Ohio Valley Wholesale Co

National Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsOct 24, 1989

297 N.L.R.B. 149 (N.L.R.B. 1989)

OHIO VALLEY WHOLESALE CO 149 The Ohio Valley Wholesale Company and Zachary B. Brumfield. Case 9-CA-25553 October 24, 1989 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN STEPHENS AND MEMBERS CRACRAFT AND DEVANEY On May 19, 1989, Administrative Law Judge William F Jacobs issued the attached decision The Respondent filed exceptions and a supporting brief The National Labor Relations Board has delegat- ed its authority in this proceeding to a three- member panel The Board has considered the decision and the record in light of the exceptions and bnef, and has decided to affirm the judge's rulings, findings,' and conclusions, 2 to amend his recommended remedy as set out below, and to adopt the recommended Order as modified AMENDED REMEDY Having found that the Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices, we shall order it to cease and desist therefrom and to take certain af- firmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act Because we have found that the Respondent dis- criminatorily refused to rehire former employee Zachary B Brumfield, we shall order the Respond- 1 The Respondent has excepted to some of the judge's credibility find- ings The Board's established policy is not to overrule an administrative law judge's credibility resolutions unless the clear preponderance of all the relevant evidence convinces us that they are Incorrect Standard Dry Wall Products, 91 NLRB 544 (1950), enfd 188 F 2d 362 (3d Cu. 1951) We have carefully examined the record and find no basis for reversing the findings - a In adopting the judge's finding that the Respondent violated Sec 8(aX3) by its failure to rehire former employee Zachary B Brumfield, we agree with the judge that the "transparently false' reasons the Respond- ent offered as a defense to this allegation warrant an Inference that the Respondent did not rehire Brumfield because of his union activities See Limestone Apparel Corp, 255 NLRB 722 (1981) In this regard, we also emphasize the evidence, which the judge found constituted an Independ- ent 8(a)(1) violation, that the Respondent's personnel director, Kenneth Lee, tacitly admitted in a conversation with employee Jeffrey Powell that Brumfield's union activities were the real reason that the Respondent did not rehire him We conclude that the Respondent has not shown that It would not have rehired Brumfield even in the absence of the union ac- tivities he engaged in while previously employed by the ReCpondent Wright Line, 251 NLRB 1083 (1980), enfd 662 F 2d 899 (2d Or 1981) Although we find that the evidence clearly shows that the Respondent was aware of Brumfield's extensive organizing activities, we find it un- necessary to rely on any implication by the judge that this conclusion is supported by the notice posted on the Respondent's bulletin board in- forming employees about a party at Brumfield's home We note that this notice did not make any reference to a union or the organizing campaign that Brumfield helped instigate Finally, we reject the Respondent s contention in its brief that it did not rehire former employee Dennis Speck under circumstances similar to those involving Brumfield The record discloses that Speck, unlike the Charging Party, had an unsatisfactory work record Ville in the Re- spondent's employ and then quit without giving the Respondent advance notice ent to offer Brumfield immediate and full employ- ment in the same position in which he would have been hired absent the discrimination against him, or if such a position no longer exists, to substantially equivalent employment, discharging if necessary any employees hired after his date of application Additionally, the Respondent will be required to make Brumfield whole for any loss of earnings and other benefits he may have suffered by reason of the Respondent's failure to give him nondiscrimina- tory consideration for employment, with backpay to be computed on a quarterly basis as prescribed in F W Woolworth Go, 90 NLRB 289 (1950), plus interest as computed in New Horizons for the Re- tarded, 283 NLRB 1173 (1987) We shall also order the Respondent to notify Brumfield in wntmg that it has removed from its files any references to its unlawful refusal to rehire him and that this dis- criminatory conduct will not be used against him in any way Sterling Sugars, Inc , 261 NLRB 472 (1981) ORDER The National Labor Relations Board adopts the recommended Order of the administrative law judge as modified below and orders that the Re- spondent, The Ohio Valley Wholesale Company, Portsmouth, Ohio, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Order as modified 1 Substitute the following for paragraph 2(a) "(a) Offer to Zachary B Brumfield immediate employment in the same position in which he would have been rehired absent the discrimination against him or, if such a position no longer exists, to substantially equivalent employment, discharging if necessary any employees hired after his date of application, and make him whole for any loss of earnings and other benefits he may have suffered by reason of the. Respondent's failure to give him nondiscnmmatory consideration for employment" 2 Insert the following as paragraph 2(b) and re- letter subsequent paragraphs accordingly "(b) Remove from its files any references to its discriminatory refusal to rehire former employee Zachary B Brumfield and notify him in writing that this has been done and that the discriminatory conduct will not be used against him in any way" 3 Substitute the attached notice for that of the administrative law judge 297 NLRB No 16 150 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD APPENDIX NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government The National Labor Relations Board has found that we violated the National Labor Relations Act and has ordered us to post and abide by this notice Section 7 of the Act gives employees these rights To organize To form, join, or assist any union To bargain collectively through representa- tives of their own choice To act together for other mutual aid or pro- tection To choose not to engage in any of these protected concerted activities WE WILL NOT threaten our employees by telling them that they will not be employed if they engage in union activities WE WILL NOT discourage union activity by re- fusing to rehire employees because they have en- gaged in union activities WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them by Sec- tion 7 of the Act WE WILL offer to Zachary B Brumfield immedi- ate employment in the same position in which he would have been rehired absent the discrimination against him, or, if such a position no longer exists, to substantially equivalent employment, discharging if necessary any employees hired after his date of application, and make him whole for any loss of earnings and other benefits he may have suffered by reason of our failure to give him nondiscrimina- tory consideration for employment WE WILL remove from our files any references to the discriminatory refusal to rehire former em- ployee Zachary B Brumfield and notify him in writing that this has been done and that the dis- criminatory conduct will not be used against him in any way All our employees are free to become or remain or refrain from becoming or remaining members of a labor organization THE OHIO VALLEY WHOLESALE COMPANY Engrid Emerson Vaughan, Esq , for the General Counsel Donald J Cairns, Esq (Lindner & Marsack, S C), of Mil- waukee, Wisconsin, for the Respondent DECISION WILLIAM F JACOBS, Administrative Law Judge The charge in the instant proceeding was filed by Zachary B Brumfield, on July 11, 1988 The complaint issued August 25, 1988, alleging that the Ohio Valley Whole- sale Company (Respondent or the Company), violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the National Labor Relations Act, by refusing to rehire Brumfield because he had en- gaged in union activities and violated Section 8(a)(1) by impliedly stating, through one of its supervisors, that Brumfield would not be rehired because of his union ac- tivities Respondent, in its answer, denies the commission of any unfair labor practices The case was tned before me on October 20, 1988, at Portsmouth, Ohio The parties were represented at the hearing and were afforded full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence and argument The General Counsel and Respondent filed briefs Upon the entire record, my observation of the demeanor of the witnesses and after giving due consideration to the bnefs, I make the following FINDINGS OF FACT' Brumfield's Employment History Respondent hired Zachary Brumfield as an order filler on July 31, 1986 There is no dispute that Brumfield proved to be an excellent employee and, after a year, when he asked his supervisor, Butch Meadows, for a letter of recommendation, Meadows said that if Brum- field would write it, he would sign it This was done In August 1987, 2 Dwayne Lorenzen', union represent- ative for the United Food and Commercial Workers Union, Local 1059, 3 began to organize Respondent's em- ployees The first meeting with Respondent's employees occurred on August 28 when Lorenzen' met with Brum- field and two others Thereafter, Brumfield became deeply involved in the campaign He signed a union card himself and distributed about 15 others, thereafter col- lecting these and others 'and returning them to Loren- zen' He also distributed union literature and on two oc- casions wore a union cap and T-shirt to work Brumfield held two union meetings at his home and posted a notice concerning one of them on the company bulletin board Notice of the other meeting at his home was mailed to all of the Respondent's employees Brumfield continued his union activities throughout September and discussed these activities and his union sympathies with Meadows on numerous occasions He told Meadows that he was part of the organizing com- mittee and was distributing and getting other employees to sign union authorization cards When Meadows asked Brumfield why he was doing this, Brumfield replied that the employees had no bargaining power 'The complaint alleges and the answer admits that the Board has Juris- diction herein and the Union is a labor organization within the meaning of the Act 2 Henceforth all dates are in 1987 unless otherwise noted 3 Hereafter the Union OHIO VALLEY WHOLESALE CO 151 In mid-October, Respondent hired Kenneth Lee as personnel director Thereafter Brumfield and Lee dis- cussed Brumfield's union activities Brumfield told Lee about the union meetings held at his home Although Lee testified that he treated this information confidential- ly, he admitted that he and other members of manage- ment were all aware of the union campaign and dis- cussed various aspects of it General Manager John Stewart admitted that he was aware that there was a lot of support for the Union on Brumfield's shift, the night shift Sometime in October, during the union campaign, Brumfield engaged Meadows in conversation He asked Meadows exactly where he stood with the Company Meadows replied that the Company (management) thought that Brumfield was a troublemaker, did not pay attention at employee-management meetings and (if he quit) probably would not be rehired Brumfield testified that his question was prompted by the fact that since he became engaged in union activities, Stewart's attitude toward him had turned from friendly to suddenly cool Once, in October, Brumfield wore a union cap to work On this occasion Meadows asked him about the cap and said that It was a mistake for him to be so bold about his union organizing He also stated, on this or one of the many other occasions when the union organizing campaign was discussed, that he disagreed with the orga- nizing effort and that Andy Titus, president and owner of the Company, would sell the place Brumfield replied that "if Titus wanted to sell the place, it was up to him," but "we're going to try to get the Union in" Also, on this, or another occasion, Meadows told Brumfield that he, Meadows, was going to have to be the bad guy and crack down on everybody, and that people might get fired Brumfield testified that, during this period, work- ing conditions became more severe and his production was more 'closely supervised than prior to the advent of the Union Brumfield also testified to having discussions about his involvement with the Union with Keith Salsbury, the night-shift supervisor Salsbury told Brumfield that the Company was dead set against the Union Brumfield re- plied that he was not "wild about the Union" but at this company, the employees had to have something On November 9, the petition for the representation election was filed, but on November 25 Brumfield gave notice to Respondent that he intended to quit his job to take a better paying job with Pepsi-Cola Brumfield was thus not around for the election 4 When Brumfield gave his 2-week notice to Meadows, he was told that he did not have to wait the 2 weeks but could leave that evening Brumfield, however, chose to finish out the week and left 2 days later The job he ac- cepted with Pepsi-Cola was to pay him $300 per week with increased fringe benefits as opposed to the $180 per week which he had been receiving while working for Respondent Brumfield started working for Pepsi-Cola on Novem- ber 30 He lasted until January 5, 1988, 5 on which date 4 The eligibility date was December 3 5 Henceforth, all dates are in 1988 unless otherwise noted he was fired On January 7, Brumfield visited Respond- ent's Portsmouth facility and, after introducing himself, asked for an employment application from the reception- ist The receptionist advised Brumfield that she was not giving out applications He then asked to speak with Lee but was told he was not available Brumfield left a mes- sage with Lee's personal secretary to have him call Brumfield back Lee returned Brumfield's call and was told by Brum- field that he lost his job at Pepsi-Cola Brumfield asked Lee if he could have his old job back Lee said that he did not know but would check into it and call Brumfield later to let him know A week later, Lee called Brumfield back as promised and told him that the Company had a no rehire policy According to Brumfield, this was the only explanation offered at the time 6 Subsequently, Brumfield learned that several of Re- spondent's employees had quit their employment and had, contrary to what Lee had told him earlier, been re- hired He called Lee again, advised him of what he had learned, and supplied him with the names of several em- ployees who had been rehired after quitting Lee again promised Brumfield that he would check out the circum- stances surrounding the termination and rehiring of the employees whose names Brumfield had supplied and get back to him Following his most recent conversation with Brum- field, Lee testified, he checked again with Stewart and other people in the Company and determined that the employees mentioned by Brumfield had not quit to take other jobs as he had done, but rather had quit for other reasons, for personal reasons, or because they had simply gotten angry and walked off the job Brumfield was not rehired Brumfield talked with Lee two or three times in July about getting rehired He told Lee that a Board agent had informed him that he could file an unfair labor prac- tice charge over the failure of Respondent to rehire him, but just wanted his job and preferred not to go through the NLRB proceedings When Brumfield still did not re- ceive a job offer from Respondent he filed the charge on July 7 and served a copy of the same on Lee's secretary the same day On the evening of July 7 Lee called Brumfield and asked what was going on Brumfield said that what the Company was doing to him—its no rehire policy—was "a crock" Lee replied, "Well, yes" meaning, according to testimony, that the whole situation was "a crock" Brumfield then asked for a meeting with Lee and Titus but not with Stewart with whom he had not gotten along since the union organizing campaign had first begun No meeting was ever scheduled 6 According to Lee, after his first conversation with Brumfield, he spoke with Stewart about rehiring Brumfield and was told by Stewart that It was a longstanding company policy that it would not rehire em ployees who had quit to take other jobs According to Stewart, he told Lee that the policy was not to rehire employees who had quit to take better jobs or who had left without notice Lee testified further that during his second conversation with Brumfield, he relayed to /um Stew- art's version of the Company's rehire policy I credit Brumfield 152 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Brumfield was not alone in his attempt at getting his job back After his termination at Pepsi-Cola, a fellow Ohio Valley employee, Jeffrey Powell, noticing the heavy turnover and the large number of new employees hired to work in the warehouse, asked Keith Salsbury about Respondent's rehiring practice and what one had to do do get one's job back Salsbury replied that if an employee who had quit Respondent's employ, had previ- ously had a good work record and had done his job, he would be rehired He added that if the Company liked a former employee and that employee was not a trouble- maker he might get his job back Salsbury advised Powell, however, that he did not make decisions con- cerning rehiring, that such decisions were made by higher management Powell also discussed Brumfield's situation with Lee who, at the time, was aware of Brumfield's termination by Pepsi-Cola Lee asked Powell if Brumfield had yet found a job Powell replied in the negative, then asked Lee what chance Brumfield had of getting his job back with Respondent Lee just shrugged his shoulders When Powell persisted, Lee responded, "Your guess is as good as mine" Powell then asked, point blank, whether it was because of the Union that Brumfield was not going to be rehired Then, according to Powell's credited testimo- ny, 7 Lee dropped his head then, without speaking, nodded his head in affirmation Meanwhile, following the filing of the petition, on No- vember 17, 1987, a stipulation for an election was signed and approved by the Regional Director on December 9, 1987 The stipulation provided for an eligibility date of December 4, 1987, and an election date of February 5, 1988 If Respondent would have rehired Brumfield when he first made his request, Brumfield could have spent the next few weeks pnor to the election campaigning for the Union just as he had done prior to his quitting his job with the Respondent Although he would not have been eligible to vote in the election, it is clear that he might certainly have had an effect on its outcome The History and Practice of Respondent's Rehiring Policy The employee handbook states with regard to the Company's rehiring policy If employees leave the Company, they may be con- sidered for reemployment In conjunction with their reason for leaving, previous work habits and atti- tudes will be the basis for rehire consideration It was stipulated by the parties that the employee hand- book was in effect at all relevant times Brumfield credibly testified that pnor to his quitting Respondent's employ he had a meeting with Stewart oc- casioned by the request of another employee who had previously quit At this meeting, Brumfield asked Stew- art what Respondent's rehire policy was Stewart replied 7 Lee testified that he did, in fact, have a conversation with Powell wherein he acknowledged to him that the Respondent did not Intend to rehire Brumfield He denied, however, that the Union was mentioned during the disLussion I credit Powell s description of the event over that of Lee that if the employee who had quit, had done a good job while working for Respondent, had not missed work often and had given proper notice before quitting, he would be considered for rehiring During this conversa- tion, Stewart said nothing about the reason for leaving being an issue or that employees quitting to take a better or another job would not be considered for rehire Although Stewart did not specifically deny the re- marks attributed to him by Brumfield in the conversation described in the paragraph immediately above, he did testify generally as to the Company's rehiring policy He testified that if a person left Respondent's employ for what was considered a better job, he, Stewart, would not rehire him, because he felt that if an employee quit once, he would do it again Stewart added that he would not rehire an employee who left in the middle of a shift without notice Lee also testified as to Respondent's rehiring policy He stated that Respondent does not rehire former em- ployees who have left to obtain better paying jobs He added, however, that Respondent would not rehire former employees who had quit in order to take equal paying or lower paying jobs either Information concerning Respondent's rehiring prac- tices was obtained from Respondent's personnel records and read into the record Thus Mark Ferguson, on August 26, 1987, was given an as- signment by his superior The assignment upset him to such a degree that after "a little discussion with his su- pervisor" he declared that he had "had enough," quit, walked off the job in the middle of his shift "rather than explode" and went home The description of the incident was entered in the personnel file and signed by John Stewart Stewart testified that he waited two hours, then called Ferguson on the telephone He invited him to return to work the following day -A warning was placed in Ferguson's file concerning the incident along with a second warning regarding missed days Unlike situations involving employees who quit to obtain better paying jobs, Stewart had no qualms, apparently, about Fergu- son, possibly, sometime in the future repeating his act of walking off the job without notice, in the middle of a shift Tim Kimbler was an order filler who was promoted to driver As it turned out, Kimbler did not like driving and asked to be transferred back to the warehouse There were no openings at the time, so he quit About a year later Kimbler applied for reemployment He was rehired as an order filler despite the fact that during his previous period of employment he had received a warning for leaving work in midshift without reasonable cause and not returning During the year between the date of his quitting and his being rehired, Kimbler was engaged in doing odd jobs He was rehired, according to Stewart, because he had been a good worker Personnel records indicate that he was also rehired because of his experi- ence as an order filler Employee Troy Irwin announced one night that he was fed up with the job and walked out without appar- ently giving proper notice He was not seen on the job OHIO VALLEY WHOLESALE CO 153 thereafter until some time later when Brumfield again saw him working for Respondent The names of several other employees who walked off the job without notice also appear in the record These employees were refused reemployment • Conclusion, The General Counsel has presented a prima facie case Brumfield, was a valued employee who became involved in union organizing He attended union organizational meetings, signed a card himself, distributed union author- ization cards to other employees find collected them in order to return them to the Union He also distributed other union literature and wore union caps and T-shirts in the plant Brumfield held two union meetings at his home both of which were well publicized in and around the plant Finally, Brumfield outspokenly pronounced to management his loyalty to the Union and reiterated his position throughout the campaign in September and Oc- tober Thus, Brumfield's activities were clear, wide- spread well-known to, and resented by, management When he left Respondent to obtain better employment, then returned to request reemployment, he was refused, with credited evidence indicating that Respondent's re- fusal to rehire Brumfield was founded on Brumfield's union activity Indeed, I find that Lee admitted to Powell in January, through a nod of his head, that Brumfield was refused reemployment because of his union activity This is a violation of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act Power Plant Maintenance Co, 286 NLRB 205 (1987) Similarly, Lee's acknowledgement to Powell that Respondent had refused to rehire Brumfield because of his union activity is an implied threat that any em- ployee so engaged would meet the same fate and is a violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act King Soopers, 257 NLRB 1033 (1981) In the face of the prima facie case made by the Gener- al Counsel, Respondent offers an extremely questionable defense Initially, Respondent, through Lee, told Brum- field that it was company policy not to rehire employees Respondent's Employee Handbook says otherwise When Brumfield subsequently determined that former employ- ees had, in fact, been rehired, and confronted Respond- ent with this fact, Respondent took the position that al- though it had rehired former employees in the past, it never rehired employees who had quit their employment at Respondent in order to obtain a better job This belat- edly announced Procrustean invention was clearly con- trived for the sole purpose of fitting Brumfield's situa- tion No one who was ever rehired by Respondent had left to obtain better wages or working conditions, as far as the record is concerned, and this was the fact upon which Respondent relies to differentiate Brumfield from other former employees who quit and were rehired I cannot credit this nuance as an operative distinction Indeed, I find Respondent's defense unworthy of credit Moreover, Brumfield's record was Immaculate—he was an admittedly good worker with a fine attendance record who had given the Respondent the prescribed 2 weeks' notice before leaving Nevertheless Respondent chose to reject his application for rehire, although it was in need of experienced employees at the time, allegedly because Stewart felt that if an employee left once to obtain a better job, he would likely do so again On the other hand, the record reveals that some of the employ- ees who Respondent did rehire, had poor records, poor attendance, warnings in their files, and had quit and walked off the job without notice Stewart apparently gave no thought to the possibility of recidivism in their cases I am satisfied that the reasons why Brumfield left Respondent's employ had nothing to do with the reasons why his application for reemployment was rejected Since, the reasons proferred by Respondent are so trans- parently false, I feel free to infer that there was another motive for Respondent's rejection of Brumfield's applica- tion which it wished to conceal, namely his union activi- ty 8 I am also convinced that but for his union activity, Brumfield certainly would have been reemployed since Respondent had no legitimate reason to reject his appli- cation 9 THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES ON COMMERCE The activities of Respondent set forth above, occur- ring in connection with its operation described above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relaticaship to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and ob- structing commerce and the free flow of commerce THE REMEDY Having found that Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act, I shall recommend that it be ordered to cease and desist therefrom and to take appropriate and affirma- tive action to effectuate the policies of the Act In par- ticular, as I have found that Zachary B Brumfield was discriminatorily terminated, I shall recommend that Re- spondent be required to offer him full and immediate re- instatement, with backpay and interest thereon to be computed in the manner prescribed in F W Woolworth Co, 90 NLRB 289 (1950), and New Horizons for the Re- tarded, 283 NLRB 1173 (1987) 1° CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1 Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act 2 The Union is a labor organization within the mean- ing of Section 2(5) of the Act 3 By stating to one employee that another employee was not being rehired because of his union activities, Re- spondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act 4 By refusing to rehire Zachary B Brumfield because he engaged in union activities, Respondent violated Sec- t= 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act 8 Shattuck Denn Mining Corp v NLRB, 362 F 2d 466 (9th Ctr 1966) 9 Wright Line, 251 NLRB 1083 (1980), enfd 662 F 2d 899 (1st Cm 1981) '° See generally Isis Plumbing Co, 138 NLRB 716 (1962) 154 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 5 The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Sec- tion 2(6) and (7) of the Act On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on the entire record, I issue the following recommend- ed" ORDER The Respondent, The Ohio Valley Wholesale Compa- ny, Portsmouth, Ohio, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall I Cease and desist from (a) Threatening employees by stating that they will not be employed if they engage in union activities (b) Discouraging union activities by refusing to rehire employees who have engaged in such activities (c) In any like or related manner interfering with, re- straining, or coercing employees in the exercise of nghts guaranteed under Section 7 of the Act 2 Take the following affirmative action necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act (a) Offer immediate employment to Zachary B Brum- field in the position he formerly held or, if that job no longer exists, to a substantially equivalent position, with- out prejudice to his seniority or other rights and pnvi- " If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec 102 46 of the Board's Rules and Regulations, the findings, conclusions, and recommended Order shall, as provided in Sec 102 48 of the Rules, be adopted by the Board and all objections to them shall be deemed waived for all pur- poses leges and make him whole for any loss of pay he may have suffered by reason of Respondent's discriminatory refusal to rehire him, in the manner set forth in the remedy section (b) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the Board or its agents for examination and copying all pay- roll records, social secunty payment records, timecards, personnel records, and reports and all other records nec- essary or useful in complying with the terms of this Order (c)Post at its place of business in Portmonth, Ohio, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix "12 Copies of the notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 9, after being signed by the Re- spondent's authorized representative, shall be posted by the Respondent immediately upon receipt and maintained for 60 consecutive days in conspicuous places including all places where notices to employees are customanly posted Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respond- ent to ensure that the notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material (d) Notify the Regional Director in writing within 20 days from the date of this Order what steps the Re- spondent has taken to herewith " If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec 102 46 of the Board's Rules and Regulations, the findings, conclusions, and recommended Order shall, as provided in Sec 102 48 of the Rules, be adopted by the Board and all objections to them shall be deemed waived for all pur- poses