Classic Industries, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 9, 1981

254 N.L.R.B. 1149 (N.L.R.B. 1981)

1 I U S T R I 1149
and Inter-
nation:~l
I
October
hi . Wagman
pro':eeding.
alld
Board
'
conclllsions
modified,
8(a)(2)
81:a)(2)
s:rict
&
8(a)(2)
tly
with
d~scussion
~f recogni t i~n .~
Jud,:e
8(a)(2)
' Respond1:nt
Administrati\e
sdministrative
(he
that
Inc., (1950). I88 F.2d (3d
examined
NLRI I 1060
Mattiace Petroleum a Motriace Industrie.~, Inc..
(1978); 518 Ralco
Indusries. Inc. Vane Ourerwear Inc..
:1979), B . E G . Foods. Inc..
(1978), Sec.
8(a)(2) i t
J ~ d g e . ~
10(c)
+
ORDER
W I L L
Cornmit-
NLE.B
C L A S S I C IND ES. I N C .
Classic Industries, Inc. District Lodge 63,
Association of Machinists and Aero-
space Workers, AFL-CIO and The Shop Com-
mittee. Party in Interest. Case 6-CA-11662
March 9, 1981
DECISION AND ORDER
On 31, 1980, Administrative Law Judge
Leonard issued the attached Decision
in this Thereafter, Respondent filed ex-
ceptions a supporting brief.
The has considered the record and the at-
tached Decision in light of the exceptions and brief
and has c ecided to affirm the rulings, findings,
and of the Administrative Law Judge,
as herein and to adopt his recommended
Order.
The Administrative Law Judge found, inter alia,
that Respondent violated Section of the Act
by dominating, assisting, and interfering in the for-
mation of The Shop Committee (hereinafter called
the Committee), and by negotiating with and even-
tually signing a collective-bargaining agreement
with the Committee. The Administrative Law
Judge also concluded that Respondent violated
Section by bargaining with the Committee
after District Lodge 63, International Association
of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO
(hereinafter called the Union), made a demand for
recogniticn, since Respondent violated the require-
ment of neutrality set forth in Midwest Piping
Supply Co., Inc.
We agree with the Administrative Law Judge
that Respondent violated Section and (1) of
the Act dominating and assisting in the forma-
tion and operation of the Committee and by bar-
gaining the Committee. However, we find it
unnecessary to pass on the Administrative Law
Judge's of Midwest Piping, since any rec-
ognition of or negotiations with a dominated union
perforce violates the Act without regard to the
presence a rival claim for
Applying Midwest Piping, the Administrative
Law found that Respondent did not violate
Section of the Act by negotiating with the
has excepted lo certain credibility findings made by the
Law Judge. It is the Board's established policy not to
overrule an law judge's resolutions with respect to credi-
bility unless clear preponderance of all of the relevant evidence con-
vinces us the resolutions are incorrect. Standard Dry Wall Products,
91 N L P B 544 enfd. 362 Cir. 1951). We have
carefully the record and find no basis for reversing his findings.
(1945).
Company, Division of
239 NLRB 15 Federal Alarm. 230 NLRB (1977). See
Sewing and Weather Corporation. 243
NLRB 438 and Gourmet 236 NLRB 489
in which the Board found unlawful assistance in violation of
witho passing on the alleged Midwest Piping violation.
Committee on May 2 and 3, 1978, since the Union's
initial claim of majority status did not reach Re-
spondent until May 30, 1978. Because we find it
unnecessary to apply Midwest Piping, we disagree.
Since Respondent has been found to have dominat-
ed the Committee, its recognition of the Committee
at any time violated the Act irrespective of wheth-
er there was a competing claim for recognition.
Therefore, Respondent also violated the Act on
May 2 and 3, 1978, when it met with the Commit-
tee, since Respondent had unlawfully formed the
Committee prior to those dates. This additional
finding of violation does not affect the Conclusions
of Law, Order, or notice recommended by the Ad-
ministrative Law
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 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, and
hereby orders that the Respondent, Classic Indus-
tries, Inc., Latrobe, Pennsylvania, its officers,
agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the ac-
tions set forth in the said recommended Order,
except that the attached notice shall be substituted
for that of the Administrative Law Judge.
Respondent has excepted to the Administrative Law Judge's inclu-
sion in his proposed notice of certain redundant language regarding Re-
spondent's obligation under our Order to maintain existing terms and
conditions of employment. We find merit in this exception. The Adminis-
trative Law Judge also inadvertently omitted from his proposed notice a
provision requiring Respondent to cease and desist from recognizing and
bargaining with the Committee. We hereby issue a new notice correcting
these inadvertent errors.
APPENDIX

NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES

POSTED BY OF THE

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD

An Agency of the United States Government

After a hearing at which all sides had an opportu-
nity to present evidence and state their positions,
the National Labor Relations Board found that we
have violated the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended, and has ordered us to post this notice.
WE NOT dominate, support, assist, or
otherwise interfere with the operation and ad-
ministration of The Shop Committee or any
other plant committee or labor organization of
our employees.
WE WILL NOT recognize The Shop
tee or any successor thereto as the representa-
tive of any of our employees for the purpose
of dealing with us concerning qrievances,
No. 149
63
254
I150
WILL
LEONARD WAGMAN,
the
ary
pri~ctices 8(a)(l)l (2)2
' Sec. B(aK1)
(1)
activi-
bargaming
' Sec. 8(a)(2)
$151, ct scq.).
8(a)(l)
8(a)(2) (I)
lNVOLVED
office
$50,000
$50,000
2(6)
2(5)
11.
1.
1978,4
( 2 )
'
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ROAHD
labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of
employment, o r conditions of work.
WE WILL NOT threaten you with subcon-
tracting of unit work, layoff, cessation of oper-
ations, o r other reprisals if you select District
Lodge 63, International Association of Ma-
chinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO,
o r any other labor organization, as your exclu-
sive collective-bargaining representative.
WE WILL NOT give effect to our April 27,
1979, collective-bargaining agreement with
T h e Shop Committee or to any renewal, ex-
tension, modification, o r supplement thereof;
provided, however, that nothing herein shall
be construed to require that w e vary o r aban-
don any existing term o r condition of employ-
ment.
WE NOT in any like o r related manner
interfere with, restrain, or coerce you in the
exercise of the rights guaranteed by Section 7
of the Act.
WE WILL withdraw and withhold all recog-
nition from, and completely disestablish, T h e
Shop Committee or any substitute plant com-
mittee of employees as the representative of
any of our employees for the purposes of deal-
ing with us concerning grievances, labor dis-
putes, wages, hours, and other terms and con-
ditions of employment.
DECISION
M. Administrative Law Judge:
Upon a charge and an amended charge filed by District
Lodge 63, International Association of Machinists and
Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO, herein called the Union,
General Counsel of the National Labor Relations
Board, by the Regional Director for Region 6, on Janu-
31, 1979, issued the complaint and notice of hearing
in this case against Respondent, Classic Industries, Inc.,
alleging that Respondent had engaged in unfair labor
within the meaning of Section and
of the Act provides:
I t shall be an unfair labor practice for an employer -
to interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise
of the rights guaranteed in section 7 . . . .
Set. 7 of the Act provides in pertinent part:
Employees shall have the right to self-organization, to form, join, or
assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through representa-
tives of their own choosing, and to engage in other concerted
lies for the purpose of collective or other mutual aid or
protection. . . .
of the Act provides in pertinent part:
I t shall he an unfair labor practice for an employer--
of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended (29
U.S.C. referred to below as the Act, by
rendering unlawful aid. assistance, and support to, pro-
moting, dominating, sponsoring. initiating. forming, and
otherwise interfering with the formation and administra-
tion of. The Shop Committee, referred to herein as the
Committee. The complaint also alleges that the Respon-
dent violated Section of the Act by threatening
its employees with the subcontracting of unit work, lay-
offs, and a cessation of operations if they chose the
Union as their collective-bargaining representative.
At the hearing, counsel for the General Counsel
amended the complaint to allege that Respondent had
further violated Section and of the Act by rec-
ognizing and bargaining collectively with the Committee
as the representative of its employees at a time when a
question concerning representation of the same employ-
ees was pending before the Board in Case 6-RC-8203.
By its timely filed answer, as amended at the hearing,
Respondent denied the commission of the alleged unfair
labor practices.
Upon the entire record3 in this case, including the
briefs and from my observation of the witnesses, I make
the following:
I. THE RESPONDENT'S BUSINESS A N D THE LABOR
ORGANIZATION
Respondent, a Pennsylvania corporation, with princi-
pal and facility located at Latrobe, Pennsylvania,
is engaged in the manufacture and nonretail sale of
custom plastic moldings. During the 12 months immedi-
ately preceding issuance of the complaint in this case,
Respondent shipped goods and materials valued in excess
of from its Latrobe, Pennsylvania, facility, di-
rectly to points outside of Pennsylvania. During the same .
12 months, Respondent received goods and materials
valued at more than directly from points outside
of Pennsylvania for use at its Latrobe, Pennsylvania,
plant. I find, and Respondent admits, that Respondent is
engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section
and (7) of the Act.
I also find, and Respondent admits, that the Union and
the Committee are both labor organizations within the
meaning of Section of the Act.
THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The Facts
The Union's organizing efforts
In late March or early April the Union began
an organizing campaign among Respondent's production
and maintenance employees. By letter to Respondent
to dominate or interfere with the formation or administration
of any labor organization or contribute financial or other support to
it . . .
Certain errors in the transcript are hereby noted and corrected.
Unless otherwise stated, all dates occurred in 1978.
May
A11
letter
You
set:king
Thereaft-r,
represenlation
ca:,t
wc:re
Cc~mmittee
had
8(a)(2)
R1:spondentls
"heard Poli-
castro wcmnt
-
forme.
attrib~lted
P;lulman,
wee)
ipril.
Huston's
Hustol's
classification
shift.6
Paul-
directi0n.l
t e ~ t i m o n y . ~
l l l l p.m.
'
Committee orig~nated
a
dimerent
tlmes.
C L A S S I C I N D U S T R I E S . INC. 1151
dated 25, 1978, and received 5 days later, the Union
claimed majority status in the following unit:
production and maintenance employees, ex-
cluding office clerical and professional employees,
watch men [sic], guards and all supervisors as de-
fined in the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended.
The went on to declare:
are to consider this a continuing request for
recognition as collective bargaining representative
for employees included in the unit described.
T h e record is bare of any response from Respondent to
the Union's letter.
On June 5, the Union filed a petition in Case 6-RC-
8203, certification as representative of a unit of
Respondent's production and maintenance employees.
On June 6, Respondent received notice of the petition.
the Shop Committee intervened in the same
proceeding. On July 20, pursuant to a
consent election agreement, the Regional Director for
the Board's Region 6 conducted an election among Re-
spondent's production and maintenance employees.
The initial results were inconclusive. Of approximately
57 eligible voters, 54 cast ballots. Of the ballots cast, 24
were for the Union, 24 were for the Shop Committee, 2
were against the participating labor organizations,
and 4 challenged. On January 4, 1979, following a
hearing on the 4 challenged ballots, the Regional Direc-
tor issued a revised tally of ballots showing that the
Shop had received 28 votes and that the
Union received 24 votes. On January 19, 1979, the
Regional Director notified the parties to the representa-
tion election that issuance of a certification was being de-
ferred "pending final determination of the alleged
issue of domination involved in [this case]."
2. The Shop Committee
At o r about the same time that the Union's campaign
began, vice president, Joseph A. Policastro,
announced at a meeting of Respondent's employees that
he had rumors about a union being started."
on to express opposition to union representa-
tion, add ng that he preferred to deal directly with the
employees rather than with "outsiders." He also stated
that Respondent could not afford to pay much more in
wages.
My findings regarding Policastro's remarks are based on the testimo-
ny of employee Jewel Paulman. Paulman impressed me as being a
more candic witness than did Policastro, who denied making the state-
ments to him by Paulman.
Unlike who testified in a forthright manner, Policastro
seemed at times reluctant to provide his full recollection. For example,
when asked if he had said anything about a union campaign prior to the
second in April 1978, he was careful to press counsel to limit the
question to Also significant in my assessment of Policastro's reli-
ability as a witness was a comparison of his testimony regarding the
status of Foreman David Huston at the hearing on challenged ballots
with his testmony before me. In the earlier proceeding, where
status was not in issue. Policastro referred to him as a foreman. Here,
when status became significant, Policastro called him a "fore-
man trainee." a not found anywhere in the earlier transcript
On or about April I I, Foreman David Huston, who,
for reasons set forth below, I find acted as Respondent's
agent, distributed ballots to employees on his T h e
ballot contained the names of all employees on Huston's
shift. Huston instructed the recipients to vote for two of
the employees listed, to represent the shift on a commit-
tee, and then put the marked ballot in an envelope and
return it to him. Huston gave ballots to employees
man and Mark Rudy during their worktime, while they
were at their molding machine. Employee Rosemary
Poole, who was an inspector, received a ballot contain-
ing her name and names of the three other employees in
her group. The employees listed on that ballot, Rose-
mary Poole, Kathy Amond, Frank Stewart, and Paul
Blankenbehler, worked on the same shift. The ballots dis-
tributed to those four limited their respective choices to
one.
On the following day, Huston again distributed ballots
to the employees on his shift in a rerun election, after
Respondent learned that "not all employees were listed
on first vote." I find from the testimony of employees
Laura Stewart, Jewel Paulman, and Mark Rudy that on
the second day Foreman Huston distributed ballots to
each of them, instructed them to fill out their choices of
two representatives each, and to return the ballots to him
before the end of the shift. Huston handed the ballot to
Stewart during her working time, as she stood at her ma-
chine.
Vice President Policastro's secretary drew up all of
the ballots and reproduced them for distribution to Re-
spondent's employees at Policastro's Respon-
dent asserts in its brief that the ballots and voting groups
were drawn under its employees' directions. Vice Presi-
dent Policastro's uncorroborated testimony on direct ex-
amination, if credited, would support that assertion.
However, my impression that Policastro was an unreli-
able witness caused me to reject that Re-
spondent's unexplained failure to present the testimony
of Darlene Springer, Rosemary Poole, or any other em-
ployee to corroborate Policastro's testimony regarding
the Committee's origin, or the designation of the voting
groups suggests that neither Springer nor any employee
would have supported Policastro's assertions.
of testimony. This contrast is but one example of the change of attitude
toward Huston's status after it became significant. In sum. my assessment
was that Policastro was wont to adjust his testimony to meet the needs of
the moment. This impression together with the factors set forth above
and later in this decision caused me to regard Policastro as an unreliable
witness.
Respondent had three shifts for production employees. 7 a.m. to 3
p.m., 3 to p.m., and to 7 a.m.
1 do not credit Policastro's uncorroborated testimony to the effect
that the impetus for the election of the Shop with
Respondent's employees and that he acted only on their instructions. See
fns. 5 and 8 for my assessment of his reliability.
One instance of Policastro's evasiveness on cross-examination direct-
ed at the creation of the four separate voting groups was as follows:
Q. During the original election, in which the Shop Committee was
created, you know, the ballots I have already shown you-is it a fact
that the company itself created the four separate units for those bal-
lots?
A. That is the four work groups. They all operate at
l i ' 2
[
ac-
anlj
tht: con-
tiguration
ms.keup
One
H ~ ~ s t o n
tht:
Beland
ar-
riked room.g
Stewart's
tht:
"nlaybe
that
Ni~holson,
R L
Prl:sident
opxators,
ma-
chine.1°
sed
At
8," alter-
nales12
elec-
tioi.
upon
--- represent-
>allot
"
].aura
mor:
t h e i ~
"
contaming
Comm~ttee
(lay.
l 2
er~ch
~blected,
O'Brien-----
-
privi-
l 3
Poli-
l 4
l 3
"
I DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
find that Respondent, alone, created the Committee
voting groups. For it was Vice President Policastro who
directed the production of the ballots. Policastro was
qurinted with the division of Respondent's production
maintenance employees into the groups depicted on
ballots. I find that Policastro seized upon that
to set up election groups and establish the
of the Committee.
o r two days after the rerun election, Foreman
requested Laura Stewart's assistance in counting
ballots. He instructed her to go upstairs to Respon-
dent's conference room, where she assisted in the ballot
count, along with fellow employee Diane and
Vice President Policastro's secretary, Donna Ludvigson.
Vice President Policastro was present when Stewart
at the conference I also find from Laura
testimony that the ballot counting occurred
during her worktime. Policastro conceded in his testimo-
ny that he was in and out of the conference room during
ballot count and that he was there for a total of
a half hour o r so." The tally of ballots showed
employees James Giesey, Dennis Keefe, LeRoy
Rosemary Poole, Pamela Pratt, and James
dy had been elected to the Committee.
'The Committee met on six occasions between its elec-
tion and June 9. The meetings took place either in Re-
spondent's lunchroom or in its conference room. Vice
Policastro attended all six meetings. At the
meetings of May 2 and 3 and June 6, the Committee ne-
gotiated with Policastro regarding floormats for machine
music in the plant, a refrigerator, dependent's
insurance coverage, and an additional vending
I find from Rosemary Poole's testimony that, at
the four meetings she attended, Policastro opened and
clc the discussions.
the sixth meeting, held on the afternoon of June
the Committee's seven members and four
heard Policastro announce that Respondent had
received notification of the Union's petition for an
Policastro then distributed to the seven committee
members and four alternates the following ballot, which,
his instructions, his secretary had drafted and re-
produced.
CLASSIC INDUSTRIES, INC.
Committee representation on the election ballot
conducted by the National Labor Relations Board.
Yes - I would like the committee
ed on the ballot. My nominee for chairman is
My findings regarding employee Stewart's voting and participation in
the count are based upon her uncontradicted testimony.
My findings regarding the sir meetings are based on the testimony
of Stewart and Rosemary Poole. However, as Stewart seemed
attentive to the accuracy of her testimony, on this matter where
accounts differed, I have relied on Stewart's testimony.
I find from Laura Stewart's testimony that on June 7 Foreman
Hus on handed Stewart an envelope instructions for Stewart
and a Committee alternate to attend a meeting on the follow-
ing
In April, after selection of the Committee members, one employee
in voting group. who had the highest number of votes among those
not was designated as an alternate Committee member.
Laura Stewart-----
LeRoy Nicholson-----
James Rudy-----
James Giesey-----
Dennis Keefe-----
Pamela Pratt-----
Rosemary Poole-----
Denise Vesco-----
Cheryl
Janet Marinchak-----
Kathy Amond-----
No I d o not want the committee on
the ballot.
This committee can be recognized as a collective
bargaining agent the same as any union with no
dues o r initiation fees with all the rights and
ledges [sic] that a union has.
Classic Ind Inc.
I find from Laura Stewart's testimony that the Com-
mittee asked Policastro for an opportunity to consult
with their fellow employees before casting the ballots,
Policastro agreed, and he suggested that the Committee
intervene in the representation election. Policastro also
offered the services of his lawyer if the Committee elect-
ed to intervene in the Board election. In the alternative,
Policastro offered to help the Committee to obtain an at-
torney's services.
On June 9, the full Committee and their alternates
again met to consider the ballot they had received from
Policastro on the previous day. Again, the meeting con-
vened in the plant lunchroom and in Policastro's pres-
ence. The employees asked him to leave the room while
they voted. After the 11 secret ballots had been cast, the
Committee invited Policastro to return. The votes were
opened and counted. The tally showed that four employ-
ees favored intervention and seven did not. When -
castro heard the results he looked, "really rejected" and
said he wished to meet with the four who had voted for
intervention.
After June 9, a number of employees advised Rose-
mary Poole that they did not want to join the Union and
asked if they would be required to d o so if the Union
won the election. Poole advised Policastro of these senti-
ments and questions. Policastro said he could not provide
any answers and advised her to telephone the Board.
With Policastro's permission, Poole made two or three
long-distance telephone calls from the plant to the
Board's office in Pittsburgh to inform herself on the pro-
cedure for intervening in a Board election. Poole made
Policastro admitted offering to recommend an attorney to the Com-
mittee. He denied that he offered his attorney. Rosemary Poole, who was
in Respondent's employ when she testified, impressed me as being the
more candid witness about Policastro's remark. Her testimony differed
from that of former employee Laura Stewart, who seemed uncertain as
to what Policastro had offered. Given the importance which Policastro
apparently attached to the Committee's intervention, and his willingness
on other occasions to provide i t with material assistance. Poole's version
of his remarks seemed reasonable.
My findings regarding the meeting of June 9 are based on Stewart's
testimony.
Respond4:nt's
proceedirlg.
011
R~:spondent's
onc:
th*t
Howevt:r,
long
20,
Committee.15
a)
emplojees
ntarby firm,
that
subcontractilg
surer
Committee
to
t le
listeners.16
noted
Po~le's
Paulman's testimol~y.
Ihe
:mployees, exp,essed
prob-
l B r-garding testi-
lony Stewart
10:45
Policas-
I5
behalf.17
Poli-
castro.18
"
testlmony.
la A l
5ign. aflida-
~nform the
at
active. I f
amdavit afirmative
ource
Conrinued
1153 CLASSIC IN1 DUSTRIES, INC.
these calls at the plant during breaktime or lunchtime at
expense.
Thereafter, through Poole's efforts, the Committee
became eligible to intervene in the Union's representation
The Regional Director included the Com-
mittee the ballot in the election of July 20 held
among employees.
I find from the testimony of employee Jewel Paulman
that prior to the Board election she saw a notice on Re-
spondent'; plant bulletin board which told the employees
to see of the four Committee members listed on the
notice if they had any problems. I also find from her tes-
timony the list included Rosemary Poole and Kathy
Amond.
I can make no further findings regarding the
notice because of the state of the record. Paulman was
uncertain :hat the notice was signed. Nor was she certain
that Committee members Giesey and Rudy were listed
on the notice. The record does not show who posted it
or how the notice remained on Respondent's bulle-
tin board.
During the 4 weeks prior to the representation election
of July Vice President Policastro and employee
Poole campaigned for the Policastro, in
speeches employee meetings at the plant, stated Re-
spondent's preference for the Committee. Policastro told
the that Respondent preferred to deal with
the Committee rather than with a union and that they
should vote for the Committee.
At one of his preelection meetings with Respondent's
employees, Policastro pointed out that Westmoreland
Plastics, a had union representation and was
paying excessive wages to its employees. Policastro as-
serted as a result of its policy Westmoreland was
some of its work to Respondent. He also
stated that 'Hestmoreland's employees might not return
to work until September because their employer had shut
the plant. Policastro warned that Respondent's employ-
ees might layoff if they "started a union" and that
if the Union's campaign succeeded Respondent "would
go bankrupt." Further, Policastro expressed preference
for the over the Union and stated in sub-
stance that if the employees supported a shop committee
he would make his lawyer's services available. Policastro
told his listerers that if they joined a union they would
be required pay a $100 initiation fee, and dues of $15
per month. then proceeded to total up the annual
cost of union membership for his Policastro's
last preelection meeting was on July 18.
Except as below in this footnote, my findings regarding Re-
spondent's and procommittee campaign are based on Poole's and
I do not credit Policastro's uncorroborated testimony that he told the
employees that Reipondent wanted them to vote for either the Union or
for the Committee rather than "neither." In light o f his active role in the
Committee's formation. and his subsequent support for its intervention in
Board election, i t seems unlikely that he would encourage support for
!he Union. Instead. I accept Policastro's admission that, in talking to hir
he Respondent's preference for "someone on the
nside where it can, and handle the employees and would know the
ems rather than ha re an outsider."
M y findings Policastro's remarks are based on the
o f Laura and Jewel Paulman.
Policastro permitted Poole to speak in favor of the
Committee a t three separate employee meetings held by
Respondent. Two of these meetings occurred during
Poole's working time. The third meeting at which Poole
spoke took place in the plant lunchroom at p.m.
during her off hours. She sought and obtained
tro's permission to participate in the third meeting which
occurred during the minutes prior to the night shift.
Poole said in substance that she believed the Commit-
tee "was the best thing." She did not believe that the
employees "should jump into a union right away." She
suggested that the employees "at least give the [Commit-
tee] a chance, at least for a year: and if it did not work
out, then vote for the Union."
On July 5, Vice President Policastro issued a warning
slip to Laura Stewart for defective work and miscon-
duct. The issuance of the warning slip was witnessed by
Plant Manager George Nicholoff, Foreman Dave
Huston, and employees Rosemary Poole, Kathy Amond,
and Robert T. Rudy. At the time of this meeting, Poole
and Amond were the Committee's only active members.
Rosemary Poole proceeded to discuss Stewart's warning
notice with Policastro. In the course of the exchange,
Policastro placed Stewart's personnel folder on the table
so that it was accessible to Poole and Amond. I find
from Stewart's uncontradicted testimony that Policastro
told Stewart that Poole was there on the Committee's
Before the meeting of July 5 Poole had con-
ferred with Policastro and had obtained his assurance
that if Stewart satisfied him that the issuance of the
warning notice was unfair Policastro would revoke it.
Following the Board election held on July 20, Poole,
with Policastro's permission, posted the following notice
on Respondent's bulletin board:
Your Committee is still active. If you have any
problems or questions, contact one of the following.
The notice then listed Committee members Rosemary
Poole, Kathy Amond, Bob Rudy, and Jim Giesey. Poole
prepared the notice with pencil and paper which she ob-
tained from Respondent's quality control room. Poole
posted this notice on the advice of Vice President
Poole testified that she did not acl for the Committee when she con-
ferred with Policastro on Stewart's behalf on July 5. She also denied that
Policastro had ever stated that Poole and Amond were present on behalf
o f the Committee. As Stewart impressed me as the more candid witness,
I have credited her
the hearing before me, Poole denied that Policastro encouraged
her to produce and post the quoted However, in her pretrial
vit, Poole declared:
Joe Policastro suggested that I employees that the Com-
mittee was still active. Therefore. I posted a sign on the bulletin
board with Policastro'r permission. I posted that sign sometime
around September 1978. I t remained posted least a month. I t said
words to the effect of, "Your committee is still you have
any problems or questions see your committee representative." My
name and the names o f several other committee members were
signed underneath. I t was hand printed and on white paper.
I have rejected Poole's denial and accepted her as
evidence after assessing the quality of her testimony before me and con-
sidering the likelihood that Poole's affidavit was the more reliable
LABOR
th':
wia
8(11)(2)
ca:ie.]"
galning
Jar~uary
exr,cution
LeRoy
J.~nuary
Corr
Jose:>h Respondent.lg
D~lring
asketl
bargaining
~:mployees
machine
provi'jed
woulcl
'
$25
1981,
sny
from
--
Committee's
to
aflid;~vit
quote11
andavit
aflirmal~ve affdavit
aqd w ~ t h
F'inally,
fcr amdavit
matter pre-trtal afida-
Snaider
fn. 1 (1975).
l e f . s t s
Cot~clusions
8(a)(2)
8(a)(2)
find
Poli-
8(a)(2)
."
afidavit,
1154 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL
On January 19, 1979, the Regional Director notified
Respondent, the Union, and the Committee that he
withholding any certification in the representation
proceeding "pending final determination of the alleged
issue of domination involved in [the instant
Nevertheless, Respondent began collective-bar-
negotiations with the Committee on or about
30, 1979. These negotiations culminated in the
on April 27, 1979, of a collective-bargaining
agreement between Respondent and the Committee cov-
ering Respondent's production and maintenance employ-
ees retroactive to April 16, 1979. The collective-bargain-
ing agreement included a clause in which Respondent ex-
tended recognition to the Committee as "the sole bar-
gaining agency for all of the hourly-rated production and
maintenance employees, excluding office, professional
and sales employees, executive personnel salaried work-
ers, working foremen, security and supervisors."
The Committee's bargaining team consisted of employ-
ees Kathleen A. Bucholtz, James Rudy, Nichol-
son, and Rosemary Poole. The four were selected by the
unit employees in an election conducted during lunch
and break periods at Respondent's plant toward the end
of 1979. These four signed the contract for the
mittee. President David Carrera and Vice President
Policastro signed for
the contract negotiations, Rosemary Poole
Vice President Policastro for permission to bring
employees William Martz and Daniel Goodman to the
table. Policastro gave his approval and the
two attended at least two bargaining sessions.
Appended to the collective-bargaining agreement was
a supplemental agreement covering the payment of vend-
ing profits to the Committee. That agreement
that effective April 16, 1979, Respondent
pay to the Committee "up to $20.00 per month
from the profits of the vending machines in the plant, to
the extent such profits exist each month to be used solely
for the benefits of the employees in the bargaining unit
. . . . The supplemental agreement also provided that
from April 1, 1980, to March 31, 1981, Respondent's
profit payments to the Committee would increase to a
maximum of per month and that on and after April
1, such payments would increase to a maximum of
$30. However, as of May 3, 1979, Respondent had not
made payments to the Committee.

I fin14
Rosemary Poole's testimony that the Com-
mittee has never elected any officers, has no bylaws, nor
of fact. 'Thus, when testifying at the hearing regarding the Committee
formatior,, or her role in the organizing effort, Poole seemed
reluctant provide details. In contrast, the quoted portion o f her pre-
trial is replete with straightforward detailed recollection o f how
the notice came to be posted on Respondent's bulletin board.
Further circumstances suggest that Poole's merits acceptance
as evidence. Thus. Poole gave the closer in time t o
the posting o f the notice and free of the duress attendant upon the con-
troversy concomitant litigation which she was confronted at the
hearing. at the heartng, Poole was available to Respondent's
counsel cross-examination regarding her and the subject
contained therein. In these circumstances. Poole's
vit was th: more likely source o f truth. See Syrup Corporation,
220 NLRB 238. and cases cited therein.
The regarding the negotiations, the participants, and the result-

ing collective-bargaining agreement were not in dispute.

RELATIONS BOARD
a constitution. Nor has it ever adopted any rules or regu-
lations. Further, I find from Poole's testimony that the
Committee has never collected any dues from the- unit
employees. Indeed Poole's testimony shows that as of
May 3, 1979, "the Committee had not received funds
from any source."
B. Analysis and
The General Counsel contends that Respondent violat-
ed Section and ( 1 ) of the Act by initiating, form-
ing, promoting, and supporting the Committee, and then
by recognizing and bargaining with the Committee as
the exclusive representative of its production and mainte-
nance employees. The General Counsel also contends
that Respondent violated Section and (I) of the
Act by dominating the Committee. Respondent defends
its recognition of and bargaining with the Committee, ar-
guing that Respondent was accommodating its employ-
ees in their attempt to organize an independent union;
that the collective bargaining and the execution of a col-
lective-bargaining agreement was proper because the
Committee had received a majority of votes cast in a
Board-held election and the time for filing objections to
the election had expired. I find no merit in Respondent's
defense and find ample support for the General Counsel's
contention.
I that Respondent initiated and encouraged the
formation of the Committee. It was Vice President
castro who set up the election in which Respondent's
employees selected the Committee members. It was Poli-
castro who established the voting groups, fixed the size
of the Committee, and designed the ballots. When he dis-
covered that "not all employees were listed on first
vote," Policastro instructed his secretary to draw up a
second ballot and reproduce it for distribution to Re-
spondent's employees. The record also shows that Re-
spondent utilized Foreman David Huston as its agent to ,
distribute the ballots on his shift. Such conduct by an
employer's agent constitutes unlawful assistance to a
labor organization and is violative of Section and
(I) of the Act.
My finding that Foreman David Huston was Respon-
dent's agent at the time he distributed the ballots finds
adequate support in the record. Policastro admitted that
Huston assigned employees on his shift to a particular
machine each day upon Plant Manager Nicholoffs
instructions. Policastro described Huston as "a conduit
for [Respondent's] Plant Manager to issue orders and
manage the manufacturing operations of [Respondent]
. . . I find from the testimony of employees Laura
Stewart, Mark Rudy, and Jewel Paulman that Huston
signed timecards, watched their work for errors, and
routinely kept them on the same machine until the errors
were corrected. I find from Paulman's testimony that
Huston made no decisions regarding his shift's operation
without checking with Plant Manager Nicholoff.
Laura Stewart's testimony shows that Huston granted
requests for time off. However, in her pre-trial
Stewart asserted that all requests for time off "must be
made to Policastro." Further, there was no showing
ml:
warriing Hus-
ir~itiated
w a :
o i '
2(11)
Hu:iton
Thus,
when
rati-
Llroyhill (1974),
F.2d
8(a)(2) (1)
Comrnittee
t : ~ e
mi:eting
hi:;
ill
Junt:
n3tified
In Policas-
preparl:d
z~nd
Committec elec-
-
2 0 Sec. )
1 ) T l ~ e
in!erest to
t)r
~f
n.lture,
2 ' Sec. 2(
determ~ning
respons~ble
~luestion spec~fic acru-
Sec. 2(2)
(2)
emplojer,
tion.
8(a)(l)
Board-
1
8(a)(2)
8(a)(2)
1155 CLASSIC INDUSTRIES. INC.
before that Huston granted time off at his o w n dis-
cretion.
A slip issued t o employee Stewart bore
ton's signature ove r the legend "Signature of Foreman o r
Superviscr." However , there was no showing that
Huston o r recommended issuance of the warn-
ing which also carried Policastro's signature. In short
there no showing that Huston possessed any of the
indicia authority required t o establish that he was a
supervisor within the meaning of Section of the
However , by using him as a conduit for its instruc-
tions, cloi hing him with authority to receive requests for
time off, and assigning him t o oversee the performance
of the employees on his shift, Respondent's management
made its spokesperson among his fellow employ-
ees. employees regularly working with Huston
were likely to believe that h e spoke for Respondent o n
matters pertaining t o the Committee. 1 find, therefore,
that he distributed ballots in the Committee elec-
tion and thereafter directed employee Stewart t o count
ballots, Huston acted as Respondent's agent. It follows
that these acts were imputable t o Respondent whether o r
not they "were actually authorized o r subsequently
Company, 210 N L R B 288, 294
enfd. 514 655 (8th Cir. 1975).
In sum, I find that Respondent assisted a labor organi-
zation in violation of Section and of the Ac t
by providing the scheme and machinery for establishing
the and by encouraging employees t o cast
and count ballots in the selection of Committee members.
After Committee was formed Policastro closely
monitored its subsequent activities. H e was present and
presided at all the Committee meetings, u p t o and includ-
ing the of June 8.
Policastro also sought t o give the Committee credibil-
ity as employees' bargaining agent. H e granted
changes some conditions o f employment in negotia-
tions with the Committee o n three occasions, May 2 and
3 and 6.
When o f the Union's petition for a Board elec-
tion among his employees, Policastro quickly set up a
Committet: vote t o decide whether the Committee would
intervene that election. O n his o w n initiative,
t ro and distributed the ballots to the Committee
members offered the services of his attorney if the
participated successfully in the Board
2(1 o f the Act provides as follows:

(I
term "supervisor" means any individual having authority,
in the o f the employer, hire, transfer, suspend, lay off,
recall, promote, discharge, assign, reward, or discipline other em-
ployees. responsibly to direct them, or to adjust their grievances,
or effectively to recommend such action. in connection with the
foregoing the exercise o f such authority is not o f a merely routine or
clerical but requires the use o f independent judgment.
13) o f the Act provides:
(13) In whether any person is acting as an "agent" of
another person s o as to make such other person for his
acts, the o f whether the acts performed were
ally autharized or subsequently ratified shall not be controlling.
o f the Act provides in pertinent part:
The term "employer" includes any person acting as an agent o f
an directly or indirectly . . . .
Undaunted by the Committee's rejection of inter-
vention, Policastro coached Committee member Poole t o
call the Board t o inquire about the possibility of inter-
vening. H e permitted her t o use Respondent's phone at
Respondent's expense t o accomplish this task.
I also find that Respondent looked t o the Committee
as a defense against the Union's organizing effort. Thus,
a short time, 2 o r 3 weeks, prior t o Respondent's distri-
bution of ballots for the Committee election, Vice Presi-
dent Policastro announced to his employees that "he
heard rumors about a union being started" and expressed
strong preference for dealing directly with his employees
rather than with a union. Thereafter, during the Union's
organizing campaign leading up t o the Board-held elec-
tion, Policastro repeatedly stated Respondent's prefer-
ence for the Committee as a collective-bargaining agent
and renewed his offer of legal assistance t o the Commit-
tee.
Policastro's remarks at employee meetings also reflect-
ed union animus. H e expressly threatened Respondent's
employees with layoff "if they started a union." Taken in
context, Policastro's threat was directed not at those
w h o supported the Committee, but only at those employ-
ees w h o were supporting the Union. His assertions con-
cerning a layoff and subcontracting by Westmoreland
Plastics after its employees opted for union representa-
tion were so closely associated with his threat of layoff
that listening employees were likely to hear them as im-
plied threats of retaliation by Respondent if the Union's
campaign were successful. Policastro's express threat of
layoff and the implied threats flowing from his remarks
about Westmoreland reflected hostility toward the Union
and preference for the Committee. They also impaired
the employees' rights under Section 7 of the Ac t and
thus violated Section of the Act.
In sum, by Policastro's participation in Committee
meetings, his negotiations with the Committee, his lead-
ing role in the Committee's intervention in the
held election, his offers of legal assistance to the Com-
mittee, his tender of free long-distance telephone calls t o
Poole, and his campaign on the Committee's behalf prior
t o the Board election, Respondent unlawfully assisted the
Committee and interfered with its employees' rights
under Section 7 t o chose a collective-bargaining repre-
sentative. find, therefore, that by this conduct Respon-
dent violated Section and ( I ) of the Act. I also
find that by permitting Poole t o campaign for the Com-
mittee during her worktime, and permitting her to cam-
paign at the plant after her workday, and by providing
bulletin board space for the Committee notice of employ-
e e after the July 20 election, all in furtherance of the un-
lawful plan, Respondent again violated Section
and ( I ) of t he Act.
I also find that on July 5 Respondent dealt with the
Committee as the bargaining representative of its em-
ployees. For, on that day, Vice President Policastro ne-
gotiated with Committee member Rosemary Poole as the
Committee's representative in the informal disposition of
a warning slip issued t o production employee Laura
Stewart. By extending this act of recognition and bar-
gaining in favor of the unlawfully assisted Committee, no
1150
8(a)(2) (1)
April
l g
further 8(a)(I)
T l e
J a n ~ a r y
not
8(a)(2)
bargaining
Trico
obli-
g a t i o ~ ~
electim
ulion
or-
ganizi~tion
8(a)(I) Edison,
Seaview (1976),
Inc.,
al:;o
Midwest
8(a)(2)
main-
tenancc:
to
questiol Playskool,
Divisior,
(1972), F.2d 1973),
Boi~rd
meaninl:
5 ,
" .Nidwrsr & Inc.. 1060,
8(a)(2) Playskool, Inc.,
8(a)(2)
Corporation,
from
Inc.,
8(a)(2)
Poole
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
less than by the earlier negotiations regarding conditions
of employment, Respondent again violated Section
and of the Act.
The final portion of Respondent's plan fell into place
on 27, 1979, when it and the Committee executed a
3-year contract, including a supplemental agreement
givi vending machine profits to the Committee, effec-
tive April 16, 1979. By so doing, Respondent committed
violations of Section and (2) of the Act.
Regional Director's revised tally of ballots on
4, 1979, showing the Committee won the elec-
tion of July 20 does not help Respondent's cause. For,
contrary to Respondent's contention, this circumstance
did legitimize Respondent's subsequent dealings with,
and recognition of, the Committee as the exclusive bar-
gaining representative of its production and maintenance
employees. For, as the record shows, in January 1979
Respondent learned from the Regional Director that he
was withholding certification of the Committee "pending
final determination of the alleged issue of domina-
tion involved in [the instant case]." Thus, there was no
certilication to support Respondent's recognition of and
with the Committee. Under Board policy,
election results are not effective until a certification is
issuetl. Products Corporation, 238 NLRB 1306
(1978). The Board has also held that an employer's
to bargain is established as of the date of a valid
in which the majority of unit employees voted
for representation. Howard Plating Industries, 230
NLRB 178, 179 (1979). However, this latter policy pre-
supposes that the majority is untainted by unfair labor
practices and does not obtain where, as here, a labor
majority was the product of violations of Sec-
tion and (2) of the Act. Cf. Harry et al.,
d / b /a Manor Home, 222 NLRB 596, 603
and howard Creations. 212 NLRB 179, 183 (1974).
I find as contended by the General Counsel that
under the Board's Piping doctrinez2 Respondent
violated Section and (1) of the Act on June 6,
when it recognized and bargained with the Committee
regarding hours and conditions of employment, when it
bargained with the Committee regarding Laura Stewart's
warning slip, and again from January through April 1979
when it negotiated and executed a contract with the
Commttee covering Respondent's production and
employees. The Midwest Piping doctrine requires
an employer to maintain neutrality when rival unions
claim represent its employees, and thus raises a real
concerning representation. In Inc., o
of Milton Bradley Company, 195 NLRB 560
enforcement denied 477 66 (7th Cir.
the held that "the sole requirement necessary to
raise a question concerning representation within the
of the Midwest Piping doctrine . . . is that the
claim o r the rival union must not be clearly unsupporta-
ble and lacking in substance." (195 NLRB at 560.)
Here, on June the Union filed its petition with the
Regional Director seeking certification as the exclusive
bargaining representative of Respondent's production
and maintenance employees. That petition has remained
Piping Supply Co.. 63 NLRB 1069-71 (1945)
active. Thus, a question concerning the representative
status of both the Union and the Committee was clearly
pending on and after that date. I find that Respondent,
by recognizing and bargaining with the Committee on
June 6, and thereafter, did not show the neutrality re-
quired by the Board's Midwest Piping doctrine. There-
after, I further find that this conduct violated Section
and (1) of the Act. supra, 195

NLRB at 561.

As the Union's initial claim of majority status did not
reach Respondent until May 30, I find that the Midwest
Piping doctrine does not apply to Respondent's negotia-
tions with the Committee on May 2 and 3.
I also find merit in the General Counsel's contention
that Respondent dominated the Committee in violation
of Section and (1) of the Act. In making this find-
ing, I look to the Board's policy as stated in Adhesive
Products 117 NLRB 265, 267 (1957):
The Board has found domination in cases where the
employer not only furnished the original impetus
for the organization but there were present such ad-
ditional factors as (a) employer also prescribed
nature, structure and functions of the organization;
(b) the organization never developed any real form
at all, such as a constitution or bylaws, dues of the
treasury, never held any meetings and had no assets
other than a contract bestowed by the employer; (c)
representatives of management actually took part in
the meetings or activities of the committee or at-
tempted to influence its policies.
In the instant case, the record showed that Respon-
dent, through Vice President Policastro, devised, struc-
tured, and sponsored the Committee, controlled its com-
position, presided at its meetings, and asserted and
guided its actions. The record also makes clear from .
Rosemary Poole's testimony that the Committee has
never had a constitution, bylaws, or a treasury. Aside
the contract executed in April 1979, it does not
appear that the Committee has any other possession. Re-
spondent's obligation to pay a portion of the plant's
vending machine profit to the Committee is the Commit-
tee's only source of funds. In sum, there is ample support
for a finding of domination. Rupp Industries. 217
NLRB 385, 390 (1975).
Finally, I do not agree, as contended by the General
Counsel, that Respondent violated Section and ( I )
of the Act by designating employees Martz and Good-
man as members of the Committee. The record shows
only that Committee member sought Policastro's
permission to invite employees Martz and Goodman to
the negotiations leading up to the April 1979 contract.
Neither Policastro nor any other member of Respon-
dent's management directed or suggested that either
Martz or Goodman participate as members of the Com-
mittee. On these facts, I cannot find that Respondent des-
ignated either of the two employees as Committee mem-
bers. I shall, therefore, recommend dismissal of this alle-
gation.
C ~ N C L U S I ~ N S
2(6)
2(5)
B; ~minating,
~ e s ~ o n d e n t
8(a)(2)
the
Act,
B(a)(l)
2(6) ;tnd
8(a)(2)
Goodmarr
lalbor
or-
Committc:e,
withlold
silccessor
l q c )
FLespondent,
Cea!;e
23 Sec.
i.nd
Sec. the
lindings,
" A p p e n d i ~ . " ~ ~
(d)
2'
1157 CLASSIC INDUSTRIES, INC.
OF L AW (a) Dominating, supporting, assisting, o r interfering
1. Classic Industries, Inc., is an employer engaged in
commerce within the meaning of Section and (7) of
the Act.
2. District Lodge 63, International Association of Ma-
chinists a i d Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO, and The
Shop Committee, are labor organizations within the
meaning c f Section of the Act.
3. d assisting, supporting, and interfering
with the lormation, organization, operation, and adminis-
tration of The Shop committee, has engaged
in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section of the Act.
4. By foregoing, and by other independent acts and
conduct interfering with, restraining, and coercing em-
ployees i r ~the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7
of the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging
in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section
of the Act.
5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor
practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Sec-
tion (7) of the Act.
6. Respondent did not violate Section and (1)
of the Act by designating William Martz and Daniel
as members of The Shop Committee.
Having found that Respondent has engaged in certain
unfair practices, I shall recommend that it cease
and desist therefrom and that it take affirmative action
designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
Having found that Respondent illegally dominated, as-
sisted, supported, and interfered with the formation,
ganizatioi, operation, and administration of The Shop
I will recommend that Respondent withdraw
and all recognition from The Shop Committee,
cease giving effect to their current collective-bargaining
agreemer t, or to any renewal, modification, o r extension
thereof and completely disestablish The Shop Committee
or any thereto as the bargaining representative
of any of its employees; provided, however, that Respon-
dent shall not be required to vary or abandon any exist-
ing term o r condition of employment.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of
law, and the entire record, and pursuant to Section
of the Act, 1 hereby issue the following recommended:
The Classic Industries, Inc., Latrobe,
Pennsylvania, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns,
shall:
1. and desist from:
In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by 102.46 of
the Rules Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the
findings. ccnclusions. and recommended Order, herein shall as provided
in 102.48 of Rules and Regulations be adopted by the Board and
become its conclusions, and Order and all objections thereto
shall be deemed waived for all purposes.
with the operation and administration of The Shop Com-
mittee or any other labor organization.
(b) Recognizing The Shop Committee or any succes-
sor thereto as the representative of any of its employees
for the purpose of dealing with Respondent concerning
grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of
employment, o r conditions of work.
(c) Giving effect to or enforcing the collective-bar-
gaining agreement executed with The Shop Committee
on or about April 27, 1979, provided, however, that
nothing herein shall require Respondent to change or
abandon any existing wages, hours, o r other terms or
conditions of employment.
(d) Threatening employees with the subcontracting of
unit work, layoffs, cessation of operations, o r other repri-
sals if the employees select District Lodge 63, Interna-
tional Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers,
AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization.
(e) In any like or related manner interfering with, re-
straining, o r coercing its employees in the exercise of
rights guaranteed them in Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which is nec-
essary to effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Withdraw and withhold all recognition from The
Shop Committee as representative of its employees for
the purposes of collective bargaining.
(b) Completely disestablish The Shop Committee or
any successor thereto as the representative of any of Re-
spondent's employees for the purpose of dealing with
Respondent concerning wages, hours, and other terms
and conditions of employment; provided, however, that
such action shall not be construed to require Respondent
to change or abandon any existing wages, hours, or other
terms or conditions of employment.
(c) Post at its place of business in Latrobe, Pennsylva-
nia, copies of the attached notice marked
Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional
Director for Region 6, after being duly signed by Re-
spondent's representative, shall be posted immediately
upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 con-
secutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including
all places where notices to employees are customarily
posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to
insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or cov-
ered by any other material.
Notify the Regional Director for Region 6, in writ-
ing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what
steps have been taken to comply herewith.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that unfair labor practices al-
leged in the complaint but not specifically found herein
are hereby dismissed.
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 Labor Relations Board."