Martinelli Interior Construction Co.

DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 351 NLRB No. 79 1184 Martinelli Interior Construction Company, Inc. and Metropolitan Regional Council of Carpenters, Southeastern Pennsylvania, State of Delaware and Eastern Shore of Maryland, United Broth- erhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America. Case 4–CA–35167 December 21, 2007 DECISION AND ORDER BY MEMBERS SCHAUMBER, KIRSANOW, AND WALSH On October 1, 2007, Administrative Law Judge Bruce D. Rosenstein issued the attached decision. The Charging Party filed exceptions and a supporting brief, and the Respondent filed an answering brief. The National Labor Relations Board has delegated its authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. The Board has considered the decision and the record in light of the exceptions and briefs, and has decided to affirm the judge’s rulings, findings,1 and conclusions2 and to adopt the recommended Order as modified.3 ORDER The National Labor Relations Board adopts the rec- ommended Order of the administrative law judge as modified below and orders that the Respondent, Marti- nelli Interior Construction Company, Inc., Wayne, Penn- sylvania, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Order as modified. 1. Substitute the following for paragraph 1(b). “(b) In any like or related manner interfering with, re- straining, or coercing employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act.” 2. Substitute the attached notice for that of the admin- istrative law judge. 1 The Charging Party has excepted to some of the judge’s credibility findings. The Board’s established policy is not to overrule an adminis- trative law judge’s credibility resolutions unless the clear preponder- ance of all the relevant evidence convinces us that they are incorrect. Standard Dry Wall Products, 91 NLRB 544 (1950), enfd. 188 F.2d 362 (3d Cir. 1951). We have carefully examined the record and find no basis for reversing the findings. 2 No exceptions were filed to the judge’s finding that the Respondent violated Sec. 8(a)(1) of the Act by creating the impression that the employees’ union activities were under surveillance by the Company. The judge recommended that the Board dismiss the 8(a)(3) allega- tion arising out of the discharge of employee Michael Long. Even assuming that the General Counsel met his initial burden under Wright Line, 251 NLRB 1083 (1980), enfd. 662 F.2d 899 (1st Cir. 1981), cert. denied 455 U.S. 989 (1982), we agree with the judge’s alternative finding, that the Respondent proved that it would have discharged Long in any event, based on the negative reports it received about him from one of its customers. Accordingly, we adopt the judge’s recommenda- tion. 3 We have modified par. 1(b) of the recommended Order and the corresponding paragraph of the notice to employees by substituting narrow cease-and-desist injunctive language. APPENDIX NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government The National Labor Relations Board has found that we vio- lated Federal labor law and has ordered us to post and obey this notice. FEDERAL LAW GIVES YOU THE RIGHT TO Form, join, or assist a union Choose representatives to bargain with us on your behalf Act together with other employees for your bene- fit and protection Choose not to engage in any of these protected activities. WE WILL NOT create the impression that employees’ union activities were under surveillance. WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce you in the exercise of the rights guaranteed you by Section 7 of the Act. MARTINELLI INTERIOR CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC. Edward J. Bonett Jr., Esq., for the General Counsel. Marc Furman, Esq., of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, for the Respondent-Employer. Stephen J. Holroyd, Esq., of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, for the Charging Party. DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE BRUCE D. ROSENSTEIN, Administrative Law Judge. This case was tried before me on July 11 and 12, 2007,1 in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, pursuant to a complaint and notice of hearing in the subject case (the complaint) issued on May 16, by the Re- gional Director for Region 4 of the National Labor Relations Board (the Board). The underlying charge was filed on Febru- ary 13, by Metropolitan Regional Council of Carpenters, Southeastern Pennsylvania, State of Delaware and Eastern Shore of Maryland, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America (the Charging Party or the Union) alleging that Martinelli Interior Construction Company, Inc. (the Re- spondent or the Employer) has engaged in certain violations of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the National Labor Relations Act (the Act). The Respondent filed a timely answer to the complaint denying that it had committed any violations of the Act. Issues The complaint alleges that the Respondent created the im- pression that employee’s union activities were under surveil- 1 All dates are in 2007, unless otherwise indicated. MARTINELLI INTERIOR CONSTRUCTION CO. 1185 lance in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act and that it dis- charged its employee Michael Long in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act. On the entire record, including my observation of the de- meanor of the witnesses, and after considering the briefs filed by the General Counsel, the Charging Party, and the Respon- dent, I make the following FINDINGS OF FACT I. JURISDICTION The Respondent, a Delaware corporation, with a principal office located in Wayne, Pennsylvania, has been engaged in business as an interior fit out carpentry subcontractor in the construction industry. During the past year, Respondent, in conducting its business operations provided goods and services valued in excess of $50,000 directly to customers located out- side the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. The Respondent admits and I find that it is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act and that the Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. II. ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Background The Respondent is a small open shop carpentry subcontrac- tor in the construction industry that has approximately 7–10 permanent employees on its payroll but also employs subcon- tractors. It primarily works on commercial projects and pro- vides carpentry services as needed for general contractors. The president of the Company is Susanne Martinelli and her hus- band, Alfred (Buddy) Martinelli (B. Martinelli or A. Marti- nelli), is vice president and part owner. A. Martinelli serves as chief estimator and construction coordinator and is the only managerial representative that has the authority to hire, fire, and discipline employees. Martinelli’s brother, Greg (G. Marti- nelli), serves as one of the two working carpentry foreman along with Joseph Gallagher. However, neither G. Martinelli nor Gallagher has the authority to hire, fire, or discipline em- ployees. At all times material, Michael Long is a journeyman carpenter who prior to being employed with the Respondent on November 21, 2006, was and continues to be a full-time paid union representative. As part of his job duties, Long was in- structed by his superiors to attempt to organize employees of nonunion companies by securing employment and then educat- ing employees about the benefits of union representation with the intention of the Union becoming the collective-bargaining representative of the employees. The Respondent was the first nonunion employer that Long worked for.2 In mid-November 2006, while driving in the area, Long no- ticed a large construction site and decided to walk on the prem- ises to seek employment as a carpenter. He left his name and telephone number with the individual in charge and several days later received a return telephone call from A. Martinelli. During the course of their telephone conversation information 2 Under these circumstances I find that Long is a “salt” under the Board’s recent decision in Oil Capitol Sheet Metal, Inc., 349 NLRB 1348 (2007). was exchanged about Long’s prior experience and the type of jobs he had previously performed as a skilled carpenter. With- out informing Long, A. Martinelli instructed his financial con- sultant to conduct a D & B (Dunn and Bradstreet) report on Long to discern if there were any problems with his prior ex- perience as a self-employed carpenter. Upon learning that the D & B report did not uncover any irregularities, A. Martinelli offered a carpenter position to Long at the rate of $20 per hour.3 Long did not reveal his union affiliation to any coworker or to any member of management until January 30, when he wore a union sweatshirt to the 220 E. Lancaster Avenue job (Dane Décor) and spoke to fellow employee Marc Palumbo about the benefits of being a union member. During the morning of January 30, the general contractor representative on the job, Andy Purcell, commented to Long that we have a “spy” on the project. B. The Agency Status of G. Martinelli The Board and the courts have uniformly held that whether someone acts as an agent under the Act must be determined by common law principles of agency. See, e.g. NLRB v. Plaster- ers Local 90 (Southern III. Builders Assn.), 606 F.2d 189 (7th Cir. 1979), enfg. 236 NLRB 329 (1978). Applying these principles to the subject case, the evidence establishes that G. Martinelli is a foreman of the Respondent with the authority to assign work to employees while on the jobsite. Likewise, G. Martinelli is the Respondent’s representa- tive on the jobsite who is the liaison with the general contrac- tor. The evidence further shows that G. Martinelli gave a direct order to Long on the Dana Décor jobsite to install a door in an elevator room as part of his official duties. Under these circumstances, and particularly noting that em- ployees including Long recognized G. Martinelli as the person in charge on the jobsite, I find that G. Martinelli is an agent of the Respondent and reject the Respondent’s denial in its answer to the contrary. Facchina Construction Co., 343 NLRB 886, 887 (2004) (company foremen were agents, as they served as conduits between employees and management, employees re- ceive their daily assignments and work instructions from the foremen, and foremen were responsible for overseeing employ- ees’ work and instructing them to redo work if it is done incor- rectly); Celtic General Contractors, 341 NLRB 862, 877 (2004) (brother of company president was an agent, because he spoke with considerable authority and was used as a conduit to employees). C. The 8(a)(1) Allegation The General Counsel alleges in paragraph 5 of the complaint that Respondent, by A. Martinelli, at a jobsite located in Blue Bell, Pennsylvania, created the impression that employees’ union activities were under surveillance by telling an employee 3 Long, during the period from November 21 to December 31, 2006, was hired and remained a subcontractor pursuant to his request and was paid without taking deductions from his paycheck. Long, on or about January 1, became a full-time employee of the Employer and was given a raise to $22 per hour. Effective with the raise, his net pay reflected payroll deductions taken from his paycheck. DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 1186 that he had the employee checked to see if he was a union “plant.” 1. Facts Long, on December 28, 2006, was working at the Cedar Crest Boulevard jobsite and A. Martinelli upon arriving at that location in early afternoon informed him that fellow employee Jose Velasquez suffered a seizure at another job and had to be removed by ambulance. Since Velasquez was a former union member Long informed the Union about the matter. Union Representative William Cassidy went to the jobsite where the incident occurred and inquired about the well being of Velasquez. Cassidy learned that he had recovered and was back working on the job. Long, on December 29, 2006, was working at the 630 Skip- pack Pike jobsite (GC Exh. 2) along with A. Martinelli and fellow employees Vince Grosso and Jorge Cordenos. He over- heard a telephone conversation that Cordenos received concern- ing Cassidy showing up on a jobsite and inquiring about the welfare of Velasquez. After the telephone call was completed, A. Martinelli told Long that he should always wear his hardhat, safety glasses, and if he was in a boom lift, he should make sure that his harness was on. A. Martinelli told Long that the Union was driving him “fucking” nuts and that they were “fucking” with Grosso. A. Martinelli said that he did not want Long to take offense but that he had him checked out because he thought Long was a union “plant.” Long did not respond to this comment. A. Martinelli also told Long that if anyone else comes on the job to tell them to call him and give his telephone number (GC Exh. 7(d)). 2. Analysis Long’s testimony has a ring of truth to it and the above statement is consistent with his contemporaneous notes taken on December 29, 2006 (GC Exh. 7(d)).4 Likewise, counsel for the Respondent reviewed his pretrial affidavit before commenc- ing cross-examination and did not challenge Long’s version of what A. Martinelli stated to him. A. Martinelli did not specifi- cally deny that he made the statement attributed to him in the complaint. Rather, he generally denied ever having any em- ployee checked out to see if they were union members. Under these circumstances, I conclude that A. Martinelli made the statement alleged in the complaint and find that the Respondent created the impression that employees’ union ac- tivities were under surveillance in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. D. The 8(a)(1) and (3) Allegations In Wright Line, 251 NLRB 1083 (1980), enfd. 662 F.2d 899 (1st Cir. 1981), cert. denied 455 U.S. 989 (1982), the Board announced the following causation test in all cases alleging violations of Section 8(a)(3) or violations of Section 8(a)(1) turning on employer motivation. First, the General Counsel must make a prima facie showing sufficient to support the in- 4 Long made a practice of memorializing the events of each day that he worked at the Respondent either at the end of the workday or shortly thereafter. Some of those notes have been introduced into the record as GC Exh. 7(a)–(k). ference that protected conduct was a “motivating factor” in the employer decision. On such a showing, the burden shifts to the employer to demonstrate that the same action would have taken place even in the absence of the protected conduct. The United States Supreme Court approved and adopted the Board’s Wright Line test in NLRB v. Transportation Management Corp., 462 U.S. 393, 399–403 (1993). In Manno Electric, 321 NLRB 278 fn. 12 (1996), the Board restated the test as follows. The General Counsel has the burden to persuade that antiunion sentiment was a substantial or motivating factor in the chal- lenged employer decision. The burden of persuasion then shifts to the employer to prove its affirmative defense that it would have taken the same action even if the employee had not en- gaged in protected activity. The General Counsel alleges in paragraph 6 of the complaint that the Respondent, on or about January 31, discharged its employee Michael Long because he supported and assisted the Union. 1. Facts During Long’s first day of employment on November 21, 2006, he made a statement that he did not like Mexicans espe- cially black ones. A. Martinelli immediately informed him that we do not talk like that about our fellow employees. Long was hired by A. Martinelli without the benefit of an application for employment, but he ultimately received the application on November 26, 2006. The application shows that in addition to his education Long noted that he had been self- employed as a carpenter from 2001 to the present and was ap- plying for the position as he needed a steady paycheck. Long did not list any other prior employers on the application and did not reveal his position as a full-time paid union organizer. Accordingly, the application was not complete and Long mis- represented his employment history. Long worked on approximately six different jobsites during the course of his employment (GC Exh. 2). He regularly re- ceived job assignments from A. Martinelli, G. Martinelli, or Gallagher while working at these locations along with other employees of the Respondent. Long, between November 21, 2006, and January 18, 2007, experienced no job-related problems for which he was coun- seled, reprimanded, or had written memoranda placed in his personnel file. Indeed, over the Christmas holiday Long re- ceived a number of gifts including an employee jacket. A. Martinelli recognized Longs skills as a journeyman carpenter in the beginning of January 2007, when he received a wage in- crease of $2 per hour. On January 9, A. Martinelli told Long that he should be around a long time at the Respondent (GC Exh. 7(f)), and often complimented his skills as a carpenter during this period (GC Exh. 7(a)). A. Martinelli, on January 19, had a telephone conversation with Forrest Grove Enterprises Project Manager Franco D’Andrea wherein A. Martinelli learned for the first time that D’Andrea was experiencing problems with Long. D’Andrea told A. Martinelli that Long exhibited a poor attitude on the Cedar Crest Boulevard project that has created tension among other contractors and himself. D’Andrea informed A. Marti- nelli that Long was no longer wanted on the project and if he MARTINELLI INTERIOR CONSTRUCTION CO. 1187 was unable to supply the project with appropriate manpower, then he would have to terminate their contract. Martinelli re- quested that D’Andrea put these concerns in writing. By letter dated January 19, D’Andrea memorialized the content of their telephone conversation (R. Exh. 2). Based on D’Andrea’s complaint, Long was immediately and permanently removed from the jobsite. Long, by letter dated January 21, filed a complaint against the Respondent with the Pennsylvania Department of Labor alleging that he and other employees were not paid for overtime work at the proper rate (GC Exh. 4). On January 25, Department of Labor employee Joseph Winkler arrived at the 630 Skippack Pike jobsite where Long was working that day, to investigate the overtime work com- plaint. Long, on January 26, while working at the court at Upper Providence jobsite, apprised G. Martinelli that he was the indi- vidual who filed the overtime work complaint with the Penn- sylvania Department of Labor and gave G. Martinelli the busi- ness card of Winkler suggesting that he call him to learn more about the complaint. G. Martinelli wanted to immediately talk about the complaint rather than calling Winkler. Long told him that it concerned overtime violations. G. Martinelli replied that those were union rules. Long stated that it is Federal law. G. Martinelli attended to some work responsibilities before return- ing with Winkler’s business card. He told Long that this is union shit since the address on the business card was proximate to the union office address (GC Exh. 7(h)). A. Martinelli testified that he was away from the area when the Department of Labor complaint was filed but his brother called on January 26 to inform him that Long had filed the overtime complaint and that Winkler had visited one of their jobsites on January 25. A. Martinelli instructed G. Martinelli to telephone their financial consultant to straighten out the over- time claim but to wait until he had a chance to telephone the consultant to bring him up to speed. The record shows that Long was paid by check dated February 2, for the back over- time that he was owed (GC Exh. 6). A. Martinelli testified that he went to West Palm Beach, Florida, on January 24, and did not return to Pennsylvania until approximately 1 a.m. on January 30. Martinelli, on either Janu- ary 25 or 26 received a telephone call from Forrest Grove En- terprises Vice President of Operations Jeffory Beckers concern- ing the uncooperative attitude of Long. Beckers informed A. Martinelli that Long has repeatedly refused to clean up his work area causing Beckers to hire outside labor to remove the debris. Beckers ended the telephone conversation by informing A. Martinelli that he wanted Long removed from their jobsites and another individual assigned who can be more understand- ing to the needs of the other trades and be willing to respond to the requirements on the jobsite. A. Martinelli requested Beck- ers to put his concerns in writing. Beckers, by letter dated January 26, summarized their telephone conversation with the information about Long (R Exh. 3). Martinelli, contacted his financial consultant on January 26 immediately after he completed his telephone conversation with Beckers, and discussed whether it was prudent to terminate Long based on the issues raised by D’Andrea and Beckers. It was jointly decided during the course of the telephone conver- sation that Long should be terminated based on these incidents and the racial slur that he uttered on November 21, 2006. A. Martinelli instructed the financial consultant to prepare a termi- nation letter to give to Long when he returned to Pennsylvania on either January 29 or 30. Accordingly, the financial consult- ant prepared the termination letter with a date of January 30. Since A. Martinelli did not return to Pennsylvania until 1 a.m. on January 30, the termination letter was not given to Long until the morning of January 31 (GC Exh. 5). Long, on January 30, wore a union sweatshirt to the 220 E. Lancaster Avenue job (Dana Décor) and spoke to fellow em- ployee Palumbo about the benefits of being a union member. This was the first time that Long revealed his union affiliation to any employee or management representative of Respondent. During that morning, the general contractor representative on the job, Andy Percell, stated to Long that we have a “spy” on the project. A. Martinelli testified that he was called on that day by G. Martinelli and Palumbo to inform him that Long was wearing a union sweatshirt. A. Martinelli, on January 31 around 5:30 a.m., telephoned Long to come to the court at Upper Providence job. Long wore the same union sweatshirt that he did the preceding day. A. Martinelli arrived with G. Martinelli and the rest of the em- ployees and informed Long that be was being terminated due to reasons that were contained in a sealed envelope that he handed to Long (GC Exh. 5). Long returned some of the tools that A. Martinelli had given him and then commenced to read the letter. He became agitated due to his position that many of the allegations were false and unpleasantries were exchanged be- tween Long and A. Martinelli. The conversation ended when G. Martinelli stated that, “This is America and the Union didn’t make the rules.” 2. Analysis The General Counsel argues that Long was a skilled carpen- ter who was routinely complimented by A. Martinelli, was never counseled or reprimanded, and it was not until he filed an overtime complaint with the Pennsylvania Department of Labor and wore his union sweatshirt that the Respondent took disci- plinary action against him. Moreover, the Respondent never told Long about the complaints that D’Andrea and Beckers made nor was he informed that he was removed from the Forrest Grove Enterprises jobsites or other job locations be- cause of his conduct. Accordingly, the General Counsel asserts that the reasons advanced by the Respondent for Long’s dis- charge are pretextual and a finding should be made that the Act was violated. The Respondent opines that Long was terminated for legiti- mate business reasons unrelated to his protected activities. In this regard, they argue that his belligerent attitude and conduct as evidenced by his refusal of a direct order from G. Martinelli to hang a door in a elevator room coupled with the issues dis- cussed in the D’Andrea and Beckers letters and the racial slur provide legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons for the discharge. While I found that A. Martinelli engaged in 8(a)(1) conduct by creating the impression that employees’ union activities DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 1188 were under surveillance, I am not persuaded that Long was terminated because of his protected activities. In this regard, I note that the General Counsel did not allege in the complaint that the termination was in any way related to the filing of the overtime complaint with the Pennsylvania De- partment of Labor despite the fact that the complaint was lodged on behalf of Long and other employees. Moreover, the General Counsel did not allege the remarks of G. Martinelli that this was “union rules or union shit” as independent 8(a)(1) conduct. The evidence conclusively shows that the decision to termi- nate Long was independently made by A. Martinelli on January 26, which was prior to the time that Long revealed his union affiliation.5 In this regard, A. Martinelli made the termination decision in a telephone conversation with his financial consult- ant on January 26, immediately after he completed another telephone conversation with Beckers that came on the heels of an earlier conversation with D’Andrea that involved repeated inappropriate conduct by Long.6 While Long and others might believe that the conduct relied upon by A. Martinelli was exag- gerated, the bottom line is that the termination was not based on Long’s protected conduct as neither A. Martinelli or any em- ployee learned of the conduct until January 30, a period of time after the decision had been made to discharge Long. Moreover, I note and credit the testimony of A. Martinelli that his family has a long history of union membership and allegiance. Indeed, his father, older brother, and himself are or had been members of the Carpenters Union. Additionally, I note that G. Martinelli previously was a member of the Team- sters Union and that when A. Martinelli hired employees Velasquez, Cordenos, and Grosso, he was aware that they were all active union members. Thus, I do not attribute any union animus toward A. Martinelli when he effectuated Long’s dis- charge for legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons. Accordingly, I find that Long was not terminated because of his union support and activity and recommend that this allega- tion of the complaint be dismissed.7 CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act. 2. The Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 5 The evidence shows that neither G. Martinelli nor Gallagher had any input into the decision to terminate Long. 6 The General Counsel and the Charging Party argue that there was no corroboration for A. Martinelli’s testimony that one or both letters from the Forrest Grove officials were faxed to him, no corroboration of cell phone records from these officials, and the Respondent declined to call these individuals in addition to A. Martinelli’s secretary and the business consultant/legal counsel as witnesses to support their case. I note, however, that neither the General Counsel nor the Charging Party issued subpoenas to any of these individuals to compel their testimony. 7 Under these circumstances, I do not find that the General Counsel established a prima facie case under the Wright Line guidelines as it concerns Long’s discharge. If others disagree, I would find that the Respondent would have taken the same action even in the absence of Long’s protected conduct. 3. Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act when it created the impression that employees’ union activities were under surveillance. 4. Respondent did not violate Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act when it discharged its employee Michael Long. REMEDY Having found that the Respondent has engaged in certain un- fair labor practices, I find that it must be ordered to cease and desist and to take certain affirmative action designed to effectu- ate the policies of the Act. On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on the entire record, I issue the following recommended8 ORDER The Respondent, Martinelli Interior Construction Company, Inc., Wayne, Pennsylvania, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall 1. Cease and desist from (a) Creating the impression that employees’ union activities were under surveillance. (b) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or co- ercing employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to effec- tuate the policies of the Act. (a) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at its fa- cility in Wayne, Pennsylvania, copies of the attached notice marked “Appendix.”9 Copies of the notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 4 after being signed by the Respondent’s authorized representative, shall be posted by the Respondent and maintained for 60 consecutive days in con- spicuous places including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to ensure that the notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. In the event that, during the pendency of these proceedings, the Respondent has gone out of business or closed the facility involved in these proceedings, the Respondent shall duplicate and mail, at its own expense, a copy of the notice to all current employees and former employ- ees employed by the Respondent at any time since December 29, 2006. (b) Within 21 days after service by the Region, file with the Regional Director a sworn certification of a responsible official on a form provided by the Region attesting to the steps that the Respondent has taken to comply. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint is dismissed inso- far as it alleges violations of the Act not specifically found. 8 If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the Board’s Rules and Regulations, the findings, conclusions, and recommended Order shall, as provided in Sec. 102.48 of the Rules, be adopted by the Board and all objections to them shall be deemed waived for all pur- poses. 9 If 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 Na- tional Labor Relations Board” shall read “Posted Pursuant to a Judg- ment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board.” MARTINELLI INTERIOR CONSTRUCTION CO. 1189