American Bioculture, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 30, 1975

218 N.L.R.B. 1068 (N.L.R.B. 1975)

1068 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Farm Builders Division of American Bioculture, Inc.
and Larry Manning. Case 20-CA-8932
June 30, 1975
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MURPHY AND MEMBERS
FANNING AND PENELLO
On March 19, 1975, Administrative Law Judge
George Christensen issued the attached Decision in
this proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent filed excep-
tions and supporting brief, and the General Counsel
filed a brief in support of the Administrative Law
Judge's Decision.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the record and the
attached Decision in light of the exceptions and
briefs and has decided to affirm the rulings, find-
ings,' and conclusions2 of the Administrative Law
Judge and to adopt his recommended Order as
modified herein.
The Administrative Law Judge found that the
unlawful interrogations of employees Martin and
Singleton in late January and early February 1974
also unlawfully created the impression that the
employees' union activities were under surveillance.
We do not agree. There is no evidence in the record
that any employee believed or was given the
impression that Respondent was engaged in surveil-
lance, and we do not find that as a matter of law
every interrogation or threat also constitutes an
unlawful impression of surveillance. Accordingly, we
shall delete from the Administrative Law Judge's
recommended Order and notice all reference to
surveillance or creating the impression thereof.
However, inasmuch as we find that the other unfair
labor practices committed by Respondent, particu-
larly the unlawful discharge of Manning, were
serious in nature and struck at the very heart of
tights intended to be protected by the Act, we will
issue a "broad" cease-and-desist order requiring
Respondent to cease and desist in any manner from
infringing upon employee rights.3
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board adopts as its Order the recommend-
ed Order of the Administrative Law Judge as
modified below and hereby orders that Respondent
Farm Builders Division of American Bioculture,
218 NLRB No. 160
Inc., Phoenix, Arizona, its officers, agents, succes-
sors, and assigns, shall take, the action set forth in the
said recommended Order, as so modified:
1. Delete paragraph 1(b) and reletter subsequent
paragraphs accordingly.
2. Add the following as paragraph 1(d):
"(d) In any other manner interfering with, restrain-
ing, or coercing employees in the exercise of their
rights to self-organization, to form labor organiza-
tions, to join or assist labor organizations, to bargain
collectively through representatives of their own
choosing, and to engage in other concerted activities
for the purpose of collective bargaining or other
mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from engaging
in such activities."
3. Substitute the attached notice for that of the
Administrative Law Judge.
i The 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
credibility unless the clear preponderance of all of the relevant evidence
convinces us that the resolutions are incorrect . Standard Dry Wall Products,
Inc., 91 NLRB 544 (1950), enfd. 188 F.2d 362 (C.A 3, 1951) We have
carefully examined the record and find no basis for reversing his findings.
2 We agree with the Administrative Law Judge that employee Larry
Manning was discharged for union activity. In finding that Respondent had
knowledge of Manning's union activity prior to his discharge , we rely on
employee Singleton's testimony that he told Supervisor Carter that Manning
was planning a meeting with union representatives . We further rely on
Carter's testimony that, after this conversation with Singleton, he told
District Manager Ayala of union activity among the employees during the
same discussion in which it was decided to terminate Manning-
3 N L.R.B v. Entwistle Mfg. Co, 120 F 2d 532, 536-537 (C A. 4, 1941);
California Lingerie, Inc., 129 NLRB 912, 915 ( 1960).
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT interrogate our employees
concerning their union activities.
WE WILL NOT threaten our employees with
discharge for engaging in union activities.
WE WILL NOT discharge our employees for
engaging in union activities.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere
with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise
of their rights to self-organization, to form, join,
or assist labor organizations, to bargain collec-
tively through representatives of their own choos-
ing, and to engage in other concerted activities for
the purpose of collective bargaining or other
mutual aid or protection or to refrain from
engaging in such activities.
WE WILL offer Larry Manning full reinstate-
ment to his former job or, if that job no longer
exists, to a substantially equivalent position, with
FARM BUILDERS DIVISION OF AMERICAN BIOCULTURE
restoration of all his rights and privileges, and
WE WILL make him whole for any wage losses
he may have suffered in the period between the
date we discharged him for engaging in union
activities and the date we reinstate him.
FARM BUILDERS
DIVISION OF
AMERICAN BIocuLTURE,
INC.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
GEORGE CHRISTENSEN, Administrative Law Judge: On
January 9, 1975, I conducted a hearing at Sacramento,
California, to try issues raised by a complaint issued on
November 25, 1974,2 on the basis of a charge filed by
Manning on February 4. The complaint alleged that Farm
Builders Division of American Bioculture, Inc., t
violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the National
Labor Relations Act, as amended (hereafter called the
Act), by giving its employees the impression it was
maintaining surveillance of their union activities, by
interrogating its employees concerning their union activi-
ties, by threatening to discharge an employee because of
his union activities, and by discharging Manning because
of his union activities.
The Company conceded it discharged Manning, denied
it discharged him for engaging in union activities, and
denied it committed the other unfair labor practices
alleged. The Company therefore denied committing any
violations of the Act.
The issues are whether or not the Company gave its
employees the impression it was maintaining a surveillance
of their union activities, whether it interrogated its
employees concerning their union activities, whether it
threatened to discharge an employee because of his union
activities, and whether it discharged Manning because of
his union activities or for cause.
The parties appeared by counsel at the hearing and were
afforded full opportunity to produce evidence, examine
and cross-examine witnesses, argue, and file briefs. Briefs
have been received from the General Counsel and the
Company.
Based upon my review of the entire record,3 observation
of the witnesses, perusal of the briefs and research, I enter
the following:
I Hereafter called the company.
2 All subsequent date hereinafter refer to 1974 unless otherwise
mentioned.
3 The General Counsel's posthearing motion to correct the transcript is
granted . The transcript is hereby corrected.
4 Hereafter called Local 150.
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. JURISDICTION AND LABOR ORGANIZATION
1069
The complaint alleged, the Company admitted, and I
find that the Company at all times pertinent was engaged
in commerce and a business affecting commerce and Local
150, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen and Helpers of America,4 was a labor
organization, as those terms are defined in Section 2(2), (5),
(6), and (7) of the Act.
II. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Background
The 'Company sells, installs, and services soil treatment
systems. Its customers are farmers. Its home office is
located in Phoenix. The Northern California divisional
office is located in Woodland, California. The Company
employs salesmen to sell its systems and servicemen to
install and maintain them. At times pertinent, it employed
Manning, Warren Singleton, and Bruce Martin as service-
men in the Northern California division.5 The immediate
supervisor over the Company's servicemen working out of
the Northern California divisional office was Robert
Carter and the district manager of that office was Richard
Ayala, at times pertinent.6 The salesmen and servicemen
worked out of their own homes in their respective
territories during the week; they reported once weekly
(each Friday) to the divisional office for a general meeting.
Singleton was hired by the Company on March 18, 1973,
and was discharged on August 1 for tardiness. Martin was
hired on May 5, 1973, and was laid off on March 15.
Manning was hired on June 26, 1973, and was discharged
on February 1.7
At the time of their hire, each of the servicemen was
provided with a pickup truck for use in their employment.
Their jobs entailed transporting equipment between the
regional office and the farms where it was to be installed
plus installing and connecting it up. This entailed building
an earthen pad, setting up a doughboy pool consisting of a
frame and liner to contain between 2,500 and ' 3,500
gallons, connecting plumbing to a water source and the
farm irrigation system, installing a pump, and connecting
the pump to a power source. They were also required to
maintain and repair the equipment. Upon hire, they were
required to sign a document wherein they agreed to use the
vehicle only on company business and not to carry any
passengers in it.
The first concerted action among the servicemen to
better wages, hours, and working conditions occured in
September 1973, when Manning, Carter, and Singleton
prepared a joint memorandum to Carter requesting
improvements in their wages, hours, and working condi-
5 It also employed seven additional servicemen in June 1973 and was,
down to a total of six in January.
6 The Company conceded that Carter and Ayala were supervisors and
agents of the Company acting on its behalf at all times pertinent.
7 Manning previously worked for the Company out of Bakersfield,
California, between March 7 - August 1, 1972.
1070 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
tions.8 The memorandum was forwarded to Phoenix and
resulted in a conference with a few officials from Phoenix
at a later date, but no grant of the requested unprove-
ments 9
B. The December 1973 Renewal of the Prohibition
Against Personal Use of Vehicles
At one of the December 1973 regular weekly meetings of
the service and sales personnel at the regional office, a
bulletin from the Phoenix headquarters was circulated
reiterating company policy that no passengers were to be
carried in company vehicles and they were not to be
personally utilized. The bulletin went on to say that
employees who failed to observe the policy would be
subject to discharge. The servicemen were requested to
read the bulletin and sign it.
Manning asked Carter to be excused from application of
the policy.10
Carter said he could not act on Manning's request to be
excused from the policy and from signing the bulletin, but
took Manning's request to Ayala. Ayala stated there would
be no exceptions, 'the company policy must be complied
with by all. Carter so informed Manning. Manning then
stated he guessed he would have to sign and did so.
C. The Alleged January 10 Impression of
Surveillance and Employee Interrogation
Martin testified that on January 10 Carter approached
him at the shop, said he heard the servicemen were
thinking of a union, and asked Martin what he knew and
thought about the subject. Martin testified he replied the
idea was impractical.
Carter denied the interrogation, stating he had no
conversations that early with any of the servicemen
concerning any union organizational efforts.
Carter's denial is credited. By Manning and Martin's
testimony, Manning made his initial suggestion to Martin
that they contact a union on January 18 (see later
findings).
I therefore shall recommend that those sections of the
complaint alleging that the Company violated Section
8(axl) of the Act in early January by interrogating an
employee concerning his union activities and giving him
the impression the company was maintaining a surveil-
lance of his union activities be dismissed.
9 The record does not disclose whether the three made any attempt to
contact other servicemen working out of the Northern California regional
office for support or signatures.
9 Manning testified that about this time a purchasing agent for the
parent corporation, Crowdis, in a conversation in the yard outside the
Northern California regional office outside the presence of any other
persons, referred to Manning's personal use of the company vehicle as one
of the side benefits he was receiving . It does not seem likely that a
purchasing agent would either possess or exercise authority to make such an
assurance ; Manning's testimony appears incredible under these circum-
stances and is not credited.
I0
Manning had originally , upon hire, indicated to Carter he expected
use of the company vehicle for his personal business; he informed Carter he
did not have a personal vehicle . Carter pointed to the policy and offered to
aid Manning in securing a personal vehicle. Carter on several occasions
brought vehicles available on economical terms to Manning's attention, but
D. The January 18 Meeting
The regular Friday meeting of service and sales employ-
ees was held at the Company's regional office on January
18. Manning, Martin, and Singleton attended the meeting.
During a break in the meeting, Manning conferred with
Singleton and Martin and suggested to them that the
servicemen ought to secure union representation; Manning
asked Martin and Singleton if they would back him up if
he contacted a union. Martin agreed to back him, while
Singleton stated he would go along with whatever the other
two decided to do."
After the general meeting, Carter conducted individual
employee evaluation interviews with the servicemen. At the
Manning interview, Carter noted, on the form provided for
recording such interviews, Manning's lack of mechanical
ability. While Manning did not protest the evaluation too
strenuously, he contended that he made up for his lack of
mechanical ability in other ways - by his steadiness,
reliability, and working hard. Manning then complained to
Carter about alleged deficiencies in safety and other
procedures followed by the Company in its business,
producing a list. Manning complained, inter alia, about
servicemen making electrical hookups of the pumps where
a considerable amount of power was involved and
suggested that work should be done by a licensed
electrician. Carter did not dispute Manning's claims. They
discussed Manning's financial difficulties and Manning
suggested he would like to be transferred to Texas, that he
contemplated moving his family to Bakersfield, that he
contemplated saving rent by sleeping at the company shop,
etc. Carter asked Manning if he was asking for a transfer to
Texas because he couldn't get along with Weston.12
Manning denied that was his reason for requesting a
transfer, stating he wanted to move closer to where his
grandparents lived (Oklahoma). Carter expressed his
concern during that conference over Manning's continued
use of a company vehicle for personal business, to which
Manning replied that Carter knew he had to use the
company vehicle for that purpose, since he had no other
means of transportation.
Singleton subsequently contacted Carter in the yard and
asked to confer with him. They went to Carter's office and
Singleton asked Carter what he thought of the servicemen
securing union representation. Carter's reaction was
negative. In the course of the conversation, Singleton
Manning indicated he was not interested and did not make a purchase.
Carter offered Manning a used truck he had been working on (as a sideline
he repaired and sold vehicles) at a price of $25. Manning declined to make
the purchase. During the period between Manning's June hire and the
December meeting, Manning was utilizing the company vehicle both to
transport his wife and son and for various personal errands , such as grocery
shopping, going to church, visiting friends , etc. While Carter was aware of
this, he continually attempted to persuade Manning to purchase a personal
vehicle to conduct his personal affairs
11 No evidence was presented concerning whether any of the other
servicemen were approached by Manning. Manning did contact Local 150,
but his January 25 discharge aborted any further organizational efforts
among the servicemen.
12 Dan Weston was the salesman assigned to the Chico area. Manning
was the serviceman for that area.
FARM BU][LDERS DIVISION OF AMERICAN BIOCULTURE 1071
informed Carter he and Martin had agreed to back
Manning's suggestion that they contact a union.13
At approximately 5 p.m. the same day, Martin was in the
regional office, sitting at a secretary's desk outside Ayala's
office filling in a timecard. He overheard a conference
between Ayala and Carter in which Carter informed Ayala
of Ma.nning's continued personal use of a company vehicle,
Manning's complaints concerning various company prac-
tices, Manning's financial difficulties, Manning's statement
he would have to continue personal use of the company
vehicle since he could not afford to purchase one,
Manning's intention to move his family to Bakersfield and
possibly stay at the shop, Manning's request for a transfer,
and Singleton's report that he and Martin had agreed to
support Manning's making contact with a union.14
Inasmuch as Martin's testimony is substantially corrobo-
rated by Ayala and Carter, it is credited - including
Martin's testimony that Ayala and Carter referred to
Manning's plan to contact a union on his, Martin and
Singleton's behalf. The latter is credited not only on the
basis of Martin's straightforward testimony, but also
because it would be unlikely that Carter would fail to bring
up a matter both he and Ayala were so concerned about,
that Ayala interrogated Martin further about it on January
25 (see later findings), and Carter admittedly interrogated
both Martin and Singleton about early February (see later
findings), namely, what efforts they were making to
continue Manning's plan for securing union representa-
tion.
E. The Manning Discharge
In accordance with their January 18 decision, on the
following Monday (January 21) Carter prepared a letter
addressed to Manning advising him that he was recom-
mending that Manning be terminated, effective February
1. On January 22 Ayala also prepared a letter addressed to
Manning referring to the Carter letter, stating he concurred
with Carter's recommendation, and advising Manning he
would be terminated on February 1. The two letters stated
Manning was being terminated because of his continued
use of a company vehicle to carry passengers and conduct
personal business despite repeated remonstrances and
advice to cease such use and in clear violation of the terms
of the documents he signed upon hire and in December
1973; his statement he was going to move his family to
Bakersfield and sleep at the Woodland shop, since the
Company did not want to be responsible for splitting his
family and his financial irresponsibility; and Weston's
complaints over his work.
23 Since it was Singleton who sought Carter's advice concerning union
representation, I find that this exchange did not constitute unlawful
interrogation or convey an impression of company surveillance of
Singleton 's union activities.
14 Ayala and Carter corroborated Martin's testimony in all respects
other than his testimony that Carter discussed Singleton's report that he and
Martin authorized Manning to contact a union on their behalf. This they
denied. They elaborated on the subject of Manning's alleged work
deficiencies, stating they not only discussed his mechanical shortcomings,
they also discussed complaints by Weston and a large grower in the Chico
area (Lewis) regarding Manning's failure to work at and complete a large
order at the Lewis farm within the time scheduled therefor. Ayala and
Carter agreed they decided at that meeting to terminate Manning, with
In the course of the next regular Friday meeting
(January 25), Carter informed Manning he was terminated,
effective February 1. At Manning's insistence, Carter
handed him the two documents prepared by Carter and
Ayala on January 21 and 22 setting out their reasons for
deciding to terminate him. Manning requested that Weston
be called in and this was done. Manning asked Weston
what his complaints were. Weston replied that he needed a
man in Chico 24 hours a day.15 Manning stated he would
remain in Chico. Carter commented that it no longer
mattered, the Company did not want to be responsible for
breaking up Manning's family and the discharge was final.
F. The Alleged January 25 Impression of
Surveillance, Interrogation, and Discharge Threat
Subsequent to the meeting, Martin told Carter he
thought the reasons given in the Carter letter for Man-
ning's discharge were false. Carter expressed anger and
invited Martin outside. Martin declined the invitation.
Martin was subsequently called to Ayala's office where
Ayala stated he considered Manning's action in going to
the Union to be disloyal and Martin would be the next to
go. Ayala then asked Martin what his views were
concerning union representation, to which Martin replied
he thought such representation was impracticable and did
not favor it.16
On the basis of the foregoing, I find and conclude that
on January 25, Ayala threatened Martin with discharge,
interrogated him concerning his union activities and views,
and conveyed to Martin the impression the Company was
maintaining a surveillance of his union activities. I further
find and conclude that by such threat, interrogation, and
impression, the Company violated Section 8(a)(l) of the
Act.
G. The Alleged February Employee Interrogation
and Impression of Surveillance
Carter admitted that during the first February meeting at
the Regional Office, he confronted Martin and Singleton
and asked them what they were planning to do about
securing union representation and when they replied they
were no longer pursuing the matter, he advised them to put
any grievances they might have in the suggestion box.
In view of Carter's admission, I find and conclude that
Carter interrogated Martin and Singleton concerning their
union activities, gave them the impression he was main-
taining a surveillance thereof, and thereby violated Section
8(a)(1) of the Act.
Ayala commenting that Manning had not shaped up and therefore should
be shipped out (both Ayala and Carter were ex-Navy).
15 Apparently referring to Manning 's statement he was going to move his
family to Bakersfield and he was going to move into the Woodland shop.
16 Ayala conceded he questioned Martin concerning his views about the
value of union representation, whether he felt he needed such representation
and what grievances he had , and that Martin replied such representation
was not desirable in an operation the size of the regional office . Carter
confirmed that Martin challenged the reasons stated in his letter for
Mammng's discharge . In view of these partial admissions and Martin's
forthright testimony, Martin's testimony concerning the entire conversation
is credited.
1072 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
H. Analysis and Conclusions Concerning the
Manning Discharge
While it is clear that Carter and Ayala were disturbed
over Manning'^ continued use of a company vehicle to
carry passengers and his burdening them with his personal
problems, I find and conclude that the event which
triggered their 'decision to discharge Manning was their
learning from Singleton that Manning (acting on his,
Martin, and"xSingleton's behalf) was' going to contact a
union with a view towards, securing union representation
for the servicemen. This conclusion is predicated upon
Ayala's expressed view on January 25 that he considered
Manning's act. in seeking out a union a disloyal act
(accompanied by his threat to discharge Martin, because of
his role therein), Carter's February interrogation of
Singleton and Martin concerning any continued interest in
union representation, and Ayala and Carter's reference to
Manning's efforts to seek out a union in the course of the
January 18 conference when they decided to' terminate
Manning.
ICONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. At all times pertinent the Company was engaged in
commerce and in a business affecting commerce and Local
150 was a labor organization, as those terms are defined in
Section 2(2), (5), (6), and (7) of the Act.
2. At all times pertinent Carter and Ayala were
supervisors and' agents of the Company acting on its
behalf.
3. The Company violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by
Ayala's January 25 interrogation of Martin concerning his
union activities, threat to discharge him therefor, and
conveying to him the impression the Company was
maintaining a surveillance of those activities.
4. The Company violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by
Carter's February, interrogation of Singleton and Martin
concerning their union activities and creation" of the
impression Carter was maintaining a surveillance thereof.
S. The Company violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the
Act by its January 25 discharge of Manning for engaging
in union activities.
6. The Company did not otherwise violate the Act.
7. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect com-
merce.
THE REMEDY
Having found that the Company engaged in unfair labor
practices in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act, I
shall recommend that the Company be directed to cease
and desist therefrom and to take affirmative , aption
designed to effectuate the purposes of the Act. It shall be
recommended'that the Company be ordered to cease and
desist = from interrogating its employees concerning their
union activities, conveying the impression it is maintaining
a surveillance of its employees' union activities, "maintain-
ing`such surveillance, threatening to discharge its employ-
`17 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.
ees for engaging in union activities, and discharging its
employees for engaging in union activities.
It shall also be recommended that the Company be
ordered to offer Manning immediate and full reinstatement
to his `former job, or a substantially equivalent job if his
former job no longer exists, without prejudice to his
seniority rights and other privileges, and to make him
whole for any wage losses he may have suffered by
payment to him of the sum of money he would have earned
from the date of his discharge to the date he is reinstated,
less any net earnings he may have received in the period.
His lost wages shall be computed in accordance with the
formula prescribed in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90
NLRB 289 (1950), with interest at 6 percent per annum
computed in accordance with the formula prescribed in
Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716 (1962).
It shall be further recommended that those portions of
the complaint alleging unfair labor practices other than
those found heretofore be dismissed.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact,
conclusions of law and the entire record, and pursuant to
Section 10(c) of the Act, I recommend the issuance of the
following: "
ORDER 17
Farm Builders Division of American Bioculture, Inc., its
officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Interrogating its employees concerning their union
activities.
(b) Giving the impression it is maintaining a surveillance
of its employees' union activities and maintaining such
surveillance.
(c) Threatening to discharge its employees for engaging
in union activities.
(d) Discharging or otherwise disciplining its employees
for engaging in union activities.
2. Take the following affirmative action designed to
effectuate the purposes of the Act:
(a) Offer Manning immediate and full reinstatement to
his former job, or if his former job no longer exists, to a
substantially equivalent job without prejudice to his
seniority and other rights and privileges, and make him
whole in the manner set forth in the "Remedy" section of
this decision.
(b) Preserve and,upon, request, make available totheBoard
or its agents for examination and copying, all records
necessary for the determination of the amount of backpay
and other payments and obligations due under this order.
(c) Post at its premises copies of the enclosed Notice
marked "Appendix A." Copies of said notice, on forms
furnished to the Company by the Regional Director for
Region 20 and signed by an authorized representative of
the Company, shall be posted immediately upon the
receipt thereof, and be maintained for at least 60
consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, includ-
ing all places where notices to employees are customarily
posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken to ensure that such
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.
FARM BUILDERS DIVISION OF AMERICAN BIOCULTURE
notices are not altered, defaced or covered by any other
material.
(d) 'The Regional Director for Region 20 shall be no-
tified in writing within 20 days from ' receipt of this
18 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
1073
decision, what steps the Company has taken to comply
herewith.18
The complaint is dismissed insofar as it alleges violations
of the Act other than those found above.
to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of
the National Labor Relations Board."