Sheet Metal Workers' International Association, Local Union No. 9 (Concord Metal Inc.)

National Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsOct 19, 1989

297 N.L.R.B. 86 (N.L.R.B. 1989)

86 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Sheet Metal Workers' International Association, Local Union No. 9 (Concord Metal Inc.) and James Pech. Case 27-CB-2636 October 19, 1989 DECISION AND ORDER BY MEMBERS CRACRAFT, HIGGINS, AND DEVANEY On June 15, 1989, Administrative Law Judge Joan Wieder issued the attached decision The Re- spondent filed exceptions and a supporting bnef The General 'Counsel and the Charging Party filed answering briefs to the Respondent's exceptions 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 briefs and has decided to affirm the judge's rulings, findings, and conclusions and to adopt the recommended Order ORDER The National Labor Relations Board adopts the recommended Order of the administrative law judge and orders that the Respondent, Sheet Metal Workers' International Association, Local Union No 9, Englewood, Colorado, its officers, agents, and representatives, shall take the action set forth in the Order, except that the attached notice is sub- stituted for that of the administrative law judge 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 WE WILL NOT maintain strike agreements that provide for monetary penalties against all employ- ees who cross picket lines, thereby restraining and coercing them in the exercise of their rights to resign from union membership and/or refrain from union membership and/or union activity WE WILL NOT prosecute our lawsuit styled as Sheet Metal Workers' International Association, Local Union No 9 v James Pech, County Court, County of Adams, Colorado, which we have filed and maintained against Pech to restrain and coerce him in the exercise of his rights to resign from union membership and/or refrain from union activ- ity 297 NLRB No 11 WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner re- strain or coerce our former members and non- member employees in the exercise of rights guaran- teed them by Section 7 of the Act WE WILL rescind the strike agreements and ter- minate any and all actions instituted to enforce these agreements, withdraw our lawsuit named above, and refund to James Pech and any other employees against whom Sheet Metal Workers' International Association, Local Union No 9 sought to enforce the "Strike Agreements" who re- signed from the Union or who were not members of the Union during the strike, and refund to them any moneys they may have paid as a result of such fines, with interest, and make them whole for any loss of earnings, benefits, travel expenses, or other expenses incurred as a result of their need to defend themselves from any actions broght by the Union pursuant to the "Strike Agreement," includ- ing expenses incurred in defending the lawsuit WE WILL remove from our records any refer- ences to the "Stnke Agreements" and any attempts to enforce them, and notify all signatories to the agreement, in writing, that the "Strike Agree- ments" have been deemed an unlawful restriction on their Section 7 nghts that will not be used against them in any way SHEET METAL WORKERS INTERNA- TIONAL ASSOCIATION, LOCAL UNION No 9 T Michael Patton, Esq , for the General Counsel Dennis E Valentine, Esq (Brauer & Buescher, P C ), of Denver, Colorado, for the Respondent Robert R Miller, Esq (Stettner, Miller & Cohn, P C ), of Denver, Colorado, for the Charging Party DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE JOAN WIEDER, Administrative Law Judge This case was tried by me on March 16, 1989, 1 at Denver, Colora- do The charge was timely filed on July 15, 1988, by the Charging Party, James Pech, an individual, and the com- plaint was issued on November 29, 1988 The complaint alleges the Sheet Metal Workers' International Associa- tion, Local Union No 9 (Respondent or Union) violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the National Labor Relations Act, by (1) the maintenance of strike agreements voluntarily signed by employees of various employers which unlaw- fully restricted the rights of employees to resign or re- frain from union membership and to refrain from union activity, and (2) by filing and prosecuting a lawsuit in state court against James Pech (Pech or Charging Party) in an attempt to enforce one of the strike agreements AR dates are in 1987 unless otherwise indicated SHEET METAL WORKERS LOCAL 9 (CONCORD METAL) 87 The Respondent, in its answer to the complaint, as amended, conceded, inter aim that Pech's employer, Concord Metal, Inc (Concord), meets one of the Board's jurisdictional standards 2 Respondent also admits, and I find, that it is, and has been at all material times, a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act but denies committing any unfair labor practices On the entire record, including my observation of the witness, and after careful consideration of the posttrial briefs filed by counsel for General Counsel and Respond- ent, I make the following FINDINGS OF FACT I THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES Facts The facts involved in this proceeding are principally undisputed Pech joined the Union' in 1980 as an appren- tice At all times relevant, he was an employee of Con- cord Metal, Inc (Concord) Concord was signatory to a multiemployer 4-year collective-bargaining agreement which expired June 30, 1987 The collective-bargaining agreement had a union-security clause which, according to the only witness, Mike Salazar, a union business repre- sentative, had an 8-day grace period On June 3, the Union held a meeting where it checked the attendees' dues receipts to ensure only members at- tended One of the reasons for holding the meeting was to take a strike vote The vote was taken in a secret- ballot election and the resolution was in favor of permit- ting the Union to call a strike at the expiration of the contract The Union told the membership that if there was no contract on July 1, there would be a strike Also during the meeting, the Union circulated a docu- ment bearing its logo entitled "Strike Agreement" The agreement had an expiration date of December 31, and reads as follows I hereby promise my fellow em- ployees and Sheet Metal Workers Local #9, in ex- change for the Union's support and the promises of my fellow employees to strike, that in the event a strike is initiated against any Sheet Metal Contrac- tor, I will not work for any contractor that a strike is levied against for a period of at least eight weeks, or until the strike ends, whichever occurs first In the event a violation of this agreement, I promise to pay Sheet Metal Workers Local #9, to be distrib- uted among all employees who have honored their obligations under the strike agreement, all wages earned from any contractor that a strike has been levied against during this period of time plus an ad- ditional twenty-five ($25 00) for each day worked I am entering this agreement voluntarily as I realize the need for the Union and my fellow employees to be able to rely upon my commitment to strike 2 Based on this admission I find Concord is an employer within the meaning of Sec 2(2) of the Act and engaged in commerce within the meaning of Sec 2(6) and (7) of Act Salazar testified the purpose of the agreement was to promote solidarity, it was proposed by a member and adopted by the Union One consideration in the formula- tion of the agreement was that in 1986 there was a strike involving some sheet metal employers and a number of employees resigned their membership in the Union and returned to work At the meeting, union representatives said one of the purposes of this agreement was to keep members from crossing any picket lines which may be established There was no provision for terminating these strike agreements prior to the running of the 8-week period or the expiration date on December 31 Salazar also testified that other than the agreement itself, he did not believe that any members and/or signatories to the strike agreements were given any instructions about how it could be terminated These agreements were never shown to any employers in 1987 for the Union did not need them as a lever, some employers repudiated recognition of the Union citing John Deklewa & Sons, 282 NLRB 1375 (1987), including Concord Respondent filed a petition for recognition by Concord and an election was held On September 10, Respondent was certified as the collective-bargaining representative of Concord's employees The Union re- tained all the strike agreements Salazar was aware the Board and courts have held unions cannot discipline former members for conduct oc- curring after they resigned from the Union at the time the strike agreements were proposed and executed Pech voluntarily signed a strike agreement on June 3 The parties stipulated that several hundred employees3 of signatories to the collective-bargaining agreement which was to expire on June 30 also signed strike agree- ments containing the same terms as that signed by Pech, which is quoted above They executed the agreement on various dates which were not specified on the record Signatures were solicited after June 3 On June 30, the Union held another meeting where it was decided to strike certain employers on July 1 Con- cord was not one of these employers and the Union in- structed the Concord employees to continue working The parties stipulated that the Union's constitution and ritual of the Sheet Metal Workers' International Associa- tion contains provisions prohibiting members from cross- ing a picket line and going to work where there is a rec- ognized strike There are also provisions in the Interna- tional constitution for a member to bring charges against another member which would proceed to a union trial board and could, depending on the trial board's decision, lead to a fine, a reprimand, or other discipline These provisions of the International's constitution were not in- voked against Pech . On November 25, Pech submitted a written resignation from the Union The Union commenced a strike against Concord on December 9, which continued as of the date of this trial Pech continued working for Concord, cross- 3 The membership status of the signatories of these strike agreements was not know, some employees who were not members of the Union may have executed them The parties stnpulated that if It is found the agreements are unlawful, the remedy should be applicable to all agree- ments 88 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD mg the picket line There is no claim Pech had not effec- tively resigned from the Union prior to crossing the picket line In August the Union met with employees of Concord to have some sign a "Salt Agreement" which saves members harmless from working for an employer that did not, or claimed it did not, have a contract with the Union at the time, other members could not file a charge against an employee that signed a "salt agreement" The parties stipulated as follows [T]he agreement which has been referred to as the salt agreement was offered to four employees who were members of the union and working for Concord It was offered to them so that, if neces- sary, some of these four employees could remain with Concord after the union struck Concord, if there was a strike Only one of the four individuals who were of- fered this agreement did, in fact, remain with Con- cord after the strike The agreement was never of- fered to Mr Pech It was instead offered to these four individuals because the union felt they were leaders, effective spokesmen for the union, and could help organize Concord if after a strike one or more of these people stayed with Concord The Union, on June 30, 1988, filed a suit in County Court, County of Adams, Colorado The state court suit claims Pech breached his strike agreement and seeks damages of $1000 plus interest and costs In answer to the civil action, Pech filed the unfair labor practice charge here under consideration Trial was set for Octo- ber 7, 1988, and the parties argued a motion to stay the proceeding pending resolution of the unfair labor prac- tice charge The Union opposed the motion and success- fully argued against the stay The trial commenced on October 7, 1988, and was continued until November 30, 1988 The state court matter was later postponed pend- ing resolution of the unfair labor practice complaint here under consideration The Union knows of some other members who re- signed their memberships and crossed picket lines that had signed strike agreements, but has not instituted state court actions against anyone other than Pech There has been no decision whether any other individuals who breached their signed strike agreements will be sued by Respondent H ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS General Counsel argues the strike agreement is a re- striction on postresignation conduct and by entering into and trying to enforce such an agreement in state court the Union violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act 4 Re- 4 Sec 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act provides as follows It shall be an unfair labor practice for a labor organization or its agents— (1) to restrain or coerce (A) employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in section 7 Provided that this paragraph shall not impair the right of a labor oraganization to prescribe its own rules with re- spect to the acquisition or retention of membership therein Sec 7 of the Act provides as here pertinent spondent contends the strike agreement does not restrict resignations and advances the legitimate union interest of preserving solidarity as demonstrated by the provision the proceeds from all fines go to those employees who elected to adhere to the members' decision to strike The principles established by the Supreme Court in several lead cases provide the framework for resolving the issue of whether the strike agreements were an un- lawful restriction of members right to resign In NLRB v Allis-Chalmers Mfg Go, 388 U S 175 (1967), the Court held a union can discipline full members for returning to work during a strike since this was an "internal" action "Full membership" was distinguished from the mere ten- dering of periodic dues and initiation fees required for compliance with a union-security clause Internal actions were defined as those taken against full union members under rules that were not arbitrary and were aimed at achieving a legitimate union objective Thus, if discipline imposed by a union meets the definition of internal action it does not violate Section 8(b)(1)(A) The Court also identified some union discipline as "ex- ternal" actions, which were defined as actions directed at interfering with an employee's job status or taken against nonmembers or employees outside the bargaining unit External actions are not protected by the 8(b)(1)(A) pro- viso Scofield v NLRB, 394 U S 423 (1969), involved a union announcing a rule setting production ceilings and fining members who exceeded the production quota The Court repeated the distinction between internal and ex- ternal actions and further promulgated the following four requirements for the lawful imposition of union rules and their enforcement [Section] 8(b)(1)(A) leaves a union free to enforce a properly adopted rule which reflects a legitimate union interest, impairs no policy Congress has em- bedded in the labor laws, and is reasonably enforced against union members who are free to leave and escape the rule In NLRB v Textile Workers Local 1029, Granite State Joint Board, 409 U S 213 (1972), the Court affirmed the Board's determination that a union violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) when it fined members for crossing picket lines after they resigned from the union The Court re- viewed the Scofield and Allis-Chalmers decisions and stressed the findings in those cases that the union disci- pline was lawful for it applied only to full union mem- bers, holding at 217 The Scofield case indicates that the power of the union over the member is certainly no greater than the union-member contract Where a member law- fully resigns from a union and thereafter engages in conduct which the union rule proscnbes, the union Employees shall have the right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through repre- sentatives of their own choosing, and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutal aid or protection, and shall also have the right to refrain from any or all such activities SHEET METAL WORKERS LOCAL 9 (CONCORD METAL) 89 commits an unfair labor practice when it seeks en- forcement of fines for that conduct That is to say, when there is a lawful dissolution of a union- member relation, the union has no more control over the former member than it has over the man in the street The Court also considered the legitimate interests of unions in preserving strike solidarity, but concluded that it did not justify enforcement of its rules against employ- ees who had resigned prior to breaking the rule The Court stated, at 217-218 Events occurring after the calling of a strike may have unsettling effects, leading a member who voted to strike to change his mind The likely dura- tion of the strike may increase the specter of hard- ship to his family, the ease with which the employ- er replaces the strikers may make the strike seem less provident We do not now decide to what extent the contractual relationship between the union and member may curtail the freedom to resign But where, as here, there are no restraints on the resignation of members, we conclude that the vitality of [Section] 7 requires that the member be free to refrain in November from the actions he en- dorsed in May and that his [Section] 7 rights are not lost by a union's plea for solidarity or by its pressures for conformity and submission to its regime The Court further held, reiterating its view expressed in Scofield v NLRB, supra , Section 8(b)(1)(A) leaves a union free to enforce a properly adopted rule which reflects a legitimate union interest, impairs no policy Congress has im- bedded in the labor laws, and is reasonably enforced against union members who are free to leave the union and escape the rule 409 U S at 216 In Machinists Lodge 405 v NLRB, 412 U S 84 (1973), the court similarly found a violation of Section 8(b)(1)(A) where a union fined members who had crossed picket lines who had previously resigned from the union The limitation on the unions' nghts to fine nonunion and former union members was further explained in Sheet Metal Workers Local 29 (Metal-Fab), 222 NLRB 1156 (1976), and Machinists Local 1414 (Neufeld Porsche- Audi), 270 NLRB 1330 (1984), and Pattern Makers League v NLRB, 473 U S 95 (1985) The Board held in Neufeld Porche-Audi, supra at 1336, "that while a union's interests in preserving strike solidarity and protecting the interest of striking members are legitimate, such institu- tional interests, no matter how legitimate, are insufficient to negate express statutory rights Thus, the express statu- tory rights to resign from a union and to refrain from participating from a strike override any common law contractual requirements engendered by executing the strike agreement The Board's decision in Metal-Fab addressed a situa- tion analogous to that here under consideration where both members and nonmembers signed an agreement with the union to honor the strike and breaches of the agreement were to result in fines The Board found, as follows The Board noted in OK Tool Company5 that the union's proscription of postresignation strikebreak- ing not only impairs a former member's Section 7 right to refrain from concerted activity, but it also' is plainly contrary to Scofield's requirement that union members be free to leave the union to escape membership conditions that they consider onerous, and balancing the individual's right under Section 7 to refrain from concerted activity following resigna- tion from a union, against that of the union to main- tain solidarity during a strike, the Board concluded that the latter must give way [222 NLRB at 119] I find that the strike agreement is an unlawful attempt by the Union to exact conformity without regard to the individual's Section 7 rights in violation of Section 8(b)(1)(A) That the agreement was suggested by a member does not alter this finding The Union is the entity which is a party to the agreement and seeks to en- force its terms by the institution of a state court suit As noted in Metal-Fab at 1160 In the instant case, the Respondent Union is at- tempting to retain control over its members who had effectively resigned, and also over certain non- members who never belonged, as if they were all active members of the Respondent Union In Gran- ite State the Supreme Court concluded that a union's power over its members is no greater than the union-member contract, and ends when a member lawfully resigns I am in agreement with the General Counsel that the agreements to honor the strike in the instant case are actually nothing more than a sham and sub- terfuge in order for the Union to retain control over employees who might later decide to return to their jobs In effect, the Respondent Union would make members who resigned, and employees who never belonged, involuntary members of the Union for the purpose of fining them for crossing the picket line, and they could do so with absolute assurances be- cause there was no language or provision in the agreements for the employees to later escape or re- frain from engaging in such activity Certainly, under these circumstances, the Respondent Union is exceeding the union-membership relationship 6 5 Machinists Local 1994 (OK Tool Co ), 215 NLRB 651 (1974) 6 Like the salt agreements, the union in Metal-Fab permitted several members to return to work after signing a second or new agreement to continue efforts to support the objectives of the strike and, if requested, returning to the strike by withholding their labor and picketing, if called on,to do so by the union It was held in Metal-Fab, fn 7, that by this agreement the union permitted some employees to return to work with- out betng subjected to the fines required by the initial agreement, and noted By such means the Union itself found a way to repudiate or waive the prior pledges and thereby recognized, in conjunction with Gran- ite State, that the 'vitality of Section 7 requires that the member be free to refrain in November from the actions he endorsed in May' 90 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD The strike agreement is merely another mechanism the union has employed to restrict a member or former member in the exercise of their Section 7 rights The fact the agreement in this case had a termination date of December 31, 1987, and could run no more than 8 weeks, does not alter my concluston the strike agree- ment unlawfully restncts a member's right to resign from the Union and escape the rule or refrain from engaging in the strike without the coercive effect of the fine As held in Sheet Metal Workers Local 73 (Safe Air), 274 NLRB 374 (1985), affirming the Boards decision in Ma- chinists Local 1414 (Neufeld Porsche-Audi), supra, 270 NLRB 1330, approved by the Supreme Court in Pattern Makers League v NLRB, 473 U S 95 (1985), any restric- tion on resignations from union membership is invalid, ir- respective of the period of xestnction Cf Automobile Workers Local 449 (National Meta'crafters), 283 NLRB 182 (1987) Pech's voluntary execution of the agreement does not constitute a waiver of his Section 7 rights Such a waiver must be clear and unmistakable, and not readily implied In this instance, the employees were not informed they were waiving a statutory right to refrain from the strike I find there was no clear and unmistakable waiver dem- onstrated in this case Assuming arguendo such a waiver occurred, as held in Metal-Fab, "even a clear and unmis- takable waiver will not be permitted, where the union has an apparent self-interest in perpetuating itself" Citing NLRB v Magnavox Co , 415 U S 322 (1974) I also find unpersuasive Respondent's argument that the contracts are governed by the common law for the Union's attempt to enforce the contract in State Court "impinges on some policy of federal labor law" Scofield v NLRB, supra, 394 U S 423, 426 fn 3 (1969) As held in Food & Commercial Workers Local 81 (MacDonald Meat), 284 NLRB 1084 (1987) Extracting money from an individual is a highly co- ercive measure and it does not directly implicate a union's freedom to admit and expel who it wishes, the policy of protecting the exercise of the Section 7 right to "refrain from engaging in union activity" properly outweighs a union's interest in imposing the fine In sum, I conclude the strike agreements cannot fur- nish legitimacy to the Union's attempts to frustrate the rights of members to resign from the Union and refrain from participating in a strike, and to coerce nonmembers from participating in the strike I also find the law's aver- sion to waiving Section 7 rights, under the circumstances of this case, warrants a conclusion that Respondent vio- lated Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act by maintaining the strike agreements which restrained members' rights to resign and nonmembers' nghts to refrain from participa- tion in the strike Inasmuch as the filing of the state court lawsuit was with "an objective that is illegal under feder- al law," 7 to coerce an employee from exercising nghts 7 Bill Johnson's Restaurants v NLRB, 461 U S 731, 740-744 (1983) under Section 7 of the Act, I find that the initiation of the lawsuit for enforcement of the fine provision of the strike agreement also is a violation of Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act I base this finding on the conclusion that the state lawsuit was not well founded lacking a reasonable basis in law To hold otherwise would render the em- ployees' Section 7 rights a nullity See generally Ameri- can Pacific Concrete Pipe Go, 292 NLRB 1261 (1989) CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1 Concord Metal, Inc is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section' 2(6) and (7) of the Act 2 Sheet Metal Workers' International Association, Local Union No 9 is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act . 3 Local 9 violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act by maintaining and enforcing in state court a strike agree- ment which restrained and coerced members and other employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act 4 These unfair labor practices affect commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act THE REMEDY Having found that the Union had engaged in unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act, I shall recommend that the Union cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies and purposes of the Act, including the refund to fined employees any moneys they may have paid as a result of the fines unlawfully imposed against them, with interest computed in the manner pre- scribed in New Horizons for the Retarded, 283 NLRB 1173 (1987), and make them whole for any loss of earn- ings, benefits, travel expenses, or any other expenses in- curred as a result of their need to defend themselves against the lawsuit unlawfully brought against them Food & Commercial Workers Local 1439 (Allied Employ- ers), 275 NLRB 995 (1985) General Counsel also properly requests the remedy in- clude notification to all signatories to the strike agree- ment since the Union can still sue any employee it be- lieves breached the agreement and has such actions under consideration I find this request meritorious under these circumstances where some signatories are admitted- ly not union members and would not readily observe any notices posted at union facilities Similarly, there is no in- dication all signatories who are currently union members working for employers who may chose to post the notice I recommend that the Union individually notify all signatories to the "Strike Agreement" by expunging from their files all references to these agreements and no- tifying all signatories to these agreements they have done so and that they will not use them in any way On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on the entire record, I issue the following recommend- eds 8 If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec 102 46 of the Board's Rules and Regulations, the findings, conclusions, and recommended Continued SHEET METAL WORKERS LOCAL 9 (CONCORD METAL) 91 ORDER The Respondent, Sheet Metal Workers' International Association, Local Union No 9, its officers, agents, and representatives, shall 1 Cease and desist from (a) Maintaining strike agreements which provide for monetary penalties against all employees who cross picket lines, thereby restraining and coercing them in the exercise of their rights to resign from union membership and/or refrain from union membership and/or union ac- tivity (b) Prosecuting its lawsuit styled as Sheet Metal Work- ers' Local 9 v James Pech, County Court, County of Adams, Colorado, which Respondent has filed and main- tained against Pech to restrain and coerce him in the ex- ercise of his rights to resign from union membership and/or refrain from union activity (c) In any like or related manner restraining or coerc- ing its former members and nonunion employees in the exercise of their rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act 2 Take the following affirmative action necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act (a) Rescind the strike agreements and terminate any and all actions instituted to enforce these agreements, withdraw its lawsuit named above and refund to James Pech and any other employees against whom the Union sought to enforce the strike agreements who resigned from the union or who were not members of the Union during the strike, and refund to them any moneys they may have paid as a result of such fines, with interest, and make them whole for any loss of earning, benefits, travel 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 expenses, or other expenses incurred as a result of their need to defend themselves from any actions brought by the Union pursuant to the strike agreement, including ex- penses incurred in defending the lawsuit (b) Remove from its records any references to the Strike Agreements and any attempts to enforce them, and notify all signatories to the agreement, in writing, that the strike agreements have been deemed an unlawful restriction upon their Section 7 rights which will not be used against them in any way (c) Post at its business offices, meeting halls, and other places where notices to their members are customarily posted copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix A "9 Copies of the attached notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 27, shall be posted by the Respondent Unions, after being signed by their authorized representatives, shall be posted for 60 consec- utive days in conspicuous places where notices to mem- bers are customarily posted Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent Union to ensure that the no- tices are not altered or covered by any material (d) Sign and mail to the Regional Director for Region 27 sufficient copies of the notice for posting at the prem- ises of Concord Metal, Inc , and the other employers which were signatones to the collective-bargaining agreement which expired July 1, 1987, and were struck by the Union on or after that date and December 31, 1987, if willing (e) Notify the Regional Director in wntmg within 20 days from the date of this Order what steps the Re- spondent has taken to comply 9 If this Order is enforced by a judgment of a United States court of appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by Order of the Nation- al 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"