Plumber Local Union No. 420

PLUMBERS, LOCAL UNION NO. 420 Local Union No. 420, United Association of Jour- neymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the United States and Canada and Jerald R. Cureton' and Paragon Mechanical, Inc.,2 Party to the Contract. Case 4-CB-3788 January 14, 1981 DECISION AND ORDER BY MEMBERS JENKINS, PENELLO, AND ZIMMERMAN On September 9, 1980, Administrative Law Judge Leonard M. Wagman issued the attached Decision in this proceeding. Thereafter, Respon- dent filed exceptions and a supporting brief, and the General Counsel filed a brief in answer to Re- spondent's exceptions. On November 6, 1980, the Board issued a notice to the parties of the opportu- nity to submit statements of position on the appro- priateness of a make-whole remedy in this case. Thereafter, Respondent, the General Counsel, and the Charging Party filed statements of position. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na- tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au- thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. The Board has considered the record and the at- tached Decision in light of the exceptions, briefs, and statements of position, and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings,3 and conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge and to adopt his recom- mended Order, as modified herein. The Administrative Law Judge recommended that Respondent be ordered, inter alia, to rescind the local agreement, and, upon request, sign an agreement that the terms of the National Construc- tion Agreement shall apply to all steamfitters em- ployed by Paragon at the Coatesville project. The General Counsel and the Charging Party contend that the Board should also order Respondent to make Paragon whole for any expenditures that it incurred pursuant to the local agreement unlawful- ly imposed upon it which it would not have in- curred under the National Construction Agree- ment. In Warehousemen's Union Local 17, International Longshoremen's & Warehousemen's Union (Los An- ' The name of the Charging Party appears as amended at the hearing. 2 Hereinafter referred to as Paragon. 3 Respondent has excepted to certain credibility findings made by the Administrative Law Judge. It is the Board's established policy not to overrule an administrative law judge's resolutions with respect to credi- bility unless the clear preponderance of all of the relevant evidence con- vinces us that the resolutions are incorrect. Standard Dry Wall Products Inc., 91 NLRB 544 (1950), enfd. 188 F.2d 362 (3d Cir. 1951). We have carefully examined the record and find no basis for reversing his findings 254 NLRB No. 51 geles By-Products Co.),4 the Board was faced with a fact situation analogous to the one presented here. In that case, the respondent union also called a strike, in order to force the company to sign a con- tract in violation of a Board Order which required the union to sign an agreement which was negotiat- ed previously. 5 The Administrative Law Judge recommended that the Board order the union to make the company whole for any financial expen- ditures it incurred under the contract it was unlaw- fully coerced into signing which it would not have incurred under the collective-bargaining agreement to which the parties had earlier agreed, and which the Board had ordered the union to sign. Other- wise, the Administrative Law Judge reasoned, the union would "retain the fruits of its unlawful con- duct." 6 The Board adopted the Administrative Law Judge's recommendations in full. A make- whole remedy was ordered on similar facts in Graphic Arts International Union, Local 280 (James H. Barry Company, et al.). 7 We agree with the General Counsel and the Charging Party that such a remedy is appropriate here. Respondent initially agreed that Paragon could utilize the National Construction Agreement at the Coatesville project. Subsequently, Respon- dent insisted that the local agreement be substituted for the National Construction Agreement without giving Paragon the proper notice required by Sec- tion 8(d) of the Act, thus violating Section 8(b)(3). Respondent committed another violation of Section 8(b)(3) when it ordered a strike in order to coerce Paragon into abandoning the National Construction Agreement and signing the local agreement. The strike was successful; Paragon ultimately signed the local agreement, thus incurring additional costs, in- cluding higher overtime and shiftwork premium pay. "If a party who unlawfully refuses to bargain is permitted to retain the fruits of unlawful action, the Act is rendered meaningless, and defiance of the Board's orders is encouraged." s We shall there- fore order Respondent to make Paragon whole for any expenditures it incurred pursuant to the local agreement which it would not have incurred under the National Construction Agreement. 4 182 NLRB 781 (1970), enfd. 451 F.2d 1240 (9th Cir. 1971). ' 171 NLRB 1244 (1968). In this earlier case. the Board found that the union and the company had reached an agreement which the union sub- sequently refused to sign. The Board concluded that the union violated Sec. 8(b)(3) of the Act and ordered it to sign the contract agreed upon previously After this Board Order issued, the union demanded that the company reenter negotiations, and called a strike to coerce the company to sign another contract 182 NLRB at 787 ' 235 NLRB 1084 (1978). enfd 596 F 2d 904 (9th Cir 1979) 451 F2d at 1243 445 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Re- lations Board adopts as its Order the recommended Order of the Administrative Law Judge, as modi- fied below, and hereby orders that the Respondent, Local Union No. 420, United Association of Jour- neymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the United States and Canada, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, its officers, agents, and representatives, shall take the action set forth in the said recommended Order, as so modi- fied: 1. Insert the following as paragraph 2(b) and re- letter the remaining paragraphs accordingly: "(b) Make Paragon Mechanical, Inc., whole for any financial expenditures made pursuant to the May 14, 1979, agreement which it would not have been obligated to make under the National Con- struction Agreement." 2. Substitute the attached notice for that of the Administrative Law Judge. APPENDIX NOTICE To EMPLOYEES AND MEMBERS POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government WE WILL NOT repudiate the National Con- struction Agreement for the United States of America of the United Association of Journey- men and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the United States and Canada, AFL-CIO, with respect to the steam- fitters employed by Paragon Mechanical, Inc., at its construction project at the Veterans Ad- ministration Medical Center, Coatesville, Pennsylvania. WE WILL NOT give effect to or enforce our collective-bargaining agreement with the Me- chanical Contractors Association of Eastern Pennsylvania, Inc., with respect to the steam- fitters employed by Paragon Mechanical, Inc., at the Veterans Administration Medical Center, Coatesville, Pennsylvania. WE WILL NOT cause a strike of the steamfit- ters described above with an object of causing Paragon Mechanical, Inc., to rescind the Na- tional Construction Agreement and sign our collective-bargaining agreement with the Me- chanical Contractors Association of Eastern Pennsylvania, Inc., or any other local collec- tive-bargaining agreement. WE WILL NOT engage in any like or related conduct in derogation of our duty to bargain. WE WILL, upon request, sign an agreement that the terms of the National Construction Agreement shall apply to all steamfitters em- ployed by Paragon Mechanical, Inc., at its construction project at the Veterans Adminis- tration Medical Center, Coatesville, Pennsyl- vania. WE WILL make Paragon Mechanical, Inc., whole for any financial expenditures made pursuant to the Mechanical Contractors Asso- ciation of Eastern Pennsylvania, Inc., agree- ment which it would not have been obligated to make under the National Construction Agreement. LOCAL UNION No. 420, UNITED As- SOCIATION OF JOURNEYMEN AND AP- PRENTICES OF THE PLUMBING AND PIPEFITTING INDUSTRY OF THE UNITED STATES AND CANADA DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE LEONARD M. WAGMAN, Administrative Law Judge: This case, consolidated with Cases 4-CC-1149 and 4- CB-3787, came on for hearing before me at Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, on September 24 and 25, 1979.1 On Sep- tember 25, the General Counsel and the Respondents in Cases 4-CC-1149 and 4-CB-3787 entered into unilateral settlements which I approved. On the same date, I grant- ed the motion of counsel for the General Counsel to sever Cases 4-CC-1149 and 4-CB-3787 from Case 4- CB-3788 and amended the caption of the proceeding.2 The issues presented by the instant case are whether Local Union No. 420, United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Indus- try of the United States and Canada, referred to below as the Union, violated Section 8(b)(3) of the Act by repudi- ating an agreement with Paragon Mechanical, Inc., re- ferred to below as Paragon, to apply the terms of the National Construction Agreement for the United States of America of the United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the United States and Canada, AFL-CIO, referred to below as the national construction agreement, and re- quiring Paragon to become party to a local collective- bargaining agreement between Mechanical Contractors Association of Eastern Pennsylvania, Inc., a multiem- ployer association and the Union, and by causing a strike among Paragon's employees to pressure Paragon into be- coming a party to the local collective-bargaining agree- ment. Based upon the record, and my observation of the wit- nesses' demeanor, and upon careful consideration of the Unless otherwise stated, all dates occurred in 1979. 2 The name of the Charging Party Jerald R. Cureton was amended at the hearing. 446 PLUMBERS, LOCAL UNION NO. 420 briefs filed by counsel for the General Counsel and the Union,3 I make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT I. JURISDICTION Paragon is a Missouri corporation engaged in mechani- cal and general construction from its Kansas City, Mis- souri, offices. In the course of its business, during the year preceding issuance of the complaint, Paragon per- formed services valued in excess of $50,000 for firms lo- cated outside of the State of Missouri. Jaden Electric, a Division of Farfield Company, re- ferred to below as Jaden, is a Pennsylvania corporation engaged in electrical contracting from its offices at Lititz, Pennsylvania. During the year preceding issuance of the complaint, Jaden performed services valued in excess of $50,000 for firms located outside the Common- wealth of Pennsylvania. I find from the foregoing admitted data that Paragon and Jaden are and have been, respectively, at all times material herein employers engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act. 11. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED Local Union No. 420, United Association of Journey- men and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting In- dustry of the United States and Canada is, and at all times material to this case has been, a labor organization as defined in Section 2(5) of the Act. 111. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES On February 16, Paragon began work as a general contractor in the construction of a chiller plant to pro- duce chilled water for the air conditioning of the Veter- ans Administration Medical Center at Coatesville, Penn- sylvania. The scheduled project completion date is No- vember 27, 1981. During the period covered by the al- leged unfair labor practices, Paragon's subcontractors in- cluded Jaden Electric, a nonunion electrical contractor. Paragon itself during all times material to the alleged unfair labor practices employed steamfitters,4 plumbers, carpenters, laborers, and operating engineers, all of whom were employed under union contracts. In February, prior to Paragon's entry upon the Coates- ville Veterans Administration project, a Paragon vice president, Gary Harding, contacted the Union's business representative, Martin J. Maddaloni. Harding stated that Paragon was bidding on the Coatesville's Veterans Ad- ministration project, asked about the Union's local wage rates, and stated that Paragon had signed the national construction agreement with the Union's parent, United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the United States and Canada. In response to Harding's call, Maddaloni, on behalf of the Union, mailed to Harding forms pertain- ing to the various fringe benefits and a copy of the Union's local collective-bargaining agreement with the I In the interest of affording the Union a full opportunity to be heard, I considered its untimely filed brief. Also referred to in the record as "pipefitters." Mechanical Contractors Association of Eastern Pennsyl- vania, a multiemployer association, which included pro- visions for those benefits. Neither Harding nor Madda- loni mentioned whether the Union's local agreement or the national construction agreement would apply to Paragon at the Coatesville project. Paragon, at all times material to this case, was a party to the United Associ- ation's national construction agreement. During the latter part of March, after Paragon had re- ceived the award of the contract at the Coatesville pro- ject, Paragon's project manager, William L. Bell, who was at the project site, telephoned Maddaloni and re- quested the dispatch of a steamfitter superintendent. In the course of the conversation, Bell inquired if Madda- loni was familiar with the United Association's national construction agreement. Maddaloni assured Bell that Local 420 honored the national agreement. 5 On April II, Paragon's Project Manager Bell and Construction Manager Victor Ray Bingman met with Local 420 representatives, Martin Maddaloni and Edward Fitzpatrick, to discuss their respective interests. Steamfitter Superintendent Reed Beck was also present. However, he did not testify. The matters covered includ- ed length of the job and other aspects of Paragon's needs and Paragon's treatment of its steamfitters, who were members of the Union. As Fitzpatrick entered the con- struction trailer for the meeting, he remarked that he un- derstood that there was a nonunion electrician working on the project, Jaden Electric, and added "there's going to be trouble." Indeed, Jaden Electric was a subcontrac- tor at the time and also was a nonunion employer. Fitz- patrick also stated that Paragon should have contacted the Philadelphia Building and Trade Council to obtain a union electrical contractor on this job. During the exchange which ensued, Bingman stated that Paragon had signed the national construction agree- ment and intended to apply it to the Coatesville Verter- ans Administration project. Maddaloni and Fitzpatrick stated that they understood the national agreement and that there would be no problem in utilizing that contract on the Coatesville job.6 5 Maddaloni testified in substance that to the best of his recollection there was no mention of the national agreement or any national agree- ment during his conversation. However, as Bell impressed me as the more candid witness, I have credited his version of this conversion. Mad- daloni's reluctance to admit that Paragon had signed the national agree- ment, his spontaneous outburst at the hearing in which he charged that the testimony of one of the General Counsel's witnesses was "a lie," and his repeated inability to fix dates contrasted sharply with Bell's straight- forward manner and his apparent willingness to provide his full recollec- tion of events and conversations, without a show of partisanship. I base my findings regarding the April I1 conversation on the straightforward testimony of Bell and Bingman. Fitzpatrick testified that prior to coming upon the Coatesville jobsite he knew nothing about Jaden Electric. However. examination of Fitzpatrick's responses on cross- examination to questions regarding the first time he knew about Jaden Electric and other matters of fact reveals a pattern of evasion, which casts serious doubt upon the reliability of his testimony. In contrast, Bell and Bingman, respectively, appeared to be providing their honest recol- lections. Maddaloni admitted discussion of the national construction agreement However, according to Maddaloni, he told Paragon's representatives that the national construction agreement did not apply to the Coatesville pro- ject because it involved "comfort, heating and cooling " Maddaloni's fur- Continued 447 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL L.ABOR RELATIONS BOARD During the discussion of April 11, neither Paragon's representatives nor the Union's representatives had a copy of the national construction agreement available. However, it appears that Bingman and Maddaloni, who were the active spokesmen for their repective sides, were familar with that agreement. I find from Project Manager Bell's testimony that from late March until May 8 Paragon applied only the nation- al construction agreement to its Coatesville job. I also find from Bell's testimony that he was not aware that any other agreement was to be applied and that he has acted in accordance with Paragon's practice at all of its other jobs throughout the United States. Consistent with Paragon's practice, Bell paid his employees on Friday, as provided in the national construction agreement, rather than on Thursday as set forth in the Union's local agree- ment. The record includes a series of reports showing that Paragon paid into fringe benefit funds as required by the local agreement. However, the first of these reports was dated after the Union had called a strike which caused Paragon to sign the Union's local agreement. Further, article VI of the national construction agree- ment required at least that Paragon make payments to the Union's pension, health and welfare, and vacation funds. In pertinent part, article VI of the national con- struction agreement provided: "The Employer shall pay only fringe benefit funds for employees (such as pension, health and welfare, vacation and the like) that have been legally negotiated and established by a local collective bargaining agreement." Business Representative Maddaloni testified that, a few days after the April 11 meeting, he first became aware that Paragon was applying only the national construction agreement, when he was so advised by Superintendent Reed Beck. In light of my evaluation of Maddaloni's reli- ability and Bingman's credited testimony regarding the meeting of April 11, I have rejected this portion of Mad- daloni's testimony. However, from Maddaloni's testimony as corroborated by Bingman, I find that, approximately I week after the meeting of April 11, Maddaloni demanded that Bell apply the Union's local agreement at Coatesville, instead of the national construction agreement. At Bell's sugges- tion, Maddaloni contacted Paragon's president, Hugh Tighe, at corporate headquarters. Tighe rejected Madda- loni's demand. Maddaloni warned Tighe that, unless Paragon joined in the local agreement, the Union's mem- bers would not work for Paragon. Following this ex- ther testimony was that the national construction agreement only applies to "industrial work." In support of this view, Maddaloni testified that art III of the national construction agreement entitled "Scope of Work" limits application of the national agreement to industrial plants such as refineries and powerhouses. However, there was no showing that Madda- loni's view of art. III was shared by other parties to the national agree- ment or was expressed elsewhere in the national agreement, or In the Union's local agreement. My impression that Maddaloni was not a candid witness and the absence of corroboration of his interpretation of art. Ill persuaded me to reject his interpretation In any event, I need not dwell upon contract interpretation. For B3ing. man's credited testimony shows that the Union agreed to the application of the national agreement rather then the local agreement at the Coates- ville project. change, Maddaloni mailed copies of the local agreement to Paragon's Kansas City headquarters. On or about May 7, Maddaloni warned Project Man- ager Bell that unless Paragon signed the local agreement the Union would call a strike of Paragon's steamfitters. Paragon's negative response resulted in a strike of its steamfitters from May 8 until May 16, when Paragon signed the Union's local agreement. On May 10 or II11, Business Representative Fitzpatrick came to Paragon's job trailer at the Coatesville project. In the course of a conversation with Construction Man- ager Bingman, Fitzpatrick inquired: "Do you think that Jaden Electric would use union electricians on this job?" Bingman replied that he "was a whole lot more con- cerned about getting the pipefitters [steamfitters] back on the job as they were not there at that time, than [he] was as to who did the electrical work." At this, Fitzpatrick answered: "Well, lets face it, you're being forced to sign this local agreement because of the non-union electrical contractor on the job, and that he said he knew the elec- trical business agent and he'd give him a call, and with that he left the job." 7 On May 14, Paragon reluctantly signed the local agreement as demanded by the Union. Two days later all but one of the striking steamfitters returned to work. Comparison of the two agreements provides some ap- preciation of Paragon's preference for the national agree- ment. The two agreements differ in their overtime provi- sions. Under the national agreement, the initial 10 hours of overtime are paid at the rate of time and one half. Thereafter, following the 10th hour, overtime will be compensated at double the hourly rate. Under the local agreement, the double time applies to all overtime. Par- gon's Coatesville project required "several thousand dol- lars" of overtime. Another striking difference lies in their provisions for shift work premium pay. The national agreement pro- vides for a 15 percent premium for all work other than the standard shift. The local agreement provides for a 25-percent premium. Paragon's Coatesville project re- quired "several thousand dollars" of shift work. Finally, under the local agreement the number of fore- men are established "strictly by the man count on the job." Under the national construction agreement, this de- termination is at the employer's discretion. In agreement with the General Counsel, I find that the Union's conduct ran afoul of the Act. I find from the foregoing recital that, on April 11, the Union agreed that Paragon could utilize the national construction agree- ment on the Coatesville project in dealing with its steam- fitter employees. Local Union Nos. 938, 978, 1082, 1119, 1182, 1376, 1884, 1991, 2175 and 2235 of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO (Appalachian Power Company), 200 NLRB 850, 852 (1972). I also find from the foregoing that by subsequently insisting, on or about April 18, that the local agreement be substituted for the national construction agreement, without giving Paragon the proper notice required by Section 8(d) of 7 My Findings regarding Fitzpatrick's remark were based upon Bing- man's testimotny I have previously stated my reasons for crediting Bing- man rather than Fitzpatrick. 448 PLUMBERS, LOCAL UNION NO. 420 the Act, 8 Local 420 violated Section 8(b)(3) of the Act. Communication Workers of America, AFL-CIO (New York Telephone Company), 186 NLRB 626, 627 (1970). Finally, I find that, by the strike it caused on May 8 to pressure Paragon into abandoning the national construc- tion agreement and signing the local agreement, the Union again violated Section 8(b)(3) of the Act. Miscella- neous Service Workers, Drivers and Helpers, Local 427, In- ternational Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Ware- housemen and Helpers of America (Edward D. Sultan Co., Ltd.), 223 NLRB 1342 (1976). CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Both Paragon Mechanical, Inc., and Jaden Electri- cal, a Division of Farfield Company, are employers en- gaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act. 2. The Union, Local Union No. 420, United Associ- ation of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the United States and Canada, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3. On April 11, 1979, the Union and Paragon Mechani- cal, Inc., reached full and complete agreement with re- spect to the terms and conditions of employment of all of the steamfitters employed by Paragon at the Veterans Administration Medical Center at Coatesville, Pennsyl- vania, by agreeing that the terms of the National Con- struction Agreement for the United States of America of the United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the United States and Canada, AFL-CIO, would be applied to Para- gon's operations at that Veterans Administration facility. 4. At all times material herein, the Union has been and remains the exclusive bargaining representative for all steamfitters employed by Paragon at its Coatesville, Pennsylvania, Veterans Administration project, for the purpose of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(a) of the Act. 5. By repudiating on or about April 18, 1979, the con- tract agreed to by the parties on April 11, 1979, and by A Sec. 8(d) provides in pertinent part that where there is in effect a collective-bargaining contract covering em- ployees in an industry affecting commerce, the duty to bargain col- lectively shall also mean that no party to such contract shall termi- nate or modify such contract, unless the party desiring such termina- tion or modification-- (I) serves a written notice upon the other party to the contract of the proposed termination or modification sixty days prior to the ex- piration dale thereof, or in the event such contract contains no expi- ration date, sixty days prior to the time it is proposed to make such termination or modification; (2) offers to meet and confer with the other party for the purpose of negotiating a new contract or a contract containing the proposed modifications; (3) notifies the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service within thirty days after such notice of the existence of a dispute, and simul- taneously therewith notifies any State or Territorial agency estab lished to mediate and conciliate disputes within the State or Terri- tory where the dispute occurred, provided no agreement has been reached by that time; (4) continues in full force and effect. without resorting to strike or lockout, all the terms and conditions of the existing contract for a period of sixty days after such notice is given or until the expiration date of such contract, whichever occurs later causing a strike of the employees in the unit described above in paragraph 3 with an object of forcing Paragon to rescind the agreement reached on April 11, 1979, the Union has engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(b)(3) of the Act. 6. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. THE REMEDY Having found that the Union has engaged in unfair labor practices violative of Section 8(b)(3) of the Act, I shall recommend that it be ordered to cease and desist from such violations and from any like or related unfair labor practices, and to take affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. 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: ORDER S The Respondent, Local Union No. 420, United Associ- ation of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the United States and Canada, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, its officers, agents, and repre- sentatives, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Repudiating the National Construction Agreement for the United States of America of the United Associ- ation of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the United States and Canada, AFL-CIO, with respect to the steamfitters employed by Paragon Mechanical, Inc., at its construction project at the Veterans Administration Medical Center, Coatesville, Pennsylvania. (b) Giving effect to or enforcing the collective-bar- gaining agreement between Respondent and Mechanical Contractors Association of Eastern Pennsylvania, Inc., with respect to the above-described unit. (c) Causing a strike in the above-described unit with an object of forcing Paragon Mechanical, Inc., to rescind the national construction agreement and become party to the collective-bargaining agreement between Respon- dent, and Mechanical Contractors Association of Eastern Pennsylvania, Inc., or any other local collective-bargain- ing agreement. (d) Engaging in any like or related conduct in deroga- tion of its statutory duty to bargain. 2. Take the following affirmative action which will ef- fectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Upon request, sign an agreement that the terms of the national construction agreement referred to in para- graph l(a) of this recommended Order shall apply to all steamfitters employed by Paragon Mechanical, Inc., at its In the c ent no exceptions are filed a provided by Sec 102 46 of the Rules and Regulations of the Nalional Labor Relatilons ltiard, the find- ings, conclusions, and recommended Order herein shall. as pros idled in Sec 10248 of the Rules and Regulations, he adopted hb the Board and become its findiig,, conclusionis .land Order, and all blections thcreli shall he deemed as ied for all prposes 449 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD construction project at the Veterans Administration Medical Center, Coatesville, Pennsylvania. (b) Post at its offices and meeting halls copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix." 10 Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 4, after being duly signed by an authorized repre- sentative of Respondent, shall be posted by it immediate- ly upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, in- lo In the event that this 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 Pursu- ant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National abor Relations Board." cluding all places where notices to members are custom- arily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by it to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or cov- ered by any other material. (c) Promptly mail to the Regional Director for Region 4, signed copies of the notice for posting by Paragon Mechanical, Inc., if willing, at its construction site at the Coatesville, Pennsylvania, Veterans Administration Medical Center, where notices to its employees are cus- tomarily posted. (d) Notify the Regional Director for Region 4, in writ- ing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith. 450