Building and Construction Trades

DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Building and Construction Trades Council of Dela- ware and Pettinaro Construction Co., Inc. Case 4- CP-256 June 9, 1977 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN FANNING AND MEMBERS JENKINS AND MURPHY On November 10, 1976, Administrative Law Judge Claude R. Wolfe issued the attached Decision in this proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent and the General Counsel filed exceptions and supporting briefs, and the Charging Party joined in the General Counsel's exceptions. The General Counsel also filed a brief in answer to Respondent's exceptions and brief, and the Charging Party filed a brief. 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, find- ings,' and conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge and to adopt his recommended Order. ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board adopts as its Order the recommend- ed Order of the Administrative Law Judge and hereby orders that the Respondent, Building and Construction Trades Council of Delaware, New Castle, Delaware, its officers, agents, and representa- tives, shall take the action set forth in the said recommended Order. We find merit in the General Counsel's limited exceptions to the Administrative Law Judge's finding that the carpenter employed by Pettinaro when picketing commenced was being paid less than union wages and benefits. The Administrative Law Judge correctly found that the carpenter. Mannucci, who began work on or about February 9, 1976. was paid S10.98 per hour including fringe benefits. Although it appears that the Council's rates were raised to S 1 1.57 on May I, 1976. the record reveals that, prior to May 1, 1976, when Mannucci was hired and at the time the picketing commenced on April 1, 1976. the Council's wage rate was $10.98 including fringe benefits. Thus it is clear that Pettinaro was paying Mannucci in accordance with area standards at the time picketing commenced on April 1, 1976. Further, we note that Respondent has presented no evidence that establishes that Pettinaro was not in fact complying with area wage standards at the time its picketing commenced on April 1,1976. DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE CLAUDE R. WOLFE, Administrative Law Judge: This case was heard before me at Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, on August 26, 1976, pursuant to charges filed on May 6, 1976, and a complaint issued July 23, 1976, wherein it is alleged that the Respondent, Building and Construction Trades Council of Delaware, violated Section 8(bX7X)(C) of the Act. The Respondent denies any violations of the Act. Upon the entire record, including my observation of the witnesses as they testified, and after due consideration of the posthearing briefs filed by the General Counsel, the Respondent, and the Charging Party, I make the following: FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS I. BUSINESS OF THE CHARGING EMPLOYER The complaint alleges, the answer as amended at the hearing admits, and I find that Pettinaro Construction Co., Inc. (hereinafter variously referred to as Pettinaro, the Employer, and the Company), is, and has been at all times material herein, a Delaware corporation, with its principal offices located in Wilmington, Delaware, engaged as a contractor in the building and construction industry; that Pettinaro, during the past year, has provided goods and services 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; and that Pettinaro is, and has been at all times material herein, and employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended (herein referred to as the Act). 1. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS The complaint alleges, the answer as amended at hearing admits, and I find that Building and Construction Trades Council of Delaware (sometimes referred to herein as the Respondent, the Council, or the Union), is, and has been at all times material herein, an unincorporated association composed of affiliated labor organizations in the building and construction industry in Delaware and is a labor organization within the meaning of Sections 2(5) and 8(b) of the Act. I further find, as the complaint alleges and the Respondent admits, that Theodore W. Ryan is, and has been at all times material herein, the president of the Council and an agent of the Respondent within the meaning of Sections 2(13) and 8(b) of the Act. The complaint further alleges, and the Respondent denies, that the Council and its president, Theodore W. 230 NLRB No. 4 42 BLDG. & CONSTRUCTION TRADES COUNCIL OF DELAWARE Ryan, are agents of the Council's affiliated labor organiza- tions. I find that the Respondent and its president, Theodore W. Ryan, acted as agents for and on behalf of its affiliated labor organizations in conducting the picketing herein and the communications between the Council and Pettinaro at the behest of the local unions and pursuant to a vote of the board of business agents composed of business agents of the Council's affiliated local unions, each of which business agents was acting on behalf of its respective locals.' I would further note that the picketing itself was done by members and business agents of the locals utilizing a council sign. Ill. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. The Facts2 Pettinaro placed a bid on the U.S. Postal Service Project located in New Castle County, Delaware, in late October 1975, seeking to be the general contractor for the construction of a general mail facility and a vehicular maintenance facility at a project value of $7,625,000. At no time material has Pettinaro had any collective-bargaining agreements with any labor organization. The construction contract was awarded to Pettinaro on or about January 16, 1976.3 Pettinaro Vice President Bertomeu credibly testified that, about 2 weeks before the award, he and President Pettinaro called Council President Ryan to meet with them at the Company's offices in Wilmington, Delaware. The conversation between the three, at the Company's office, lasted from 10 to 15 minutes. 4 The testimony of Bertomeu developed by General Counsel on direct examination reads, in pertinent part, as follows: Q. Was there any particular reason why you wanted to talk to him about the project? A. Yes. We were concerned because - MR. KATZ: I object to his motivation, his uncommuni- cated motivation, your Honor. JUDGE WOLFE: Well, I'll agree that his motivation is probably uncommunicated at this time, but I'll overrule the objection and let him communicate it into the record for whatever relevance it may have. Q. (By Miss Schick) Proceed, Mr. Bertomeu. A. We were concerned at the time - at the time all this took place, the common situs picketing bill was on the President's desk for his signature, and we wanted to know if we were going to have a problem with this job because traditionally we operate open shop, which means we use union and nonunion subcontractors. We were concerned if the President did sign the bill if we were going to have the cooperation of the Building Trades Council or were we going to have to go the other way and use only nonunion people. Q. Now, how did the conversation (sic) in your office begin? I See Building and Construction Trades Council of Delaware (Petinaro Construction Co.. Inc.), 215 NLRB 624 (1974). 2 The facts set forth herein are based on a synthesis of the credited aspects of the testimony of the witnesses, the exhibits, the stipulations of the parties, and careful consideration of the logical consistency and inherent probability of the facts. A. Mr. Ryan come in, the normal small talk, and then we went into the Post Office Project, common situs, and wanted to know what Mr. Ryan's position would be if, you know, if we were going to once again be picketed and bothered by the Building Trades Council. Q. And what did Mr. Ryan communicate to you was his position? A. He said that he could not speak for his membership. Q. Did he say anything else? A. Yes. He said, well - however, he would like - he said we are the biggest nonunion contractors in the state and he would like us to sign an agreement, to be the first to sign an agreement to use only union subcontractors. Q. Did he ever show you an agreement that he wanted you to sign? A. No. On cross-examination by the Respondent, the following testimony was elicited from Bertomeu: Q. All right. Now getting back to this conversation, do I understand that you asked Mr. Ryan for some assurances? A. Correct. Q. And Mr. Ryan's response to you was that he didn't think he could control his membership and therefore could not give you any assurances? A. He said he couldn't speak for the membership. Q. Oh, couldn't speak for the membership - okay. And was it as part of that conversation that he said, 'Why don't you agree to use only union subcontrac- tors?' A. Yes. MR. MASTRO: I - Well - MR. KATZ: Okay. Q. (By Mr. Katz) And that, in fact, was his request, was it not? To use only unionized subcontractors? A. To sign an agreement to use only subcontrac- tors, yes. Q. To use only union subcontractors? A. Yes. Q. And that statement came at the tail-end, did it not, of discussion of the problem of the common situs picketing, if you can recall? A. That's tough to recall. Q. It was in there some place? A. The statement was there. Q. Okay - it was in there some place, but you don't know exactly where, right? A. Correct. Q. Did he offer to send you a contract? A. No. 3 All dates hereinafter referred to occured in 1976 unless specifically noted otherwise. 4 Neither Mr. Ryan nor Mr. Pettinaro testified with regard to this meeting. 43 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Q. As a matter of fact, he said, did he not, that Building Trades Council doesn't even have a contract like that? A. Not that I recall. Q. Okay. Was there any discussion, at all, as to whether such a contract existed between the Delaware Building Trades Council and any contractor? A. No - Well, he said -you know -'We would like you to be the first.' So, you know - you assume from that that there are no others. There have been no other meetings between the parties since this conversation. The first employee of Pettinaro who worked at the postal project was carpenter Mannucci who began work on or about February 9, as shown by the Employer's payroll which reflects that Mannucci worked 40 hours during the week ending February 15. The next Pettinaro employee on the job was apprentice carpenter Berrios who first appears on the payroll of the week ending March 28. Mannucci was paid $10.98 per hour (including fringe benefits) and Berrios $4.39. The Council's wage rate for carpenters in New Castle County is $11.57 including fringe benefits. The parties stipulated that the first laborer hired by Pettinaro was hired on April 5. The parties further stipulated that, if called as a witness, Project Manager Anderson would testify that he posted the wage rates determined and issued by the U.S. Postal Service Project for all crafts that might possibly work on the project, and that the rates were posted inside the jobsite trailer on February 10 and on the bulletin board outside the trailer on March 4, and were reposted on March 24. The parties further stipulated that no represen- tatives of the Union ever saw the posted rates. According to Council President Ryan, it was reported to him by a couple of business agents (he specifically names Bricklayers Business Agent Viscount) in February or early March that Pettinaro's men working on the job, more specifically one laborer whose name is unknown, were being paid less than the Union's wage rates, and the Council referred the matter to its attorney for further investigation of the wage rates. Thereafter, the Council conducted its communication with Pettinaro through its attorney who engaged in an exchange of letters, and in one instance a telegram, with the Company. These communica- tions are set forth below, in pertinent part, in sequential order.5 1. February 23-the Respondent to Pettinaro As you are aware, the Council is encharged with the responsibility of policing the observation of area wage standards. It is our understanding that as the general contractor on the above noted job, you are employing laborers, carpenters, cement masons, etc., under pay and benefit standards which are substantially beneath those which prevail in the area. 5 I do not view the two letters by the Respondent to the Regional Oflice, prior to the filing of the instant charge, setting forth its position with regards to the Pettinaro picketing as having any evidentiary value or placing any burden on the Board agent to advise the Respondent, during an investigation of a related secondary boycott charge, of the wage and benefit Accordingly, it is the intent of the Council to commence picketing for the sole and limited purpose of protesting the destruction of standards which will result from your pay and benefit practices. At such time as you are willing to conform these practices to economic levels which our Council is obliged to enforce, the question of picketing may be avoided ... 2. February 26-Pettinaro to the Respondent 1. It is our understanding that the U.S. Department of Labor is 'Encharged with the responsibility of policing the observation of area wage standards' and not the Building Trades Council of Delaware. 2. Your understanding that our pay and benefit standards are substantially beneath those that prevail in the area is incorrect. 3. March 22-the Respondent to Pettinaro Thank you for your letter of February 26, 1976. The standards of labor costs with which the U.S. Depart- ment of Labor concerns itself may at time vary with the area standards with which the Building Trades Council is concerned. For your information, the labor costs for the trades that you employ directly are as follows: Cement Masons: $8.50 per hour; formen $9.15; General foremen $9.25; plus $.78 per hour to Welfare and $.72 per hour to Pension. Carpenters: $9.70 per hour; $.54 to Pension; $.74 to Welfare and $.02 to Apprentice Funds. Laborers: $7.30 per hour to $8.55 per hour depending on type of work; plus Welfare Fund $.60 per hour; Pension $.40 per hour. These rates will be increased as of May I, 1976. It is our understanding that you do not in fact pay these wages and that these are not the wages that will be observed on the job in questions. If you are willing to pay these wages and benefits or any equivalent type of labor costs, then the matter may easily be resolved. If I do not hear from you or your attorney within five days of the date of this letter, I will assume that there is a substantial disparity between these labor costs levels and your pay practices and that standards picketing is appropriate. 4. March 29-Pettinaro to the Respondent In response to your letter dated March 22, 1976, please be advised that Pettinaro Construction Compa- ny is now complying with area standards for all of its employees on the Post Office job in question. Accord- ingly, any picketing would be a violation of the Act, and will be met with all appropriate legal recourse. levels paid by Pettinaro. Nor do I agree with the Respondent that the Board agent's failure to furnish this information justified a conclusion by the Respondent that area standards picketing was appropriate. Therefore I have neither included herein nor adverted to these letters in reaching my conclusions. 44 BLDG. & CONSTRUCTION TRADES COUNCIL OF DELAWARE 5. April I -Pettinaro to the Respondent NOTCE Demand is made that you cease immediately all picketing at the United States Post Office Project. We refer you to our recent letter confirming that we meet Prevailing Wages and Standards. You're so called 'Area Standards' picketing is clearly unlawful and unless ceased immediately we will take all legal steps necessary, including damages. 6. April 2-the Respondent to Pettinaro . . . My letter of March 22, 1976 sets forth certain specific wage and benefit levels. The wage determina- tion made by the government at any particular job does not necessarily conform to the area wage standards which a labor organization has a right to protect. The specific standards are those which I made reference in my letter, although they may be paid in any form or variety which the employer sees fit. I take it from you letter that Pettinaro Construction has no intention of meeting those levels and that appropriate picketing would be the only avenue of recourse.... 7. April 5-Pettinaro to the Respondent (telegram) This is to advise that Quigley Boulevard which is directly adjacent to the new post office site is a public road a separate reserved gate has been established for Pettinaro Construction Company Incorporated its suppliers and employees on Quigley Boulevard approx- imately 1/2 mile from Route 13. A separte reserve gate has also been established for all other contractors on Quigley Boulevard approxi- mately 1/2 mile from Route 273. All picketing directed against Pettinaro Construction Company Incorporated must be limited to its exclusive entrance. 8. April 7-Respondent to Pettinaro Dear Mr. Bertomeu: Apparently your letter of April 1, 1976 was dis- patched prior to the time you were advised of my last letter to your attorneys. If your Counsel has now supplied you with a copy of this letter, I should assume that you recognize the legitimacy of the picketing and the important purposes which the Council is obliged to achieve. The Council commenced picketing at U.S. Postal Service Project of Pettinaro on April I and thereafter continuously picketed without interruption until July 19. The pickets carried signs reading: a Building and Construction Trades Council of Philadelphia and Vicinity, AFL CIO (Altemose Construction Co.), 222 NLRB 1276 (1976); The Building Pettinaro Construction Company Is Destroying Building Industry Standards We Protest Against Pettinaro Construction Company Not Observing Area Wages and Standards Building Trades Council No petition for a Board-conducted election has been filed. B. Discussion and Conclusions Succinctly put, the General Counsel and the Charging Party contend that an object of the picketing was recognitional, and that this is shown by Ryan's conversa- tion with Bertomeu and Pettinaro as it relates to a request for an agreement to subcontract work only to union subcontractors. It is further contended that the Respon- dent's investigation into whether or not Pettinaro was meeting area wages and standard's was superficial and legally insufficient to meet its burden of thorough investi- gation of the wages paid by Pettinaro before engaging in picketing; and that the Respondent's claims of legitimate area standards picketing are nothing but pretext. On the other hand, the Respondent claims that the sole object of the picketing was to protest "the destruction of the area wage standards caused by the Pettinaro Construction Company's pay and benefit policies," and that its unsuc- cessful efforts to secure from Pettinaro information regarding its wage and fringe benefit structure were a sufficiently thorough investigation, with no adequate response from Pettinaro, to warrant an honest conclusion that area standards picketing was appropriate. It is now established law that a building and construction trades council's objective of seeking a subcontractor's agreement from a general contractor who has direct employees who perform work of a type encompassed by such an agreement has, in and of itself, a recognitional objective, because of the effect such an agreement would have on the employees of the general contractor employed in trades represented by the council's constituent member unions.6 Pettinaro does employ carpenters, laborers, and other employees in trades represented by the Respondent's affiliated labor organizations. It is therefore necessary to carefully examine the comments of Ryan relating to subcontracting made to Bertomeu and Pettinaro during their January meeting, and divine the true import of those comments. I credit Bertomeu, who impressed me as a truthful witness careful to relate only that of which he was certain, and find that Ryan did request the Charging Party to sign an agreement to use only union subcontractors, which plainly means those subcontractors who had a collective-bargaining relationship with labor organizations affiliated with the Council. I further find that Ryan told Bertomeu and Mr. Pettinaro that he (Ryan) would like Pettinaro to be the first to sign such an agreement for the asserted reason that Pettinaro is the biggest nonunion contractor in the State of Delaware. The Respondent urges that, taken within the total context of the testimony, the conversation between Ryan, Bertomeu, and Pettinaro is and Construction Trades Council of Philadelphia and Vicinity (Samuel E. Long, Inc.), 201 NLRB 321 (1973). 45 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD not significant. I reject this contention because it is clear that Pettinaro, who had no contract with any union and had been subjected to illegal recognitional picketing by the Council in 1974,7 only met with Ryan for the purpose of ascertaining whether or not the postal project was going to be picketed by the Council. Ryan's initial response to the Employer's question as to whether or not the job would be picketed was the noncommittal statement that he couldn't speak for the memberships I cannot believe, and I do not believe, that Ryan was only making small talk when he broached the question of a union subcontracting agree- ment. Rather, I conclude that his request that Pettinaro sign an agreement to use only union subcontractors was the Respondent's real response to Pettinaro's inquiry about the probabilities of picketing by the Respondent and was a clear signal to the Employer that picketing could be avoided by signing such an agreement. It is of no moment that Ryan did not physically show a copy of such an agreement to Pettinaro. I have no doubt that had Pettinaro agreed to Ryan's request he would have been happy to provide Pettinaro with a written agreement to sign. The foregoing conclusions are not, however, dispositive of the issues in this case. The question remains as to whether or not the picketing for more than 30 days, without a petition for election having been filed, has as an objective the procurement of the subcontractor's agree- ment requested. It does not necessarily follow that the fact that Ryan requested the Employer to sign the agreement and, in context, implied that this would eliminate picketing establishes, without more, that the picketing had as part, or all, of its objective the securing of such an agreement. It is clear from the testimony of Ryan, if he be credited, that the Respondent had only an unsubstantiated rumor at best that some unnamed laborer was being paid less than union wages, coupled with speculative expectation that Pettinaro would pay less than the union rate to members of other crafts whom it might later employ on the job, at the time it referred the matter to its attorney for further inquiry. Ryan concedes that the information then at the Respondent's disposal was insufficient, in its opinion, to warrant picketing at that time. It was stipulated at the hearing that Pettinaro employed no laborers until April 5, and the Employer's payroll shows that the only employee of Pettinaro on the job prior to March 22 was a carpenter receiving $10.98 an hour and that the next employee was an apprentice carpenter who first worked on March 22 at $4.39 an hour. I note that the Respondent's first letter to Pettinaro was dated February 23 and conclude from this, and Ryan's claim that he received the reports about the low paid laborer in late February or early March prior to the referral of the matter to Respondent's counsel, that the purported reports to Ryan regarding an allegedly underpaid laborer were false, if they were in fact made. Further, at the time Ryan claims the decision was made to picket in early March there as yet were no laborers on the job. I do not believe that business agents went on the job and received information from a I Building and Construction Trades Council (Pettinaro Construction Co.), 215 NLRB 624. 8 I construe "membership" in this context to refer to the labor organizations affiliated with the Council. nonexistent laborer which they reported to Ryan, or that a business agent or agents deliberately made false reports to Ryan that a laborer was not being paid the "prevailing wage." From all the foregoing, a careful consideration of Ryan's entire testimony, and my observation of Ryan on the witness stand as he testified, I conclude that his assertions regarding reports of low paid employees made to him by business agents are not worthy of credit. Insofar as the Respondent's investigatory efforts are concerned, it would seem that had the Council been seriously bent on ascertaining the wage rates of Pettinaro it would have, at the least, investigated sufficiently at the jobsite to read the rates openly posted by the Employer on March 4 and 24. Further, Ryan admitted that he was aware that the wages required by the Department of Labor were printed in the Federal Register, and that the Respondent did not check the Federal Register. Turning to the written communications between the parties on the matter, they amount to declarations by the Respondent that it had information Pettinaro was not giving "laborers, carpenters, cement masons, etc." the wages and benefits prevailing under local area standards; that it did not care whether or not Pettinaro was meeting "the standards of labor costs with which the U.S. Department of Labor concerns itself"; that the standards it was referring to were those set forth in union contracts; and that the Respondent understood that Pettinaro did not pay union wages and benefits and would not pay them to future employees. Pettinaro's consistent reply was that the Respondent's understanding was incorrect and that it was complying with area standards for its employees on the post office job. The Respondent at no time presented Pettinaro with any specific information in support of its assertions that it understood Pettinaro was not paying and would not pay the amounts that it considered consistent with area standards. Indeed, as set forth hereinabove, the Respondent had no such informa- tion. The Respondent chose to treat Pettinaro's claim that it was meeting area standards and its failure sua sponte to provide the Respondent with its wage rates as evidence that the Employer was not meeting area standards. Thus, the Respondent had nothing more than its own ipse dixit to support its asserted conclusion that Pettinaro was not meeting area standards. This will not suffice. I regard West Coast Cycle Supply Co. 9 as dispositive of the question of adequate investigation and the inferences to be drawn from the failure to adequately investigate. The following state- ment by the Board in West Coast Cycle Supply Co. 10 is squarely applicable to the case at bar: The foregoing can hardly be characterized as a bona fide attempt by Respondent to determine that, in fact, the Employer's labor costs were substandard, which is the duty of a union that seeks to engage in lawful area standards picketing. Clearly, if Respondent, under the circumstances herein, had been seeking such a lawful object, it should have and would have met the Employer's assertion that it was paying area standards by presenting to the Employer the contrary information 9 Automotive Employees, Laundry Drivers & Helpers, Local No. 88 International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers ofAmerica (West Coast Cycle Supply Co.), 208 NLRB 679 (1974). 10 Id at 680. 46 BLDG. & CONSTRUCTION TRADES COUNCIL OF DELAWARE it allegedly possessed and proceeded from there to determine whether, in actuality, the Employer's labor costs were substandard. Respondent's failure to do so belies both its claim of possession of information regarding the Employer's substandard labor costs and its denial that it was picketing for recognition. (Citation omitted.) Like the respondent in West Coast Cycle, the Respondent herein did not meet its burden of adequate investigation or provide Pettinaro with the information it purportedly had, and its claim of possession of information and its denial of a recognitional objective is belied. The Respondent's argument that the "hiatus" between Ryan's statements to Bartomeu and Mr. Pettinaro relating to subcontracting and the February 23 letter of the Respondent to the Employer means that the letter's declaration that any future picketing would have "as the sole and limited objective the coping with the area standards problem" must be viewed as a "conclusive absolute" is rejected. Inasmuch as I have found that the Respondent asked Pettinaro to sign an agreement to engage only union subcontractors, had no evidence that Pettinaro was not meeting area standards other than mere suspicion, and did not go forward with its duty to extend some reasonable bona fide effort to find out whether or not Pettinaro was in fact not meeting area standards, before it picketed, I regard the February 23 letter as nothing more than a statement of a fixed intent to picket on the basis of information it did not have for a purpose based on a conclusion unsupported by any reasonable modicum of evidence. Consequently, the February 23 letter is but a self- serving document void of probative worth, and the lapse of time between Ryan's subcontractor statements and the letter lends no more stature to the letter than it thus enjoys. Similarly, although I agree with the Respondent that the wording on picket signs is a factor to be considered, it is well settled that picket signs do not of themselves establish the legality of picketing or its real object or objects," and in view of the circumstances of this case I find that the sign herein utilized is not a truthful reflection of the Respon- dent's objective. The Respondent also appears to contend that because it appears from the evidence adduced at the hearing that Pettinaro, on and after the day the strike began, was paying less than union wages and benefits, the Respondent's belief was thereby confirmed and its motiva- tion shown to be lawful. This contention will not bear close scrutiny, for if the Respondent's motive was unlawful ab inirio the picketing founded in whole or part on that motive was illegal, and the subsequent discovery that the Respon- dent might have had a valid reason for invoking lawful area standards picketing, which it did not know of when the picketing commenced, will not work retroactively to make that lawful which was unlawful. In this connection, I agree with the General Counsel that the plain language of the statute requires only that "an object" of the picketing need be recognitional to bring it within the confines of Section 8(b)(7) of the Act. I Local 3, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers. AFL CIO (Mansfield Contracting Corporation). 205 NLRB 559, 564 (1973). I am persuaded from all the foregoing that the Respon- dent's picketing was conducted for the purpose of inducing or coercing Pettinaro to sign an agreement to hire only union subcontractors, and that this, in combination with the Respondent's failure to adequately investigate the wages paid by Pettinaro, establishes that the picketing was conducted for recognitional purposes as alleged in the complaint. Accordingly, since the picketing occurred while neither the Respondent nor any of its affiliated labor organizations was certified as collective-bargaining agent of any of Pettinaro's employees and for a period in excess of the statutory 30 days, without the filing of a petition for a Board election, the Respondent thereby violated Section 8(bX7)(C) of the Act. The General Counsel has not, however, shown by a preponderance of the evidence, or indeed any evidence at all, that the picketing has induced employees of suppliers or other persons to cease doing business with Pettinaro or otherwise refuse or fail to perform other services at the post office project, and that allegation set forth in paragraph 7 of the complaint will be dismissed. THE REMEDY Having found that the Respondent, through picketing, has engaged in unfair labor practices, and considering the fact that this is the second time in 2 years that the Respondent has been found to have engaged in similar unfair practices12 thereby exhibiting a propensity to continue or repeat its illegal acts, I will recommend that the Respondent be ordered to cease and desist from engaging in such conduct with respect to any employer and take affirmative action designed to effectuate the purposes of the Act, including the posting of appropriate notices by the Respondent and each of its affiliated local labor organiza- tions. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW I. The Respondent, Building and Construction Trades Council of Delaware, is a labor organization within the meaning 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 Co., Inc., jobsite (U.S. Postal Service 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 picketing, the Respondent Council has engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning Section 8(b)(7X)(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. 12 Building and Construction Trades Council (Pettinaro Construction Co.), supra. 47 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 5. The allegation of paragraph 7 of the complaint has not been proven. 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: ORDER '3 The Respondent, Building and Construction Trades Council of Delaware, New Castle, Delaware, its officers, agents, representatives, and affiliated local labor organiza- tions, shall: 1. Cease and desist from picketing or causing to be picketed, or threatening to picket or cause to be picketed, Pettinaro Construction Co., Inc., or any other employer, where an object thereof is forcing or requiring said Employer to recognize or bargain with Respondent Council or its affiliated locals, as the collective-bargaining representative 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 circum- stances which would violate Section 8(bX7)(C) of the Act, as amended. 2. Take the following affirmative action which is necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Post in conspicuous places at Respondent Council's business office and all places where notices to its affiliated labor organizations are customarily posted and in the business office of its affiliated labor organizations and all places where notices to their members are customarily posted copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix." 14 Copies of said notices on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 4, after being signed by the duly authorized representative of the Respondent, shall be posted by it immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in such conspicuous places. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent 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 Respondent has taken to comply herewith. 13 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the findings, conclusions, and recommended Order herein shall, as provided in Sec. 102.48 of the Rules and Regulations, be adopted by the Board and become its findings, conclusions, and Order, and all objections thereto shall be deemed waived for all purposes. 14 In the event 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." APPENDIX NOTICE To EMPLOYEES POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government After a hearing at which all parties participated and offered 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 picket or cause to be picketed, or threaten to picket or cause to be picketed, Pettinaro Construction Co., Inc., or any other employer, where an object thereof is forcing or requiring said employer to recognize or bargain with us or our affiliated locals, as the collective-bargaining representative of its em- ployees, or for the purpose of forcing or requiring the employees of said employer to accept or select us or our affiliated locals as their collective-bargaining represen- tative, under circumstances which would violate Sec- tion 8(b)(7XC) of the Act, as amended. BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION TRADES COUNCIL OF DELAWARE 48