IAM, Local 590

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 22, 1972

195 N.L.R.B. 514 (N.L.R.B. 1972)

514 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
International Association of Machinists and Aero- APPENDIX
space Workers, AFL-CIO, Local Lodge 590
(Wayne Manufacturing Company) and Gary L. San-
ner and Paul King, II. Cases 21-CB-3939 and 21-
CB-3953
February 22, 1972
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS FANNING, JENKINS, AND KENNEDY
On October 23, 1971, Trial Examiner Leo F. Light-
ner issued the attached Decision in this proceeding.
Thereafter, Respondent filed exceptions.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au-
thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the record and the Trial
Examiner's Decision in light of the exceptions and has
decided to affirm the Trial Examiner's rulings, findings,
and conclusions, and to adopt his recommended Or-
der, i as modified herein.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Re-
lations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations
Board adopts as its Order the recommended Order of
the Trial Examiner as modified and hereby orders that
International Association of Machinists and Aerospace
Workers, AFL-CIO, Local Lodge 590, its officers,
agents, and representatives, shall take the action set
forth in the Trial Examiner's recommended Order,
with the following modifications:
1. Delete paragraph 2(b) and substitute therefor the
following:
"(b) Refund to Gary L. Sanner, who was required by
Respondent to pay a reinstatement fee such as has been
found herein to be improperly assessed, the sum of $75;
and reimburse Paul King II for any reinstatement fee
paid by him to obtain his reemployment."
2. Substitute the attached notice for the Trial Ex-
aminer's notice.
' The Respondent has excepted to the inclusion of the words "each
employee of the Employer" in Sec 2(b) of the Trial Examiner's recom-
mended Order Inasmuch as both the allegations of the complaint and the
matters litigated at the hearing were confined solely to the discharge of
employees Gary L Sanner and Paul King II, we shall amend the Order to
direct a refund to them only
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES AND MEMBERS
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT cause, or attempt to cause,
Wayne Manufacturing Company to discharge
Gary L. Sanner or Paul King II or otherwise to
discriminate against them in regard to the hire or
tenure of employment or terms or conditions of
employment of employees in violation of Section
8(a)(3) of the Act.
WE WILL make Paul King II whole for any loss
of pay he may have suffered by reason of his dis-
charge on April 2, 1971, and WE WILL reimburse
him for any reinstatement fee paid by him to ob-
tain his reemployment.
WE WILL reimburse Gary L. Sanner for the
reinstatement fee of $75 paid by him to avoid a
discharge at our request.
WE WILL NOT cause, or attempt to cause, said
Employer to discriminate in regard to the hire or
tenure of employment of any employee except to
the extent authorized by an agreement made in
accordance with Section 8(a)(3) of the Act. This
means we will not request the discharge of any
employee who is covered by a union-shop agree-
ment for any reason other than the failure of such
employee to tender the payment of an initiation fee
or periodic dues.
WE WILL notify said Employer, in writing, that
we withdraw our request for the termination of
employment of Gary L. Sanner and Paul King II,
and WE WILL notify each of said employees, in
writing, that we are withdrawing our request for
termination of their employment.
INTERNATIONAL
ASSOCIATION OF
MACHINISTS AND
AEROSPACE
WORKERS, AFL-CIO,
LOCAL LODGE
590
(Labor Organization)
Dated By
(Representative) (Title)
This is an official notice and must not be defaced by
anyone.
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive
days from the date of posting and must not be altered,
defaced, or covered by any other material.
195 NLRB No. 98
IAM, LOCAL 590 515
Any questions concerning this notice or compliance
with its provisions may be directed to the Board's
Office, Eastern Columbia Building, 849 South Broad-
way, Los Angeles, California 90014, Telephone 213-
688-5200.
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
LEO F. LIGHTNER, Trial Examiner: This proceeding was
heard before me in Los Angeles, California, on August 19,
1971, upon the complaint of General Counsel, as amended,
and the answer of International Association of Machinists
and Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO, Local Lodge 590, herein
referred to as Respondent.' The complaint alleges violations
of Section 8(b)(2) and (1)(A) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the
Labor Management Relations Act, 1947, as amended, (61
Stat. 136; 65 Stat. 601; 73 Stat. 519; 29 U.S.C. Sec. 151, et
seq.), herein called the Act. The parties waived oral argu-
ments and briefs filed by the General Counsel and Respond-
ent have been carefully considered.
Upon the entire record,' and from my observation of the
witnesses , I make the following:
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
I THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER
Wayne Manufacturing Company, herein referred to as
Employer, is a corporation engaged in the manufacture of
street sweepers, with a plant located at 1201 East Lexington
Street, Pomona, California. The Employer annually, a repre-
sentative period, sells and ships products valued in excess of
$50,000 directly to customers located outside the State of
California.
The complaint alleges, the answer admits, and I find that
the Employer is an employer engaged in commerce and in
operations affecting commerce within the meaning of Section
2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.
II THE RESPONDENT IS A LABOR ORGANIZATION
The complaint alleges, the answer admits, and I find that
Respondent , at all times material , is and has been a labor
organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
The Issues
The principal issues raised by the pleadings and litigated at
the hearing are whether the Respondent engaged in conduct
in contravention of the provisions of Section 8(b)(2) and
(1)(A) by on or about March 8, 1971, (a) attempting to cause
the Employer to discharge Gary L. Sanner for nonpayment
of dues pursuant to the provisions of a union-security clause
at a time when Sanner was under no statutory obligation to
pay such dues; or (b) on or about March 8, 1971, attempting
to cause the Employer to discharge Sanner without first in-
forming Sanner of his dues obligation pursuant to the provi-
sions of the union-security clause and without affording San-
ner a reasonable opportunity to satisfy such dues obligations;
or (c) on or about April 2, 1971, causing the Employer to
discharge Paul King, II, for nonpayment of dues pursuant of
' A charge was filed on March 17, 1971, in Case 21-CB-3939 A charge
was filed on April 6, 1971, in Case 21-CB-3953 A Consolidated Complaint
was issued on May 21, 1971, and amended at the outset of the hearing
herein
' The record is hereby corrected
the provisions of the union-security clause when King was
under no such statutory obligation to pay such dues; or (d)
on or about April 2, 1971, causing the Employer to discharge
King without first informing King of his dues obligations
pursuant to the provisions of the union-security clause and
without affording King reasonable opportunity to satisfy
such dues obligations.
Respondent denies the commission of any unfair labor
practice. Affirmatively, Respondent asserts that on or about
March 8, 1971, after months of various types of notices,
including handbills, letters to home addresses (including cer-
tified mail), and verbal notices by shop stewards to delinquent
employees, the Employer was notified to enforce the contrac-
tual provisions requiring termination of those employees who
had not complied with the union-security provision of the
agreement. Further, Respondent further asserts that Sanner
and King had ample opportunity to satisfy such dues obliga-
tions between June 3, 1970, and March 1971.
Agency
The complaint alleges, the answer admits, and I find, that
Thomas J. McDonald is secretary-treasurer of Respondent.
McDonald credibly related that he became secretary-
treasurer on October 7, 1970, and that his predecessor was
James Smith. The complaint, as amended, alleges, and it is
undisputed, that William Adkins was recording secretary of
Respondent from July 1970 until January 1971, when he was
succeeded by Peter Reitler. It is alleged and undisputed that
James M. Bray at all times material herein was business
representative of Respondent and that Robert Bannacky was
shop steward. It is undisputed that all of those named were
agents of Respondent within the meaning of Section 2(13) of
the Act, during the periods of time specified.
In addition, Gary L. Sanner identified Paul Filpot as the
Union steward in the sheet metal department, in a period
commencing August 1970. Sanner also identified Tony Har-
ris as a shop steward in the machine shop, on the swing shift,
in a period commencing September 1970. Sanner also iden-
tified Wally Kile as shop steward in the sheet metal depart-
ment, inferentially on approximately August 24, 1970; how-
ever, it is obscure whether Kile was on the day shift or the
swing shift. Respondent has not disputed the recitation of
Sanner as to the identity of these shop stewards or depart-
ment stewards. Since Respondent does not dispute the agency
of shop steward Bannacky, I find it reasonable to infer that
these other shop stewards, likewise, were agents of Respond-
ent within the meaning of Section 2(13) of the Act.
Background
It is undisputed that, on September 2, 1969, International
Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL-
CIO, was certified as the exclusive bargaining representative
for a unit consisting of all the production and maintenance
employees employed by the Employer at its plant in Pomona,
supra, excluding office clerical employees, professional em-
ployees, guards, and supervisors, including assistant foremen,
as defined by the Act, in Case 21-RC-11154.
On June 3, 1970, the International, for and on behalf of
Respondent, and the Employer entered into a collective-bar-
gaining agreement , which provides that it was effective from
March 7, 1970, to and including November 1, 1972, covering
the unit of employees described. The agreement contains,
inter alia, provisions for checkoff and union-security, as fol-
lows:
516 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ARTICLE XXIII-CHECK-OFF
Upon receipt of a legally revocable written assignment
from an employee , the Employer agrees to deduct on the
first pay day of each month from the wages due any
employee who is a member of the Union an amount
equal to one ( 1) month 's union dues as designated by the
Secretary-Treasurer of the Union. The Company also
agrees that initiation fees , as designated by the Secretary-
Treasurer of the Union, will be deducted in two equal
increments . All money deducted by the Company shall
be remitted to the Secretary-Treasurer of the Union on
or before the thirtieth (30th) day of the month.
ARTICLE XXIV, UNION SECURITY
As a condition of employment, an employee covered by
this Agreement who has made application to the Union
for membership shall, not later than thirty-one (31) days
after the date of the execution of this Agreement,
become and remain a member of the Union in good
standing during the term of this Agreement.
A new employee not covered by paragraph one (1) above
who is covered by this Agreement shall, as a condition
of employment, become a member of the Union on the
forty-sixth (46th) day after a date of hire or transfer into
the bargaining unit and remain a member in good stand-
ing during the term of this Agreement.
Any other employee not covered under paragraphs one
(1) or two (2) who hereafter makes application to
become a member of the Union, shall, within thirty-one
(31) days thereafter, become and remain a member of the
Union in good standing during the term of this Agree-
ment.
Effective February 1, 1971, it shall become a condition
of employment that all employees covered by this Agree-
ment shall, at the expiration of forty-five (45) days of
continuous on-the-job employment , become and remain
members of the Union.
Failure to comply with the above conditions where ap-
plicable will make the affected employee subject to ter-
mination upon written request from the Union.
On September 21, 1970, Bray, business representative of
District Lodge 120, which includes Respondent herein, by
letter, advised Richard Black, Director of Industrial Rela-
tions for the Employer, inter alia:
Enclosed is a copy of the official letter of final notifica-
tion of Local Lodge 590 to those employees who have
"made application to the union for membership" but
who have failed to become members by tendering their
initiation fee and dues . This letter explains the em-
ployees' obligation under Article XXIV, paragraph 1, of
the Company-Union Agreement. It likewise explains the
penalty for failure to comply with Article XXIV.
The Union granted these employees an eight-one-day
[sic, 81-day] extension to comply with the Agreement.
You must admit that the Union has made every reasona-
ble effort to secure voluntary compliance ...
[The letter then listed the 41 employees whom Respond-
ent was requesting the employer to discharge, by reason
of the alleged delinquency in the matter of dues. Neither
of the Charging Parties, King and Sanner, are included.]
Attached to the Union's letter of September 21 to Black
was a copy of a form letter, bearing the date of September 19,
1970, signed by Bill Adkins, recording secretary of Respond-
ent, and inferentially mailed to members of the Union.' The
' Respondent was unable to produce evidence that its letter of September
19, 1970 , was, in fact , ever mailed to or came to the attention of either
Union's letter advised , inter alia, that application for union
membership "not later than 31 days after the date of the
execution of this agreement ," by action of the membership,
had been extended , for the purpose of deadline , from July 4
to September 1, 1970. McDonald related that this deadline
was later extended to October 31, 1970.
Alleged Unfair Labor Practit.es
The events relative to each of the Charging Parties are next
set forth, under the name of each.
Gary L. Sanner
The Employer's work record for Sanner reflects that he
was initially employed on March 3 , 1969. He was laid off
from November 7, 1969, until May 27, 1970. During this
period of time it appears that a strike commenced on January
10, 1970 , and was terminated on March 7 , 1970. While San-
ner did not participate actively in the activities of the Union
during the period of strike, he was not employed by the
Employer during that period. Sanner was employed from
May 27, 1970, until September 8, 1970, when he was placed
on a leave of absence by reason of an industrial injury . Sanner
was again employed from November 3, 1970, until August 9,
1971, when he was again placed on a leave of absence by
reason of an industrial injury.
Sanner related that he first filled out an application for
Union membership in August 1969, inferentially during the
Union 's organizing campaign . No initiation fee or dues were
collected. Sanner asserted at that time the employees were
advised that they would be apprised of the initiation fee at a
later time .' Sanner did not attend any union meetings be-
tween that time and August 1970, and it is reasonable to infer
that he did not attend any union meetings thereafter. On
August 24, 1970, Sanner was given a checkoff form by Filpot,
steward in the sheet metal department . He filled out the form
and returned it to Filpot the same day. This form contained,
inter alia, the home address of Sanner as of that time.' Black
related that the Union did not file this checkoff form with the
Employer until October 26, 1970.
During the last week of August, Sanner related that Filpot
advised him that he had to fill out a new membership applica-
tion form and pay an initiation fee.' Sanner credibly related
that he gave a money order, dated August 28, 1970, to Filpot,
in the amount of $12.00, to cover membership applications
and 1 month's dues for himself and his stepbrother, Lonnie
McCully. James Smith, secretary-treasurer, executed a re-
ceipt bearing such a notation.7 Sanner asserted that these dues
were for the month of August.'
Sanner or King , the Charging Parties herein
Respondent , in its brief, acknowledges no dues obligation resulted from
this application
Sanner related he moved in February 1971
I find no substance to the contention of the Respondent , in its brief, that
Sanner was inaccurate in describing the amount of $6 00 as an initiation fee
and a month 's dues McDonald related that there were no separate monthly
dues for the month when the initiation fee was applied
The receipt , dated August 28, bears the following notation "For two
applications-self and stepbrother (Lonnie McCully) "
Respondent , in its brief, would assert that these dues were applicable
to the month of July, explaining that they were applied to the last month
for which dues remained unpaid in the light of the moratorium, granted by
the membership , initially until September 1, and later until October 31, for
the application for membership, and consequently the application of the
Union-Security provision, I am unable to find any merit in a contention of
Respondent that dues were payable for months prior to the month of ap-
plication for membership
IAM, LOCAL 590 517
Sanner related that he cut his thumb and was on leave of
absence from September 8 to November 3, 1970. On Septem-
ber 21, he went to the plant to obtain his tools and talked to
Tony Harris, shop steward in the machine shop, about 3:30
p.m. He inquired of Harris what his dues would be, if any,
while he was off work. Harris advised him the dues would be
50 cents for any portion of the month up to 15 days. Harris
also advised him that he would have to make the payment to
McDonald, the Union treasurer. Sanner advised Harris he
did not know the location of the union hall. Harris advised
him it was on Mission Street, in Pomona, opposite General
Dynamics. Sanner asserted that he proceeded to the union
hall, accompanied by his wife, arriving there about 3 p.m.'
Sanner first went to the office of a different local of the same
International and was advised that Respondent was located
next door He went to the office of Respondent and found the
door locked. Sanner related that there had been a posting, at
the plant, that Monday was the only day the union office
would be open, and that it would be open between 2 and 5
p.m.10 Sanner related that he went to the back door and found
it also locked. Sanner returned to the union hall on Monday,
September 28, and on Monday, October 12, about 3 p.m., and
each time found the doors locked. Sanner returned to the
union hall on Monday, October 26, and found an auditor
from the International headquarters in Washington present.
McDonald was not there. Sanner inquired if he could pay his
dues to the auditor. The auditor responded that he could not
accept dues as he did not work there. The auditor advised him
that the dues were 50 cents per month for months when he
was off work. Sanner returned to the union hall, on Monday,
November 2, about 3 p.m., and again found the door locked."
Sanner returned to work on Tuesday, November 3, 1970.
Sanner, at that time, was on the swing shift, which com-
menced at 3:30 p.m. Sanner talked to Tony Harris, steward
in the machine shop, at Harris' machine. Sanner inquired of
Harris what Sanner's total dues would be and Harris advised
him it would be 50 cents for September, 50 cents for October,
and $7.60 for November. Sanner explained his reason for
inquiring was that Sanner did not know the amount he owed.
While Sanner had executed a checkoff form previously, he
was aware of the fact that he did not have a check due from
the Employer from which dues could be checked off. Sanner
then inquired if he could pay the amount to Harris. Harris
It is obvious if Sanner talked to Harris at 3.30 p in , as he related, he
could not have arrived at the union office at 3 p.m. If, as the Respondent
contends, the notice relative to the union office being open on Mondays,
from 2 to 5 p in , was not posted until after McDonald took office, on
October 7, it is possible that Sanner was in error as to the date of his first
trip to the union office However, I do not find this inaccuracy, if it is an
inaccuracy, of substantial importance to findings which follow
10 McDonald asserted this notice was first posted after he became secre-
tary-treasurer on October 7 1 find it unnecessary to resolve this conflict
" Sanner explained that he did not make any effort to contact McDonald
at work as they were not allowed to do so In addition, he did not know
McDonald, never having met him
McDonald asserted that when he became financial secretary, on October
7, 1970, he established office hours on every Monday, except the first
Monday of each month, from 2 to 5 p m. McDonald published these office
hours by notice posted on plant bulletin boards at all three plants
McDonald acknowledge he did not have a record of the time he was
actually present in the union office in October and November McDonald
was inconsistent in first asserting he was in the office on Mondays after
taking office "with the exception of going out to lunch, and going to the post
office, or to the bank, which was seldom," then asserting the business repre-
sentative posts a notice on the door when McDonald would not be there,
or would be late, on these Mondays McDonald admitted that union busi-
ness, details obscure, kept him away from the office on some Mondays
I credit the assertions of Sanner relative to the union office being closed
when he went there to pay his dues
responded that he was not allowed to accept money and that
Sanner would have to pay it to McDonald.12 Sanner acknowl-
edged that he made no further attempt, during 1970, to pay
McDonald.
Sanner credibly related that he did not attend any meetings
of the Union, including a meeting for ratification of the con-
tract at the time of settlement of the strike in March 1971."
Sanner did not see any handbills or union literature in regard
to employees who had signed membership applications and
inferentially were in default relative to dues payments. Sanner
credibly related that he did not receive any written or oral
communication, in 1970, from the Union relative to his dues
payment.
Under date of February 19, 1971, the Union, by letter over
the signature of McDonald, advised Black that 24 named
employees should be terminated at the close of their work
shift on March 1 by reason of their failure to comply with the
conditions of Article XXIV , union-security, of the collective-
bargaining agreement. Sanner and King were among those
listed. A copy of that letter was sent by registered mail to
Sanner and received by him on Friday, February 20. On
Monday, February 23, about 8 a.m., Sanner discussed this
letter with Black. Black advised Sanner that he must be in
arrears in his dues payments. Sanner and Black then checked
Sanner's work record and determined that the months in-
volved must have been September, October, and November. 14
The following morning , Sanner went to Black's office and in
Black's presence wrote a check, payable to the Union, in the
amount of $8.60, to cover dues of 50 cents for the month of
September, 50 cents for the month of October, and $7.60 for
the month of November. The same day Sanner had his wife
mail the check to the Union."
Sanner credibly related that he received no advice from the
Union relative to his deficiency, either before or after mailing
of the check, other than a copy of the letter to Black. 16 During
the first week of March, Sanner received an envelope contain-
ing his check, which contained a notation that it had been
voided, together with a check from Respondent in the
amount of $22.70, dated March 9." There was no letter of
" Harris was not called as a witness, and Respondent made no explana-
tion of its failure to call him
Respondent, in its brief, asserts that Sanner had full knowledge that shop
stewards were not bonded and, inferentially, thus not permitted to collect
dues, "as required by the Labor Management Relations Act " If Respondent
thus would attribute knowledge of the Act to Sanner, or knowledge of the
limitations the Union placed on stewards, I find such contentions without
merit
" While Respondent produced no evidence to the contrary, it asserts in
its brief that the fact that Sanner's work record lists him as "eligible for
recall" implies he attended the March 7 meeting No evidence requires or
would support such a finding
" The months claimed by Respondent are August, September, and Octo-
ber Respondent, in its brief, urges that by reason of Sanner applying for
membership in 1969, his August payment was applied to July 1970, and his
membership lapsed by his failure to pay 50 cents in September and October
"substitution for dues while on leave of absence " McDonald asserted San.
ncr's membership lapsed on October 31
" This check, inaccurately dated January 23, rather than February 23, is
in evidence
" While McDonald asserted that he mailed a notice of deficiency to
Sanner on approximately January 20, the Respondent was unable to
produce a copy of the letter The Respondent did produce a return registered
receipt, signed by Peggy L Sanner, who credibly related the letter contained
some information about an election The record is such that I am unable to
find the recitation of McDonald, absent a copy of the letter, adequate to
establish that Sanner was advised of his deficiency on or about January 21
McDonald was inaccurate and unpersuasive
" On March 17, 1971, Black supplied Sanner with a record of dues
deductions made, pursuant to his checkoff authorization, reflecting pay-
ments to the Respondent of December 1970, $7 50, January 1971, $7 50;
(Cont.)
518 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
explanation accompanying these checks , and the checks were
wrapped in a plain sheet of white paper.18
By letter dated March 9 , signed by McDonald , addressed
to Black , Respondent advised the Employer that it was re-
questing the termination of six named employees , including
Sanner and King , for nonpayment of dues. Sanner did not
receive a copy of this letter from the Respondent but did
receive a copy of it from Black on March 17 . On March 17,
Black , by letter , advised Sanner that he would be terminated
April 1 by reason of a demand made by the Respondent,
through its secretary -treasurer , because of asserted noncom-
pliance on the part of Sanner with article XXIV of the collec-
tive-bargaining agreement . The letter asserts that the em-
ployer accepts no responsibility for this action.
Sanner related that he was advised by Black that he would
be required to pay a $75 .00 reinstatement fee to the Union if
he were to avoid a discharge ." Sanner related that he sent a
check for $75.00, together with a check for $8 . 60, and re-
turned the Union's check of $22.70 , and all of this was for-
warded to Respondent , inferentially approximately March
17.
Black acknowledged that , in oral discussions with Bray, he
was advised that Sanner 's name should be removed from the
list of those to be terminated by reason of Respondent's re-
ceipt of the reinstatement fee. Subsequently , on March 23,
Bray , by letter to Black , advised the Employer to remove
Sanner's name from the list of those to be discharged, by
reason of the payment of the $75.00 reinstatement fee.
It is undisputed that the Employer did not advise the Un-
ion when employees were off the payroll by reason of layoff,
including a layoff resulting from an industrial accident. Mc-
Donald asserted that the Union did not know that Sanner was
unemployed during the period from September 8 to Novem-
ber 3.2°
When King returned on March 4 , he called the plant and
was advised of the existence of the strike . King related that
he then called the union hall the same day and was advised
that a meeting was scheduled for Saturday , March 7. King
attended the meeting and was advised that the employees
were to return to work on Monday , March 9 . King was not
recalled at that time . In March or April, King inquired of an
unidentified employees as to what was going on and was
advised there was an initiation fee of $6 . 50. King related that
he mailed this amount to the Union but never received an
acknowledgement or a membership card.21
King returned to work on August 25 , 1970, and was laid
off on November 27, 1970. During this period of time, on
November 15, King sent a money order in the amount of
$7.50 to the Union.22
King credibly related that after he returned to work, in
August 1970 , he did not talk to anyone from the Union
relative to dues obligations , during that entire period of em-
ployment , ending November 27. King asserted that he
learned from other employees that the dues were $7.50 a
month . King related that he contemplated a layoff in Septem-
ber, and again in October , neither of which occurred. It was
for this reason that he decided in November that he should
forward a payment , which he did.
The layoff of King lasted from November 27, 1970, until
February 8, 1971. King related that one of the employees,
whom he identified as Jim Grice, had a list with about 27
names of employees on it, whom Grice advised had to pay an
initiation fee of $75 .00. King saw this list sometime after
February 15. King acknowledged his name was on the list."
King asserted that he had learned a few days previously
that Bob Bannacky was "the steward." King located Ban-
nacky and inquired as to the meaning of the communication.
Bannacky advised that all of those listed had to pay $75.00.
Paul King, II
The Employer 's work record for King reflects that he was
initially employed on August 11, 1969. He was laid off on
November 7, 1969 and was reemployed on August 25, 1970.
During this period of time the strike commenced on January
10, 1970, and continued until March 7, 1970 . King was again
laid off on November 27, 1970, and reemployed on February
8, 1971. King was terminated , at the request of the Union for
alleged nonpayment of dues, on April 2, 1971. King was
reemployed on May 5 , 1971, and was employed at the time
of the hearing , August 19.
King did not know if he was a member of Respondent. He
did not know if he had ever signed a membership application.
King credibly related that after his layoff in November 1969
he left the State of California for a period approximating 4 to
5 months, returning on March 4 , 1970. King 's membership
application is dated August 1969.
February 1971, $7 60; and March 1971, $7 60
" McDonald asserted the $22.70 was returned in March because, "He
[Sanner] had lapsed out. He was no longer a member That's why I sent his
money back " Asked why the money was not returned upon receipt, Mc-
Donald explained , "Because I felt certain he would come down and finish
paying his reinstatement fee"
These amounts were Employer deductions . McDonald gave no explana-
tion of why he expected Sanner to pay the balance of a reinstatement fee
McDonald asserted the initiation fee was $75 00 commencing November 1,
and the reinstatement fee was $75 . 00 after that date
19 I have found, supra, that McDonald, in effect, corroborated the neces-
sity of such a payment relative to Sanner's asserted " lapse" of membership.
1° However, there can be no question that Harris, union steward, knew
these facts
" While King asserted he paid this amount by money order, it is not
credited on the Union records. King did not produce any evidence of this
payment I find it unnecessary to make any finding relative to it, for reasons
explicated infra.
" McDonald acknowledged that the Union's dues record of King re-
flected credits of a $6 00 payment applied to July and $1 50 applied to
August McDonald asserted that when monies were received they were
credited to earlier months than the date of receipt, if dues for such a month
were unpaid. McDonald asserted that the card also indicated that King's
membership lapsed on October 31
McDonald acknowledged the $7 50 credited to July and August were
received in November . It appears undisputed that King was unemployed
during the entire month of July and was employed only during the last 5
working days in the month of August McDonald did not take issue with
the recitation of Sanner , that Sanner was advised by Harris, steward in the
machine shop, that dues for members were 50 cents a month during months
of unemployment
This would also appear applicable to months where the employees worked
only a few days While it was stipulated that the Grand Lodge constitution
of the International provides that a member cancels his membership by
nonpayment of dues for a period of 90 days, there is no evidence of the
application of this provision to a person who is not a member, as was
apparently true in the case of King I am unable to find any evidence from
which an accurate conclusion can be drawn as to whether asserted dues
deficiencies are applicable to months of unemployment, or a month where
an employee works only 5 days
McDonald's assertion that when a check, and inferentially any other
payment, is received from the Employer, it is applied to the last unpaid
month, but only so long as the member is still in good standing , is inaccurate
If, as asserted by McDonald, King 's membership lapsed on October 31, his
payment thereafter on November 15 was after that date. The same applies
to the dues deduction payments received from the Employer for the account
of Sanner after his asserted lapse of membership.
E1 I find it reasonable to imply that this was a copy of the Respondent's
letter of February 19, to Black, containing 24 names, supra, in which the
Union requested termination of those named
IAM, LOCAL 590 519
King responded that he only owed for 2 months, October and
November, which amounted to $15.00. King also advised
Bannacky that he had heard there was a 50-cent charge for
months off which made a total of $16.00. King explained that
he had been off during December and January. Bannacky
responded that Bannacky would check and let King know the
following day. King credibly related that the following day
Bannacky advised King that all he owed was $16.00 and he
would be all clear." King did not offer to pay the $16.00 at
that time.
King related that there was a sign on the bulletin board
that McDonald, secretary-treasurer, would be at the union
hall between 2 and 5 p.m. on Friday, February 19. King
described this as a special notice. King at that time was
working on the swing shift, which commenced at 3:30 p.m.
King went to the union hall at 2 p.m. on February 19 and
found the front and back doors were locked. King described
a sign on the door as stating that it would be open from 2 to
5 p.m. King described another employee, whose first name is
Alex, as also being present. King waited until 3 p.m. at the
union office. He then went to work.2S King related that the
union office was also supposed to be open on Mondays from
2 to 5 p.m. King returned to the union hall at 2- p.m. on
Monday, February 22. He found the same employee present
as previously. They found the doors locked.26 King remained
until 3 p.m. and then went to work. King then went to talk
to Bannacky and inquired as to what he should do. Bannacky
advised King that there was nothing to do but try again.
King mailed a check in the amount of $16.00 to Respond-
ent on February 26, 1971, and advised Bannacky of his inten-
tion to do so. This check was returned to King, by Respond-
ent, on March 11, with an endorsement on the reverse side
stamped void. King took the returned check to the shop and
showed it to Bob Bannacky. King then inquired what he
could do. Bannacky responded that he did not know. King
advised Bannacky that King wanted to see McDonald. Ban-
nacky responded that McDonald was "not in," that Ban-
nacky had no idea when he would be back, and suggested that
King see Larry, the night steward in the machine shop. Larry
advised King to talk to Sanner. King advised Larry that King
would not pay a $75.00 reinstatement fee. Sanner advised him
that the best thing he could do was to talk "to the NLRB and
file charges".
King credibly related that he had not received any com-
munication from the Union advising him that he was in
arrears in the payment of dues.21 The first notice he received
was a letter from the Employer signed by Black, dated March
17, advising him that he would be terminated on April 1, by
reason of a demand from McDonald, secretary-treasurer of
Respondent. The reason stated was noncompliance with arti-
cle XXIV of the collective-bargaining agreement. The Em-
ployer also advised that it accepted no responsibility for the
contemplated action.
" Bannacky did not appear as a witness and the Union made no explana-
tion of its failure to call him
" McDonald asserted he was in the union office 8 hours on February 19,
except he went out for lunch He "presumed" the doors were unlocked
"unless the last person going out locked them." He usually goes in the back
door which is closer to his office On this conflict, I credit King
" McDonald asserted the doors were unlocked on February 22 On this
conflict, I credit King
" McDonald asserted he had mailed a letter to King , on January 20,
1971, advising King of his dues obligations , which was returned with a
notation "Refused " The certified mail receipt reflects the letter was mailed
to King's former address, from which he had moved in July 1970 King's
check, in the amount of $16 00, dated February 26, contains his correct
address
By telegram on April 5, King was advised to report to the
personnel office. Upon reporting, he was advised of his dis-
charge. King returned to work for the Employer on May 5.
The circumstances of his rehiring are obscure.
I have found, supra, that on February 19, 1971, by letter,
Respondent requested the Employer to discharge 24 named
employees, including Sanner and King; Respondent made a
subsequent demand, by letter of March 9, for the discharge
of 6 named employees, including both Sanner and King; on
March 23, Respondent notified the Employer to remove the
name of Sanner but again requested the discharge of 3 em-
ployees, including King; by letter of March 29, Respondent
reduced this number to 2, including King.
Black related that between February 19 and the termina-
tion of King, he had 10 to 15 conversations with various
union officials, including McDonald, Bray, Ridgon, presi-
dent, and Harold Neibur, chief steward. Black explained that
he asserted that the Employer did not feel it should rush into
terminating people, particularly by reason of past union de-
mands for terminations which were subsequently withdrawn.
The Employer desired to avoid terminating any employee
unjustly. Black called attention to the substantial reduction
in the number for whom the Union sought termination be-
tween the dates of February 19 and March 9. Black asserted
that the union officials assured him that the employees had
been given ample opportunity to satisfy their obligations.
Black acknowledged that he was advised, by the union offi-
cials, that employees' names would be deleted if payments
were made within a stated time. The Union did file two
grievances involving the failure of the Employer to discharge
Sanner and King.
King credibly denied ever being advised, by the Union, that
his dues had to be paid within 90 days to avoid a lapse of
membership, and he denied any knowledge of the constitu-
tion of the International.
Concluding Findings
The allegations of the consolidated complaint are consid-
ered seriatim.
It is alleged that on or about March 8, 1971, Respondent
attempted to cause the Employer to discharge Sanner for
nonpayment of dues pursuant to the provisions of the union-
security clause at a time when Sanner was under no statutory
obligation to pay such dues.
The evidence establishes that the collective- bargaining
agreement was entered into on June 3, 1970. Its provisions
contained , inter alia, provisions for union-security requiring
an employee to make application for membership not later
than 31 days after the date of the execution of the agreement.
This deadline was extended to October 31. Sanner applied for
membership on August 28, 1970, and simultaneously paid the
initiation fee, which included 1 month's dues. Respondent
applied this payment to the month of July. It is the erroneous
contention of the Respondent that Sanner's membership
lapsed, by reason of nonpayment of dues for the months of
August, September, and October, and thus the lapse occurred
on October 31, 1970.
It is undisputed that Sanner was on a leave of absence, by
reason of an industrial injury, from September 8, to Novem-
ber 3, 1970. McDonald related that an employee is not re-
quired to pay dues "as such" when he is not working. Mc-
Donald then asserted an employee who is not working is
supposed to pay 50 cents a month unemployment dues. Mc-
Donald asserted that, since the Employer did not advise the
Union of the layoff of employees, the Union did not know of
the layoff of Sanner. However, I have found, supra, that
Sanner did advise Harris, union steward, of the fact of his
layoff. I find it reasonable to imply that this constituted
520 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
knowledge to the Union . Accordingly , I find that Sanner's
membership obligations were not in default , as asserted by
Respondent , on October 31.
In addition , I find that Sanner made every reasonable effort
to make the required payments and was unable to do so only
because the Union office was not open when he sought to
tender the payments . In addition , Sanner attempted to make
payment to the International auditor , and to steward Harris,
both of whom declined to accept the payment from Sanner.
It is alleged that on or about March 8 , 1971, Respondent
attempted to cause the Employer to dischar#e Sanner without
first informing Sanner of his dues obligations and without
affording Sanner a reasonable opportunity to satisfy such
dues obligations.
I have found , supra, from undisputed evidence that such
a request was made by Respondent to the Employer without
prior notice to Sanner on February 19, 1971, and thereafter
renewed on March 9. As a result, on March 17, Black advised
Sanner that he would be terminated on April 1. Respondent's
letter to Black, of March 23, 1971, requests the removal of
Sanner 's name from the list of those to be terminated, by
reason of his submitting a $75.00 reinstatement fee.
It is undisputed that on February 23, 1971, Sanner had
forwarded a check to Respondent , in the amount of $8.60, to
cover the month of November, as well as the 50-cent-per-
month unemployment dues for September and October. I
have found that this check , together with a check of Respond-
ent for dues which had been deducted by the Employer pur-
suant to a dues checkoff authorization for the months of
December, January, and February, were forwarded to San-
ner. According to McDonald , this was by reason of Sanner's
membership having lapsed on October 31.
While McDonald asserted that the Union had publicized
the request for members to advise the Union of any change
of address or any layoff, McDonald acknowledged that he
had no knowledge whether such notices ever came to the
attention of either Sanner or King. McDonald asserted San-
ner and King would only have knowledge of it if they had
attended union meetings or read a newsletter . There is no
evidence Sanner ever attended a union meeting or read a
newsletter, and King attended only the meeting at the termi-
nation of the strike.
It is alleged that on or about April 2, 1971, Respondent
caused Employer to discharge King for nonpayment of dues
pursuant to the provision of the union-security clause at a
time when King was under no statutory obligation to pay
such dues.
I have found that King was laid off on November 7, 1969,
and recalled on August 25, 1970. King was again laid off on
November 27, 1970, and recalled on February 8, 1971. It is
thus patent that King was unemployed during the period
commencing June 3, 1970, when the collective -bargaining
agreement was executed, until August 25 . On November 15,
1970, King remitted the amount of $7.50. McDonald credited
this payment as $6.00 for the month of July and $1.50 toward
dues for the month of August. It is apparent that dues were
not due and payable from King for months when he was
unemployed , and this included July and August . I find it
reasonable to infer, from the information supplied by Harris
to Sanner, that dues would not be payable by King for the
month of August, since there were only 5 workdays com-
mencing on the date of his recall in that month. Since King's
dues obligation would appear to be limited to the months of
September and October, it follows that McDonald's assertion
that King was delinquent , by reason of nonpayment of dues
months of September and October, and that he had remitted
the appropriate amount of dues for one of those 2 months.
King was in layoff status during the months of December
1970 and January 1971. Accordingly, there was no further
dues liability on the part of King, during that period, except
for the 50-cent-per-month unemployment dues.
It is alleged that on or about April 2, 1971, Respondent
caused the Employer to discharge King without first inform-
ing King of his dues obligations, pursuant to the provisions
of the union-security clause and without affording King a
reasonable opportunity to satisfy such dues obligations.
I have found undisputed King's assertion that he received
no notice of dues obligations directly from the Respondent at
any time prior to the union letter of February 19 to the
Employer. I have also found King's efforts to make payment
at the union office were frustrated by reason of the unavaila-
bility of anyone to accept such payments. When King did
remit $16.00, to cover the months of October and November
as well as the 50-cent unemployment dues for the months of
December and January, this amount was returned by Re-
spondent . McDonald 's recitation requires a conclusion that
this amount was remitted because it was not sufficient to
constitute a payment of the reinstatement fee of $75.00, to
which the Union was not at that time entitled. That the
Union instigated and obtained the discharge of King is not
undisputed.
It is undisputed that Sanner avoided discharge only by
paying a $75.00 reinstatement fee. I find it reasonable to infer
that King was required to pay a like fee to obtain reinstate-
ment on May 5, 1971.
The provisions of the union-security clause are next consid-
ered. The first clause provides that an employee covered by
this Agreement "who has made application to the Union for
membership" shall no later than 31 days after the date of the
execution of the Agreement become and remain a member of
the Union in good standing during the term of the agreement.
While both Sanner and King signed applications for member-
ship forms in August 1969, it must be concluded that the
Union disregarded those applications. Otherwise there would
have been no reason for Filpot advising Sanner that a new
membership application was required on August 28, 1970.
King did not make such an application in 1970.
The second provision is that an employee not covered by
the above provision but who is covered by the agreement
shall, as a condition of employment, become a member of the
Union on the 46th day after the date of hire. In the case of
King, since he was rehired on August 25, it would appear that
he would have had 46 days thereafter before a dues liability
would attach.
The third provision is that any other employee, not covered
by one of the two preceding provisions, who makes applica-
tion to become a member shall, within 31 days (inferentially
after employment) become and remain a member of the Un-
ion during the term of the agreement. Finally it is provided
that effective February 1, 1971, it shall be a condition of
employment that all employees covered by the agreement
shall, at the expiration of 45 days of continuous on-the-job
employment, become and remain members of the Union.
It is undisputed that the initiation fee was $6.00 until Octo-
ber 31, 1970, and that payment of that amount constituted
the payment of 1 month's dues. After October 31, 1970, the
initiation fee, and a reinstatement fee, were , in each instance,
$75.00.
The facts in the Aerojet-General Corporation case28 are
for a period of 90 days, and that his membership consequently =• Rocket and Guided Missile Lodge 946, International Association of
lapsed on October 31 , 1970 , must be considered erroneous. It Machinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO (Aerojet-General Corpora-
follows that King's dues obligations applied only to the non), 186 NLRB No 77
IAM, LOCAL 590 521
squarely in point relative to the matter of the Union's duty
to inform the employee of his obligations, to permit the em-
ployee to protect his job tenure. In that case, the Board said:29
Both the Board and the courts had held that a union seeking
to enforce the union-security provision against an employee
has a "fiduciary" duty to "deal fairly" with the employee
affected. "At a minimum this duty requires the union to
inform the employee of his obligations in order that the em-
ployee may take whatever action is necessary to protect his
job tenure."J0
In the Conductron case" the Board found a failure on the
part of the Union to adequately advise an employee of his
obligation to pay unemployment dues, during a period of
unemployment, where the Union obtained a discharge of said
employee, a failure on the part of the Union to meet its
obligations constituting conduct violative of Section 8(b)(2)
and (1)(A) of the Act. The Board reaffirmed its earlier
findings12 that the Union may not evade its duty and then
demand the dismissal of the employee when he becomes de-
linquent in the payment of his dues.
In the Spector Freight case" the Board held that the Un-
ion's insistence upon an employee's discharge predicated
upon nonpayment of dues for a prehire period was violative
of Section 8(b)(2) and (1)(A) of the Act.
Accordingly, for the reason stated, I find that Respondent,
by attempting to cause the Employer to discharge Sanner on
or about February 19 and March 9, 1971, and by causing the
Employer to discharge King, on April 2, 1971, for failure, in
each instance, to pay a reinstatement fee to which Respond-
ent was not entitled, thereby caused, and attempted to cause,
the Employer to discriminate in regard to the hire and tenure
of employment, or terms and conditions of employment, of
each employee, in violation of Section 8(a)(3), and thus en-
gaged in conduct which constituted unfair labor practices
within the meaning of Section 8(b)(2) and (1)(A) of the Act.
IV THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR
PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of Respondent, set forth in section III, above,
occurring in connection with the business operations of
Wayne Manufacturing Company, set forth in section I,
above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to
trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States, and
such of them as have been found to be unfair labor practices
tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing
commerce and the free flow of commerce.
V THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in unfair
labor practices, I shall recommend that it cease and desist
therefrom and that it take certain affirmative action designed
to effectuate the policies of the Act. I have found that Re-
spondent unlawfully sought and obtained the discharge of
Paul King, II, on April 2, 1971. However, I have also found
that Paul King, II, was reemployed by Wayne on May 5,
1971, under circumstances which are obscure in this record.
Therefore, I shall recommend that Respondent be ordered to
notify the Employer that it has no objection to the continued
employment of Paul King , II, and that Respondent make him
whole for any loss of pay he may have suffered by payment
to him of a sum of a money equal to that which he would have
earned as an employee of Wayne Manufacturing Company,
between April 2, 1971, and May 5, 1971, less his net earnings
during said period. Said payment shall be computed in the
manner established in N.L.R.B. v. Seven-Up Bottling Ca,
Inc., 344 U.S. 344. Interest on backpay shall be computed in
the manner set forth in Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., Inc., 138
NLRB 716."
In addition , I shall order Respondent to repay King the
reinstatement fee, if any , paid by King to obtain reemploy-
ment . I will further recommend that Respondent make Gary
L. Sanner whole by repayment to him of the reinstatement
fee, which Respondent obtained solely by reason of its persist-
ence that it would insist, improperly, upon the discharge of
Sanner in the event such payment was not made."
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1 Wayne Manufacturing Company is an employer within
the meaning of Section 2(2), engaged in commerce within the
meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. Respondent is a labor organization within the meaning
of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. By causing Wayne Manufacturing Company to dis-
charge Paul King, II, on April 2, 1971, and by attempting to
cause said Employer to discharge Gary L . Sanner on or about
March 9 , 1971, thereby causing, and attempting to cause, the
Employer to discriminate in regard to the hire or tenure of
employment or terms or conditions of employment of said
employees in violation of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act, Respond-
ent has engaged in, and is engaging in, unfair labor practices
within the meaning of Section 8(b)(2) and (1)(A) of the Act.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor
practices affecting commerce within the meaning of the Act.
RECOMMENDED ORDER36
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclu-
sions of law, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, I
hereby recommend that International Association of Ma-
chinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO, Local Lodge
590, its officers, agents , and representatives, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Causing or attempting to cause Wayne Manufacturing
Company to discharge an employee in violation of Section
8(a)(3) of the Act, or otherwise to discriminate against an
employee in regard to his hire or tenure of employment or
terms or conditions of employment.
(b) In any like or related manner restraining or coercing
employees of Wayne Manufacturing Company in the exercise
of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, except to the
" Id
10 Citing NL R B v Hotel, Motel and Club Employees' Union, Local
568, 320 F 2d 254, 258 (C A 3), enfg 136 NLRB 888 Accord NL.R.B.
v Local 182, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, 401 F 2d 509 (C A
2), cert denied 394 U S 213, enfg 156 NLRB 335, amended 169 NLRB
No 164, International Union of Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers v
NL R B, 307 F 2d 679, 683 (C A D C ), cert. denied 371 U S. 936, enfg
129 NLRB 1379, and 130 NLRB 1286, Teamsters Local Union No 122,
I B T (August A Busch & Co of Mass, Inc), 173 NLRB No 194 , Granite
City Steel Company, 169 NLRB 1009
" Conductron Corporation, 183 NLRB No 54
" Hotel, Motel and Club Employees' Union, Local 568, supra
" Spector Freight System, Inc, 123 NLRB 43, 44
31 Local No 4, United Slate, Tile, Composition Roofers, Damp and Water-
proof Workers Association, AFL-CIO (Avon Sheet Metal Co.), 140 NLRB
384
" Local Union No. 749, International Brotherhood ofBoilermakers, Iron
Shipbuilders, Blacksmiths, Forgers & Helpers, AFL-CIO (California & Blow-
pipe & Steel Co, Inc) 192 NLRB No 58
" In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Section 102 46 of
the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the
findings, conclusions , recommendations , and Recommended Order herein
shall, as provided in Section 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
522 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
extent that such rights may be affected by the agreement
requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition
of employment in accordance with Section 8(a)(3) of the Act,
as modified by the Labor Management Reporting and Disclo-
sure Act of 1959.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to effec-
tuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Notify Wayne Manufacturing Company that the Re-
spondent has no objection to the employment of Paul King,
II, and furnish Paul King, II, a copy of such notification.
(b) Refund to each employee of the Employer, including
Gary L. Sanner and Paul King, II, who, between October 31,
1970, and May 5, 1971, were required by Respondent to pay
a reinstatement fee such as has been found herein to be im-
properly assessed, the sum of $75.00.
(c) Make Paul King, II, whole for any loss of pay he may
have suffered by reason of his discharge between the dates of
April 2, 1971 and May 5, 1971, as provided in "The Remedy"
herein.
(d) Rescind, in a writing sent to the Employer, its request
for the termination of Gary L. Sanner and Paul King, II.
(e) Notify Gary L. Sanner and Paul King, II, in writing,
if they are still employed by the Employer, that it has re-
scinded its request for their termination of employment and
that it will not require them to perform any act or pay any
monies as a condition of continued employment, except to
pay that sum of money which is uniformly required as an
initiation fee or periodic dues in accordance with an agree-
ment requiring membership in Respondent as authorized in
Section 8(a)(3) of the Act.
(f) Post at its offices and its meeting places where members
who are employed by the Employer meet copies of the at-
tached notice marked "Appendix".31 Copies of said notice, on
forms to be provided by the Regional Director for Region 21,
shall after being duly signed by Respondent's representatives
be posted by Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof
and be maintained by Respondent for 60 consecutive days
thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where
notices to members are customarily posted. Reasonable steps
shall be taken by Respondent to insure that said notices are
not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(g) Upon receipt from said Regional Director of additional
copies of said notice, sign them and mail them to the Regional
Director for Region 21, for posting at the plant of the Em-
ployer at Pomona, California, the Employer being willing so
to do.
(h) Notify said Regional Director, in writing, within 20
days from the date of the receipt of this Trial Examiner's
Decision, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply
therewith. It is further recommended that, unless on or before
20 days from the date of the receipt of this Trial Examiner's
Decision the Respondent shall notify said Regional Director,
in writing, that it will comply with the Recommended Or-
der," the National Labor Relations Board issue an order
requiring the Respondent to take the action aforesaid.
" 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 be changed to read
"Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals,
enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board"
11 In the event that this Recommended Order be adopted by the Board,
this provision shall be modified to read "Notify said Regional Director, in
writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order what steps Respondent
has taken to comply herewith"