Pioneer Printers

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 15, 1973

201 N.L.R.B. 900 (N.L.R.B. 1973)

900 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Noriega Industries Incorporated d/b/a Pioneer Print-
ers I and Bindery Workers Union Local 40, Graphic
Arts International Union , AFL-CIO, CLC.2 Case
21-CA-10745
February 15, 1973
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS JENKINS , KENNEDY, AND
PENELLO
On October 31, 1972, Administrative Law Judge
Herman Corenman issued the attached Decision in
this proceeding. Thereafter, the General Counsel
filed 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 brief
and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings, and
conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge and to
adopt his recommended Order, as modified herein.
1. For the reasons stated by the Administrative
Law Judge, we agree that Respondent, when it
became a successor-employer, did not assume the
existing collective-bargaining agreement between the
predecessor and the Charging Party.3 For this
reason, we agree that Respondent was not obligated
to sign the collective-bargaining agreement subse-
quently negotiated by the multiemployer association,
in which Respondent's predecessor had been a
member, and that Respondent did not violate
Section 8(a)(5) of the Act by refusing to do so.
Accordingly, we find it unnecessary to pass upon the
Administrative Law Judge's additional rationale that
Respondent, even had it assumed the predecessor's
contract, would not be bound by the predecessor's
membership in the multiemployer bargaining associ-
ation.
2. We agree that Respondent violated Section
8(a)(3) of the Act by refusing to employ Charles
Hardy.4
3. The Administrative Law Judge credited testi-
mony that after Alonzo Castro had been on the job
for a week, Edward Gonzales, an admitted supervi-
sor, asked Castro if he was in the Union, and Castro
said no. "Gonzales replied that was good because
they were trying to get the Union out to make it a
non-union shop."5
Although the complaint specifically alleged that
Respondent "interrogated employees concerning
their union membership, sympathies, and activities,"
the Administrative Law Judge failed to discuss this
alleged violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. Such
interrogation interferes with employees' rights as
guaranteed them in Section 7 of the Act and by so
interrogating Castro Respondent has violated Sec-
tion 8(a)(1) of the Act . Accordingly , the Administra-
tive Law Judge's Conclusions of Law are amended
by substituting the following for paragraph 6 and
renumbering the current paragraph 6 as 7:
"6. By interrogating employee Alonzo Castro
concerning his membership in the Union , Respon-
dent has violated Section 8 (a)(1) of the Act."
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,
Noriega Industries Incorporated d/b/a Pioneer
Printers, San Diego , California , its officers , agents,
successors , and assigns , shall take the action set forth
in said recommended Order as herein modified:
1. Substitute the following for paragraph 1(b) of
the recommended Order and renumber the current
paragraph 1(b) as 1(c):
"(b) Interrogating employees concerning their
union activities in a manner violative of the provi-
sions of Section 8(a)(l) of the Act."
2. In paragraph 2(d) delete the words "Los
Angeles" and substitute therefor "San Diego."
3. Substitute the attached Appendix for that of
the Administrative Law Judge.
Respondent's name appears as amended at the hearing
s The name of the Charging Party is amended to reflect the merger,
effective as of September 4, 1972, of the International Brotherhood of
Bookbinders and the Lithographers and Photoengravers International
Union.
3 The Administrative Law Judge found that Respondent followed the
economic terms of the contract , although the record shows, and we find,
that it followed the contract in logo. However, this difference is not sufficient
to alter our decision in this case
No exceptions were filed thereto.
5 This quote is from Castro's credited testimony Gonzales testified that
he asked Castro whether he belonged to the Union merely as a prelude to
telling him he might have to join . However, the Administrative Law Judge
generally discredited Gonzales' testimony finding it "nfe with inconsisten-
cies;" and specdgcally 'credited Castro's testimony in regard to the interroga-
tion. Accordingly, we do not credit Gonzales ' testimony about the incident.
See Bishop and Mako, Inc, d/b/a Walker's, 159 NLRB 1159, 1161
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
After a trial at which all sides had a chance to give
evidence, it has been decided that we, Noriega
Industries Incorporated d/b/a Pioneer Printers,
201 NLRB No. 130
PIONEER
violated the National Labor Relations Act. The
Board therefore ordered us to post this notice.
WE WILL NOT interfere with, restrain, or coerce
employees in the exercise of these rights:
To engage in self-organization
To form, join, or help unions
To bargain collectively through a repre-
sentative of their own choosing
To act together for collective bargaining
or for other mutual aid or protection
To refrain from any or all of these things.
WE WILL NOT unlawfully interrogate employees
about their union membership.
WE WILL NOT refuse to hire anyone because of
his union membership, sponsorship, or activities.
WE WILL employ Charles Hardy to the job for
which he applied or, if that job no longer exists, to
a substantially equivalent job without prejudice to
his seniority rights and privileges.
WE WILL also make up any pay he lost with 6-
percent interest.
NORIEGA INDUSTRIES
INCORPORATED D/B/A
PIONEER PRINTERS
(Employer)
Dated By
(Representative) (Title)
We will notify immediately the above-named indi-
vidual, if presently serving in the Armed Forces of
the United States , of the right to employment, upon
application after discharge from the Armed Forces,
in accordance with the Selective Service Act and the
Universal Military Training and Service Act.
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.
Any question concerning this notice or compliance
with its provisions may be directed to the Board's
Office, Eastern Columbia Building, 849 South
Broadway, Los Angeles, California 90014, Telephone
213-688-5200.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
HERMAN CORENMAN, Administrative Law Judge: Pur-
suant to a charge filed on March 9, 1972, by Bindery
Workers Union Local 40, International Brotherhood of
Bookbinders, AFL-CIO, herein called the Union, the
General Counsel of the Board issued a complaint against
Noriega Industries, Incorporated d/b/a Pioneer Printers,'
PRINTERS 901
herein called the Respondent , on April 25, 1972, alleging
violations of Section 8(a)(1), (3), and (5) of the Act. The
Respondent 's answer denied engaging in any unfair labor
practices.
A hearing was held before me on August 24, 1972, at San
Diego, California, and the parties were given the opportu-
nity to adduce evidence and to examine and cross-examine
witnesses . The parties waived oral argument at the close of
the hearing , and were given leave to file briefs which have
been received from the General Counsel and the Respon-
dent.
Upon the entire record in the case and from my
observation of the witnesses and their demeanor, I make
the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
The complaint alleges, the answer does not deny, and I
find that the Respondent is, and has been at all times
material herein , engaged in the business of printing and
bookbinding with its place of business located at 805 West
Cedar Street, San Diego, California. Respondent, in the
normal course and conduct of its business operations,
annually sells goods , products, and services valued in
excess of $50,000 to customers located within the State of
California, each of whom, in turn, either sells and ships
goods, products, and services valued in excess of $50,000
directly to customers located outside the State of Califor-
nia, or, alternatively, purchases goods, products, and
services valued in excess of $50,000 directly from suppliers
located outside the State of California. Respondent is, and
has been at all times material herein, an employer engaged
in commerce and in an industry affecting commerce within
the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
H. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The Union is, and has been at all times material herein, a
labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of
the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Background
An employer association known as the Union Printing
Employers' Association of San Diego , herein called the
Association, composed of commercial printers in San
Diego , has, during the past 30 years , bargained with and
had contractual relations with the four labor organizations,
namely, the Lithographers Union, the Typesetters Union,
the Printers Union, and the Bookbinders Union, which
represent employees in the commercial printing and
binding industry. The Association is a loose and informal
organization which exists only for the purpose of collective
bargaining and arrives at separate agreements with each of
the four unions . In 1959, the members of the Association
affixed their signatures to a document authorizing the
Association to act as an agent for the purposes of
1 The name of the Respondent appears as corrected at the hearing.
902 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
negotiating, executing, and arbitrating labor agreements
with the respective unions representing their employees.
The document recited that the authorization to the
Association should remain in effect for the calendar year
1959 "and shall continue in effect thereafter unless revoked
by thirty (30) days written notice thereof." Charles D.
Francis, superintendent for a previous owner, signed in
behalf of Pioneer Punters.
Noriega Industries Incorporated d/b/a Pioneer Printers,
the Respondent herein, purchased Pioneer Printers from I
R Printers on August 14, 1970. At the time of the purchase
of Pioneer Printers by the Respondent, there existed an
unexpired collective-bargaining agreement between the
Association and all of its members, including Pioneer
Printers, with Bindery Workers Union Local 40, the Union
herein. The term of the collective-bargaining agreement
was May 1, 1969, to April 30, 1971. When Respondent
took over the business, it continued operations of the
business as a successor, engaged in the same operation and
with substantially the same work force. In addition, the
Respondent continued to observe the economic provisions
of the unexpired contract with Bindery Workers Union,
continuing to pay the wage rates, health and welfare
benefits , and all fringe benefits.
With the approaching expiration of the collective-bar-
gaining agreement with the Union effective April 30, 1971,
the Association in early March 1971 directed letters to
members of the Association notifying them of the
approaching time to negotiate a new contract and of a
preliminary meeting of the Association members, among
other things, to select a committee to negotiate with the
Union. Both Noriega, Respondent's president, and Gold-
stein, Respondent's manager, attended this preliminary
meeting of the Association members. There they an-
nounced that they did not wish to be represented by the
Association and left the meeting.
The Association and the Union began contract negotia-
tions in March 1971 and reached an agreement for a
contract term effective May 1, 1971, to April 30, 1974.
During negotiations, through an oversight, the Associa-
tion's negotiating committee failed to mention to the union
negotiators that the Respondent had notified the Associa-
tion that they did not want the Association to represent
them. It is undisputed that the Respondent likewise failed
to notify the Union that the Association was not its
collective-bargaining representative. Hence, the union
negotiators remained under the impression , inasmuch as
the Respondent was apparently observing the terms of the
expiring contract, that the Association was representing the
Respondent in the current collective-bargaining negotia-
tions and the resulting contract would, therefore, be
binding on the Respondent as a member of the multiem-
ployer group.
Accordingly, in August 1971, Union Representative
Wayne R. Wade took copies of the new contract to the
Respondent for signature and spoke to Business Manager
Goldstein who put Wade off with the excuse that Mr.
Noriega, Respondent's president, wanted time to study the
contract. Wade returned with copies of the contract in
September and again in October 1971 and was again put
off with the same excuse by Goldstein.
B. Analysis and Conclusions on Respondent's
Refusal To Sign the Association Contract
The General Counsel contends that the Respondent is
part of the multiemployer unit and is bound by this
collective-bargaining agreement negotiated by the Associa-
tion and the Union for the term of May 1, 1971, to April
30, 1974, by reason of the Respondent 's compliance with
the economic provisions , namely , wages, rates of pay, and
fringe benefits of the expired 1969-71 contract between the
Association and the Union which was in existence at the
time the Respondent purchased the business in August
1970. The General Counsel relies on Sacramento Automo-
tive Association, 193 NLRB No. 117, which holds that a
successor company is bound to the contract of its
predecessor as if it were signatory thereto and replaces the
predecessor as a member of the multiemployer bargaining
unit . The General Counsel recognizes that the Board's
decision in William J. Burns International Detective Agency,
182 NLRB 348, which supported the Board's rationale in
Sacramento Automotive Association , supra, was reversed by
the Supreme Court in N.LR.B. v. Burns International
Security Services, 406 U.S. 272 (May 15, 1972), but,
nevertheless, contends that the Respondent adopted the
predecessor 's contract and thereby became a member of
the multiemployer group . I disagree . In the first place, I am
of the opinion that the Respondent 's conduct in continuing
to pay the economic benefits prevailing when it took over
the business does not without more constitute an adoption
by it of the contract ; and, moreover , I find it even more
difficult to conclude that the Respondent 's continuation of
the existing economic benefits thereby made it a part of the
multiemployer group . It is not uncommon for an individu-
al employer to comply with the economic provisions of a
contract negotiated by an association or other multiem-
ployer group and still not be a member of that group.
Indeed , it becomes the successor-employer's legal duty not
to unilaterally change existing terms and conditions of
employment. S-H Food Service, Inc., 199 NLRB No. 4.
Before an employer may be bound by multiemployer
group action , it must have evinced a clear intention to
authorize that employer association or group to act as its
collective-bargaining agent, or to be bound in the future by
group action .2 The Board asserted such a stance in
Moveable Partitions, Inc., 175 NLRB 915, where it held that
the fact that an employer had adopted a contract
negotiated by an employer-association , standing alone, was
not sufficient basis for including it in a multiemployer
unit . 3 Therefore , in the instant case , even if it were to be
assumed , arguendo, that the Respondent had adopted the
old contract , that conduct , standing alone , was not
sufficient to evince a clear intention to designate the
Association as its collective -bargaining representative. To
the contrary, in the instant case the Respondent 's officers,
some 30 days before contract negotiations began for the
2 Woodworkers Western Regional Council ( Weyerhaeuser Company) v Company, 154 NLRB 4%. 499, Foley Construction Company, 134 NLRB
NLRB , 398 F 2d 770 (C A D C, 1968), Korner Kale, Inc, 156 NLRB 1385,13%
1157, 1163, N L R B v Hart, 453 F 2d 215, 217 (C A 9,1971); Van Eerden 3 See also Texas Cartage Company, 122 NLRB 999, 1000
PIONEER PRINTERS 903
1971-74 contract, appeared at a preliminary meeting of the
Association members where it notified the members of the
Association that it did not want the Association to
represent Respondent in collective bargaining with the
Union . I find , therefore, that at no time was the
Association authorized to represent the Respondent in the
negotiations of a contract ; hence , the Respondent was not
bound by the 1971-74 negotiated contract between the
Association and the Union . The Respondent 's failure and
refusal to sign the Association negotiated contract, I find,
therefore , was not violative of Section 8(a)(5) of the Act. It
is, therefore , recommended that the 8 (a)(5) allegation of
the complaint be dismissed.
C. The Refusal To Hire Charles Hardy
Fred Dix was a bindery employee of the Respondent. He
notified Gonzales, the foreman, in early February 1972
that he was quitting in 2 weeks. Dix also notified Union
Secretary Betty Brown of his intention to quit and asked
her to send somebody down to replace him. Brown
telephoned Charles Hardy, who was at the top of the out-
of-work list, and told him that he should go to the
Respondent's place of business and talk to Mr. Goldstein
and see if he could fill the job. Hardy reported to the
Respondent in the afternoon of February 22, 1972, and
Goldstein referred him to Gonzales. Gonzales admitted on
the witness stand that he had been instructed by Noriega
and Goldstein that they were not bound by the new
contract and that he was not to hire a union man.
Accordingly, when Hardy told Gonzales that the Union
had sent him down for the bookbinding job, Gonzales told
Hardy the job had been filled. Hardy remarked in surprise
that the job had been vacated Friday and Gonzales' reply
was that it didn't take long to fill a job. Hardy then left.
After Dix quit on February 23, 1972, Respondent placed
a help-wanted advertisement for a bindery worker in the
San Diego Union Tribune for 3 days through February 25.
Hardy, on seeing the want ad, telephoned the Respondent
and learned the job was still open. Hardy then telephoned
the Union of the fact, and Betty Brown, the union
secretary, instructed Hardy to again apply for the job.
Accordingly, Hardy reapplied for the job in person at the
Respondent's office the following day at noon. Gonzales
again advised Hardy that the job had been filled, and
Hardy left, and reported again to Betty Brown that he was
told the job had been filled. Aware of the newspaper
advertisement in the help-wanted column, Miss Brown,
that same day, phoned the Respondent and identified
herself as with the Union and she talked to Gonzales.
Brown asked if she could replace Mr. Dix who had just
quit. Gonzales replied in the negative, assigning as the
reason according to Brown's credible testimony that there
was so little work of cutting and folding, that they were
going to do it themselves. Immediately after this conversa-
tion with Gonzales, Miss Brown phoned Alonzo Castro,
who was next on the Union's out-of-work list and
instructed him to go down and apply for the bookbinder's
job but not to tell the Respondent's representatives that he
had been sent by the Union.
Castro applied for the job in person a few days after
Betty Brown had talked to him, namely on February 28,
1972. Castro talked to Gonzales in the shop . Gonzales
inquired about Castro's qualifications and told him he
would notify him later because there were more people he
had to interview . Castro did not tell Gonzales that he had
been referred by the Union. About I week later, Castro
phoned the Respondent 's shop and talked to Gonzales who
told Castro that he had lost Castro 's phone number and
instructed him to report to work . Castro reported to the
Respondent as instructed by Gonzales and he was put to
work. Castro credibly testified that after he had been at
work with the Respondent for 1 week , Gonzales asked him
if he was in the Union , and Castro told him, "No."
"Gonzales replied that was good because they were trying
to get the Union out to make it a non -union shop."4
I do not credit the testimony of Gonzales that Castro
applied for the job about a week before Hardy made
application and that was why he told Hardy the job had
been filled. To the contrary, the testimony of Betty Brown,
Hardy, and Castro are consistent and show beyond a
doubt that Hardy applied twice and was rejected twice for
the job before Betty Brown called Castro and instructed
him to apply for the job, cautioning him not to divulge that
the Union had sent him.
Gonzales' testimony , on the other hand , was rife with
inconsistencies. At one point on direct examination by the
General Counsel he admitted he had been instructed by
management not to hire a union man, then on cross-
examination, in answer to a leading question from Business
Manager Goldstein , changed his testimony to state that he
was instructed that he did not have to hire a union man,
but, when confronted with his pretrial affidavit given to a
Board agent, agreed with the pretrial statement that he had
been instructed by management not to hire a union man.
Gonzales again contradicted himself by at one point
testifying he did not hire Hardy because he had already
hired Castro, while at another point in his testimony, he
sought to justify his refusal to hire Hardy because Noriega,
Respondent's president, "had someone in mind for the
job." The inconsistent reasons advanced by the Respon-
dent for refusing to hire Hardy are again manifested in
Gonzales' telephone conversation initiated by Betty
Brown , when he requested her not to send a man for the
job because there was so little bindery work that the
Respondent was going to do it without new help.
Additionally, it should be noted that the Respondent's
refusal to authorize the Association to represent it in
negotiating a contract with the Union and its tactics in
dealing with Union Representative Wade reinforce the
conclusion that the Respondent's refusal to hire Hardy was
part and parcel of its plan to make the Respondent a
nonunion shop.
I am convinced, and I find , that the Respondent 's refusal
to hire Charles Hardy discriminated against him because
of his union membership and sponsorship , thereby discour-
aging membership in the Union , and violating Section
8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and
upon the entire record in the case , I make the following:
4 The quote is from Castro 's credible testimony.
904 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Respondent, Noriega Industries Incorporated
d/b/a Pioneer Printers , is an employer engaged in
commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of
the Act.
2. The Union is a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. The Respondent did not authorize the Association to
represent it in negotiating the 1971 -74 collective-bargain-
ing agreement with the Union and was not at any time a
member of the multiemployer unit represented by the
Association.
4. By failing and refusing to sign the 1971-74 collec-
tive-bargaining agreement negotiated between the Associa-
tion and the Union, the Respondent did not engage in
unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(ax1)
and (5) of the Act.
5. By refusing to hire Charles Hardy, the Respondent
discriminated against him because of his union member-
ship and/or sponsorship, thereby discouraging member-
ship in the Union, in violation of Section 8(axl) and (3) of
the Act.
6. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent violated Section 8(axl)
and (3) 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.
Having found that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1)
and (3) of the Act in its failure and refusal to hire Charles
Hardy, I shall recommend that it offer him immediate
employment to the position for which he applied or, if that
job no longer exists, to a substantially equivalent position,
without prejudice to his seniority or other rights and
privileges, and make him whole for any loss of earnings he
may have sustained by reason of discrimination against
him, by paying him a sum of money equal to that which he
would have normally earned as wages from the date of
discrimination against him to the date of offer of
employment to him , less his net interim earnings during
such period. Backpay shall be computed in the manner set
forth in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289, with
interest thereon at 6 percent in the manner set forth in Isis
Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact,
conclusions of law, and upon the entire record in the case,
and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, I recommend
issuance of the following: 5
S In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102 46 of the
Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board , the findings,
conclusions , and recommended Order herein shall, as provided in Sec
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
6 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
Respondent , Noriega Industries Incorporated d/b/a
Pioneer Printers , its officers , agents, successors, and
assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Discriminating in regard to the hire or tenure of
employment or any term or condition of employment of
any employee because of his union membership , sponsor-
ship, or activities , to discourage membership in any labor
organization.
(b) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or
coercing its employees in the exercise of the rights
guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, except to the extent that
such rights may be affected by an agreement requiring
membership in a labor organization as a condition of
employment , as provided in Section 8(aX3) of the Act, as
amended.
2. Take the following affirmative action which it is
found will effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Offer immediately to employ Charles Hardy to the
job for which he applied or, if that job no longer exists, to a
substantially equivalent job, without prejudice to his
seniority rights and privileges.
(b) Make said Charles Hardy whole for any loss of
earnings he may have sustained by reason of Respondent's
discrimination against him , by payment to him of a sum of
money he would have earned from the date of the
discrimination until the date of the Respondent 's offer of
employment, less his net interim earnings during said
period, loss of earnings to be computed in the manner set
forth in the section entitled "The Remedy."
(c) Preserve and, upon request , make available to the
Board or its agent, for examination and copying, all payroll
records, social security records, timecards , personnel
records and reports, and all other records necessary or
useful to determine or compute the amounts of backpay
due, if any.
(d) Post at its plant in Los Angeles, California, copies of
the attached notice marked "Appendix." 6 Copies of said
notice to be furnished by the Regional Director for Region
21, shall , after being signed by a duly authorized
representative of Respondent , be posted immediately upon
receipt thereof and maintained by it for 60 consecutive
days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places
where notices to employees are customarily posted.
Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to ensure
that such notices are not altered , defaced , or covered by
other material.
(e) Notify the Regional Director for Region 21, in
writing, within 20 days from the date of receipt of this
Decision , what steps Respondent has taken to comply
herewith.?
(f) The 8(ax5) allegations in the complaint are dismissed.
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."
I In the event that this recommended Order is adopted by the Board
after exceptions have been filed, this provision shall be modified to read.
"Notify the Regional Director for Region 21 , in writing, within 20 days
from the date of this Order, what steps Respondent has taken to comply
herewith."