Rose's Stores, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 6, 1975

221 N.L.R.B. 383 (N.L.R.B. 1975)

ROSE 'S STORES, INC
Rose's Stores, Inc. and Atlanta Printing Specialties
and Paper Products Union No. 527, AFLr-CIO.
Case 10-CA-11131
November 6, 1975
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MURPHY AND MEMBERS
FANNING AND JENKINS
On June 30, 1975, Administrative Law Judge
Almira Abbott Stevenson issued the attached Deci-
sion in this proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent 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
briefs and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings,
and conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge
and to adopt her 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 Rose's Stores,
Inc., Fairburn, Georgia, its officers, agents, succes-
sors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the
said recommended Order, as so modified.
1. Substitute the following for paragraph 1(c): "In
any other manner interfering with, restraining, or
coercing employees in the exercise of their rights
under Section 7 of the Act."
2. Substitute the attached notice for that of the
Administrative Law Judge.
The Respondent has excepted to certain credibility findings made by
the Administrative Law Judge. It is the Board 's established policy not to
overrule an Administrative Law Judge's resolutions with respect to
credibility unless all of 'the relevant evidence convinces us that the
resolutions are incorrect . Standard Dry Wall Products Inc, 91 NLRB 544
(1950), enfd. 188 F 2d 362 (C.A. 3, 1951) We have carefully examined the
record and find no basis for reversing her findings.
APPENDIX
383
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT discharge any of you for
supporting Atlanta Printing Specialties and Paper
Products Union, No. 527, AFL-CIO, or any other
Union.
WE WILL NOT coercively question you about
your union activities.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere
with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the
exercise of rights guaranteed to them by Section 7
of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended.
WE WILL offer Kenneth Golson, Clifford
Gillette, and Gary Stewart immediate and full
reinstatement to the jobs they held prior to their
discharges on February 21, 1975, or, if their jobs
no longer exist, to substantially equivalent jobs,
without prejudice to their seniority or other rights
and privileges.
WE WILL make whole Kenneth Golson, Clif-
ford Gillette, and Gary Stewart for any loss of
pay they may have suffered as a result of their
discriminatory discharges, plus interest at 6
percent per annum.
ROSE'S STORES, INC.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
ALMIRA ABBOT STEVENSON, Administrative Law Judge:
This case was heard in Atlanta, Georgia, April 29 and 30
and May 1, 1975. The original charge was filed and'served
on the Respondent February 25, 1975; the amended charge
was filed and served March 25, 1975. The complaint was
issued March 27, 1975, and amended at the hearing.
The issues are whether or not the Respondent violated
Section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended, by interrogating two employees; and whether or
not it violated Section 8(a)(3) by discharging three
employees February 21, 1975, 2 days after they attended a
union meeting. For the reasons fully set forth,below, I
conclude that the Respondent violated the Act as alleged
in the complaint.
Upon the entire record,' including my, observation of the
demeanor of the witnesses, and after due consideration of
the briefs filed by the Respondent and the General
Counsel, I make the following:
The record does not reflect that G C Exh 7, offered in evidence, was
received. As the Respondent had no objection to that exhibit , it is hereby
received in evidence
221 NLRB No. 79
384 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. JURISDICTION
The Respondent is a North Carolina corporation
engaged in the operation of retail stores in North Carolina,
Georgia, and Tennessee, as well as the warehouse in
Fairburn, Georgia, involved in this proceeding. During the
past calendar year the Respondent had a gross volume of
sales in excess of $500,000; it purchased and received at its
Fairburn, Georgia, warehouse goods and materials valued
in excess of $50,000 directly from points outside Georgia.
The Respondent admits and I conclude that it is engaged
in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of
the Act.
II. LABOR ORGANIZATION
The Respondent admits, and I conclude, that the
Charging Party is a labor organization within the meaning
of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The Evidence
The Fairbum Warehouse is a storage and distribution
facility approximately 105,000 square feet in size, and
employs a complement of about 50 employees. It is run by
the' Respondent's admitted agents, Allen F. Harris,
operations manager, and Linwood H. Ivey, warehouse
manager. Paychecks for the employees are made out at the
Respondent's home office in Henderson, North Carolina,
about 460 miles away, and sent to Fairburn by mail or by
company truck which makes a daily run between the two
locations.
The three employees involved in this case were classified
as general warehousemen. Kenneth Golson was hired
during the spring of 1973; he attended the Respondent's
management training program in Athens, Georgia, for
several months during the spring of 1974, but returned to
his warehouse job in Fairburn at his own request in May,
without completing the course. Clifford Gillette was hired
in the fall of 1973. Gary Stewart was hired as part time in
June 1973, and as full time in March 1974.
On or about February 9, 1975, Kenneth Golson
contacted an official of the Charging Party Union with
regard to the possibility of organizing the Respondent's
warehouse employees. A meeting was scheduled between
union officials and employees to be held at the union office
in Atlanta on the evening of Monday, February 17, but
was postponed until Wednesday evening, February 19.
Only three of the Respondent's employees attended -
Golson, Gillette, and Stewart. All three signed union
authorization cards; Golson and Gillette took blank cards
to obtain signatures of other employees if possible. Two
days after the union -meeting, on Friday afternoon,
February 21, Golson, Gillette, and Stewart were terminat-
ed by Managers Ivey and Harris. The basic question is
whether the terminations were for attending the union
meeting , as the General Counsel contends, or for cause, as
the Respondent contends.
During the workday after the union meeting, the three
employees who had attended spoke to other employees
during break periods about the meeting, and, Golson
informed some employees he would meet with them at an
A & P parking lot after work and discuss the union matter
further. Six to ten employees showed up at the parking lot
and Golson gave out union authorization cards to four of
them. The record does not reveal the location of the A & P
parking lot vis-a-vis the Respondent's warehouse. Golson
conceded that he took every precaution to keep manage-
ment from finding out about the union activities, and there
is no direct evidence that any of the above-described
activities came to management's attention. The General
Counsel relies on the following to`support his assertion that
management did learn about the union meeting attended
by the three alleged discriminatees.
It is not disputed that' about 9 o'clock on Thursday
morning, Jim Sanders, a truckdriver whose work required
him to visit the front office frequently, came out of the
office and asked Golson how the union meeting went the
night before, who attended, and what was said. Golson
told Sanders that he, Gillette, and Stewart attended, and it
seemed to be a good plan; he asked Sanders to'come to the
A & P parking lot after work and sign a union card. At that
point, Sanders, who both Golson and Gillette said had
been favorably disposed toward unionization, told Golson,
"no, he was not for the Union, and that it would shut the
warehouse down tight if we got one in," and went back
into the office. About an hour and a half later, according to
Golson and Gillette, Manager Ivey walked by them as they
were working in the warehouse and said to them, "How did
the union meeting go last night?" and passed on by without
waiting for an answer. This question, which Ivey denied
asking, is the basis for the 8(a)(1) violation alleged in the
complaint.
The following evidence, was received relevant to the
discharges on Friday afternoon.
There is no substantial dispute as to Golson's discharge
interview. Golson was summoned to the office where
Managers Ivey and Harris were present. Ivey told him, "I
think that you have been expecting this," and handed him
a termination check, which contained his pay for his last
week's work, vacation pay, and a week's severance pay.
Golson asked whether there was going to be a layoff or
whether it was a termination. Ivey said it was a termina-
tion. Golson requested a pink slip stating why he was being
fired; Ivey said Rose's did not have pink slips. Golson then
asked Ivey to write the reason on a piece of paper for the
unemployment office. Ivey complied, writing, "not work-
ing up to his ability and poor attendance," and Ivey and
Harris signed the slip. At the same time, Ivey made out a
discharge record for the Respondent's files to the effect
that Golson had "not been giving his best," and "was not
working as well as expected and for attendance."
Golson contended he had received no prior complaints
about his attendance or not working up to his ability. On
one occasion, before Christmas 1974, Golson said, Ivey
complimented him for trying to keep up with everybody
else despite a back injury he suffered on the job the
previous July.
ROSE'S STORES, INC. 385
When Golson hurt his back in July 1974, Ivey placed
him on light duty. Golson testified he was not absent
thereafter except for vacation time and excused sick leave
for which he was paid in full.
Stewart and Gillette were called into the office separately
on Friday afternoon. Ivey discharged each of them in
Harris' presence , and handed them checks. Stewart said the
only reason given him at that time was that Ivey had been
checking up on his records and that he "hadn't been doing
so well lately ." Gillette said the reason given him was not
doing what he was capable of and for talking. Both
employees testified that Ivey and Harris disavowed
responsibility for the discharges , and declared that the
Henderson home office ordered them . Ivey denied saying
this and Harris could not recall Henderson being men-
tioned ; both testified that Ivey alone made the decision
and so advised Harris, as discussed below. They testified in
effect that Ivey told Stewart and Gillette their work was
not up to par and the Respondent had to get someone who
would get the job done . Gillette and Stewart returned to
the warehouse the Monday following their discharges and
obtained slips signed by the two managers to the effect that
they were dismissed for talking and interfering with other
people's work, and that they had been warned . The file
records, signed by Ivey and Harris, stated that Stewart had
been standing around talking , his performance was not up
to par, and that he was not giving his best; and' that
Gillette was not working, but was talking and interfering
with other people 's work, and the company needed
someone to do the work.
The record shows that Gillette and Stewart are friends
with a mutual interest in music. They conceded that on
several occasions Ivey remonstrated with them for talking
with each other, split them up , and told them to get back to
work . They insisted that work was the subject of their
conversation on every such occasion . The last time Ivey
spoke to them in this manner was around Christmas, 1974,
when, according to Stewart , Ivey said that he was not going
to tell them again . However , just a week before their
terminations , they said, Ivey told them they were two of
the, hardest workers in the warehouse . As indicated below,
Ivey denied this.
Ivey and Harris testified they had no knowledge of any
union activity among the employees before the discharges,
and that they learned of the union activity for the first time
when they received a copy of the charge in this proceeding.
Ivey testified that there is no formalized system of
disciplinary action and no policy of giving employees
written reprimands . Ivey handles disciplinary matters, and
makes the decisions about discharging employees. Ivey
sometimes reduces reprimands to writing for the file, but
does not give a copy to the employee affected., With regard
to discharges, he and Harris said it is company policy to
effect them at the end of a week because, Ivey said,
paychecks must be obtained from Henderson , and they
both pointed out that the policy gives the remaining
employees the weekend to cool off in the event they object
to the discharges.
With regard to Golson , Ivey testified he was a good
employee until he returned from the management training
program , but after that his attitude changed and he made
mistakes in writing up freight . Early in December, Ivey
said he asked Golson whether he had seen the doctor
lately, and Golson told him the doctor had said to resume
his normal duties. Ivey instructed Golson to return to the
warehouse the next day but to be careful not to overexert
and irritate his injury. At the same time , Ivey said, he
pointed out that Golson's attendance was not good and to
improve it, although Ivey thought Golson was going to the
doctor whenever he missed work. There was no further
discussion between them of Golson 's injury, although Ivey
was never advised that Golson was cured . Ivey's next talk
with Golson was after he missed work Friday, February 7,
1975, when Ivey says he told Golson his attendance
definitely would have to improve and his work needed
improvement . Golson said he would try. On Monday,
February 17, Golson called to say he was sick . Ivey told
him to bring a doctor's excuse, but Golson never brought
one. That afternoon Ivey reviewed Golson 's record which
showed Monday to be his ninth absence in 1975, and
informed Harris he had decided to terminate Golson.
Harris asked if Ivey had "proper warnings on him." Ivey
said he had given Golson verbal warnings and he knew he
was in trouble , and Ivey needed to replace him with a man
who could get the job done . Harris testified that he told
Ivey, "it's your decision , if you think you can do it, that's
what we'll do."
The record shows that at the time of Golson's back
injury, he was referred to a Dr . Thomasson who discharged
him as "cured" August 8 , 1974. Thereafter , however,
Golson obtained treatment from a Dr. Warren , ;huroprac-
tor, on six occasions in November 1974 , although he was
absent only 3 of those days. The Respondent 's insurance
company paid for the chiropractor but thereafter referred
Golson to another medical doctor, Dr. Wood . Golson was
excused for half a day on two occasions thereafter in 1974
- November 29 and December 3. On December 3, he was
examined by Dr . Wood . Golson saw Dr . Wood again
December 10, but the record does not show that he missed
work that day. The Respondent's attendance record shows
that between January 1 and February 21, 1975, Golson
called in sick nine times . Golson testified that he visited
either Dr. Wood or a Dr . Whitaker on eight of those
occasions. The insurance company has no record that
Golson visited Dr. Wood at any time during 1975 before
his discharge, and Dr. Whitaker is otherwise unidentified.
According to Ivey, there is a company rule requiring
dismissal for excessive absenteeism but he takes it upon
himself to make this determination after reviewing the
employee's record and talking to him. Ivey testified that he
usually excuses six absences for sickness without question-
ing an employee, but does question an employee after that
and usually docks his pay.
Although Ivey avowed that Golson never said his 1975
absences were due to his back injury, Ivey conceded that
all of Golson's absences in,1975 were excused, and he was
not sure that Golson's pay was docked for the seventh,
eighth, and ninth day he called in sick.
There is evidence that an employee named Waller was
discharged on Friday, October 12 , 1973, for unsatisfactory
work . Allen Patterson was discharged on Friday, March
29, 1974, for missing 10 days since the first of that year,
386 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
although the record does not reveal whether any of his
absences were excused.
The record shows that Ivey reprimanded Stewart and
Gillette in September, as well as in December 1974, for
standing around talking. Ivey and Harris testified that in
January and February 1975 talking, loafing, and interfer-
ing with other people's work became a general problem
among the employees. The volume of freight coming into
the warehouse increased 50 percent in January and 100
percent in February over the comparable months of 1974,
and employee resistance to working overtime compounded
the Respondent's problem. Ivey and Hams therefore held
several meetings with employees at which they appealed to
them to stop loafing and talking, pointed out that this
would reduce the need to work overtime and that if the
employees did not, "we'd have to make changes to get the
job done." Employees Charles Bryant, Jimmy Whitley, and
Wade Talley were suspended for a day for standing around
talking on overtime January 9, 1975, Tally being told he
had already had several chances in the past. This "solved
the problem" for those three employees, Ivey said. The
work of Stewart and Gillette also improved, Ivey said, and
on February 14 he told them so and asked them to keep it
up. However, he said, he observed them back together
again two or three times on both Monday and Tuesday the
following week, and on Tuesday he decided to replace
them. Ivey so informed Harris who asked him if he had
issued reprimands to them. Ivey said yes, and Harris told
Ivey to do what he thought best to get the job done. As
Hams was scheduled to visit the Henderson office, Ivey
asked him to bring checks for the three dischargees when
he returned on Friday. Ivey said he observed Gillette and
Stewart together again on Friday morning and when he
approached them they showed him a paper with guitar
chords on it; Ivey laughed, because he could not believe it
The Respondent also presented the testimony of Jimmy
Moms, who said he had been employed in the warehouse
for 2 years but whom Golson testified he did not know.
Morris said he had worked with the three alleged
discnminatees on a daily basis observing their work for a
year, and that they were goof-offs. Stewart and Gillette
were frequently told to do more work and were not the
hardest workers in the warehouse, he said, although he
named two other employees, Teal and Hines, who were
spoken to more often than they about talking. Morris also
testified that he himself first heard of the union activity in
the plant after the three were discharged.
B. Findings and Conclusions
Based on my observation of the demeanor of all the
witnesses and careful study of the entire record, I am
persuaded that Kenneth Golson was the most truthful
person who testified. Although not infallible in all respects,
he appeared to be an intelligent, substantially honest,
forceful young man. Moreover, I do not credit Ivey's
vague, imprecise, and jejune testimony to the effect that
Golson's "attitude" changed after his voluntary return
from the management training program many months ago,
that he made mistakes, and that Ivey told Golson, albeit
only one time, that his work needed improvement. Moms'
testimony that Golson was a goof-off is discounted as
motivated more by ambition than by integrity.
With regard to Golson's alleged excessive absenteeism,
there is no question but that he suffered an injury on the
job on July 31, 1974, and that he has not fully recovered.
Ivey's testimony that he told Golson in early December, at
the time Golson returned to his normal duties, that his
attendance was not good, is not supported by the
Respondent's attendance records. Thus Golson missed 6
days' work in August and 4 days in September. In October,
however, he missed no work; in November he was absent
3-1/2 days; and he missed only one-half day in the entire
month of December. As Ivey admitted, he thought all of
Golson's absences were occasioned by visits to a doctor, as
he excused them, and as the record shows that Golson's
attendance was actually improving at the time Ivey says he
admonished him, this testimony is totally unbelievable.
With regard to January and February 1975, I do not
doubt that there was a large increase in the workload, and
that attendance and attention to duty increased in
importance. It is also clear that Golson's attendance
deteriorated However, it is plain that Ivey believed that his
absences were the result of his back injury, as Golson
testified they were Thus, Ivey had cautioned Golson in
December not to overexert and irritate his injury, Ivey
admitted he was never advised that Golson was cured, he
excused these absences, and he was unable to deny
Golson's testimony that the Respondent paid for them. In
these circumstances, I cannot credit Ivey's testimony that
he told Golson, without mentioning his injury, after his
February 7 absence, that his attendance definitely had to
improve. I therefore find that Ivey did not speak to Golson
about his absences despite his professed practice of doing
so after an employee missed 6 days for sickness, and that
the reason he did not was because he was convinced they
were caused by the injury Golson suffered on the job.
Ivey's further testimony that he finally told Golson, when
he called in sick on Monday, February 17, to bring a
doctor's excuse and that Golson failed to do so, is
inconsistent with Ivey's contention that he made the
decision to fire him Monday afternoon, before he found
out whether or not Golson would bring the excuse.
Accordingly, I find that the reasons advanced for the
discharge of Golson are not supported by credible
evidence and were not the real reasons the Respondent
discharged him.
As I have found above that Golson was a more credible
witness than Ivey, as Golson's testimony that Ivey asked
him and Gillette how the union meeting went was
supported by Gillette and does not appear in all the
circumstances unlikely, I credit these two employees'
testimony in this regard, and discredit Ivey's denial.
Accordingly, I find that by mid-morning, Thursday,
February 20, Ivey had discovered that they attended the
union meeting the night before . Because it is improbable
that he would not have, I infer that he had also discovered
the attendance of the only other employee present -
Stewart.
The work record of Gillette and Stewart was not
impressive, as they received two reprimands for talking
when they should have been working. However, Jimmy
ROSE'S STORES, INC:
Morris , found above to be unduly favorable toward the
Respondent , said that two other employees, Teal and
Hines, (who did not attend the union meeting), had to be
spoken to more often than they for talking, and the record
indicates that Teal and Hines were not discharged until
some time after the events herein. Moreover, the three
employees who had been guilty of the same offense of
talking instead of working in January, one not for the first
time, had merely been suspended for a day, and Ivey
conceded the suspensions had solved his problem with
them . It is also clear that Stewart and Gillette's conduct
did improve, and that Ivey told them so only a week before
he discharged them. His assertion that they immediately
thereafter retrogressed so badly that he decided to
discharge them is completely unconvincing. If they really
had begun talking and loafing again, it would have been
more reasonable for Ivey to suspend them for a day than to
suddenly discharge them for conduct he had tolerated for
some months without taking any disciplinary action
harsher than two verbal reprimands, particularly when his
prior experience must have led him to believe suspensions
would solve the problem.
I find therefore that the reasons given by the Respondent
for the discharge of Stewart and Gillette are not supported
by credible evidence.
I have found that the Respondent did not discharge
these employees for the reasons advanced. I have also
found that management discovered before noon on
Thursday that they were the ones who attended the
meeting the night before. Harris' testimony that he told
Ivey to go ahead and discharge Golson "if you think you
can do it" strongly suggests that the decision was made at a
time when management had doubts about getting away
with it; i.e., not before they knew about the union meeting,
but after they knew about it. From Thursday morning until
Friday afternoon was just about long enough to have the
checks made up and brought from the home office.
In view, therefore, of the Respondent's failure to show
cause for the discharges, the disparity in the Respondent's
treatment of these employees, its knowledge of their
attendance at the union meeting, and the timing of the
discharges as soon after learning about the union meeting
as practicable, I find that the Respondent discharged them
February 21, 1975, because they attended the meeting. I
conclude that by this conduct the Respondent discriminat-
ed against Golson, Gillette, and Stewart in their tenure of
employment to discourage membership in a labor organi-
zation, thereby violating Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act.
I also find that Ivey's question of Golson and Gillette,
"How did the Union meeting go last night?" was in context
coercive, and that the Respondent thereby interfered with
the exercise of employee rights guaranteed by Section 7, in
violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
2 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
IV. REMEDY
387
In order to effectuate, the policies of the Act, I
recommend that the Respondent be ordered to cease and
desist from the unfair labor practices found and, in view of
the nature thereof, to cease and desist from infringing in
any manner on its employees' rights guaranteed by the Act.
N. L. R B. v. Entwistle Manufacturing Company, 120 F.2d
532 (C.A. 4, 1941).
Having found that the Respondent discriminatorily
discharged three employees, I also recommend that it be
ordered to offer these employees immediate and full
reinstatement to their former jobs, or if those jobs no
longer exist, to substantially equivalent jobs, without
prejudice to their seniority and other rights and privileges,
and to make them whole for any loss of earnings suffered
by reason of the discrimination against them, plus interest
at 6 percent per annum. F. W. Woolworth Company, 90
NLRB 289 (1950); Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB
716 (1962).
Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of
law and the entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of
the Act, I hereby issue the following recommended:
ORDER2
The Respondent, Rose's Stores, Inc., Fairburn, Georgia,
its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Discharging or otherwise discriminating against any
employee for supporting Atlanta Printing Specialties and
Paper Products Union, No. 527, AFL-CIO, or any other
Union.
(b) Coercively interrogating employees about their union
activities.
(c) In any manner interfering with, restraining, or
coercing employees in the exercise of their rights under
Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to
effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Offer Kenneth Golson, Clifford Gillette, and Gary
Stewart immediate and full reinstatement to their former
jobs or, if their jobs no longer exist, to substantially
equivalent jobs, without prejudice to their seniority or
other rights and privileges, and make them whole for their
lost earnings in the manner set forth in the section of this
Decision entitled "Remedy."
(b) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the
Board or its agents, for examination and copying, all
payroll records, social security payment records, timecards,
personnel records and reports, and all records necessary to
analyze the amount of backpay due under the terms of this
recommended Order.
(c) Post at its warehouse in Fairburn, Georgia, copies of
the attached notice marked "Appendix." 3 Copies of the
notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for
3 In the event the Board's Order is enforced by a Judgment of the 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"
388 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Region 10, after being duly signed by an authorized the Respondent to insure that the notices are not altered,
representative of the Respondent, shall be posted by the defaced, or covered by any other material.
Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and be (d) Notify the Regional Director in writing within 20
maintained for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicu- days from the date of this Order, , what steps the
ous places, including all places where notices to employees Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by