T.v.Systems, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsOct 31, 1973

206 N.L.R.B. 841 (N.L.R.B. 1973)

T V SYSTEMS INC 2541 T. V. Systems, Inc. and Reyes Hernandez and Interna- tional Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local Union 1186 , AFL-CIO, and International Brother- hood of Electrical Workers Local Union 1260, AFL- CIO. Cases 37-CA-872 and 37-CA-876 October 31, 1973 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS JENKINS AND KENNEDY On June 7, 1973, Administrative Law Judge Irving Rogosin issued the attached Decision in this proceed- ing. Thereafter Respondent filed exceptions and a supporting brief. General Counsel filed cross-excep- tions and an answering brief. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na- tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au- thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. The Board has considered the record and the at- tached 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 his recommended Order, as modified herein. The Administrative Law Judge found that Respon- dent violated Section 8(a)(3) and, derivatively Section 8(a)(1), by discharging the entire unit of three employ- ees because of their union affiliation. He also found independent violations of Section 8(a)(1) by Respondent's unlawful interrogation of these employ- ees, statements regarding the futility of selecting the Union as the bargaining agent, promises of benefits, threats of plant closure, and other acts of interference, restraint, or coercion. He further found that the Union presented a demand for recognition and bar- gaining on December 21, 1973, on behalf of the em- ployees in the appropriate unit; that the employees had designated the Union as their bargaining agent; and, that on December 21, 1973, Respondent refused to bargain collectively with the Union. As detailed more fully in the Administrative Law Judge's Decision, Respondent engaged in serious vio- lations of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) calculated to defeat '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 the clear preponderance of all of the relevant evidence convinces us that the resolutions are incorrect. Standard Dry Wall Products, Inc., 91 NLRB 544, enfd 188 F.2d 362 (CA. 3, 1951). We have carefully examined the record and find no basis for reversing his findings. We hereby correct apparently inadvertent errors in the Administrative Law Judge's Decision. We delete the reference in fn . ,6 to Giso as president of Universal Motors Company. A reference to "Hernandez" in sec. III, C, third paragraph, second sentence, should read "Esprecion." the Union's organizing efforts and destroy its majori- ty status. These unfair labor practices, which included eliminating the entire unit by discharging' all of the employees in it, are so pervasive and extensive as to come within the first category specified in N.L.R.B. v., Gissel Packing Co., Inc., 395 U.S. 575, 613-614 (1969), i.e., unfair labor practice cases of " `such a nature that their coercive effects cannot be eliminated by the ap- plication of traditional remedies, with the result that a fair and reliable election cannot be had."' 'In these circumstances, we consider the employees' signed union authorizations as a more reliable measure of the employees' representation desires. We hold that, by refusing the Union's bargaining request and engaging in the aforesaid unfair labor practices, Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) and that a bargaining order is necessary to protect the majority selection of the Union and otherwise to remedy the violations com- mitted.2 SUPPLEMENTAL REMEDY Respondent, having discriminatorily terminated or discharged Reyes Hernandez, Roberto Espercion, and Clifton Akitake, shall offer them full reinstate- ment with backpay computed on a quarterly basis plus interest at 6 percent per annum, as prescribed in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289, and Isis Plumbing & Heating'Co., 138 NLRD 716, from, the date of the discrimination to the date of the offer of reinstatement. ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Rela- tions Board adopts as its Order the recommended Order of the Administrative Law Judge, as modified below and hereby orders that Respondent, T. V. Sys- tems, Inc., Honolulu, Hawaii, its officers, agents, suc- cessors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in said recommended Order, as modified herein: 1. Delete paragraph I(c) and substitute the follow- ing: "(c) Coercively interrogating any of its employees with regard to their union membership, affiliation, or sentiments and, at the same time, threatening them with discharge or other reprisals for engaging in union 2 Fotomat Corporation 202 NLRB No. 3. We adopt the Administrative Law Judge's recommendation that our Order include a direction to bargain, but we do not adopt his rationale in the last paragraph of sec III , The Refusal to Bargain, and the third paragraph of sec. V. As set out above, we ground our Order on the reasoning of the Gissel case, supra. While Chairman Miller agrees that a bargaining order is appropriate here- m, he would,-for the reasons stated in his-separate concurrence in United Packing 'Company of Iowa, Inc., 187 NLRB 878, 880-881, predicate h iss -remedy solely on the extensive ,8(a)(I) and (3) violations found harem. 206 NLRB No. 135 842 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD activities and promising them benefits to renounce their union affiliation." 2. Delete paragraph 2(a) and substitute the follow- ing: "(a) Offer Reyes Hernandez, Roberto Esprecion, and Clifton Akitake immediate and full reinstatement to their former positions or, if those positions are no longer available, to substantially equivalent positions, without prejudice to their seniority and other rights and privileges, and make each of them whole for any loss of earnings he may have suffered by reason of the discrimination against him in the manner set forth in the section of the Administrative Law Judge's Deci- sion entitled `The Remedy,' as modified to provide that backpay be computed on a quarterly basis plus interest at 6 percent per annum." 3. Substitute the attached Appendix for the Ad- ministrative Law Judge's. APPENDIX NOTICE To EMPLOYEES POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government WE WILL NOT discourage membership in Inter- national Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Lo- cal Union 1186, AFL-CIO, and International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local Union 1260, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization of our employees, by discharging employees or otherwise discriminating in regard to their hire or tenure or terms and conditions of employment because of their union affiliation or other pro- tected concerted activities, except to the extent authorized by the proviso to Section 8(a)(3) of the Act, as amended. WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain collectively with International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local Union 1186, AFL-CIO, and International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local Union 1260, AFL-CIO, as the exclusive representative of our employees in the appropriate unit de- scribed below. WE WILL NOT coercively interrogate any of our employees with regard to their union member- ship, affiliation, or sentiments while threatening them with discharge or other reprisals for engag- ing in union activities, or promise them benefits to renounce their union affiliation. WE WILL NOT in any manner interfere with, re- strain, or coerce our employees in the right to self-organization, to form labor organizations, to join or assist International Brotherhood of Elec- trical Workers Local Union 1186, AFL-CIO, and International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local Union 1260, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any and all such activities, except to the extent that said right may be affected by an agreement re- quiring membership in a labor organization, as provided in the proviso to Section 8(a)(3) of the Act, as amended. WE WILL offer Reyes Hernandez, Roberto Es- precion, and Clifton Akitake immediate and full reinstatement to their former positions or, if those positions are no longer available, to sub- stantially equivalent positions, without prejudice to their seniority and other rights and privileges, and make each of them whole for any loss of earnings he may have suffered by reason of the discrimination against him, with 6-percent inter- est. WE WILL bargain collectively, upon request, with International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local Union 1186, AFL-CIO, and In- ternational Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local Union 1260, AFL-CIO, as the exclusive representative of all our employees in the bar- gaining unit described below, with respect to rates of pay, hours of employment, or other con- ditions of employment and, if an understanding is reached, embody such understanding in a signed agreement. The appropriate bargaining unit is: All full-time and regular part-time employees employed by us at our Honolulu, Hawaii loca- tion, in erecting, installing and maintaining television cable systems, excluding office cleri- cal employees, guards and/or watchmen and supervisors as defined in the Act. All our employees are free to become and remain or refrain from becoming or remaining members of the above-named labor organizations or any other labor organization. T. V. SYSTEMS, INC. (Employer) Dated By (Representative) (Title) This is an official notice and must not be defaced by anyone. T. V. SYSTEMS, INC. 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, questions concerning this notice or compli- ance with its provisions may be directed to the Board 's Office, 1311 Kapiolani Boulevard , Suite 308, Honolulu, Hawaii 96814 , Telephone 808-546-5100. DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE IRVING ROGOSIN, Administrative Law Judge: The consoli- dated complaint, hereinafter referred to as the complaint, issued March 6, 1973, as amended at the hearing, alleges that Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices with- in the meaning of Section 8(a)(1), (3), and (5) of the Act. Specifically, the complaint alleges that Respondent (1) on various dates in December 1972 and January 1973 engaged in specified acts of interference, restraint, and coercion, including statements as to the futility of selecting the Union as bargaining agent, promises of benefits, threats of plant closure, creating the impression of surveillance of employ- ees' union activities, and threats to terminate the existing work force; (2) on or about January 2, 1973, discharged Reyes Hernandez,' Clifton Akitake, and Roberto Espre- cion, because of their union membership and activities or other protected concerted activities; and (3) has, since about December 22, 1972, refused to recognize and bargain collec- tively with the Union as the exclusive representative of the employees in an appropriate unit despite the Union 's status as majority representative? Respondent's answer and amended answer, duly filed, admit the procedural and jurisdictional allegations of the complaint but generally deny the substantive allegations. Hearing on the complaint, as amended at th e hearing,3 was held on April 5 and 6, 1973, at Honolulu, Hawaii. All parties appeared and were represented by counsel, were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross- examine witnesses , to introduce oral and documentary evi- dence relevant and material to the issues, to argue orally, and to file briefs and proposed findings of fact and conclu- sions of law. The parties declined the opportunity to argue orally, reserving their right to file briefs. Pursuant to permis- sion duly granted, the General Counsel and Respondent filed briefs on May 11, 1973. No proposed findings of fact or conclusions of law have been filed. The General Counsel's unopposed motion to correct the transcript in i The spelling used by the employee. 2 Designations herein are as follows: The General Counsel, unless other- wise stated or required by the context, his representative at the hearing; T. V Systems, Inc., Respondent, the Company or the Employer; International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local Union 1186, AFL-CIO, and Inter- national Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local Union 1260, AFL-CIO, jointly, as the Union; the National Labor Relations Act, as amended (61 Stat. 136, 73 Stat. 519, 29 U.S.C. Sec 151, et seq.), the Act; the National Labor Relations Board, the Board . The charge in Case 37-CA-872 was filed and served on January 3, 1973; the charge in Case 37-CA-876, was filed and served on January 16, 1973, and the first amended charge , on February 15, 1973. 3 To allege a basis for requesting a Gissel remedy. 843 stated respects is hereby allowed and made part of the re- cord. Upon the entire record in the case, and based upon the appearance and demeanor of the-witnesses, and the briefs of the parties, which have been carefully considered, I make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT I THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT The complaint alleges, Respondent's answer admits, and it is hereby found that, at all times material herein, T.V. Systems, Inc., Respondent herein, has been a Hawaii corpo- ration with an office and place of business in Honolulu, Hawaii, engaged in the installation and maintenance of television cable systems. During the calendar year preced- ing issuance of the complaint, Respondent received gross revenues in excess of $100,000, and purchased and received materials and supplies valued in excess of $50,000 directly from suppliers located outside the State of Hawaii. The complaint further alleges, Respondent's answer ad- mits, and it is hereby found that, at all times material herein, Respondent has been an employer engaged in commerce and in operations affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local Union 1186, AFL-CIO, and International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local Union 1260, AFL-CIO, herein jointly referred to as the Union, are each labor organiza- tions with the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 111. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Chronology of Events On December 13, 1972, Reyes Hernandez and Robert K. Esprecion, both employed by Respondent, visited A. "Blackie",Fujikawa, business manager and secretary trea- surer of IBEW Local 1186, to consult him about union representation . After listening to their complaints about wages and working conditions, Fujikawa agreed that they needed representation. He explained, however, that before he could proceed, he' would require a showing of interest, and had his secretary prepare a statement authorizing Local 1186 to represent them as bargaining agent with Respon- dent. Esprecion and Hernandez signed the document at this time . Fujikawa asked the men for the name of their supervi- sor. They gave him the name of Felix N. "Phil" Giso, and he told them that he would contact him and arranged to meet with the employees again on December 15. Fujikawa telephoned Giso, identified himself as "Black- ie" of the electrician's union, and asked for a meeting to discuss the Union. A meeting was finally arranged for De- cember 19. Later, at Giso's request, the meeting was post- poned.to December 21. Meanwhile, on December 15, Fujikawa met with Expre- cion and Hernandez, as previously arranged, and reported 844 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD that he had scheduled a meeting with Giso for December 19. Fujikawa also explained that because Locals 1186 and 1260 both had jurisdiction in the particular industry, it would be advisable that they sign a new authorization form designat- ing either or both as their bargaining representative. Such a form was prepared, and Hernandez and Esprecion signed it in Fujikawa's presence. On December 19, Akitake signed both documents. On December 21, Fujikawa, accompanied by Frank Ken- nedy and Hank Reeves, business manager and representa- tive, respectively, of Local 1260, called at the company office. They were met by Lloyd F. Char, Respondent's pres- ident and general manager . When Fujikawa asked for Giso, Char, identified himself in his official capacity. Fujikawa said that in that, case he was the person with whom they would be doing business. The group proceeded into Char's office, where Giso joined them. Fujikawa stated that the Union represented the employees, and offered to show Char both authorization forms and to provide him with copies. Char declined to look at the documents and admittedly waved them aside. Fujikawa urged him to examine the au- thorizations so that he would have no doubt that the Union represented the employees. Char declined and refused co- pies. According to Fujikawa, he was sitting close to Char and exhibited the documents in such a manner so that Char could not help but see them. Char stated, however, that he employed only one full- time employee and two part-time employees. Fujikawa told him that under Board precedent permanent part-time em- ployees are considered employees for the purposes of collec- tive bargaining, but suggested that Char might wish to consult with someone more knowledgeable on the subject. Fujikawa then showed Char a short form specimen of col- lective-bargaining agreement. Char examined it and asked where the rest of the agreement was. Fujikawa replied that he had not come prepared to submit an agreement but that he would make one available after preliminary discussions. Char asked for an opportunity to consider the matter and seek advice. Fujikawa assured him that the Union had no intention of-taking advantage of him. Fujikawa explained the reason for the joint authorization form, discussed the union contract in general, and told Char that as negotiations progressed, it could be decided which local would represent the employees. Fujikawa also suggest- ed that, in view of the approaching holidays, Char might wish to take the matter under advisement until after the first of the year, when Fujikawa would call him. Later that af- ternoon, Fujikawa,returned to Char's office, and presented him with specimen union contracts of both locals. Char told him that he would need time to study the contracts, and Fujikawa said that was his reason for leaving them with Char. On January 2, 1973, Respondent discharged all three em- ployees-who had designated the Union. Next day, January 3, Fujikawa called Char, reminded him that he had left copies of the contracts with him, and asked when they could meet for further discussions. Ac- cording to Fujikawa, Char replied, "Well, Blackie, I want to let you-know that we,can take care of the employees-without the Union." Fujikawa rejoined that if that was, Char's posi- tion, the Union would` be obliged to take other steps, and terminated the conversation. Fujikawa then filed a repre- sentation petition. I. Interference, Restraint, and Coercion On Saturday, December 16, the day after Fujikawa'met with Esprecion and Hernandez, and after Fujikawa had called Giso to arrange for a meeting, Char and Giso spoke to Esprecion in the office. During this discussion, Char showed Esprecion a schedule of wage scales covering a 4-year period, under which he would ultimately receive a rate of $4.25 an hour at the end of that term in increments of 25 cents an hour every 6 months. According to Esprecion, Char also promised him a week's paid vacation after a year's employment, as well as one-half of his medical insurance premium. Esprecion asked Char whether he had heard from Fujika- wa. When Char ackowledged that he had, Esprecion said that he assumed that Fujikawa had told Char that Esprecion had designated the Union as his bargaining agent and that he could not accept any offer inasmuch as the Union was doing his bargaining for him. Char rejoined that the "Union could only do so much for you, they couldn't make the work schedule," adding that the Company could make it possible for him to "get ahead or hold [him] back as far as learning anything more in the trade." While not denying that this meeting took place, Char denied that either Fujikawa or the Union was mentioned, and disclaimed any knowledge of employee interest in the Union until December 21, when the meeting with Fujikawa took place. Char admits, however, that he knew in advance that Giso had arranged for a meeting that day. His testimo- ny that Giso had not told him whom he was to meet or the purpose of the meeting puts a strain on one's credulity. Char did not deny telling Esprecion that Fujikawa had communi- cated with him. In view of Char's failure to deny Esprecion's remaining testimony concerning what was said in this con- versation,4 and the general verisimiltude of Esprecion's tes- timony, in light of the events which had transpired, it is found that Char made the statements to Esprecion substan- tially as detailed above. Respondent's argument that Esprecion's testimony should be discredited because he had failed to mention the matters about which he testified in either of two pretrial affidavits, given to a Board agent on January 3 and January 16, when presumably his, memory would have been better than it was at the time of the hear- ing, cannot, of course, be ignored. On the other hand, it is not extraordinary for witnesses to recall incidents, which they may have failed to-, mention in pretrial investigations, long after the events actually occurred. In any ease, Char's failure to- deny the statements attributed to him by Espre- cion, and Giso's failure to take the stand, lends credence to Esprecion's oral testimony. Late in the day, on December 21, after the meeting be- tween the union representatives with Char and Giso, Char engaged` Hernandez and Esprecion in a conversation when they returned to the shop after the day's work. Char told them- that Fujikawa had been in touch with him and had a Giso was not callCd to testify. T. V. SYSTEMS, INC. 845 apprised him of the employees ' desire for union representa- tion . Char told them that the Union could do nothing for them, that there was no reason to involve outsiders, and that if they had any problems they should try to work them out with him . Char suggested that they meet next day over some beer and talk things out. According to Esprecion , Char also stated th at perhaps he could give them a better deal than the Union could obtain for them. Next day, December 22, Char called Esprecion into his office and gave him a check for $50 as a Christmas bonus, after explaining that it had taken him some time to arrange this because Esprecion had not been working there very long, and it had been necessary for Char to obtain approval of his board of directors.' Later the same day, Char met with Exprecion and Her- nandez, and told them that he had received copies of The union contracts and wanted an opportunity to review them to see whether he could make them a better offer than the Union could . Char took the occasion to tell them that he had built up the Company, and that it would be "senseless to build it up for outsiders" or "hustle for business" to benefit someone other than the Company or the employer? Char mentioned his previous experience with a union while he was general manager at Universal Motors, and had con- vinced his staff there that the Union could not accomplish anything for them .' Concluding, Char told the employees that he might just as well "fold up" the Company as let outsiders come in. Char denied any conversation with Esprecion and Her- nandez on December 21, though he admits having had con- versations with them on December 22 and 23. On the first of those days, according to Char, he invited both men to a "beer bust" at the shop the following day, the last working day before Christmas . Although the holiday celebration was cancelled because the men told Char they had shopping to do, Char admittedly had a conversation with them that day, in which he told them that Fujikawa had apprised him of their interest in the Union , and that Char wanted time to study the contracts. In view of Char's admissions that he had heard from Fujikawa, and that he wanted time to study the contracts, and the mention of Char's previous union experience at Universal Motors Company, of which the men could scarcely have known, unless they heard it from Char, it is found that Char made the statements attributed to him on this occasion . Again , for reasons previously stated, the omission of any mention of the statements attributed to Char from Esprecion's pretrial affidavit , and the fact that he may have been uncertain whether these remarks were made on December 16 or December 21, are not sufficient to dis- credit the positive and convincing testimony of these two 5 According to Char, Respondent had a policy, since 1970, of granting Christmas bonuses in varying, amounts to all full-time employees, including the office secretary, who received the largest bonus ($265) because of her length of service. Neither Hernandez nor Akitake received bonuses because they were part-time employees. Under these circumstances, no adverse infer- ence is drawn from the granting of the Christmas bonus to Esprecion at this time. 6Char acknowledged that he had been vice-president and general manager of Universal Motors Company, of which Giso had been president, and that the union had failed to achieve recognition there men. Nor, does the fact that Esprecion and'Hernandez may not have agreed in every particular on what Char said on the occasion impair their testimony, On the contrary, the fact that there may have been minor discrepancies in their testimony enhances rather than impairs their credibility. C. Discrimination in Regard to Hire and Tenure of Em- ployment On January 2, when Hernandez reported for work, he met Giso outside the office. Giso told him that he, Giso, had to leave immediately because there was so much work to do. He told Hernandez that his paycheck was signed and that he could pick it up in the office. Hernandez went into the office and asked the secretary whether the checks were ready- Char asked Hernandez to follow him into his office, where he handed him his check, and said, "There will be no more work for you." Hernandez asked Char whether there was any reason for this action. Char replied, "No reason at all." The men shook hands, Hernandez thanked him, and said he hoped they would remain friends. Hernandez has not since been recalled. Later that afternoon, Esprecion went to the shop for his paycheck. Char called him into his office, and told him that he had fired Hernandez earlier in the day because of the conversation on December 22, in which Esprecion had agreed to afford Char an opportunity to study the contracts, but Hernandez had not. Char further stated that he did not know whether Hernandez or someone else had been the "instigator" of the Union and had been "poisoning" Esprecion's mind. Char showed Esprecion some union contracts which he said he had not yet had a chance to study, but told Espre- cion that, although he could meet the wage scales, he could not meet the fringe benefits. He further stated that he did not want the employees working under a union contract because he could not afford to pay overtime, and wanted the employees to work Saturday and Sunday, presumably, at regular pay. Char again brought up the subject of the attempted unionization at Universal Motors, where a strike had lasted for 3 months. Char told Esprecion that he could hold out longer than most employers, and added, that he could be "a real good guy or a bastard . . . that he could ... let us . . . all go, and start out with a new bunch of guys. It wouldn't be any skin off his back." Char under- scored his remarks by emphasizing that "loyal people get ahead." Finally, Char told Esprecion that there would be no work for a few months, and advised him to'apply for unem- ployment compensation, which would be charged to the Company's account. Esprecion was thereupon terminated, and has not since been recalled. Akitake, who had been working with Giso, was discharged the same day. When they returned to the shop, Char told Akitake, that he wanted to talk to him. In the discussion which followed, Char told- Akitake, in Giso's presence, that he, did not appreciate the fact that Esprecion and Hernandez had gone to the Union, and that as far as he was concerned they did not work for him anymore. Char said that he considered that they had stabbed him in the back because he had given them their chance to get into the business, and they 'had gone to the Union instead of approaching him first. 846 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Akitake said that he could understand their interest in the Union because of the benefits , especially Esprecion, who was a full-time employee . Char countered that the Compa- ny could take care of its own people without a union, and stated that it must have been Esprecion who had instigated the Union . Char also told Akitake that he would look into the matter, and that all he needed was time to "work up something to match what the Union was giving." Giso told Akitake that he would call and let him know if there was any work for him in the future . Akitake did not hear from him, and about 2 weeks later , returned to the shop to collect his paycheck . His paycheck , dated January 2, bore a notation on the bottom that it was a final check . Akitake has not since been recalled. Respondent contends that the three employees involved were terminated because of lack of work , resulting primarily from basic changes in the operation of its business. Review- ing in extensive detail the history of its operations since its inception in 1964 , Respondent relies on these factors to dispel any possible inference of discriminatory motivation in regard to the terminations of these employees. Respondent first embarked on its venture into the cable television industry by obtaining a geographical franchise. At that time , the Hawaiian Telephone Company , which had constructed 70 miles of cable system , furnished all the con- struction and maintenance work required , including under- ground construction for the laying of the system to the point of the "ground block" outside the subscriber's residence. Respondent, however, performed the construction and maintenance work of the cable from the ground block to the subscriber 's television set. Since 1964, this service has been performed by two independent contractors , Henry Tom, whose services covered the Honolulu area , and Godwin Pang, operating in the Windward area of the Island of Oahu . The status of these independent contractors is not in dispute, and their functions have remained unchanged both before and after the termination of the three employees involved . Esprecion , the full-time employee , and Hernandez and Akitake , both part-time employees , were hired to per- form similar work. In 1970, the state legislature enacted a statute regulating the operation of cable televisions systems. Under this stat- ute, permits were issued to franchise holders requiring each licensee to construct and maintain its own cable system. Systems already in existence , however , would be continued to be maintained by the telephone company , which had already constructed 70 strand miles of cable system. Re- spondent thereupon constructed an aggregate of 2-1/2 miles of its own system . It has continued , however , to utilize the telephone company's aerial poles and underground signal transportation devices in supplying service to its subscri- bers. According to Respondent, it was confronted with the decision of whether to perform the underground construc- tion work or subcontract the work to a "turnkey " contrac- tor, who would construct the complete system instead of only the major underground construction . Respondent de- cided , it maintains , to experiment with its own construction crew , consisting of Giso , as supervisor, and the three em- ployees involved herein (with the support of the two inde- pendent contractors). At the same time , Respondent continued to explore the feasibility of subcontracting the underground construction to a turnkey operator. In November, according to Char, the Company decided to subcontract the construction job to Underground Con- struction Company , which had previously done under- ground construction for Respondent in connection with its cable television system . During the first week of December, Char testified , he decided to eliminate the three-man crew, though he said nothing to them . He had anticipated that there would be ample work to utilize his own crew , but due to delays in obtaining pole permits and use of underground facilities , this work did not materialize . Other factors, he testified, including economic considerations , such as the capital investment required , the necessity for complying with governmental regulations such as OSHA , workmen's compensation , and the like influenced his decision not to undertake the construction work. Underground Construction Company, which maintained its headquarters in San Leandro , California , was not pre- pared to commence the construction work until March 1973. Actually, the bulk of its equipment did not arrive at Oahu , Hawaii, until March 11. Meantime , there still re- mained work to be completed by Respondent , which it hoped to accomplish with its own crew by the end of 1972. Thereafter, according to Char , he did not anticipate any appreciable amount of work until March 1973, when, ac- cording to his calculations , Underground would be ready to proceed with the work . Char admittedly did not inform the three crew members of his decision to terminate them until after they had completed the projects on which they were working. It should be noted that , while Respondent subcontracted the bulk of the cable construction, particularly the laying of the trunk line in the windward area of Oahu, to Under- ground Construction Company , which was also responsible for the maintenance of its installations , it is apparent that Respondent contemplated that the installations from the "ground block" to the subscriber's television set would be made by its own crew. This entailed the splicing of cable strands , stringing of cable between poles, installation and regulation of amplifi- ers along the trunk line , splicing and installation of a direc- tional "tap" to the subscriber's residence , attachment of a "drop line" cable to the tap , which is connected to the "ground block" located outside the subscriber 's residence, and, finally the stringing of a cable from the ground block to the television set. In the performance of these tasks, the three-man crew uses such devices as field strength meters, marker generators, speed generators, oscilloscopes, spec- trum analyzers , and other electrical equipment. Respondent maintains that this final installation has al- ways been performed by the two independent contractors previously named , though it does not deny that this work has been done by the three-man crew . Similarly , both the independent contractors , and the crew have done mainte- nance work on that portion of the system between the ground block and the television set, and have assisted Giso in "trouble shooting" when the set has not functioned prop- erly. Admittedly , whatever effect the subcontracting of the cable construction may have had upon Respondent 's opera- T. V. SYSTEMS, INC. - 847 tions, it did not obviate the need for the continued use of the independent contractors, who performed no construc- tion work either before or after January 2, the date of the terminations . Respondent contends, however, that in addi- tion-to their final installation work, these independent con- tractors, with the help of Giso, were able to handle all "trouble calls" in their respective geographical areas which may develop in the cable system between the ground block and the television set. Considering that Respondent serves upwards,of 3600 subscribers, Char's assertion that Giso and, the two independent contractors are able to handle these calls, with time to spare, thereby eliminating the need for the three employees, is unbelievable. Be that as it may, any justification for the termination of its employees is undermined by Char's spontaneous reac- tion to the attempted organization of the employees. De- spite Char's contention that the decision to terminate these employees had been made the first week of December, he gave no hint that he had contemplated this action. Assum- ing, in Respondent's favor, that he intentionally withheld this information so as not to interfere with the completion of the work in progress, it is significant that he made no mention to the union representative, when the latter de- manded recognition, that the change in operations would obviate the necessity for retaining these employees. Nor did he offer this as a reason for refusing to recognize or bargain with the Union or express any doubt that the Union repre- sented his employees. His only response was that he was unfamiliar with the union contract and wanted an opportu- nity to study it. More significantly, on December 16, he, in effect, proposed to Esprecion a schedule of wage scales which would ultimately produce a wage rate of $4.25 an hour, in contrast to the rate of $2.50, which the employees were then receiving. Moreover, on December 21, Char told the employees that they would be working, simultaneously with Underground Construction, on some 30 installations a day. He also told them that he did not want them working under a union contract because they would be working Saturdays and Sundays, for which they were not receiving overtime pay. Moreover, with regard to Respondent's contention that there was no work available for the three employees at the time they were terminated, this contention is not wholly borne out by the record. It is undisputed that at the time of the terminations, Respondent had a job to be performed at Haiku Village, requiring about a month's work. As Hernan- dez described this job, it entailed locating a site for the antenna, installing the trunk line, "cutting in of the taps and splinters,"' and performing the work necessary to connect the system to the subscribers' residences. Since the date of the terminations, Respondent has ad- mittedly completed two other construction jobs, one on Umalu Street and the other at Yacht Club Knolls. Espre- cion conceded that at the time of his termination, Char told him that work on these jobs would not be available until March, and advised him to apply for unemployment com- pensation. The work was, in fact, performed and completed in March, incidentally, by Giso and Char. Apparently no thought was given to recalling Esprecion o' any of the other two employees when this work became available. Since this job did not entail hooking up,the system to telephone poles, the 3-month delay in starting this job could hardly have been attributable to this factor. Evidence was also offered of other available work. One such job was the Club View Estates project, also referred to as Kahalu Colony. Char had told the employees that since through some oversight the owners of the property had not conveyed any rights to the telephone company, it would not be necessary to obtain permission` from the owners of the condominiums to make the necessary tie-ins. Although a portion of this development had been completed prior to the date of the terminations, another section was ready for in- stallation at the time of the terminations, and requests for service had already been received. This would have entailed installations at between 84 and 86 condominiums. These installations were, in fact, made soon after the terminations of the three employees, and the work performed by Giso and Pang, one of the independent contractors. Generally, the independent contractors were utilized to make installa- tions and removals when the subscriber moved in or out of the residence. On large installations, however, Respondent found it more economical to employ its own crew at an hourly rate rather than pay the independent contractors a flat rate per installation. The record further establishes that, in February, Respon- dent installed a master antenna system in an apartment building in an area "below Punchbowl." This, too, was a project that did not require permission from the telephone company. This job was done by Giso himself. It is also significant that in about mid-December, and before the three employees were terminated, the telephone company submitted the "charges" which Respondent had requested earlier for the use of telephone poles in connec- tion with the Umalu Street jobs 7 Respondent did not accept the charges, amounting to some $400 until nearly a month later, about January 14, less than 2 weeks after the termina- tion of the three employees. The General Counsel argues that if the charges had been accepted by Respondent when they were first submitted by the telephone company, work could have commenced by mid-February, and since there had been sufficient work available for the employees until mid-February, the work on the Umalu Street would have been available to them by then. Respondent, however, had not expected that Underground Construction Company would be prepared to undertake this -work until about March 11, and there is no basis for concluding that Respon- dent deliberately delayed the start of this job to deprive the employees of the work and to furnish Respondent with a pretext for the terminations. Although standing alone, the circumstances surrounding the Umalu Street project may not be sufficient to establish conclusively that there was work which would become available soon after they were terminated, when considered with the evidence of the pros- 7 In order to use telephone poles in connection with the installations by cable television operators, an application must be filed with the telephone company, which then determined the "charges" to be made for the adapta- tion to the operator's use. On acceptance or payment of the required charges, the telephone company makes the necessary.modifications, and the operator is then permitted to use the poles. 848 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD pect of other work, it is sufficient to impugn Respondent's motives.8 In the final analysis, however, the issue is not whether Respondent had or reasonably anticipated having sufficient work to retain the three employees or, indeed, whether it found it more economically feasible to have this work per- formed by independent contractors. The real issue is wheth- er Respondent terminated the employees for that reason or for discriminatory reasons proscribed by the Act. Respondent's entire course of conduct, after learning of its employees' decision to enlist the Union's aid in redress- ing what they regarded as unsatisfactory wages and working conditions, establishes that in terminating these employees it was motivated not by lack of work but by a determination to avoid dealing with the Union as their bargaining agent. It is significant that at no time during Char's discussions with the union business manager after the demand for rec- ognition did Char state or even intimate that he had decided as far back as early December to terminate the employees either for lack of work or because of ongoing changes in the operation, resulting in the subcontracting of construction work to a "turnkey" operator, which would result in the elimination of the jobs of the three employees whom the Union represented. When the union representative offered to show Char the evidence of the authorizations, offering to provide him with copies, Char literally waved the evidence aside. Neither then nor at any other time did he question the genuineness of the signatures of the employees or question the authenticity of the authorization. Instead, he asked for copies of union contracts, assertedly for informational pur- poses only, which the union representative furnished him promptly. Meanwhile Respondent's principal officers dan- gled the prospect of wage increases in front of Esprecion, which would have brought his rate of pay to $4.25 after 4 years, and offered him other benefits, offers which Espre- cion declined on the express ground that he had already designated a bargaining agent. In addition, Char told Her- nandez and Esprecion that there was no need to bring in outsiders because they could solve their problems between themselves; that the Union could not do anything for them; and suggested the possibility that he might afford them a better deal than the Union could. Finally, Char threatened the employees with closure of the business, commenting that there was no purpose in "hustling" for business only to have others benefit. Moreover, his reference to his prior experience with a union while at Universal Motors, where he had successfully weathered a 3-month strike, and his statement that he could hold out longer than most other employers, were clear manifestations of his opposition to the unionization of his employees and the futility of their attempts at organization. No intimation was given employees that further work would be unavailable to them or that change in method of construction or installation would result in elimination of their jobs until after Respondent became aware of their intention to organize. 8 Considering the steadily increasing construction of real estate subdivi- sions, condominiums , and other residential developments on the Island of Oahu , with the attendant expansion of cable television , the termination of these experienced employees, and the failure to recall them, can hardly have been due to lack of work. This leads to the inescapable conclusion that, whatever plans Respondent may have had for dispensing with these employees, its decision was precipitated by their decision to authorize the Union to represent them as bargaining agent. Stated differently, the record taken as a whole justified the conclusion that Respondent terminated all three employees on January 2, in whole or material part, because of their designation of the Union as their bargaining agent, for the purpose of eliminating completely the unit for which the Union sought to bargain. It is, therefore, found, on the basis of the foregoing and upon the entire record that, by terminating or discharging Esprecion, Hernandez, and Akitake on January 2, 1973, because of their union affiliation, to discourage membership in a labor organization, Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act. It is further found that, by the foregoing conduct, and by interrogating employees regarding their union affiliation, the statements to employees regarding the futility of select- ing the Union as their bargaining agent, promises of bene- fits, threats of plant closure, and by the other acts of interference, restraint, or coercion found above, Respon- dent has engaged in unfair labor practices within the mean- ing of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. D. The Refusal To Bargain 1. The appropriate unit The complaint alleges, and Respondent's answer denies, that the following constitutes an appropriate unit for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act: All full-time and regular part-time technicians and installers employed by Respondent at its Honolulu, Hawaii location excluding office clerical employees, guards, and/or watchmen and supervisors as defined in the Act. Respondent's denial of the appropriateness of the unit stems from its contention that the employees are not by definition actually technicians. Although Hernandez at- tended a 6-week course at a cable television school at Texas A & M, (incidentally at Respondent's expense, including tuition, room, and board, in addition to his regular salary) the other two employees received only on-the-job training. All the employees; however, performed work involved in the erection, installing and maintaining of television cable, re- quiring some electrical knowledge and experience. In con- nection with their work they use a variety of electrical instruments and equipment, although, according to Char, the requisite skills can be acquired in 30 days of on-the-job experience. Char equates the job of technician with the skills and capabilities possessed by Hawaiian Telephone Compa- ny "technicians" who are qualified to perform all phases of work on all components of cable television systems, includ- ing the receiving and headend equipment. Obviously, nei- T. V. SYSTEMS, INC. 849 ther the Union nor the employees contend that the three employees possessed the skills of electronic technicians. Respondent 's position, however, misconceives the issue involved here. We are not concerned with whether these employees possessed sufficient education , training, experi- ence, and skills to entitle them to constitute a separate, independent unit from production and maintenance em- ployees. In this respect , the use of the term "technicians" may be misapplied to the work performed by these employ- ees. The issue is whether these employees constitute a homo- geneous group , having a sufficient community of interest, without regard to the descriptive job title, to constitute an appropriate unit. Respondent suggests in its brief that the employees are better described as "construction workers and installers." The General Counsel and, presumably, the Union have no objection to some other descriptive term , since there is no controversy as to the type of employees intended to be, included in the unit. Respondent 's choice of description may raise more questions than it undertakes to answer, particularly since the term "construction workers" may en- compass employees not contemplated by any of the parties. A logical, and perhaps more accurately descriptive, term would appear to be "employees engaged in erecting, install- ing and maintaining television cable systems." The record establishes that Hernandez and Akitake were regular part-time employees , the former working, at least, 6 days a week, though not necessarily the same hours each day, and the latter working 2 days a week, usually Tuesdays and Wednesday,' 8 or 9 hours each day, depending on the availability of work. Since regular part-time employees per- forming the same work as full-time employees are entitled to be included within the unit, Akitake has been included. It is, therefore , found that the following constitutes an appropriate unit for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act: All full-time and regular part-time employees of Re- spondent engaged at its Honolulu, Hawaii location, in erecting, installing and maintaining television cable systems, excluding office clerical employees , guards and/or watchmen and supervisors as defined in the Act. 2. Majority representation; refusal to bargain - It is undisputed that, as of December 13, 1972 , two-of the three employees , Esprecion and Hernandez , and, as of De- cember 19, Akitake ; had designated the Union as their bar- gaining agent. It is equally undisputed that between December 13 and 15, Business Manager Fujikawa, tele- phoned Respondent for an appointment and, on December 21, accompanied by other union representatives, notified Respondent that the Union had been designated by its em- ployees, offered to show Respondent's president the state- ment of designation, and to furnish him with copies, but that he deliberately waved the documents away and refused 9 Akitake was employed on a full-time job , as a dispatcher, with Interna- tional In-Flight Catering Co., Ltd., a subsidiary of Japan Airlines (JAL). to look at them. There is no issue as to the genuineness of the signatures of the employees or the authenticity of the documents. After obtaining copies or specimens of union contracts, Respondent, through its president, embarked on a course of alienating the employees from their bargaining agent, and after discharging all 3 employees on January 2, thereby eliminating the entire unit, refused Fujikawa's re- quest to bargain. It is found, on the basis of the foregoing, and upon the entire record that at all times material since December 13, 1972, the Union was and has since been the exclusive bar- gaining agent of Respondent's employees ; that on Decem- ber 21, it demanded recognition and bargaining of Respondent ', and that on January 3, 1973, and at all times thereafter, Respondent has refused to bargain collectively with the Union as the exclusive representative of Respondent's employees. The General Counsel has requested a Gissel 10 bargaining' order against Respondent . Although the facts of this case, including the findings of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) violations, would justify such a bargaining order , it is unnecessary to rely on the principles of that decision to support a bargain- ing order. No fruitful purpose is served by basing the order in this case on the Gissel decision. IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of Respondent, set forth in Section III, above, occurring in connection with the operations of Re- spondent, described in Section I, above, have a close, inti- mate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States, and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce. V THE REMEDY Having found that Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1), (3) and (5) of the Act, it will be recommended that Respondent cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative ac- tion designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. It has been found that Respondent terminated or dis- charged Reyes Hernandez, Roberto Esprecion , and Clifton Akitake on January 2, 1973, and thereafter failed and re- fused to reinstate them because they had engaged in pro- tected union activity, to discourage membership in a labor organization, in violation of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act. It will, therefore, be recommended that Respondent cease and desist from such unfair labor practices , and offer said employees immediate and full reinstatement to their former positions, or if those positions are not available, to substantially equivalent positions, without prejudice to their seniority or other rights and privileges, and make each of said employees whole for any loss of pay he may have suffered as a result of the discrimination against him from the date of the discrimination to the date of the offer of reinstatement. 10 N.LR.B v. Gissel Packing Company, 395 U S. 575, 614, 615 (1969). 850 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD It has also been found that Respondent has refused to bargain collectively with the Union as-the exclusive repre- sentative of its employees in an appropriate unit, despite the Union's majority status. It will, therefore , be recommended that Respondent bargain collectively with said Union upon request. In view of the nature and extent of Respondent 's unfair labor practices, manifesting an attitude of opposition to the purposes of the Act , it will further be recommended, to protect the rights of employees generally , that Respondent be required to cease and desist from in any manner interfer- ing with, restraining , or coercing employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in the Act.11 Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact , and upon the entire record in the case , the undersigned makes the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. T. V. Systems, Inc., Respondent herein, is, and at all times material herein has been, an employer engaged in commerce and in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act. 2. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Lo- cal Union 1186, AFL-CIO, and International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 1260, AFL-CIO, herein jointly called the Union, are each and at all times material herein have each been, labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3. By discharging Reyes Hernandez, Roberto Esprecion, and Clifton Akitake, on January 2, 1973, and thereafter failing and refusing to reinstate them because of their pro- tected union activities, thereby discriminating in regard to their hire and tenure of employment, to discourage mem- bership in a labor organization, and interfering with, re- straining, and coercing employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act. 4. All full-time and regular part-time employees of Re- spondent engaged at its Honolulu, Hawaii, location, in er- ecting, installing, and maintaining television cable systems, excluding office clerical employees, guards and/or watch- men and supervisors as defined in the Act, constitute, and at all times material herein have constituted, a unit appro- priate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act. 5. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Lo- cal Union 1186, AFL-CIO, and International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 1260, AFL-CIO, herein jointly called the Union, were, on December 13, 1972, and at all times material thereafter have been, the exclusive represen- tative of all the employees in the aforesaid appropriate unit, for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(a) of the Act. 6. By refusing, on January 3, 1973, and at all times there- u N.LR.B. v. Express Publishing Company, 312 U.S. 426; N.LR B v Entwistle Manufacturing Company, 120 F.2d 532 (C.A. 4); May Department Stores v. N L.R.B, 326 U.S. 376, Bethlehem Steel Co v N L R.B. 120 F 2d 641 (C.A.D.C.). after, to bargain collectively with International Brother- hood of Electrical Workers Local Union 1186, AFL-CIO, and International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 1260, AFL-CIO, herein jointly called the Union, as the exclusive representative of Respondent's employees in the aforesaid appropriate unit, Respondent has engaged in, and is engaging in, unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) of the Act. 7. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its em- ployees, in the manner found herein, in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Aft, Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section'8(a)(1) of the Act. 8. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and con- clusions of law, and upon the entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, the undersigned issues the fol- lowing recommended: ORDER 12 T. V. Systems, Inc., Respondent herein, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Discouraging membership in International Brother- hood of Electrical Workers Local Union 1186, AFL-CIO, and International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local Union 1260, AFL-CIO, or in any other labor organization of its employees, by discharging or refusing to reinstate any of its employees, or in any manner discriminating in regard to the hire or tenure or terms and conditions of employment of any of its employees because of their union affiliation or activities. (b) Refusing to bargain collectively with International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local Union 1186, AFL-CIO, and International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local Union 1260, AFL-CIO, as the exclusive representative of all its employees in the appropriate unit described above. (c) Interrogating any of its employees with regard to their union membership, affiliation, or sentiments, threatening them with discharge or other reprisals for engaging in union activities, and promising them benefits to renounce their union affiliation. (d) In any manner interfering with, restraining, or coerc- ing its employees in the exercise of the right to self-organiza- tion, to form labor organizations, to join or assist International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local Union 1186, AFL-CIO, and International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local Union 1260, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in other protected concerted activities for the purposes of col- 12 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. T. V. SYSTEMS, INC. 851 lective bargaining, or other mutual aid or protection, as guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, or refrain from any and all such activities, except to the extent that such right may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of employment, as author- ized in Section 8(a)(3) of the Act, as amended. 2. Take the following affirmative action, which it is found will effectuate the policies of the Act. (a) Offer Reyes Hernandez, Roberto Esprecion, and Clifton Akitake immediate and full reinstatement to their former positions, or, if those positions are no longer avail- able, to substantially equivalent positions, without prejudice to their seniority and other rights and privileges, and make each of them whole for any loss of earnings he may have suffered by reason of the discrimination against him in the manner set forth in the section of this Decision entitled "The Remedy." (b) Upon request, bargain collectively with International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local Union 1186, AFL-CIO, and International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local Union 1260, AFL-CIO , as the exclusive representative of all its employees in the appropriate unit described above. (c) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the Board or its agents, for examination and copying, all payroll records, social security payment records, timecards, person- nel records and reports, and all other records necessary to analyze and determine the amount of backpay due these employees under the terms of this recommended Order. (d) Post at its place of business in Honolulu, Hawaii, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix." 13 Copies of this notice, on forms to be furnished by the Regional Director for Region 20, shall, after being signed by Respondent's duly authorized representative, be posted by Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in con- spicuous places, including all places where notices to em- ployees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to ensure that said notices are not altered, defaced or covered by other material. (e) Notify the Regional Director for Region 20, in writ- ing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps Respondent has taken to comply therewith. 13 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 be changed to read "Posted pursuant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board."