Local Union No. 391, IBT

National Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsJan 21, 1974

208 N.L.R.B. 540 (N.L.R.B. 1974)

540 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Local Union No . 391, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Help- ers of Americas and Chattanooga Division , Vulcan Materials Company. Case 10-CC-872 January 21, 1974 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS KENNEDY AND PENJLLO On April 12, 1973, Administrative Law Judge Max Rosenberg issued the attached Decision in this proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent filed exceptions and a supporting brief, and the General Counsel and Charging Party each filed cross-exceptions and a supporting brief. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board has delegated its authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. The Board has considered the record and the attached Decision in light of the exceptions and briefs and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings,2 and conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge and to adopt his recommended Order as modified herein. ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board adopts as its Order the recommend- ed Order of the Administrative Law Judge. as modified below, and hereby orders that Respondent, Local Union No. 391, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, Greensboro, North Carolina, its officers, agents, and representatives, shall take the action set forth in the said recommended Order, as modified below. 1. In the first sentence of the Administrative Law Judge's recommended Order, change "CW & H of All to "Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America."' 2. Substitute the attached notice for that of the Administrative Law Judge. i As amended at the hearing 1 The Administrative Law Judge made certain inadvertent errors in his Decision which are corrected as follows 1 In sec. III, par 4, delete the second sentence and substitute therefor the following "As chronicled above, Vulcan is a New Jersey corporation with its principal offices located in Birmingham , where it engages in the manufacture and marketing of chemicals secondary metals, and heavy construction materials through a chemicals group , a metals group , and five construction divisions within a construction materials group " 2 In sec ill, par 5 , delete the second and third sentences and substitute therefor the following "The corporate structure of Vulcan consists of a board of directors and a chairman of the hoard, an executive committee appointed by the board and a chairman of the executive committee, and two executive vice presidents , one for the chemicals and metals groups and one for the construction materials group . In turn, each division is headed by a divisional president who is responsible to the appropriate executive committee and to the board of directors for the efficient and economic operation of the division, for the general manage- ment of the division , and for the control and profits of the division - APPENDIX NOTICE To MEMBERS POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government WE WILL NOT engage in, induce, or encourage any individual employed by Chattanooga Divi- sion, Vulcan Materials Company, to engage in a strike or refusal in the course of such individual's employment to use, manufacture, process, trans- port, or otherwise handle or work on any goods, articles, materials, or commodities, or to perform any services, where an object thereof is to force or require Chattanooga Division, Vulcan Materials Company to cease doing business with persons engaged in commerce, or in an industry affecting commerce, or to force or require persons engaged in commerce or an industry affecting commerce to cease doing business with Chattanooga Divi- sion, Vulcan Materials Company. WE WILL NOT threaten, coerce, or restrain Chattanooga Division, Vulcan Materials Compa- ny, or any other person engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce, where an object thereof, is to force or require Chattanooga Division, Vulcan Materials Company, to cease doing business with persons engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce, or to force or require persons engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce to cease doing business with Chattanooga Division, Vulcan Materials Company. LOCAL UNION No. 391, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMS rERS , CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN AND HELPERS OF AMERICA (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. 208 NLRB No. 81 LOCAL UNION NO. 391, IBT Any questions concerning this notice or compli- ance with its provisions may be directed to the Board's Office, Peachtree Building, Room 701, 730 Peachtree Street, NE, Atlanta, Georgia 30308, Telephone 404-526-5760. DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE MAX ROSENBERG, Administrative Law Judge: With all parties represented, this case was tried before me in Chattanooga, Tennessee, and Atlanta, Georgia, on Decem- ber 14, 1972, and January 16, 1973, on a complaint filed by the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board and an answer interposed thereto by Local Union No. 391, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauf- feurs, Warehousemen and. Helpers of America, herein called the Respondent.' The issue raised by the pleadings relates to whether Respondent violated Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, by picketing at the premises of Chattanooga Division, Vulcan Materials Company, herein called Chat- tanooga. Briefs have been filed by the General Counsel, Chattanooga, and the Respondent, which have been duly considered. Upon the entire record made in this proceeding,z I hereby make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER Chattanooga maintains an office and place of business in Chattanooga, Tennessee, where it is engaged in the processing and retailing of gravel, asphalt, and ready-mix concrete. During the past calendar year, Chattanooga processed, sold, and distributed its products valued in excess of $50,000 directly to customers located outside the State of Tennessee. Mideast division of Vulcan Materials Company, herein called Mideast, has its principal office and place of business in Winston-Salem, North Carolina, where it is engaged in the processing, sale, and distribution of crushed stone. During the annual period material to this proceed- ing, Mideast sold and shipped its products valued in excess of $50,000 directly to customers located outside the State of North Carolina. Vulcan Materials Company, herein called Vulcan, a New Jersey corporation with its principal office in Birmingham, Alabama, is engaged in the manufacture of chemicals, secondary metals, and heavy construction materials. Vulcan is comprised of seven divisions: the Southeast division, the Chattanooga division, the Midsouth division, 1 The complaint, which issued on November 20, 1972, is based on charges filed and served on October 24, 1972, and amended charges which were filed and served on November 14, 1972 2 The record herein, by agreement of all parties, is comprised of the record made in a 10(1) proceeding before the Honorable Frank W Wilson, United States District Court Judge for the Eastern District of Tennessee on December 4 and 5, 1972, together with the exhibits introduced therein (exclusive of Resp Exh 32) and the exhibits introduced herein The General Counsel's motion to correct transcript of the record made 541 the Mideast division, the Midwest division, the metals division, and the chemical division. I find that Mideast and Chattanooga are employers engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED The Respondent is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES The General Counsel contends that Respondent violated Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (u)(B) when, in the course of an economic strike called against Mideast , Respondent extended the work stoppage and picket line to the premises of Chattanooga, a neutral employer, thereby inducing and encouraging individuals employed by Chattanooga to cease work, and forcing or requiring Chattanooga to cease doing business with its customers and suppliers, or forcing and requiring Chattanooga's customers and suppliers to cease doing business with it. For its part, Respondent claims that Chattanooga was not a separate "person" to the dispute between Mideast and Respondent, and therefore its picketing at Chattanooga's work situs was legally privileged. Section 8(b)(4) of the Act makes it an unfair labor practice for unions to (i) induce or encourage individuals employed by any "person" to engage in a strike, or to (ii) to threaten, coerce, or restrain any "person," where in either case an object thereof is (B) to force or require any "person" to cease doing business with any other person. Section 2(1) of the Act provides that "the term `person' includes one or more individuals, labor organizations, partnerships, associations, corporations, legal representa- tives, trustees, trustees in bankruptcy, or receivers." The Board has held, with court approval, that separate corporate divisions are separate "persons," and, as such, are entitled to the protection of Section 8(b)(4)(B) from the labor disputes of the other, if neither the division nor the parent exercises actual or active, as opposed to merely potential, control over the everyday operations or labor relations of the other.3 Thus, whether Respondent's strike against Chattanooga was clothed with legality depends upon whether or not that business entity occupied the status of a "person" within the statutory scheme. The facts giving rise to the instant litigation are not in essential dispute and I find them to be as follows. As chronicled above, Vulcan is a New Jersey corporation with its principal offices located in Birmingham, where it engages in the manufacture and marketing of chemicals, secondary metals, and heavy construction materials through a chemicals division, a metals division, and five before Judge Wilson is hereby granted I also hereby grant Respondent's motion to receive additional exhibits which consist of Resp Exh 60 and purports to be a 1972 statement of earnings , and Resp Exh 61, which is a Xerox copy of gasoline credit cards bearing the name of Vulcan Materials Company which were used by an employee of Mideast division of Vulcan 3 Los Angeles Newspaper Guild, Local 69 (San Francisco and Los Angeles Herald-Examiner, Division of Hearst Corporation), 185 NLRB 303, and cases cited in In 5, enfd 443 F 2d 1173 (C A 9, 1971) 542 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD construction divisions. The chemicals division is headquar- tered in Wichita, Kansas. The metals division is situated in Sandusky, Ohio. The five construction divisions and their locations are: Chattanooga division-Chattanooga, Ten- nessee ; Mideast division-Winston-Salem, North Caroli- na; Midwest division-Chicago, Illinois; Midsouth divi- sion-Knoxville, Tennessee; and, Southeastern division- -Birmingham, Alabama: Each of the construction divi- sions produces and markets its products in the geographi- cal areas which they serve and does not compete with the other divisions. Mideast, which operates in the States of North Carolina and Virginia, produces crushed stone. Chattanooga, which services the Chattanooga area, prod- uces crushed stone and ready-mixed concrete. The chief executive officers of Vulcan are located in Birmingham, Alabama. The corporate structure of Vulcan consists of a chairman, a board of directors, an executive committee appointed by the board, and executive vice presidents who are in charge of the chemicals, metals, and construction divisions. In turn, each division is headed by a divisional president who is elected by the board of directors, and who is responsible to the appropnate executive vice president for the efficient and economic operation of the division, for sales and related activities, for the general management of the division, and for the control and profits of the division. It is undisputed and I find that there is no interchange of employees between the respective divisions of Vulcan, nor is there any interchange of products. While there is some transference of equipment between the construction divisions, such as water pumps and machinery, this interchange is negligible and is handled on the same rental basis as when equipment is loaned to or exchanged with competitors. Each division maintains its own payroll, makes its own disbursements, does its own bookkeeping and accounting, and has its own bank account. Moreover, there is no line of advancement between the various divisions, or between the divisions and Vulcan. Each division president has the sole responsibility for the production and marketing of the division. He alone selects his staff, and he alone hires and discharges personnel. There is no day-to-day communication in the normal sense between the divisions, or between the divisions and Vulcan. Each division president possesses a broad authori- ty to formulate his individual labor relations' policies, to negotiate collective-bargaining agreements, and to execute these contracts. While the divisional president may utilize the services of Vulcan's industrial relations staff in Birmingham, such utilization is not obligatory but option- al. Certain services are made available to the divisions by Vulcan. These include such things as pension plans, insurance plans, and savings plans. It is undisputed and I 4 Unless otherwise indicated , all dates hereinafter fall in 1972 S Simmons testified without contradiction and I find that he had engaged in negotiations with other labor organizations without assistance 6 Robert Majors, Vulcan's manager of manpower planning and development , visited Mideast 's facilities on three occasions during the negotiations and the subsequent strike On one occasion, he attended the final negotiation session at the invitation of Mideast as an unofficial observer On the two other occasions , Majors was invited by Jerry Simmons, Mideast 's manager of administration , to assist in preparing for find, however, that these services may be availed of or rejected by any or all divisions. Turning to the events giving rise to-this proceeding, the Respondent commenced an organizational campaign among Mideast's employees in the spring of 19724 and, following a Board-conducted election, was certified as the collective-bargaining representative of a unit of employees at the Central Services Shop of Mideast. The consent agreement for this election was signed, on behalf of Mideast, by its local labor counsel, Charles Vance. A collective-bargaining session was thereafter scheduled between the parties for June 21. Prior to this meeting, Louis Graham, president of Mideast, telephoned Carl Whitten, Vulcan's manager of industnal relations, and requested that Whitten participate as a member of Mideast's negotiating team in the forthcoming negotia- tions. According to Whitten's uncontroverted testimony, Vulcan made his services available to the divisions because "the division may want counsel, guidance or help in their negotiations, and they know that there is a staff at Birmingham, that is available to help them if they want it. They are under no obligation to use it So, they may invite me in to help them, recommend certain things, but they are free to accept or reject my recommendations." Shortly after their telephone conversation, Jerry Simmons, Mid- east's manager of administration, who is responsible for personnel, safety, and industrial relations, conducted a wage and economic survey to determine how Mideast compared with the industry.5 Armed with this information, President Graham formulated Mideast's contract propos- als. When the parties met on June 21, Mideast's negotiat- ing team consisted of Whitten, Simmons, and an individual named Bell. At the outset, Whitten informed Respondent's representatives, as he did again at a meeting in July, that .,we were decentralized in our management structure; that each division had full responsibility for their own labor relations, for the profits in the business, for the running of the business, and I was there at the invite of the division, and that my role would be simply to help the division express their particular view, profits and control of the business, and all of the activities there relating to the local people." Although Whitten acted as Mideast's chief spokesman throughout the negotiations, this was done under specific authority from Graham. The record estab- lishes and I find that Graham made the final decision respecting the content of Mideast's contract proposals and, on occasion, rejected specific recommendations on certain clauses suggested by Whitten. After several fruitless discussions, the parties reached an economic impasse on August 31 .6 On October 2, the Respondent struck Mideast and commenced picketing the Central Services Shop and storeroom, and the quarry adjacent to the shop in Winston-Salem . On October 20, the strike and to devise training programs for supervisors Majors had also assisted the president of Chattanooga in 1970 in negotiating a contract with Teamsters Local 515 following a lockout that year Again, Majors was invited by Chattanooga President Ellman to attend the sessions , and Majors followed Ellman 's script in the negotiations. Although Majors signed the resultant contract on behalf of Chattanooga, this was due solely to the fact that Ellman was not available to perform this chore LOCAL UNION NO . 391, IBT Respondent began picketing Chattanooga's ready-mix plant with signs bearing the legend "Vulcan Materials Plant on strike-Teamsters Local 391." On October 25, Respondent extended its picketing to Chattanooga's quarry and plant, utilizing identical picket signs. It is undisputed and I find that, at all material times, Respon- dent represented no employees employed by Chattanooga and had no labor dispute with that entity. In fact, Chattanooga's employees were represented by other unions, including a sister Local 515 of Respondent, and no labor dispute existed between Chattanooga and these other labor organizations. Moreover, at the time of the picketing as well as prior thereto, there was no interchange of products or employees between Mideast and Chattanooga, and Chattanooga had not performed any work for Mideast. Rounding out the narrative, the result of the picketing at Chattanooga had the effect of causing Chattanooga's employees to cease doing any work, thereby completely shutting down the operations at the Chattanoo- ga installations. As Judge Wilson observed in his decision arising out of the 10(1) hearing held before him, the "crux" of the issue presented in this proceeding "centers around the activities of Carl T. Whitten and Robert Majors, members of the Vulcan Home Office Industrial Relations staff, and around the services they rendered to both the Mideast Division and the Chattanooga Division." 7 As chronicled above, although Vulcan maintains an industrial relations staff at its Birmingham office the services of which are available to all of its divisions, its members participate in collective-bargaining relations for the divisions by invitation of the divisional president. Even though Vulcan's personnel may be designated as the chairmen of the divisional bargaining teams, the format for the divisions' contractual proposals are drafted by the divisional industrial relations' departments under the aegis of the divisional presidents. These presidents possess the authority to, and have in fact, rejected proposals formulat- ed by Whitten and Majors when their assistance was sought in negotiations. In short, although Mideast and Chattanooga availed themselves of the services of Vulcan's Whitten and Majors, I am convinced and find that they served simply in an advisory capacity during bargaining sessions, with final authority regarding management proposals residing in the presidents of the Chattanooga and Mideast divisions. I therefore find that Vulcan did not exercise a centralized control of the labor relations of its divisions. The facts in the instant case parallel those considered by 7 1 am not persuaded by Respondent's argument that, because Vulcan files a single income tax return, trades its stock on the New York Stock Exchange under its corporate name, has settled antitrust suits brought by the Federal Trade Commission against it, contracts for the purchase of real estate with bonds which are handled in its offices, and issues a consolidated annual report to stockholders, this establishes that Chattanooga was not a "separate person" who was not "wholly unconcerned" with the labor dispute which flaired up at Mideast Nor am I convinced that this argument is supported by the facts that Vulcan projects its public image under the corporate name of "Vulcan Materials Company" on billboards at the Mideast and Chattanooga sites, that the trucks at Mideast and Chattanooga bear only the name of "Vulcan Materials Company," that truckdrivers receive the same safety instructions in the divisions and are awarded the 543 the Board in Los Angeles Newspaper Guild, Local 69, el al. (San Francisco Examiner, Division of Hearst Corporation), 8 / where it held that two divisions of the same corporate enterprise were entitled to the same protection under Section 8(b)(4) from each other's labor controversies as that accorded to corporate subsidiaries, provided that the corporation did not exercise actual, or active, control over the divisions which operated independently of the corpora- tion and each other as separate autonomous entities. In that case, the Hearst Corporation, incorporated in Dela- ware, engaged in a conglomerate of business activities conducted through some 20 divisions, of which 7 were newspapers. With respect to the two divisions involved, the president of Hearst appointed their heads and delegated to them the responsibility for the day-to-day operations, including the formulation and implementation of labor relations policies. Hearst retained the power to remove the divisional officers in the event of unfavorable earnings. Each division manager possessed the authority to deter- mine the size and salaries of the staff which he hired, discharged, or promoted. As in the instant proceeding, there was no transfer of employees among the divisions and, although Hearst made available to the divisions certain insurance, pension, and salary continuation pro- grams, each division could accept such programs or reject them. And, as in the instant case, each of the Hearst divisions' managers had final authority to market its product. Moreover, each division maintained its own financial system, subject to uniform reporting requirements for tax purposes. The division retained certain operating profits as a cash balance and remitted the surplus to Hearst. Although corporate approval was required for expenditures in excess of $10,000, such approval had never been withheld.9 Viewing these facts, the Board concluded that two of Hearst's divisions which were not involved in a labor dispute affecting a third division, which was being struck, constituted "persons" within the meaning of Section 8(b)(4)(B) because thy were virtually separate and autonomous enterprises in Hearst's corporate scheme of things. The Board therefore found that the striking unions violated Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (n)(B) by extending their dispute to the divisions which were neutrals to the dispute. I have heretofore found that Vulcan did not maintain actual or active control of the labor relations policies of either Chattanooga or Mideast. I therefore conclude that, on the facts here presented, Chattanooga was an unoffend- ing employer and a statutory "person" during the course of Respondent's dispute with Mideast. Accordingly, I con- clude that, by picketing Chattanooga on and after October same safety pins which bear only the Vulcan legend, or, that personnel at Mideast and Chattanooga obtain insurance and pension plans from Vulcan's office As indicated heretofore, these benefits are available to the divisions on an optional basis in addition, the name of Mideast also appears on signs in Winston-Salem Moreover , employee paychecks also bear the legend of Mideast S 185 NLRB 303, enfd 443 F 2d 1 173 (CA 9, 1971) See also American Federation of Television and Radio Artists Washington-Baltimore Local (Baltimore News American Division, The Hearst Corporation), 185 NLRB 593, enfd (CAD C ) 9 Mideast and Chattanooga are allowed to expend up to $50,000 without Vulcan's prior approval 544 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 20, Respondent violated Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (n)(B) of the ORDER i 1 Act. i0 IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of the Respondent set forth in section III, above, occurring in connection with the operations of Chattanooga described in section 1, above, have a close and intimate relationship to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow thereof. V. THE REMEDY Having found that Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B) of the Act, I shall recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions, and the entire record made in the case, I hereby make the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Respondent is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 2. Chattanooga is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act. 3. Chattanooga is a "person" within the meaning of Section 2(1) and Section 8(b)(4) of the Act. 4. By picketing the premises of Chattanooga, with which it had no labor dispute, the Respondent has engaged in, and has induced and encouraged individuals employed by Chattanooga to engage in, a strike or refusal to perform services, and has threatened, coerced, and restrained Chattanooga with an object in each case of forcing or requiring Chattanooga to cease doing business with persons engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce, and forcing or requiring persons engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce to cease doing business with Chattanooga, and has thereby violated Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (n)(B) of the Act. 5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, and the entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, I hereby issue the following recommended: 10 In his brief , counsel for the Respondent moved, in effect , to dismiss the complaint on the grounds that the General Counsel failed adequately to investigate the charges filed herein before issuing the complaint , and that Vulcan "deliberately and contumaciously" suppressed documentary eviden- ce which would allegedly have been favorable to Respondent's cause Judge Wilson , in the 10(l) proceeding , found no merit in these contentions, and neither do I I shall therefore deny the motion i i In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102 46 of the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board , the findings, Respondent, Local Union No. 391, International Broth- erhood of Teamsters, CW & H of A, its officers, representatives, and agents, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Inducing or encouraging any individual employed by Chattanooga Division, Vulcan Materials Company, or any other person engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce , to engage in a strike or a refusal in the course of his employment to use, manufacture, process, transport, or otherwise handle or work on goods, articles, materials, or commodities, or to perform any services, where an object thereof is to force or require Chattanooga Division, Vulcan Materials Company, to cease doing business with persons engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce, or to force or require persons engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce to cease doing business with Chattanooga Division, Vulcan Materials Company. (b) Threatening, coercing, or restraining Chattanooga Division, Vulcan Materials Company, or any other person engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting com- merce, where an object thereof is to force or require Chattanooga Division, Vulcan Materials Company, to cease doing business with persons engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce, or to force or require persons engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce to cease doing business with Chattanooga Division, Vulcan Materials Company. 2. Take the following affirmative action which I find is necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Post at its offices and meeting halls copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix." 12 Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 10, after being duly signed by its authorized representative, shall be posted by Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for at least 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. (b) Furnish said Regional Director with signed copies of the aforesaid notice for posting by Chattanooga Division, Vulcan Materials Company , if willing, at places where it customarily posts notices to its employees. (c) Notify said Regional Director, in writing, within 20 days from the date of receipt of this Decision, what steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith. conclusions , and recommended Order herein shall, as provided in Sec 102 48 of the Rules and Regulations, be adopted by the Board and become its findings , conclusions , and order, and all objections thereto shall be deemed waived for all purposes. 12 In the event that the Board's Order is enforced by a Judgment of a United States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by Order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board"