit system." Klein also indicated he was a member of a contractors association known as A. B. C. and that he awarded his subcontracts to the lowest bidder. According to Booth, Klein also said, "I have worked in Poughkeepsie. We have had union and nonunion contractors, nonunion and union men working side by side." A discussion ensued during which Hickey, the Plumbers' representative, joined the group. Although there is some disagreement as to who said what during the discussion, there is no real dispute about what happened at this meeting. The union representatives were of one mind in that they disagreed with Klein's idea of using both union and nonunion men on the job. The collective position of the unions, to which there was no overt dissent, was that the job should be an all-union job. Booth testified that Hickey stated, "Mr. Klein, the Building Trades here in Putnam County have a philosophy that when we work, we work 100 percent union." According to Booth, Hickey also said something to the effect that the whole intention of the meeting was to organize the job. None of the other union representatives said anything contrary to Hickey's remarks. The General Counsel contends that no one asked Klein what wages he paid. The testimony of Respondents' witnesses support this position. However, James Klein testified, "Mr. Hickey asked me if we pay a prevailing wage and how we pay our people, and I explained to him that most of the things were subcontracted out and that we had our own men do a lot of the other work." Thus Klein actually did not answer the question. He also recalled, "They also asked-I believe it was Mr. Hickey again asked what benefits we had, and I explained to him that we had a profit-sharing type of plan where our employees who have been with us for a certain period of time share in the profits, so much of their salary a year." Hickey offered to provide him a list of union plumbing subcontractors. No one else asked Klein what wages he paid. In fact no further inquiry respecting the actual wages paid on the job was made until March 19, 1973, 2 days after the picketing stopped. Booth testified that on October 31 after hearing from Klein how he ran his jobs he took it for granted that he was not paying the area standard wage. Throughout the picketing which began on the next day, none of Respon- dents' representatives knew specifically what wages were being paid on the job by Klein or any of the subcontrac- tors. At the October 31 meeting they did learn that Klein did not have contracts with any of them and that the masonry subcontractor, Bruce Wright, did not have a contract with the Masons. According to Booth after the prejob conference had been in progress for about a half hour the secretary of the Laborers, Lee Cordi, said, "we are not going to do nothing with this gentleman, we might as well leave." The meeting then broke up. Booth admitted that this closing comment of Cordi meant that the unions were not getting anywhere because Klein was not going to sign contracts with them. Also subsequent to the meeting Fred Schrimpe, the representative of the Painters, reported to his superiors that, "he thought that Mr. Klein had a very definite anti- union attitude and felt we would never get recognition from him." C. The November Picketing On the morning of November 1, the day following the prejob conference, picketing began at the jobsite. It continued thereafter on most weekdays and without substantial interruption until March 17, 1973. In all there was picketing on 108 different days, and at the time of the hearing herein on April 3, 1973, Respondents planned to resume picketing that day. No picketing occurred on Sundays and holidays and usually none on Saturdays, although Saturday work was frequently performed on the job. There were no pickets on November 14 because of the weather. Throughout the picketing Booth , the Laborers representative, was in charge and was present every day. The initial picketing which began on November 1 was with signs which asserted that the general contractor on the job did not have an agreement with the Carpenters. The sign read as follows: Notice to General Public-The General Contractor doing carpentry work on this job does not have a signed collective bargaining contract with Local 323-Carpenters This sign is in no way meant to encourage employees of any employer to refuse to perform any services whatsoever. Beginning November 6 a similar sign was carried protest- ing the lack of an agreement with the Laborers. The undenied testimony of Job Superintendent Russell Wright indicates that the signs used regularly included one from the Laborers and that signs of the Carpenters as well as the Masons appeared from time to time in November. I so find. The picketing which began November 1 continued in that same manner with the same type signs through November 28. Apart from the Carpenters who are not now a Respondent, the participants in the picketing included members of the Laborers and on unspecified occasions the Masons. There is no evidence that during November members or representatives of the Painters participated in the picketing or that signs were carved on behalf of the Painters. In an affidavit given on December 13 Russell Wright indicated that the picketing which had begun November 1 was carried on "with the name of one of the various Unions" which participated in the October 31 conference. Although the Painters was represented at the conference Wright's testimony is not sufficiently specific to warrant an inference that Painters signs were used in the picketing, particularly in view of countervailing evidence that use of such signs was not authorized. On November 3 at the regular monthly meeting for members of the Laborers, Booth in speaking about Klein stated to the membership, "That this man does not want to be organized." Booth testified that by this he meant that, "He (Klein) didn't want to sign a contract and that was it." 284 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD As Booth pointed out in his testimony, that is exactly what the picket signs advertised. He also testified that he did not then know exactly what wages Klein paid. Considering the events through November there is little doubt that at least one object of the picketing, and in fact the principal object, was recognition of the Carpenters, Laborers, and Masons. The purpose of all the unions, including the Respondents, who met with Klein on October 31 was to learn how he was going to operate the job, to whom he intended to subcontract various types of work, and if possible to obtain recognition and collective- bargaining agreements covering all work to be performed on the project. Thus recognition was one of the initial purposes of all participating unions. This object was then carried forward by the picketing which began the next day with signs protesting that the general contractor did not have a signed collective-bargaining agreement. The lan- guage of the picket signs "clearly implies a recognition and bargaining object." Local Joint Executive Board of Hotel and Restaurant Employees and Bartenders International Union of Long Beach and Orange County; Culinary Alliance Local No. 681 (Crown Cafeteria), 135 NLRB 1183, 1185. Other evidence also buttresses this conclusion. For example, Booth admitted that in addressing the member- ship of his union he was calling their attention to the fact that Klein did not have a contract. And finally, Booth admitted that if Klein had either entered into collective- bargaining agreements with the Unions or brought his wages up to area standards, the picketing would have stopped. Clearly, then, recognition was an object of the participating unions during the November picketing. D. The Later Picketing In late November Booth met with representatives of the Masons and other building trades unions to discuss the S. B. project and the picketing. They concluded that they were going to get nowhere with this particular job. They altered the picket signs to advertise the absence of area standards on the job. They formed what they referred to as the "Area Standards Committee," with Booth as chairman, to carry on the program, and decided to enlarge the picketing by mass demonstrations as of December 1. It is not clear from the record whether any representative of the Painters participated in these deliberations. It does not appear, however, that in late November or early December Painters Representative Schrimpe sought in- structions from his superior as to whether the Painters would participate in the enlarged protest. Painters' execu- tive secretary-treasurer, Arthur Colasanto, decided they would participate by carrying the signs of other unions. Members of the Painters participated in that manner beginning in early December with Schrunpe in charge of the Painters pickets. Although Colasanto testified that any use of Painters signs at the site was unauthorized, contrary to his instructions, and that none were prepared for this dispute, I find, as noted later herein, that such signs were in fact carried. I base this on the credited testimony of witnesses who were on the site and saw them. Colasanto was not there and Schrimpe did not testify. It was about November 28, according to the testimony of Booth, whom I credit in this respect, when the pickets ceased using signs which protested that the general contractor did not have collective-bargaining agreements and began using signs protesting less than union conditions on the job. The language of the new signs was as follows: To the Public Workers on this job for S. & B. Construction Co. do not receive wages and working conditions as good as Local 275 Laborers International Union. This sign is not directed to any Employer or to any Employee on this job. On most days of picketing after the signs were changed, signs on behalf of the Laborers were carried. Similar signs were also carried on behalf of other unions, including other Respondents, especially on days when large numbers of pickets were demonstrating. Thus on December 1 the picketing began early in the morning with between 30 and 35 pickets, over half of whom carried signs , some on behalf of the Laborers and others on behalf of the Masons and of the Painters as well as unions which are not Respondents in the present matter such as Carpenters and Roofers. Again on December 6 picketing began with between 20 and 30 pickets, the majority of whom carried signs on behalf of these same unions. On December 11 signs were carried on behalf of the Laborers and the Masons in addition to the Carpenters and the Roofers. The pattern of participation continued with participation by members of all Respondent Unions, as well as a number of other building trade unions, in accordance with a preplanned schedule arranged between Booth and repre- sentatives of the other unions. On those days when large numbers of demonstrators were present (December 1, 6, 11, and 15) members and representatives of virtually all of the building crafts including all of the Respondents participated. I find this was an ongoing joint program in which all of the Respondents participated both in planning and execution, and for which all are responsible. N.L.R.B. v. Suffolk County District Council of Carpenters, AFL-CIO, 387 F.2d 170, 175 (C.A. 2,1967); Retail Clerks Union Local 324 and Retail Clerks Union Local 770, etc. (Barker Bros.), 138 NLRB 478, 485, enfd . sub nom. Barker Brothers Corporation and Gold's Inc. v. N.LR. B., 328 F.2d 431 (C.A. 9, 1964). Respondents contend that from the beginning the picketing lacked a proscribed object and that especially since November 28 the picketing was patently for the purpose of protesting the lack of area standards, a legitimate object. However, I have found above that the November picketing was clearly for recognition and I find that although the picket signs were changed, and thereafter included a disclaimer that the signs were directed to employers or employees on the job, recognition continued to be an object. Various circumstances indicate the continuation of this object. First, although the language of the signs was changed at the end of November, the picketing continued without interruption and with no notification to the employer of any change in purpose . Local 3, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO (Jack Pi- coult), 144 NLRB 5, 8, enfd. 339 F.2d 600 (C.A. 2, 1964). Another circumstance which arguably indicates the LOCAL 275, LABORERS INTERNATIONAL UNION continued existence of the initial purpose of picketing is the fact that even though new picket signs asserted that the workers on the job did not receive wages and working conditions as good as those required by the picketing unions, the responsible union officials, including Booth who was in charge of the picketing , were ignorant at that time of the actual wages paid employees working on the site. Even at the time of the hearing herein in April 1973, Booth still did not know in fact what wages were paid. Respondent offered evidence to show that Klein paid his workers less than union scale. What he in fact paid, however, is immaterial. The question here is the knowledge possessed by responsible union officials. The extent of their knowledge was that they did not know specifically what wages were being paid but they assumed , based on their extensive labor relations experience in the area, that a contractor not signatory to their contracts would not be meeting area standards . The comments of James Klein at the October 31 meeting may well have fortified their belief. Such reasoning on their part may have been reasonable enough, but lack of specific knowledge about wages on the job together with specific knowledge that the employers were not under contract with the unions leaves Respon- dents with a watered down contention that the failure to pay area standards rather than failure to recognize motivated their continued picketing. These circumstances permit a modest inference that Respondents' purpose continued to be recognition . Centralia Building and Construction Trades Council v. N.L. R. B., 363 F.2d 699, 701 (C.A.D.C., 1968). In addition, certain conduct associated with the picket- ing indicates presence of an organizational purpose rather than only an appeal for public support . Thus, on some occasions, particularly those days when Respondents brought out large numbers of demonstrators , employees working behind the picket line were called scab, or were urged to leave the job, or were urged tojoin the union. See San Francisco Local Joint Executive Board etc. (McDon- ald's Systems of California, Inc.), 203 NLRB No. 103. Other conduct in connection with the picketing, discussed later herein, such as the blocking of entry, threats by pickets directed to persons working on the site , and on two occasions the cutting of telephone wires to Klein's trailer and the slashing of tires on vehicles belonging to Klein or to employees working on the site, was basically inconsis- tent with a limited purpose of advertising the employer's failure to meet area standards. All of this conduct was also basically contradictory of the disclaimer on the picket signs that they were not directed at employers or employees on the job. The cuttings of wires and tires are not alleged as unfair labor practices and I make no finding to that effect. However, there is no question but that this damage occurred to Klein and its employees on two different occasions in December when large numbers of demonstra- tors were on the scene. As these occurrences are reasonably attributable to the presence of large numbers of demon- strators brought there by Respondents to support their dispute with Klein and S . B., I find Respondents are responsible for the occurrences . N.L.R.B. v. Suffolk County District Council of Carpenters, AFL-CIO, supra at 175. 285 Even though Booth issued specific instructions restricting picket line conduct, the natural and foreseeable conse- quence of marshalling crowds of volunteer demonstrators who understandably might harbor strong views about the pending dispute, was that effective control might be substantially diluted. It is not unreasonable, therefore, to hold the sponsors responsible for the consequences. Although Respondents contend that from the first the picketing was for the lawful purpose of protesting the absence of area standards on the job, such plainly was not the case. As found earlier herein, an object proscribed by Section 8(b)(7) of the Act was included. In the alternative Respondents contend that picketing for a recognitional or organizational object did not continue for an unreasonable period of time because from late November on the purpose of picketing lacked a proscribed object. Respondents point to the new language of the signs beginning November 28, to the identity of the sponsoring committee referred to by them as the area standards committee (of which Booth was chairman), to Respondents' advertising campaign which included distribution of leaflets at the site beginning December 1 explaining the importance of maintaining area standards in wages and working conditions and dissemina- tion of similar news through the news media of newspa- pers, radio, and television, and to the existence of unemployment among the ranks of building trade employ- ees in the area which would warrant a campaign against undercutting area standards . As to this last point, it seems to me equally inferrable that unemployment could moti- vate interested labor organizations to seek recognition from nonunion employers in order to obtain jobs for their members. Considering all of these contentions , they still are not sufficient, in my view, to dispell the inference based upon the circumstances discussed above that proscribed objects persisted after November. Local 3, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO (Jack Pi- coult), supra. A certain amount of balancing is involved in this judgment. The statute neither prohibits all picketing for recognitional or organizational objects nor on the other hand does it totally sanction all publicity picketing. In assessing Respondents' object here I note that their campaign proceeded in an unbroken chain of events from November 1 to March 17. There is no strong evidence that the initial object of the earlier picketing ceased entirely at the end of November. The change in the picket signs did not automatically cancel out the recognition object. Construction Shipyard etc., Local 1207 (Alfred S. Austin Construction Co., Inc.), 141 NLRB 283, 285 ; United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners, Local No. 2064, etc. (Westra Construction, Inc.), 175 NLRB 881. No circum- stance disassociates the picketing at one period from that at another. Once the picketing campaign began , it rolled on, albeit in varying forms. It would be illogical to excise from one segment of this campaign what seems to me to have been one of its essential motivations at its launching. To do so would allow Respondents to firmly set the tone of recognition or organization at the start, and then by a mere change in emphasis in the campaign , continue to exert their pressure in aid of the initial purposes while avoiding the 286 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD limitations on that pressure which Congress plainly intended. Nevertheless, this approach is not without its difficulties here because in a sense the tail wags the dog. Here from the time Respondents began asserting an area standard purpose on their signs, they greatly enlarged the campaign, in terms of number demonstrators participating and publicity through the news media, over what it had been at the beginning of November . Thus, the early campaign for recognition was fairly modest while the campaign from December 1 on, coincidental with the change in signs, was a full blown publicity effort. Even so, it is not unreasonable in the interest of rational administration of the Act to place on Respondents the onus of taking steps to effectively disassociate their claimed later objects from their estab- lished earlier one. See Local 3, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, (Jack Picoult), supra. Respondents argue that the absence of a proscribed object from the very beginning is clear because the Unions understood at the end of the October 31 meeting that Klein did not want to be organized . While that difference of view between management and the Unions serves to pinpoint the dispute, it does not prove a purpose eschewing recognition and organization in the campaign which followed. On the contrary, such an argument assumes that the Unions gave up their target of October 31 and adopted a new one. That would not square with the fact, which I find, based on Booth's testimony and the record as a whole, that Klein could at any time have resolved the dispute by recognizing the Unions. See San Francisco Local Joint Executive Board etc. (McDonald's Systems of Califor- nia, Inc.), supra. E. The Conduct Related to Picketing 1. Events of December 1 The complaints allege, and the answers deny, that on December 1 pickets blocked entrances and exits at the jobsite and obstructed employees of Klein and others endeavoring to enter or leave, and that thereby Respon- dents violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) and 8(b)(7)(C) of the Act. In response to Booth's call to representatives of other crafts for assistance in pursuance of the area standard committee's plan to enlarge picketing, a large number of demonstrators appeared on the site on December 1. When picketing began early in the morning between 30 and 35 pickets were involved. By 9 a.m. the number had increased to about 100. Many wore hard hats. Considerable verbal inducement by those patrolling was directed to those working on the job, including calls of "scab" and "a sure way of going to heaven if you stay on this jobsite." About 9 a.m. one of Klein's carpenters reported to the job superintendent that he was being snowballed as he worked. Another reported that he was obstructed as he attempted to leave the jobsite in his car. Another of Klein's carpenters, Denis Chambers, testified credibly that in mid- morning one of the pickets sought to interest hun and three other carpenters in joining the Union. Chambers described the incident as follows, "He, you know, like, asked if we would like to be in a union or if we were to get into his union, he could get us working like tomorrow or the next day or something like this and we would have all the benefits of the Union. It was generally a pretty good rap for the Union." The conversation continued between the picketer and one of the other carpenters. As Chambers walked away from the conversation he heard a popping noise, as if something had been cut, and observed a man wearing a hard hat running in a crouched manner from under the Klein office trailer which stood on the edge of the site close to the street where pickets patrolled. It then developed that the telephone wires to the trailer had been cut. At about 11:30 in the morning the Klein carpenter who had earlier reported being snowballed by pickets reported to the job superintendent that the tires on his automobile were slashed. At that point the job superin- tendent shut the job down for the balance of the day. As alleged I find the obstructing of an employee wishing to leave was restraint and coercion within the meaning of Section 8(b)(l)(A) of the Act and that Respondents are responsible therefore. At that time there were no well defined entrances to the property. Access could be had from virtually anywhere on the two adjoining streets. Accordingly, the evidence does not establish that entrances were blocked. But there was massing of large numbers of union demonstrators on the streets adjoining the job which afforded access to it. This massing of demonstrators, in the context of the other events that day, amounted to restraint and coercion within the meaning of Section 8 (b)(1)(A). United Mine Workers of America & District #6, U.M.W. (Weriton Constr. Co.), 174 NLRB 344; Local 379, Building Material & Excavators (Catalano Bros.), 175 NLRB 459. I make no finding as to whether the balance of the conduct noted above violates Section 8(b)(l)(A) because such was not alleged in the complaints. I do, however, find this conduct evidences a continuing object of recognition, and also of organization, within the meaning of Section 8(b)(7)(C). 2. The events of December 6 The complaints also allege, and the answers deny, blocking of entrances and obstructing of employees on December 6 in violation of Section 8(b)(1)(A) and 8(b)(7)(C) of the Act. The evidence shows that on Wednesday, December 6 there was again a large number of demonstrators at the site and some obstruction. According to the credited testimony of Edgar Rebelo, a mason employed by Klein, he and another Klein employ- ee, Hank Cerza, on arriving for work, parked across the street from the project. I infer from the fact that Rebelo testified that this was on the second day of mass picketing and the fact that it is admitted that the second day of mass picketing occurred on December 6, that his testimony relates to that day. The two employees reported to the Klein trailer on the jobsite. Finding it locked, they started back to their automobile, at which point numerous pickets asked Rebelo if he was going home. Another, using profane language, urged them to leave and also asked them why they did not join the Union. Following this they left the site and did not work that day. Russell Wright, project superintendent, also testified that when he saw the massing of pickets on December 6 he left the job in an effort to head off other employees LOCAL 275, LABORERS INTERNATIONAL UNION approaching and instruct them not to report to work. His way was briefly obstructed as he tried to leave. One picket told him, "Russ, we know you. If you're smart you'll keep going." About 12 to 14 Klein employees were scheduled for work that day in addition to employees of subcontrac- tors. According to Wright , the massing of pickets prevent- ed employees as well as others from having free access to the job. No work was performed that day. When Wright returned to the job around 11 a.m. the pickets had thinned out some . He discovered that the telephone wires into Klein's trailer on the job were again cut and also that one tire on the trailer and two tires on a back hoe had been slashed. It cannot be said that entrances and exits were blocked on December 6. There were no entrances proper to be blocked. However even though Rebelo and Cerza were not physically blocked when they left, I find that the massing of demonstrators on adjoining streets affording access to the site, taken in context with the other conduct that day, was coercion and restraint of employees prohibited by Section 8(b)(1)(A). United Mine Workers of America & District #6, U.M. W. ( Weriton Constr. Co.), supra, Local 379, Building Material & Excavators (Catalano Bros.), supra. I find also that the oral inducement of Rebelo and Cerzo, the comments to Wright, and the slashing of wires and tires, is all evidence tending to show continuing recogni- tional and organizational objects contemplated by Section 8(b)(7)(C). 3. The events of December 9 The complaints allege, and the answers deny, that on December 9 Respondents violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) when pickets threatened an employee on the job with bodily injury. James A. Reilly III, an employee of Bruce Wright, the masonry subcontractor on the job, testified credibly that during the morning of December 9 he was mixing cement on the site at a point about 15 to 20 feet from the public sidewalk. About a half dozen pickets patrolling nearby on the street approached him and one spoke to him. According to Reilly, "He told me I better watch out or I might get a block along side my head." This threat, which in the circumstances I find attributa- ble to Respondents, violated Section 8(b)(1)(A). I also find it to be further evidence that Respondents ' further picketing was, in part at least , directed to.employees on the job. 4. The events of December 11 a. The alleged threats The complaints also allege, and the answers deny, that on December 11 pickets threatened an employee of masonry subcontractor Bruce Wright, thereby violating Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act. The evidence in support of this allegation consists of additional credited testimony of James A. Reilly III, and follows on his testimony respecting the events of December 9. According to Reilly, the same picket who spoke to him on December 9 also spoke to him on the morning of 287 December 11 while he was working in about the same location. At this time also the speaker was accompanied by five or six other pickets . In the words of Reilly, "He told me I had better stay home where I belonged or there might be trouble out here." As with the December 9 incident, I find this to be a violation by Respondents of Section 8(b)(1)(A) and further evidence that the picketing contin- ued to be directed, in part, at employees on the job. b. The blocking of entrances The complaints allege, and the answers deny, that on December 11 (as on December 1 and 6) pickets blocked access to the site and prevented employees from entering or leaving. This is alleged to have violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) and 8(b)(7)(C) of the Act. A laborer employed by Klein , one William LeMon, testified that during the second week in December , which I mfer was about December 11, his entry into the site while driving a Klein dump truck was slightly delayed while he waited for pickets to pass. While he was waiting one of the pickets tried to persuade him not to work on the job and to join the Union. Although there were large numbers of pickets present on December 11 I do not find the experience of LeMon to be evidence of blocking of an entrance . From his testimony it is clear that he only had to wait a very short time while the pickets passed in front of his truck and there does not appear to have been any effort to obstruct his way. The testimony of LeMon, however, is further evidence that at that time organizational activity continued in connection with the picketing and that efforts were being made to induce employees not to work . This supports the finding made earlier herein that proscribed objects persisted past November. Although the evidence of LeMon is not sufficient to establish that entrances and exits were blocked on December 11, 1 find from other evidence that mass picketing occurred on that day . I base this on the general testimony of job superintendent Russell Wright in a pretrial affidavit that on that day large numbers of pickets were milling around and massing on the streets adjoining the projects. The situation is illustrated by the incidents involving the Miron Lumber truck discussed hereinafter. I find that this conduct, rather than the incident involving LeMon, establishes a violation of Section 8(b)(1)(A). c. The effect of picketing on deliveries on December 11 The complaints allege, and the answers deny, that on two occasions on December 11 pickets prevented a delivery by a Miron Lumber Corporation truck, thereby violating Section 8(b)(7)(C). During the morning of December 11 a truck from Miron Lumber Corporation , which regularly supplied materials to the jobsite, approached the job. The Miron driver was unable to drive into the project because his truck was completely surrounded by a large number of pickets, including pickets from all three of Respondent Unions, who obstructed its way . As a result the driver drove off without making the delivery . About a half hour later he 288 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD again returned. The same thing again happened and he again drove off without making the delivery. Booth, who was in charge of the picketing, testified that on the second of these occasions he told the pickets that if the driver wanted to go in he could go in and should not be stopped and that a sergeant from the local sheriff's office spoke with the driver who left shortly thereafter, and that no one was obstructing the truck. The sergeant did not testify. However, based on the collective testimony of Russell Wright, Reuben Ashett (a laborer employed by Klein) and Denis Chambers (a carpenter employed by Klein) I find the Miron truck was stopped and the driver was induced not to enter on two occasions on December 11. Whether these interruptions in deliveries were sufficient to cause Section 8(b)(7)(C) to be violated, is treated later herein. 5. The events of December 15 a. The blocking of entrances Respecting December 15 the complaints allege the blocking of entrances in the same manner as alleged to have occurred on December 1, 6, and 11. The General Counsel asserts, and Respondents deny, that such blocking violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) and 8(b)(7)(C) of the Act. The complaints also allege, and Respondents deny, that in violation of Section 8(b)(7)(C) the pickets prevented deliveries to the jobsite by two suppliers, Gardner Plumbing & Heating and Amenia Sand & Gravel, Inc. The evidence establishes that early in the morning of December 15 there were 30 to 40 pickets at the site. The number later increased substantially. The parties agree that December 15 was the last day of mass picketing. The evidence respecting the blockage of entrances is also offered with respect to the interference with the deliveries from Gardner and Amenia. Gardner Plumbing & Heating was one of the subcontractors on the job. About 9 a.m. on December 15 Ralph Elmer, a plumber employed by Gardner, together with a helper employed by Gardner, arrived at the site in a Gardner truck loaded with supplies. They proceeded without incident to the parking area of Klein on the jobsite and conferred with Job Superintend- ent Wright who directed them to unload their supplies at a particular building and return the truck to the parking lot. After unloading as directed Elmer endeavored to return the Gardner truck to the parking lot. At the lot his way was obstructed by a number of pickets who stood in front of the truck and would not let him pass. One picket dared him to run them over. After a delay of about 10 minutes the police moved the obstructors away and he was able to proceed. One of the pickets yelled at him, "1 will remember your face" A byproduct of this obstruction was that the concern which supplied materials to Gardner thereafter refused to deliver to the job while pickets were present and the hours of Gardner's employees were changed so that they remained on the site later in the afternoons until after the pickets had left in order to receive deliveries. Amema Sand & Gravel. Inc., was the principal supplier of concrete to the site. About 10 a.m. on December 15 an Amenia ready-mix truck arrived with a load. After being directed to the end of the street to turn around, it was directed by sheriff's deputies to approach a temporary gate they had arranged at the location where it was to unload. As the truck approached a large number of pickets obstructed the way and refused to move from the entrance. Sheriff's deputies and local police proceeded to clear a way for the truck, making some arrests, including Representa- tive Giacchini of the Masons. The truck entered and made its delivery after a delay estimated at between 5 and 8 minutes. There was much yelling. The pickets called the truckdriver a scab, spoke in angry terms, and used considerable profanity. I find that the obstructing of the plumbing truck and the concrete truck violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act and that that conduct and the comments connected therewith show a continuation of proscribed objects under Section 8(b)(7)(C). 6. The events of January 17 Sometime in January (the complaint alleges January 17) Hudson Valley Block Co., a supplier of building materials to the jobsite, sent to the jobsite a loaded truck driven by its employee Harry Butler. Seeing the pickets as he approached the job, Butler pulled the truck over to the side of the road. A group of three or four pickets came up to the truck. One of them, wearing a picket sign with the name of Local Union No. 456, spoke to Butler. Butler asked him if he had a book. The picket showed him a union card and then asked Butler for his book . Butler, a member of Teamster Local 445, showed the picket his own union card. The picket asked Butler if he would honor his picket line. Butler said he would. He then left his truck, with motor running, to telephone his employer who told him that since the Teamsters Union had not advised Hudson Valley about the picket line at the jobsite, Butler should make the delivery. Butler then returned to his truck and advised the pickets of what his boss had said . Some of them commented that they ought to block him in with other trucks. However, his way was not obstructed. Although the keys to the truck were missing and the cap for the fuel tank was hanging loose, the motor was still running and he proceeded into the jobsite where he made the delivery. The General Counsel contends that this incident was an interruption of deliveries evidencing a violation of Section 8(b)(7)(C) of the Act. Since there was only a slight delay, I find this was not an interruption of a delivery. It does, however, evidence continued recognitional and organiza- tional object. F. Discussion 1. The object of picketing Although this case has many similarities to Houston Building and Construction Trades Council (Claude Everett Construction Co.), 136 N LRB 321, in matters which seem to me to be crucial , it differs. Thus, in Claude Everett the union, prior to picketing, knew specifically that the contractor's wage rates were lower than those negotiated in the area. Here the Union did not possess such particular LOCAL 275, LABORERS INTERNATIONAL UNION knowledge. Unlike Claude Everett, the Unions here sought recognition prior to the picketing, and the initial picket signs bore legends protesting the developer's lack of union contracts . Subsequently the pickets, unlike those in Claude Everett, and notwithstanding the contrary disclaimer on the picket signs, sought to influence employees on the job to join the Unions. In Claude Everett the Board said (p. 323), "Thus, it is clear, from the entire record, that the objective of the Respondent's picketing was to induce the Company to raise its wage rates to the Union scale prevailing in the area." That really cannot be said here where the totality of the record reveals a significant measure of recognitional and organizational purpose throughout the period of picketing, including during the time area standard signs were carried . Even though during the area standard phase Respondents made extensive efforts through the news media and by leaflets to bung that message to the general public and thereby put a new face on the campaign, the recognitional and organizational objects persisted. During the first month of picketing the picket sign legends resembled the signs in Retail Clerks Union 324, etc. (Barker Bros.), supra at 485 . But it is not clear here, as it was there, that the picketing was for informational purposes. Barker involved numerous retail stores in contrast to the single construction site involved here. The pickets in Barker were placed so as to appeal to the consuming public. Here, although the pickets patrolled on two public streets adjoining the project, there is little evidence in the record that present or future members of the consuming public (renters) were in the area or that selling activity occurred there . No effort was made to picket the offices of Klein or S. B. Thus, the picketing was directed chiefly to those working on, or delivering to, the site, notwithstanding the wording of the picket signs indicating their message was directed to the general public. Although the second phase picket signs in the present matter differ from those in Barker, this case is like Barker in that proscribed objects were present throughout the campaign. Because of these objects this picketing, which continued over thirty days without a representation petition having been filed, was banned under Section 8(b)(7)(C) of the Act unless it was exempt under the second proviso of the Section. 2. Application of the proviso The initial signs were in the language of the proviso. If Respondents had stayed with that format , the second proviso would unquestionably have come into play. But after November 28 they changed the wording to convey an area standards message. With that small step did Respon- dents move themselves beyond the protection of the proviso? Such a result , it seems to me, would make no sense. The mere sequence in which the signs were used would thus have made the standards of both Claude Everett and Barker Bros. inapplicable rather than indulging in such technical legalisms, I find that the format of the picket signs fall sufficiently within the intendment of the second proviso to bring that part of the Section into play. See United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners, Local Union No. 2064 etc. (Westra Construction, Inc.), supra at 882. 3. Effect on deliveries 289 The legitimacy of the picketing turns, then , on its impact on deliveries or services to the job. Considering that a construction project is involved, I find that, under the standards enunciated in Barker Bros., the picketing had sufficient impact on the job through interference with deliveries and services to the job to bring the picketing under the exception of the proviso thereby depriving it of protection. United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners, Local Union No. 2064, etc. (Westra Construction, Inc.), supra. Like most construction, this job was being executed according to a work schedule which suffered as a result of the picketing. Mass picketing occurred on four different days in December. On the first of these occasions, December 1, the job superintendent found it necessary to shut down the job. That was his decision. There is no evidence of specific deliveries or services not being performed because of picketing. Again on December 6 many demonstrators were present during a substantial portion of the morning and the job superintendent instructed employees not to come on the job . No work was performed that day although employees of the general contractor as well as subcontractors were scheduled to work. On December I1 blocking of entrance was only temporary. But a delivery from a supplier of lumber was twice interrupted and the delivery was not made. On December 15 mass picketing again occurred . Entry to the job of a ready mix truck supplying concrete to the masonry subcontractor was blocked for seven or eight minutes while sheriff's deputies cleared the way, making a half dozen arrests in the process . On the same day a truck with supplies for the plumbing subcontractor on the job was blocked from entry for about ten minutes until police could move the obstructing pickets out of the way. As a result of this last incident the regular supplier of plumbing supplies refused thereafter to deliver during regular working hours while the pickets were present , necessitating that employees of the plumbing subcontractor remain after normal quitting time to recieve supplies . Finally in January a delivery of cement blocks was delayed a short while by pickets who persuaded the driver of the delivery truck not to enter the job. However, after calling his boss and being instructed to complete the delivery, he did so . Pickets threatened to block his way, but actually did not. In sum, the pickets patently had an effect on the enterprise being picketed . Two efforts to deliver lumber were thwarted . A delivery of concrete and another of plumbing supplies were delayed and brought to completion only after severe confrontations between pickets and police. Thereafter delivery of plumbing supplies had to be made after hours. I conclude that in these circumstances, involving a single construction project, the exception to the second proviso of Section 8(b)(7)(C) applies. United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners, Local Union No. 2064, etc. (Westra Construction, Inc.), supra. In reaching this conclusion I place some reliance on the fact that a construction job is inherently more dependent on uninter- rupted delivery of building materials than would be the case with more consumer oriented businesses such as retail stores. At the heart of Barker Bros. is the question, what do the stoppages in deliveries and services do to the 290 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD operations, as distinguished from the sales, of the business being picketed. Here, although the interruptions of deliveries and services were relatively few, some were severe confrontations involving police action, and all, whether temporary or permanent, necessarily had signifi- cant impact on this type of operation. Accordingly, I find the picketing, being for proscribed objects, violated Section 8(b)(7)(C) of the Act. IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE THE REMEDY Having found that Respondents engaged in unfair labor practices, I recommend that each cease and desist therefrom and take certain attirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act, including the posting as provided hereinafter of the appropriate notice attached hereto as Appendix. Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law, and the entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, I hereby issue the following recommended: The activities of Respondents set forth in section III, above, occurring in connection with the operations of S. B. and Klein described in section I, above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relationship to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. S. B. and Klein are an employer within the meaning of Section 2(2), engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and business activities affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(7) of the Act. 2. Respondent Unions are labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3. By picketing the construction project of S. B. and Klein in Cold Spring, New York, between November 1, 1972, and March 17, 1973, with an object of forcing or requiring S. B. and Klein to recognize or bargain with Respondents as collective-bargaining representatives of employees working at that location, or with an object of forcing or requiring such employees to accept or select Respondent Unions as their collective-bargaining repre- sentatives, despite the fact that Respondents have not been certified as their representatives and no petition has been filed under Section 9(c) of the Act within a reasonable period of time, Respondents have engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(b)(7)(C) of the Act 4. Respondents have restrained and coerced employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act by obstructing employees leaving the construction project described above, by obstructing deliveries to the project, and by threatening employees on the project with bodily injury and with trouble at the project and have thereby engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(b)(I)(A) of the Act. 5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 3 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Section 102.46 of the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the findings, conclusions and recommended Order herein shall, as provided in Section 102 48 of the Rules and Regulations , be adopted by the Board and become its findings , conclusions, and Order, and all objections thereto shall be deemed waived for all purposes ORDERS Respondents, Local 275, Laborers International Umon of North America, AFL-CIO; and Painters District Council No. 20 of Westchester and Putnam Counties, New York, New York, Brotherhood of Painters, Decorators and Paperhangers of America, AFL-CIO; and Local 55, Bricklayers, Masons and Plasterers International Union of America, AFL-CIO, their officers, agents, and representa- tives, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Restraining or coercing employees working on or delivering to projects of S. B. Apartment Inc., and James A. Klein, Inc., by obstructing their entry or departure from the project, by threats of trouble at the project or of bodily harm, or by mass picketing in such manner as to cause such employees to fear bodily harm from entering, leaving, or working on the project. (b) Picketing, or causing to be picketed, construction projects of S. B. Apartments, Inc., and James A. Klein, Inc., where an object thereof is forcing or requiring employers on those construction projects to recognize or bargain with Respondents as representatives of their employees, or forcing or requiring such employees to accept or select Respondents as their collective-bargaining representatives, in circumstances violative of Section 8(b)(7)(C) of the Act. (c) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing such employees in the exercise of rights guaran- teed in Section 7 of the Act, as amended. 2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Post in conspicuous places at their business offices and meeting halls, including all places where notices to members are customarily posted, copies of the appropriate attached notice marked Appendix A, B, or C.4 Copies of such notice on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 2, after being duly signed by authorized representatives of Respondents, shall be posted by each of said Union upon receipt thereof and maintained for 60 consecutive days. Reasonable steps shall be taken by + In the event that the Board 's Order is enforced by a judgement of a United States Court of Appeals. the words in the notice reading "Posted by Order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall be changed to read "Posted Pursuant to a Judgement of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board." LOCAL 275, LABORERS INTERNATIONAL UNION 291 Respondents to insure that said notices are not altered, IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaints herein be defaced, or covered by any other material . dismissed insofar as they allege violations of the Act not (b) Notify the Regional Director for Region 2, in writing , specifically found herein. within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps Respondents have taken to comply herewith.