Tulsa Chrome, Inc.Download PDFNational Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsMay 24, 1977229 N.L.R.B. 953 (N.L.R.B. 1977) Copy Citation TULSA CHROME, INC. Tulsa Chrome, Inc. and International Union of Operating Engineers, Local No. 948, AFL-CIO. Case 16-CA-6764 May 24, 1977 DECISION AND ORDER BY MEMBERS JENKINS, PENELLO, AND WALTHER On March 23, 1977, Administrative Law Judge George Norman issued the attached Decision in this proceeding. Thereafter, the Respondent filed excep- tions' and a supporting brief, and the General Counsel filed a brief in answer to Respondent's exceptions to the Decision of the Administrative Law Judge. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board has delegated its authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. The Board has considered the record and the attached Decision in light of the exceptions and briefs and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings, and conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge and to adopt his recommended Order, as modified herein.2 ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board adopts as its Order the recommend- ed Order of the Administrative Law Judge, as modified below, and hereby orders that the Respon- dent, Tulsa Chrome, Inc., Tulsa, Oklahoma, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the said recommended Order, as so modified: 1. In paragraph 1(c) substitute the words "In any other manner" for "In any like or related manner," 2. Substitute the attached notice for that of the Administrative Law Judge. i Respondent has also filed a motion to reopen the record to permit the introduction of evidence with respect to the allegations made by Jessie B. Davis. Jr.. in a posthearing deposition, that Kenneth Russell, the discharged employee, coerced Davis into falsely testifying on his behalf at the hearing held herein. The General Counsel filed a response opposing this motion. Respondent filed a similar motion to reopen the record, or, alternatively, a motion to strike testimony, with the Administrative Law Judge prior to the issuance of his Decision. At that time, the General Counsel joined in Respondent's motion insofar as it related to striking the testimony of Davis from the record, but opposed the motion with respect to reopening the record. Thereafter, the Administrative Law Judge issued an order granting the motion to strike testimony and denying the motion to reopen the record. Consequently, the Administrative Law Judge neither relied on nor considered Davis' testimony in arriving at his Decision in this proceeding. The posthearing deposition upon which Respondent bases the instant motion was also submitted in support of the motion filed with the Administrative Law Judge. Thus, the Administrative Law Judge was cognizant of the allegations regarding Russell's character contained in the 229 NLRB No. 140 deposition pnor to making his credibility findings. Respondent. however. now urges the Board to permit the introduction of evidence to impugn the credibility of a witness whose testimony has been credited 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 the relevant evidence convinces us that the resolutions are incorrect. Standard Drywall Products, Inc., 91 NLRB 544 (1950), enfd. 188 F.2d 362 (C.A. 3, 1951). We have carefully examined the record and find no basis for reversing his findings. Accordingly, Respondent's motion is denied. 2 In par. I(c) of his recommended Order, the Administrative Law Judge used the narrow cease-and-desist language, "like or related," rather than the broad injunctive language, "in any other manner." the Board traditionally provides in cases involving serious 8(aX3) discrimination conduct, such as that found here. See N.LRB. v. Entwistle Mfg. Co., 120 F.2d 532, 536 (C.A. 4, 1941); Electrical Fitting Corporation, a subsidiary of I-T-E Imperial Corporation, 216 NLRB 1076 (1975). Accordingly. we shall modify the recommended Order to require Respondent to cease and desist from in any other manner infringing upon employee rights. APPENDIX NOTICE To EMPLOYEES POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government After a hearing in which all parties had the opportunity to present their evidence, it has been decided that we violated the law and we have been ordered to post this notice. We intend to carry out the order of the Board and abide by the following: WE WILL NOT discharge any employees because of any union activity. WE WILL NOT interrogate or question any employee concerning his attendance or other employees' attendance at union meetings. WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of their rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act. WE WILL offer to Kenneth N. Russell immedi- ate and full reinstatement to his former job or, if that job no longer exists, to a substantially equivalent one, without prejudice to his seniority or other rights, privileges, or working conditions. WE WILL make Kenneth N. Russell whole for any loss of pay or other benefits suffered by him as a result of the termination of his employment, plus interest at the rate of 6 percent per annum. TULSA CHROME, INC. DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE GEORGE NORMAN, Administrative Law Judge: On August 31, 1976, International Union of Operating Engi- neers, Local No. 948, AFL-CIO, herein called the Union, filed with the Regional Director for Region 16 of the 953 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD National Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board, a charge alleging that Tulsa Chrome, Inc.,' herein called the Respondent, violated Section 8(a)(l) and (3) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, herein called the Act, by various acts and conduct. On October 5, 1976, an amended charge was filed also alleging violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act. On October 8, 1976,2 a complaint was issued on behalf of the Board's General Counsel by said Regional Director. Respondent duly answered the complaint admitting certain allegations, but denying that it has violated the Act. On the issues thus joined, the matter came on for hearing before me at Tulsa, Oklahoma, on January 12, 1977. The hearing was closed on the same day. 3 All parties were present at the hearing and represented by their chosen representatives, and all had an opportunity to call and examine witnesses and to adduce relevant and material evidence. After the close of the hearing, briefs were filed by the General Counsel and Respondent. Upon the entire record in this case, including my observation of the witnesses and upon consideration of the briefs, I make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT Respondent, a corporation doing business in Tulsa, Oklahoma, is engaged in chrome plating and recycling of automotive vehicle bumpers. During the past calendar year, Respondent bought and received goods valued in excess of $50,000 from suppliers located within the State of Oklahoma, which in turn purchased said goods directly from suppliers outside the State of Oklahoma. Respondent admits, and I find, that it is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED The Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. Ill. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. The Issues 1. Did Respondent, since on or about August 26, interfere with, restrain, and coerce its employees in the exercise of their rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act, by its supervisor and agent, Monroe Dowdy, orally I At the hearing, the counsel for Tulsa Chrome stated that, at the time the petition was filed, the name of Respondent was Tulsa Chrome, but the name had since been changed to Tulsa Chrome, Inc. 2 All the activity herein occurred during the year 1976 unless otherwise indicated. :l On February I , 1977, counsel for Respondent filed a motion to reopen and, in the alternative, a motion to strike. The motion stated, in effect, that the case should be reopened or in the alternative, if the record is not reopened, that the testimony of witness Jesse B. Davis, Jr., be stricken from the record because said testimony was not the truth. In support of the motion, Respondent attached thereto a sworn deposition of Jesse B. Davis, Jr., in which Davis indicated that he was not telling the truth with respect to certain matters about which he testified. On February 23, 1977, counsel for interrogating an employee concerning the employee's union membership, activities, and desires. 2. Did Respondent's supervisor and agent, Monroe Dowdy, create an impression of surveillance of the union activities of its employees by indicating Respondent's awareness of an unpublicized union meeting by asking an employee if the employee was going to the union meeting. 3. Did Respondent, on or about August 30, discharge and thereafter fail and refuse to reinstate its employee, Kenneth N. Russell, because of his membership in, and activities on behalf of, the Union and because he engaged in concerted activities with other employees for purposes of collective bargaining and other mutual aid and protection in violation of Section 8(a)( ) and (3) of the Act. B. The Facts In November 1975, Kenneth Russell was hired by Monroe Dowdy, owner of Tulsa Chrome, as a grinder and he continued to work in that capacity until August 30, 1976. On that date, Russell was told by Manager Bill Sears that he was fired for harassing the other employees. In late July, Russell contacted the Union, seeking advice about how to organize a union at Tulsa Chrome. Russell contacted the Union's business manager, Kenneth E. McEver, who arranged a meeting with Russell and they met at Russell's home. McEver testified that, at that meeting, they talked about the Tulsa Chrome Company and how to go about organizing the plant. McEver had been given the address of the Tulsa Chrome Company in connection with an organizational meeting of plant employees that was set for August 26 at 6 p.m. On that date, McEver went to the Tulsa Chrome Company, Inc., seeking Russell. Upon entering, McEver saw Monroe Dowdy, the owner, and two other employees. At the time, McEver was wearing a union pin on his lapel. McEver asked where Kenneth Russell was and Mr. Dowdy replied that Russell had gotten off work at approximately 3:30 p.m., and had left for the day. After receiving this information, McEver got into his car and left. He went down the street, made a phone call, got back in his car, and while driving, he noticed Russell was following him in his truck. They stopped approximately 50 feet from the Company. McEver got out of his car and talked to Russell who told him to follow him to the home of another employee where the meeting was to be held, about 200 feet from the plant. Russell and three other employees attended the meeting. McEver and the employees present talked about the Union, the problems they were having at the plant, and what organizational activity they could engage in within the General Counsel filed "General Counsel's Response to Respondent's Motion To Reopen and Motion To Strike." In that motion, the General Counsel joined in that portion of Respondent's motion to strike the testimony of Jesse B. Davis because of the aforementioned posttrial deposition of Mr. Davis submitted in support of Respondent's motion, and because an independent investigation conducted by the Regional Office raised sufficient doubt as to Davis' credibility to preclude counsel for the General Counsel from continuing to vouch for Davis' veracity and truthfulness. The General Counsel opposed that portion of Respondent's motion to reopen the record. On March 14, 1977. 1 issued an order granting Respondent's motion to strike and denying Respondent's alternative motion to reopen. As a result, none of Jesse B. Davis' testimony has been considered or relied on in this Decision. 954 TULSA CHROME, INC. the meaning of the Act. McEver passed out authorization cards which they signed and returned, and each took additional cards to get the other employees to sign them. Russell's testimony corroborated McEver's earlier testi- mony. Russell spoke to 9 of the 15 employees at the plant during breaks or before work. He testified that he did not speak to Bill Malloy, Ray Miller, Ronnie Sparks, or Norman Jones because he did not think they would be interested in a union. In the afternoon of August 26, following the last break as everyone was going back to work, Russell approached another employee, Junior Green, who told Russell that the majority of the employees did not want the Union. Russell asked, "What majority?" And Green pointed at four people who were sitting on the pattern table and Russell responded, "Who? Them? That ain't no majority." He pointed to John Box, Bill Malloy, Ray Miller, and Ronnie Sparks. Present during that conversation was owner Monroe Dowdy who was standing close by. Upon arrival at the plant on August 27, Bill Sears told Russell that some man was looking for him the night before. Russell told Sears he was a friend. Whereupon, Monroe Dowdy, who was standing nearby said, "It's an awful rich friend, wearing a $200 suit and driving a big, fancy car." Russell responded, "That's my legal advisor." On Monday, August 30, at or about 6:30 a.m., as Russell entered the plant, Bill Sears told him he wanted to have a little talk with him about harassing employees. Sears told Russell that Monroe Dowdy called him Saturday and told him that Russell was upsetting the employees and to get it straightened out, and Sears said the only way he could straighten it out was to let Russell go.4 The Events of Friday, August 27 On Friday, August 27, Russell, who was a bumper grinder, sent a bumper back to straightener Ray Miller because he did not think it was straightened properly.5 He said that on this occasion Ray Miller was angered by Russell's return of a bumper for restraightening for a second time. Respondent's Witnesses Bill Sears, shop foreman and manager, testified that he is in charge of the entire shop in the absence of Monroe Dowdy, the owner, and has power to hire and fire. Sears became the shop manager at Tulsa Chrome about the end of July. He testified that he talked to Russell "a couple of times" about talking to other people after he had caught up I Sears testified that he had not spoken to Dowdy from Friday to Monday. I credit Russell whose demeanor on the stand convinced me he was truthful. I did not get that impression while Sears testified. I Russell testified that he and others sent bumpers back to straighteners almost daily on instructions from Monroe Dowdy who told the grinders that any bumper that was not right should be taken back to the straightener and have it redone. He said that sending bumpers back to straighteners daily was normal procedure whenever someone saw that the bumper was not straightened right. In addition. he said that other employees down the line would send bumpers back to him for regrinding if they were not ground properly. 6 The memo is handwritten on a small slip of paper, dated August 27. addressed to Monroe Dowdy. and reads as follows: with his own work. Sears said that he was aware of the fact that Dowdy also spoke to Russell about talking on the job, and that employees Junior Green, Ray Miller, and John Box complained to him about Russell bothering them. Sears said that he made his decision to fire Russell on Friday evening before the Monday on which the firing took place. He said he had three or four reasons for firing Russell. Russell returned a bumper stating that it wasn't right, so Sears took it back to see if there was a pattern on it, but there wasn't any, so he looked at a similar bumper in the yard and had the straightener do a little more straightening on the bumper in question. Sears then sent it on to Russell and told him to go ahead and grind it, but Russell refused to grind it, maintaining that it was still wrong. Sears told Russell it was his responsibility as to whether that bumper was right or not and, if he thought it would fit, he would send it on, but Russell "never did grind it." Sears claimed that straightener Ray Miller was going to quit over the incident because Russell kept taking the bumper back to him and telling him it wasn't right. He said that, in an effort to dissuade Miller from quitting, he talked to him for an hour, "because straighteners are hard to find and good ones are much harder to find." Sears said he classes Miller as "one of the better straighteners in the country, and you get along with him real easy." Therefore, he decided to keep straightener Miller and to let Russell go "in order to have harmony in the shop." Sears said that he did not talk to Dowdy that Friday about firing Russell because Dowdy had already left town. So he had his secretary write a memo, "So when I did talk to him, he would know what was going on." 6 Sears notified Russell on August 30 that his job was terminated. He said the decision to fire Russell was strictly his. Sears testified that in the course of a day employees would not come to him with problems like a bumper that might need to be sent back for straightening, that they would send them back on their own initiative "until they would start a little hassle between them." When asked how often that would happen, he responded, "Not very often, actually, not as often as a person would think in trying to run 80 a day. He might have it happen twice a day, depending on the straightener. One straightener, I will carry more back to, another, you don't have to carry that many back to." He said that Ray Miller would have one or two sent back to him a day for restraightening. He said that prior to that incident he did not recall having any disagreement with Russell concerning straightening of bumpers.7 Sears admitted that he knew or found out who the well-dressed man who was looking for Russell was, that As of August 27, the employment of Kenneth Russell is hereby terminated due to his use of company time to agitate and hinder the other employees from doing their work. /s/ Shop Foreman, Bill Sears Worker, Norman L. Jones and Worker, Junior D. Green Jesse Davis 7 Sears testified that he fired three other employees the same day that he fired Russell. He said he wrote the memo on Russell and not on the others just to prove that he did not fire him because of his union activities. He said another reason for writing the memo was to clanrify the matter with Dowdy (Continuedj 955 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD he was from the Union. He said he knew Russell and Dave Stohland were at the union meeting, along with Eddie Roach and possibly Jesse Davis. Sears was also aware that the union authorization cards were being passed around the shop. Sears testified that Russell was the instigator as far as the Union was concerned, that he learned it from scuttlebutt and hearsay. Ray Miller testified that Sears let Russell go because he was not doing his work. He said he was friendly with Russell and he still is friendly with Russell.8 Junior Green denied telling Mr. Russell that the majority of the employees did not want the Union.9 He stated that Russell did talk to him during working hours at times when Russell's work was completed and Green was trying to get his work done. He said he was not aware of Monroe Dowdy ever telling Russell his job would be in jeopardy if he continued talking on the job. Green also testified that Russell would talk to him on the job about the Union during working hours until it became "plumb irritating finally." Dowdy testified that he's a principal shareholder in Tulsa Chrome, Inc.; that he discussed with Russell the possible termination of his employment on or about April 1, and then "about every month thereafter." When asked for what reason, he said, "for lack of doing his job which he had hired into." When asked if he repeatedly told Russell that his job was in jeopardy, why didn't he ever fire him, Dowdy responded that the men talked him into keeping him-such men as Ray Miller. Dowdy also testified that, when he first took over Tulsa Chrome, Inc., he hired Weldon Smith in January to be his plant manager and that Weldon Smith talked to Russell about his job being in jeopardy "about once a month" because Russell was not doing his job. He was irritating the other help and spending more time at the workplaces of other employees taking up their time. He told Russell he did not mind him dragging his feet, but he did not want him holding up a group of two or three people at a time. Dowdy testified that he thought that it was McEver who came to his office on August 26 seeking Russell.10 He denied seeing McEver after he told him that Russell left at 3:30. He admitted hearing that there was a union meeting on August 26. Dowdy was asked the following on direct examination by his own counsel: Q. Did you ever talk to anyone and ask them if they had participated in union activities or gone to a union meeting? A. Not other than when they would come in and say that-they would say if they had been to a meeting, and I would ask them at one time, how many was there. Q. Who was this you asked? A. Jesse Davis. "to let him know what I had done." The names of the other three employees who were fired were Fairchild, Stohland, and Roach. Stohland and Roach were allegedly fired for throwing soap in the nickel tank and Fairchild was allegedly fired "for doing what Russell told him instead of what Sears told him. 8 No testimony was adduced from this witness concerning any discussion he had with Sears concerning his threat to quit over the rejected bumper as testified by Sears. He did not indicate that he was about to quit, nor did he state that Sears talked for an hour to persuade him not to quit. I credit Miller who spoke with candor and not Sears. 5 With respect to that conflict of testimony, I credit Russell and not Green. Dowdy further testified that McEver drove up outside and looked the place over, and then got out of his car and walked in and asked if Kenneth Russell was there.t C. Analysis and Conclusions There is no dispute that Kenneth Russell was one of the first employees to be hired by Monroe Dowdy when he took over Tulsa Chrome, Inc. Russell's production rate was never in issue. The complaint was that he irritated and talked to other employees after he had caught up with his work. Sears and Dowdy testified that Russell had been warned several times about talking to other employees on the job. Dowdy testified that, not only had he warned Russell "about once a month" about talking to other employees, but former Plant Manager Weldon Smith also warned Russell "about once a month" about talking to other employees on the job. 12 Russell was warned repeat- edly, according to Respondent's witnesses, about his talking to other employees, but his firing did not take place until 2 working days after Russell set up a union meeting at the home of another employee. Both Dowdy and Sears knew that an organizational effort was in process among the employees; that a union meeting took place on August 26; that Russell was in attendance and was the union instigator. Although I granted the motion to strike the testimony of General Counsel's witness, Jesse Davis, his testimony was not necessary to prove the allegation that Dowdy interfered with, restrained, and coerced Respon- dent's employees in the exercise of their rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act, by orally interrogating an employee concerning the employee's union membership activities and desires. As previously indicated, Dowdy admitted on direct examination that he asked Jesse Davis how many employees attended the union meeting. See Woj-Ski, Inc., 214 NLRB 1025 (1974); KBM Electronics, Inc. t/a Carsounds, 218 NLRB 1352 (1975); and Sam & Margaret Foods, Inc. d/b/a Clock Restaurant No. Seventeen, 212 NLRB 423 (1974). As for the allegation in the complaint that Respondent Monroe Dowdy created an impression of surveillance of the union activities of its employees by indicating his awareness of an unpublicized union meeting by asking an employee (Davis) if the employee was going to the union meeting, the only testimony with respect to that allegation was that of Jesse Davis whose testimony has been stricken from this record. Therefore, I will recommend dismissing that allegation. The preponderance of the evidence proves that Respon- dent, on August 30, discharged and refused to reinstate Kenneth N. Russell because of his membership in and activities on behalf of the Union, and because Russell '0 I do not credit Monroe Dowdy concerning warnings he gave Russell. I credit Russell who, on rebuttal, denied ever being warned as testified by Dowdy. I It is interesting to note that Russell saw the car drive up, saw McEver get out of the car, look over the plant, and then walk into the plant and ask about Russell. 12 I believe Russell. Russell was consistent and unwaivering as he testified. I do not believe Dowdy. I believe that Plant Manager Sears fired Russell because Russell was the instigator in trying to organize the shop, if not on orders from Dowdy, with Dowdy's blessings. 956 TULSA CHROME, INC. engaged in concerted activities with other employees for the purpose of collective bargaining and other mutual aid and protection in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act. In that connection, as I have previously indicated, I do not credit most of the testimony of Monroe Dowdy, Bill Sears, or Junior Green. I do credit Respondent's witness, Ray Miller, and General Counsel's witnesses, Russell and McEver. IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE UPON COMMERCE The activities of Respondent set forth in section III, above, occurring in connection with the operations of Respondent, described in section 1, above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relationship to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow thereof. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Respondent is an employer within the meaning of Section 2(2) of the Act and is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) of the Act. 2. The Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3. Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act by the discriminatory discharge of Kenneth N. Russell because of his union activity. 4. Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by interrogating employee Jesse B. Davis concerning his union activities. 5. Respondent did not violate Section 8(a)() of the Act by creating the impression of surveillance on or about August 26, 1976, as alleged. 6. The unfair labor practices affect commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) of the Act. THE REMEDY Having found that Tulsa Chrome, Inc., engaged in unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act, I recommend that Respondent be ordered to cease and desist from its unlawful practices. I further recommend that Respondent post an appropriate notice. In addition, I recommend that Kenneth N. Russell be offered full and immediate reinstatement to his former position or, if that position no longer exists, to a substantially equivalent position, without loss of benefits or seniority and that he be made whole for any loss of earnings sustained by him by reason of the discrimination against him, together with interest at the rate of 6 percent per annum, in accordance with F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289 (1950), and Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716 (1962). ':' 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. Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law, and the entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, I hereby issue the following recommended: ORDER '3 The Respondent, Tulsa Chrome, Inc., its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Discriminatorily discharging employees because of their union support. (b) Interrogating employees concerning their union activities. (c) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of their rights to self-organization, to form labor organiza- tions, to join or assist the above-named Union, or any other labor organization. 2. Be exonerated from the allegation that Respondent created an impression of surveillance of the union activities of its employees by indicating its awareness of an unpublicized union meeting by asking an employee (Davis) if the employee was going to the union meeting. That allegation is hereby dismissed. 3. Take the following affirmative action necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Offer Kenneth N. Russell immediate and full reinstatement to his former job or, if that job is not available, to substantially equivalent employment, without prejudice to his seniority or other rights or privileges, and make him whole for any loss of earnings he may have suffered as a result of his discriminatory discharge, in the manner set forth in the section of this Decision entitled "The Remedy." (b) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the Board or its agents, for examination and copying, all payroll records, social security payment records, timecards, personnel records, and reports, and all other records relevant and necessary to analyze the amount of backpay due under the terms of this recommended Order. (c) Post at its Tulsa, Oklahoma, place of business, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix."' 4 Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 16, after being duly signed by Respondent's representatives, shall be posted by it immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (d) Notify the Regional Director for Region 16, in writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps have been taken to comply herewith. 14 In the event the Board's Order is enforced by a Judgment of a United States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by Order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board." 957 958 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD IT IS ALSO ORDERED that the complaint be dismissed insofar as it alleges violations of the Act not specifically found. Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation