Painters' Local Union No. 77

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 27, 1976

222 N.L.R.B. 607 (N.L.R.B. 1976)

PAINTERS' LOCAL UNION NO. 77
Local Union No. 77 of International Brotherhood of
Painters and Allied Trades, AFL-CIO (Colorite,
Inc.) and Larry Lee Cornelisen . Case 27-CB-888
January 27, 1976
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS JENKINS , PENELLO, AND WALTHER
On November 21, 1975, Administrative Law Judge
Earldean V. S. Robbins issued the attached Decision
in this proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent filed ex-
ceptions and a supporting brief, and the General
Counsel filed an answering brief.
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 'd three-member panel.
The Board has considered the record and the at-
tached Decision in light of the exceptions and briefs
and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings, and
conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge and to
adopt her recommended Order as herein modified.'
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 modified
below and hereby orders that the Respondent Local
Union No. 77 of International Brotherhood of Paint-
ers and Allied Trades , AFL-CIO, Salt Lake City,
Utah, its officers , agents, and' representatives, shall
take the action set forth in the said recommended
Order , as so modified: -
1. Substitute the following for paragraph 1(c):
"(c) In any other manner restraining or coercing
employees in the exercise of their rights guaranteed
in Section 7 of the Act."
2. Substitute the attached notice for the Adminis-
trative Law Judge's notice.
i In par. 1(c) of her recommended Order, the Administrative Law Judge
uses the narrow cease and desist language, "like or related manner," rather
than the broad injunctive language, "in any other manner," the Board tradi-
tionally provides in cases involving serious 8(b)(2) discrimination conduct
See Glaziers and Glassworkers Local Union No 513, affiliated with Interna-
tional Brotherhood of Painters and Allied Trades, AFL-CIO (Joseph J Cer-
mak, d/b/a-Southern Glass Company), 200 NLRB 617 (1972), Morrison-
Knudsen Company, Inc, 122 NLRB 1147 (1959). Accordingly, we shall mod-
ify the Order to require Respondent -to cease and desist from in any other
manner infringing upon employee rights. This change is also made ,in the
revised notice.
APPENDIX
NOTICE
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
607
NOTICE TO ALL MEMBERS AND OTHER PERSONS USING THE
HIRING HALL OF LOCAL UNION NO. 77 OF THE INTERNA-
TIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF PAINTERS AND ALLIED TRADES,
AFL-CIO.
After a hearing at which all sides had the opportunity
to present their evidence, the National Labor Rela-
tions Board has found that we violated the National
Labor Relations Act, and has ordered us to post this
notice and we intend to carry out the Order of the
Board.
WE WILL NOT maintain, enforce, or otherwise
give effect to an exclusive hiring hall contractual
arrangement with Painting and Decorating Con-
tractors of America, Salt Lake City Chapter, its
employer-members and nonmember employees,
which grants preference in referrals and employ-
ment opportunities to applicants for employ-
ment based on prior work experience with
employers signatory to collective-bargaining
agreements with us.
WE WILL NOT cause or attempt to cause Color-
ite, Inc., or any other employer to discriminate
against Larry Lee Cornelisen, or any other em-
ployee, based on considerations of prior union
representation.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner restrain or
coerce applicants for employment through our
hiring hall in the exercise of their rights guaran-
teed by Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL make Larry Lee Cornelisen whole
for any loss of earnings he may have suffered by
reason of our discrimination against him.
LOCAL UNION No. 77 OF INTERNATIONAL
BROTHERHOOD OF PAINTERS AND ALLIED
TRADES, AFL-CIO
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
EARLDEAN V.S. ROBBINS, Administrative Law Judge: This
case was heard before me in Salt Lake City, Utah, on Sep-
tember 30 and October 1, 1975. The charge was filed by
Larry Lee Cornelisen, an individual, and served on Re-
spondent on November 20, 1974. The complaint, which
issued on April 25, 1975, alleges that the Respondent has
violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) and (2) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, herein called the Act.
222 NLRB No. 95
608 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The primary issues herein are whether the contractual
hiring hall arrangement maintained by Respondent grants
an illegal preference in employment based on prior work
experience with employers signatory to collective-bargain-
ing agreements with Respondent, and, if so, whether Re-
spondent caused Colorite, Inc., to discharge Cornelisen be-
cause of said discriminatory hiring practices.
Upon the entire record, including my observation of the
witnesses, and after due consideration of the posthearing
briefs filed by Respondent and by the General Counsel, I
make the following:
lowing conditions:
1. Selection of applicants for referral to jobs shall
be on a non-discriminatory basis and shall not be
based on or in any way affected by Union member-
ship, by-laws, regulations, constitutional provisions
or any other aspect or obligation of Union member-
ship, policies or requirements.
*
C. The following procedures shall govern all em-
ployment:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. JURISDICTION
Colorite, Inc., a Utah corporation with its principal of-
fice and place of business located in Ogden, Utah, is en-
gaged in business as an industrial and commercial painting
contractor. Colorite, in the course and conduct of ,its busi-
ness operations during the year preceding the issuance of
the complaint herein, purchased and received paints and
other materials valued in excess of $35,000 directly from
suppliers located outside the State of Utah and purchased
paint valued in excess of $50,000 from suppliers located in
the State of Utah which paint originated outside the State
of Utah; and during the same period of time performed
services outside the State of Utah valued in excess of
$50,000.
The complaint alleges, and I find, that Colorite, Inc., is,
and at all times material has been, an employer engaged in
operations affecting commerce within the meaning of Sec-
tion 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.
II. LABOR ORGANIZATION
The complaint alleges, Respondent admits, and I find
that Respondent is, and at all times material has been, a
labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of
the Act.
III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Facts
For a number of years, Respondent has been party to
successive collective-bargaining agreements with Painting
and Decorating Contractors of America, Salt Lake City
Chapter, herein called the Master Agreement. Two of these
agreements are pertinent herein. The first, effective by its
terms from April 1, 1972, until August 31, 1974, provides
inter alia:
SECTION VII
EMPLOYMENT, DISPATCHING AND QUALIFICATION PROCE-
DURES
A. The employers shall requisition all employees
who are to be employed from the local hiring hall of
the Union. The Union will immediately dispatch such
employees as having been requisitioned in accordance
with this section, subject,to and governed by the fol-
*
2. Any employer desiring to hire any particular
qualified person by name may make a request to
this effect by personal contact or by telephone to
the hiring hall, and such requested personnel, if
available, on hiring list, and desirous of employ-
ment, shall be dispatched by the hiring hall for em-
ployment. If no specific request is made by name, it
shall be the duty of the hiring hall to dispatch avail-
able qualified personnel. A written referral shall be
given to each workman dispatched from the hiring
hall under this Agreement. This is not a Union
"clearance" but rather written evidence in the
workman's possession that he has been dispatched
in accordance with this Agreement.
2.(a) "A" LIST:
Where an employee has not been specifically re-
quested by name, the hiring hall shall dispatch
available personnel from the "A" list which will
consist of qualified employees who have previously
worked for employers signatory to this Agreement
for at least six (6) months during the two (2) years
preceeding [sic] dispatch or referral.
"B" LIST
All other employees registered at the dispatch of-
fice of the Local Union will be placed on the "B"
list.
2.(b) If qualified personnel cannot be obtained
from the "A" list, they may be drawn from the "B"
list as required and all other personnel subject to the
above limitations will be referred or dispatched on a
first-in first-out basis.
3. It is recognized that by arrangements of conve-
nience in the past, employees have in fact been re-
ferred on a telephone basis, and the hiring hall is
free to continue this practice to the extent that it
continues to be practicable.
* * * *
G. Should any contractor employ a workman (ex-
cept under section B) who cannot produce a referral
from the Union, such employer shall pay as stipulated
damage the sum of $50.00 for the first of such viola-
tions, $150.00 for the second-violation, and $500.00 for
the third and all subsequent violations during the term
of this Agreement, said sums to be contributed to one
PAINTERS' LOCAL UNION NO. 77 609
of the trusts established under [t]his Agreement as the
Board shall direct. Likewise, any workmen undertak-
ing any employment without having been duly re-
ferred for employment shall pay as stipulated damages
to the Local Union or District Council the amounts
indicated herein provided that charges are filed
against him and he had been found guilty of such vio-
lation by the Local Union or the District Council Trial
Board.
On September 1, 1974,' upon the termination of the
above agreement, the Union engaged in a strike against the
employer-members of the Salt Lake City Chapter P.D.C.A.
which continued until about November 14, when agree-
ment was reached on a collective-bargaining agreement to
be effective from November 14, 1974, until August 31,
1977. The hiring hall provisions of this new master agree-
ment are identical to those of the prior contract except that
requests by name are restricted to those persons on the "A"
list,2 posting of the "A" list at the union hall is required,
and employer fines are required to be paid into the Deco-
rating Industry Promotion Fund.
Employers who are not members of P.D.C.A. sign a
counterpart agreement whereby they agree to be bound by
the terms of the Master Agreement.
Colorite is a member of the Ogden P.D.C.A. Chapter
and thus party to a collective-bargaining agreement with
Respondent's sister Local 22. Because Colorite operates a
shop in Salt Lake City and performs work within the geo-
graphic jurisdiction of Respondent, it is party to a memo-
randum of understanding with Respondent which provides
that with respect to work performed within Respondent's
jurisdictional area, it will be bound by the provisions of the
Master Agreement. Colorite is also party to a tripartite
agreement, effective since December 19, 1973, between Re-
spondent, Local 22, and Colorite which provides, inter aka:
4. Should the Ogden "shop" send men to the area of
Local Union No. 77 such men shall receive travel time
i All dates herein are 1974 unless otherwise stated
2 The provisions read
SECTION VII
EMPLOYMENT, DISPATCHING AND QUALIFICATION PROCEDURES
C. The following procedures shall govern all employment
2 Any employer desiring to hire any particular qualified person by
name may make a request to this effect from the "A" list by personal
contact or by telephone to the hiring hall, and such requested person-
nel if available, on hiring list, and desirous of employment, shall be
dispatched by the hiring hall for employment If no specific request is
made by name, it shall be the duty of the hiring hall to dispatch
available qualified personnel A written referral shall be given to
each workman dispatched-from the hiring hall under this Agreement
This is not a Union "clearance" but rather written evidence in the
workman's possession that he has been dispatched in accordance
with this Agreement.
and/or subsistance [sic] as per the Ogden Agreement.
The Ogden "Shop" shall adhere to the 75-25 3 proviso
of the Agreement on the job to which Ogden men are
sent provided Local Union # 77 shall have men avail-
able. The men sent into Local Union # 77 area shall
be governed by the sixty (60) day section of the Broth-
erhood Constitution (working out of home area for
home employer). While Ogden men are working in the
area of Local Union # 77 the Employer shall deduct
from each employee's pay the current amount of Ad-
ministration Dues Check-off and remit same to Local
Union # 77 as per Agreement.
On September 23, Colorite and Respondent entered into
an interim agreement extending the terms of the 1972-74
Master Agreement, with certain specified changes, until the
execution of a new Master Agreement.
Cornelisen has been a member of the International
Brotherhood of Painters and Allied Trades, AFL-CIO, for
several years. On August 28, 1974, he transferred his mem-
bership from another local to Respondent, at which time
he signed Respondent's out-of-work list and was designat-
ed as being on the "B" list 4
Thereafter, Cornelisen sought to obtain employment
with various employers without waiting to be referred in
turn from the hiring hall. On November 13 or 14, accord-
ing to Cornelisen, he talked to someone from PW Painters
who told him he could start work for PW and that he
should obtain a referral slip. Cornelisen telephoned Man-
ning and asked for a referral to PW. Manning said Corneli-
sen could not be referred because he had not previously
worked for PW. Manning explained the "A" and "B" list
and told Cornelisen he was on the "B" list. Cornelisen in-
quired how to get off the "B" list. Manning said when he
decided he would take Cornelisen off that list. Cornelisen's
testimony is rather confused as to the number of conversa-
tions he had with Manning that date and what was said in
which of two or three conversations. However, his testimo-
ny is consistent as to what was said during the course of all
of the conversations. He is also fairly consistent that the
first conversation concerned PW and the others concerned
7 This is an apparent reference to sec X(A) of the Master Agreement
which provides
A. When engaged in work outside the geographical jurisdiction of
this Agreement the said contractors agree, subject to their rights, to
reject any applicant for cause, that not less than 75% of the men em-
ployed on such work will be residents of the area where the work is
performed, or who are customarily employed a greater percentage of
their time in such area, and further provided that these men are quali-
fied to meet the job requirements
4 Max Manning, Respondent's business representative, and his secretary,
Helen Hansen, both testified that Manning explained to Cornelisen at this
time the requirements for the "A" and "B" list and that Cornelisen would be
on the "B" list. Manning testified that he made available to Cornelisen a
copy of the contract to be read in the office, and asked him to read the
hiring hall provisions. Cornelisen denies that he was either told about the
"A" and "B" list or given anything to read with regard to such list. It is
undisputed that everyone signs the same list and the designation "A" or "B"
is appended to each signature It is also undisputed that Manning placed the
"B" designation opposite Cornelisen's signature. Considering Cornelisen's
admitted heated reaction when Manning later discussed "A" and "B" list
with him, the fact that Cornelisen appears eligible for the "A" list as de-
scribed in the Master Agreement, and his demeanor on the witness stand, i
credit Cornelisen's denial that Manning explained the "A" and "B" list to
him on August 28 or gave him a description of such to read.
610 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Colorite. During the second conversation, he inquired if he
could work for anyone for whom he had previously
worked. Manning replied that he could. Cornelisen made a
rather heated protest concerning the "A" and "B" list, and
Manning replied that if Cornehsen did not like the way
Manning ran the Salt Lake City area he could get his union
card and get out of Utah, that there were a number of
people more deserving of employment who were on the
"A" list. Cornelisen asked if he could work for Colorite.
Manning said yes, Cornelisen has worked there previously
and could return. In either the second or third conversa-
tion, Cornehsen again asked if he could work for Colorite
and Manning said no, he had changed his mind.'
Manning recalls only one conversation with Cornelisen
on November 13 or 14, the one concerning PW. According
to him, he told Cornelisen Respondent was on strike
against PW and there was no chance of working there until
the strike ended. He conceded that he may have attempted
to explain the "A" and "B" list and admits that he said
many people out of work as a result of the strike had the
right to return to work. He denies saying he had changed
his mind, Cornelisen could not work for Colorite. He does
not deny the remainder of Cornelisen's testimony as to the
discussion as to Colorite.6
On or about November 14, Cornelisen secured employ-
ment through Colorite's Ogden shop to work on a job in
Salt Lake City, and he began work on November 15. On
the afternoon of November 15; Respondent Business Rep-
resentative Max Manning discovered Cornelisen working
at Colorite's Salt Lake City jobsite. According to Corneli-
sen, Manning inquired what he was doing on the job. Cor-
nelisen replied he was working. Manning said Cornelisen
did not have a referral. Cornelisen said he had spoken to
Colorite's Superintendent William Carlos who was going to
"square it away." Manning said Carlos had not spoken to
him, that Cornelisen was in direct violation of the contract
and he was going to prefer charges against him for working
without a referral slip. Manning further said he did not
want Cornelisen back on the job, that even if he had to pull
the men off the job Cornelisen was not going to work.
Cornelisen asked if he could have a work order. Manning
said no, Cornelisen was on the "B" list and was not in line
to be referred out. Cornelisen said he had worked for Co-
lorite in excess of 6 months during the past 2 years. Man-
ning did not respond.
Manning testified in essential agreement as to his state-
ments about Cornelisen not having a referral slip, being in
violation of the Agreement, and filing intraunion charges.'
He denies that he threatened to pull the men off the job.
5 It is unclear whether this was before or after Cornehsen _had been hired
by Colorite
6I credit Cornelisen . He impressed me as an honest , forthright witness
and much of his account is either corroborated by Manning or undenied
Also, from the timing of these conversations , the strike was either over or
the end imminent , which appears more consistent with Cornelisen 's testimo-
ny as to the reason Manning gave that he could not work for PW than it
does with Manning's testimony that he said Respondent was on strike
against PW
On January 27, 1975, Manning did file intraunion charges against Cor-
nehsen for various violations of the union constitution The charge refers to
a previous charge on November 17 "for violation of the Hiring Hall proce-
dure of the Local Union Agreement for going to work without a referral-
He does not deny that Cornelisen told him he had worked
for Colorite in excess of 6 months during the past 2 years.
He does state that on November 15 he was aware that
Cornehsen had worked for Colorite in the past but was not
aware that he had worked for the period required to quali-
fy for the "A" list. When specifically asked if Cornelisen
did not tell him so, Manning replied, "I don't know that he
did."
Manning further testified that on November 15 Carlos
telephoned him protesting his request that Cornelisen be
terminated. Manning told Carlos that Cornelisen was re-
moved from the job because he was in violation of the
hiring hall provision of the contract and also reminded
Carlos that Cornelisen was a member of Respondent and
had no right being referred out of Local 22.
Following this telephone conversation, Carlos instructed
Colorite's supervisor in Salt Lake to terminate Cornelisen
and Cornelisen was discharged on November 19 pursuant
to Manning's request.
B. Conclusions
The record established that Respondent and the Salt
Lake City Chapter of P.D.C.A. are parties to a collective-
bargaining agreement which requires employer-members
to obtain employees exclusively through Respondent's hir-
ing hall . This agreement has been adopted by nonmember
employers by signing a counterpart agreement. It is undis-
puted that applicants for employment sign one out-of-work
list from which they are referred to jobs both with employ-
er-members of P.D.C.A. and with nonmenber employers,
and that preference is granted based on prior employment
with both member-employers and nonmember employers
signatory to collective-bargaining agreements with Re-
spondent. Experience with nonsignatories is not counted.
Thus it is clear that the preference in employment is not
based on length of service with a particular employer or
within a multiemployer bargaining unit,8 but rather on
considerations of prior union representation. Such a prefer-
ence is violative of Section 8(b)(1)(A) and (2) of the Act.
International Photographers of the Motion Picture Industries,
Local 659 of the International Alliance of Theatrical Stage
Employees and Moving Picture Machine Operators of the
United States and Canada (MPO-TV of California, Inc., Y-
A Productions, Inc.), 197 NLRB 1187 (1972), enfd. 477 F.2d
450 (C.A.D.C., 1973), cert. denied 414 U.S. 1157 (1974);
Directors Guild of America, Inc. (Association of Motion Pic-
ture & Television Producers, Inc.), 198 NLRB 707 (1972),
enfd. 494 F.2d 692 (C.A. 9, 1974); Nassau-Suffolk Chapter
of the National Electrical Contractors' Association, Inc., 215
NLRB No. 125 (1974).
Respondent argues that it caused Cornelisen's discharge
solely because he had not obtained a referral as required
by the contract. I am not persuaded by this argument.
out of turn on the hiring list." The charge further states that instead of
following constitutional procedures, Cornelisen filed an unfair labor prac-
tice charge claiming that Manning "had discriminated against him by not
putting him to work, when in fact he was not in line to be dispatched for
some period of time because of his position on the `B ' list" Subsequently,
on February 13, 1975, the January 27 charges were dropped The record
does not indicate the status of the November 17 charge.
8 A priority permissible under Sec 8(f) of the Act
PAINTERS' LOCAL UNION NO.77 611
Manning's statement to Cornelisen on November 14 that
he could not be referred to PW becuase of his position on
the "B" list and that other persons were more entitled to
jobs than he was; Manning's admitted statement to Carlos
that Cornelisen was a member of Respondent and had no
right being referred out of Local 22, even though the con-
tract permits a certain number of employees from the
home area; Manning's description of Cornelisen's offenses
in the January 27, 1975, intraunion charge which specifi-
cally referred to his position on the "B" list; Cornelisen's
and Carlos' testimony, which I credit, that referrals were
often obtained after a person began work; the contractual
provision recognizing and approving the practice of tele-
phone referrals; all convince me that Manning demanded
Cornelisen's discharge at least in part because he was on
the "B" list. Since the "A" and "B" list violate the Act,
causing Cornelisen's discharge because he was on the "B';
list also violates the Act. I find inapposite the cases cited
by Respondent. Those cases did not involve referral sys-
tems which established preferences found by the Board to
be illegal. Accordingly, I find that Respondent violated
Section 8(b)(1)(A) and (2) of the Act by causing
Cornelisen's discharge.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and the
entire record, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Colorite, Inc., is an employer engaged in commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.
2. Respondent is a labor organization within the mean-
ing of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. By maintaining, enforcing, and otherwise giving ef-
fect to an exclusive hiring hall arrangement which gives
preference in referrals and employment opportunities to
applicants for employment who have previously worked
for employers who had collective-bargaining agreements
with Respondent, Respondent has violated Section
8(b)(1)(A) and (2) of the Act.
4. By causing Colorite, Inc., to discharge Larry Lee Cor-
nehsen based on considerations of prior union representa-
tion, Respondent has violated Section 8(b)(l)(A) and (2) of
the Act.
5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor
practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Sec-
tion 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in cer-
tain unfair labor practices, I shall recommend that Respon-
dent cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirma-
tive action in order to effectuate the policies of the Act.
Having found that the Respondent unlawfully caused
Larry Lee Cornehsen to be discharged by Colonte, Inc., I
will recommend that it make him whole for any loss of
earnings he may have suffered by reason of the discrimina-
tion against him. All backpay is to be computed on a quar-
terly basis as prescribed in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90
NLRB 289 (1950), and shall include interest at the rate of 6
percent per annum as provided for in Isis Plumbing &
Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716 (1962).
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and con-
clusions of law, and upon the entire record in this case, I
hereby issue the following recommended:
ORDER9
Respondent, Local Union No. 77 of the International
Brotherhood of Painters and Allied Trades, AFL-CIO,
Salt Lake City, Utah, its officers, agents, and representa-
tives, shall:
2. Cease and desist from:
(a) Maintaining, enforcing, or otherwise giving effect to
an exclusive hiring hall contractual arrangement with
Painting and Decorating Contractors of America, Salt
Lake City Chapter, its employer-members and nonmember
employers, which grants preference in referrals and em-
ployment opportunities to applicants for employment
based on previous work experience with employers signato-
ry to collective-bargaining agreements with it.
(b) Causing or attempting to cause Colorite, Inc., or any
other employer to discriminate against Larry Lee Cornell-
sen, or any other employee, based on considerations of
prior union representation.
(c) In any like or related manner restraining or coercing
employees in the exercise of their rights guaranteed in Sec-
tion 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action designed to ef-
fectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Make Larry Lee Cornelisen whole for any loss of
earnings he may have suffered by reason of the discrimina-
tion against him in the manner provided in the section of
this Decision entitled "The Remedy."
(b) Notify all employers signatory to collective-bargain-
ing agreements with it that it will cease granting preference
in referrals and employment opportunities to applicants for
employment based on prior work experience with employ-
ers signatory to collective-bargaining agreements with it.
(c) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the
Board or its agents, for examination and copying, all hiring
hall records necessary to analyze the amount of backpay
due.
(d) Post at its business offices, hiring hall and meeting
places, copies of the attached notice marked "Appen-
dix." 10 Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the
Regional Director for Region 27, after being duly signed
by its authorized representative, shall be posted by it im-
mediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for
60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, in-
cluding all places where notices to members are custom-
' 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.
10 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"
612 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
arily posted . Reasonable steps shall be taken by it to insure
that said notices are not altered , defaced, or covered by
any other material.
(e) Promptly after receipt of copies of the said notice
from the Regional Director , return to him signed copies for
posting by Colorite , Inc., all employer-members of Paint-
ing and Decorating Contractors of America, Salt Lake City
Chapter, and all other employers with whom it has exclu-
sive hiring hall contractual arrangements, if they be willing,
at their places of business, including all places where no-
tices to employees are customarily posted.
(f) Notify the Regional Director for Region 27, in writ-
ing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps
it has taken to comply herewith.