United States Steel Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsJul 3, 1980

250 N.L.R.B. 387 (N.L.R.B. 1980)

UNITEI) STATES STEEI C()ORP()RATION United States Steel Corporation and United Steel- workers of America, Local 1219, AFL-CIO- CLC. Case 6-CA-11245 July 3, 1980 DECISION AND ORDER BY MEMBERS JENKINS, PENEI.I.O, ANI) TRUESDAI - On December 10, 1979, Administrative Law Judge Peter E. Donnelly issued the attached Deci- sion in this proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent filed exceptions and a supporting brief. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the 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 brief and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings,' and conclusions2 of the Administrative Law Judge and to adopt his recommended Order, as modified herein. 3 ' In its exceptions. Respondent contends that the Administrative I aws Judge erred by excluding as hearsay testimony of its grievance repre- sentative. Harris, that the Charging Party's grievance representative, Kelly. had agreed with Harris in a telephone conversation that the seltle- ment of the grievance did not include entitlement to unemployment com- pensation benefits by the alleged discriminatee. Saunders We agree with Respondent that testimony concerning alleged admissions of a party op- ponent is not hearsay, and that the Administrative Law Judge erred by excluding such testimony Fed R Evid , Rule 801(d)(2). 28 USCA However, a close examination of the record, including the excluded testi- mony, reveals that Harris' testimony does not support Respondent's con- tention that "the agreement among Saunders, Kelly, and Harris did not include entitlement in [sic] Saunders to unemployment compensation benefits" Accordingly. we find that the Administrative Law Judge's esi- dentiary ruling excluding a portion of Harris' testimony was not prejudi- cial error. 2 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 credi- bility unless the clear preponderance of all of the relevant evidence con- vinces us that the resolutions are incorrect. Standard Dry Wal/ Products. Inc.. 91 NLRB 544 (1950). enfd. 188 F2d 362 (3d Cir. 1951) We have carefully examined the record and find no basis for reversing his findings. In reaching this finding, we have taken into account that in some in- stances the Administrative Law Judge did not specifically state that he was making a credibility resolution where a conflict in testimony oc- curred. However, since in those instances he found events took place in a way which is consistent with only one of the versions of the conflicting testimony, it is clear that he implicitly credited the witness whose version he accepted Mid-East Consolidation Warehouse, A Division o0' Ehan Allen, Inc. 247 NLRB No 90 (1980). See Bishop and Malco. Inc., db/a Walk- er's, 159 NLRB 1159, 1160-61 (1966) In his Decision, the Administrative Law Judge incorrectly referred to Earl Saunders. Jr.. the discriminatee, as Ralph Saunders, Jr In addition, the Administrative Law Judge mistakenly reported the arbitrator's deci- sion as stating. "He should not be given an opportunity," instead of "He should now be given an opportunity" IEmphasis supplied.) These inad- vertent errors are hereby corrected I The Administrative Law Judge has recommended that a broad order issue against Respondent. However. in accordance with our decision in Hickmott Foods. Inc., 242 NL RB No 177 (1979), in which it was decided that, unless a respondent has been shown to have a proclivity to violate the Act. or has engaged in such egregious or widespread misconduct which demonstrates a general disregard for employees' fundamental 250 NLRB No. 59 ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Re- lations Board adopts as its Order the recommended Order of the Administrative Law Judge, as modi- fied below, and hereby orders that the Respondent. United States Steel Corporation, Braddock, Penn- sylvania, its officers, agents. successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the said recom- mended Order, as so modified: I. Substitute the following for paragraph l(c): "(c) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them in Section 7 of the Act." 2. Substitute the following for paragraph 2(a): "(a) Offer Earl Saunders, Jr., immediate and full reinstatement to his former job or, if that job no longer exists, to a substantially equivalent position without prejudice to his seniority or any other rights and privileges previously enjoyed, and make him whole for any loss of pay which he may have suffered as a result of our discrimination against him in the manner set forth in the section of this Decision entitled 'The Remedy."' 3. Substitute the attached notice for that of the Administrative Law Judge. rights, a broad order will not automatically be included Therefore, we shall modify the recommended Order and notice accordingly APPENDIX NOTICE To EMPLOYEES POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAIl LABOR REI.ATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government WE WILl. NOT tell our employees that the posting of bids for job vacancies is contingent upon the withdrawal of grievances for failure to post such job vacancies. WE WILL NOT discharge or otherwise dis- criminate against any employees for engaging in union activities. WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them in Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended. WE WILL offer Earl Saunders, Jr., immedi- ate and full reinstatement to his former job or, if that job no longer exists, to a substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to his seniority or any other rights and privileges previously enjoyed, and make him whole for 387 DECISI()NS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD any loss of pay he may have suffered as a result of our discrimination against him, with interest. UNITE D STATEs ST.EE. CORPORATION DECISION STAITEMENI OF ITHI CASE PET FR E. DONNI I. Y, Administrative Law Judge: The charge herein was filed by United Steelworkers of America, Local 1219, AFL-CIO-CLC, herein called Charging Party or Union, on May 11, 1978, and a com- plaint thereon was issued on June 28, 1978, alleging that United States Steel Corporation, herein called the Em- ployer or Respondent, violated Section 8(a)(l) and (3) of the Act, by threatening employees with loss of promo- tion opportunity for invoking the grievance procedures of the contract, and discharging Earl Saunders, Jr., be- cause of his activities on behalf of the Union. An answer thereto was timely filed by Respondent and pursuant to notice a hearing was held before the Administrative Law Judge at Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, on December I and December 18, 1978. Briefs have been timely filed by General Counsel and Respondent which have been duly considered. FINDINGS OF FACT I. IFMPI.OYER'S BUSINESS Respondent is a Delaware corporation with its princi- pal office located in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, were it is engaged in the manufacture and nonretail sale of steel and steel products with a facility located at the Edgar Thomson Works in Braddock, Pennsylvania, the only fa- cility involved herein. During the past 12 months Em- ployer purchased and received goods and materials valued in excess of $50,000 directly from suppliers locat- ed outside the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania for use at its Braddock, Pennsylvania, facility. The complaint al- leges, the answer admits, and I find that Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 1. lABOR ORGANIZATION The complaint alleges, the answer admits, and I find that the Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 111. THE AlI. EGED UNFAIR IABOR PRACTICES. A. Facts Respondent's Edgar Thomson Works in Braddock, Pennsylvania, employs about 2,200 employees in a basic steel producing operation which includes a basic oxygen processing (B.O.P.) department. Employees at this facili- ty have been represented by the Union under a contract since 1939. Ralph Saunders, Jr., an employee with some 34 years of service is employed there. In addition to his Union membership, Saunders is the assistant grievance man for the B.O.P. department, a position that he has oc- cupied since 1976 and prior to that for about 3 years be- ginning in 1969. The record shows that during his term as assistant grievance man Saunders was responsible for the filing of substantial numbers of grievances in the B.O.P department. Among those grievances filed by Saunders were sever- al that were filed in protest of disciplinary action taken against him. There were three such grievances filed by Saunders beginning in February 1977. The February grievance was filed to protest a 3-day suspension, while Saunders was working as a craneman, for failing to advise a relieving craneman of repairs being made on the crane. Another suspension of 3 days was imposed in May 1977, while Saunders was working as a craneman, for in- subordination in refusing to perform an operation with the crane which he regarded as unsafe. On December 23, 1977, Saunders was suspended while working as a crane- man for refusing to operate the crane because he felt it was hazardous to certain employees located on a nearby walkway. This suspension was converted to a discharge. This discharge was pursued by the Union to arbitration. On June 27, 1978, the arbitrator's decision concluded that the safety condition was not so hazardous as to justi- fy the insubordination, but recommended the following: At the Step 3 meeting grievant was adamant in stating that if he was returned to the Teeming Aisle Craneman job he would continue to refuse to follow the direction of supervision in similar cir- cumstances. He added that he would take his chances in winning his job at arbitration. Under these circumstances, it was not improper for Man- agement not to assign him to work that job on his return to work following his suspension. In essence, he was unavailable to perform that job as required. His unavailability, however, must be viewed as tem- porary, at least during the period this grievance was pending in the grievance procedure and arbitration. He should not be given an opportunity to reconsid- er his position in light of the findings in this deci- sion. Assuming that he changes his position, he should be returned to the Teeming Aisle Craneman job in accordance with his seniority rights. Sometime prior to this, on January 3, 197 8, L Respond- ent had returned Saunders to work in the labor pool 2 subject to the condition that he not be allowed to work as a craneman. Thus, Saunders was employed thereafter in the labor pool and in steel-pourer positions until he was discharged in May. April 17, Saunders filed a grievance over Respondent's failure to post the position of fourth steel pourer. Re- spondent answered that it had no contractual obligation to post the position. On April 28 a second step meeting under the grievance procedure of the contract was held. This meeting was attended by Saunders and James Shar- All dates refer to 1978 unless otherwise indicated, 2 In addition to the cranemen positions. employees in the B.O.P. de- partment include four steel pourer positions and a labor pool from which Ihe steel pourers are obtained to fill vacancies in the absence of a regular steel pourer. UNITED STIAlTES SIEI. CORPO()I'()RAII()N pley, grievance committeeman of the Edgar Thomson Works facility Supervisor Charles Conley of the labor contract administration and Superintendent Alex Johan- son of the B.OP. shop represented Respondent. Saunders complained the job should have been posted and that he was entitled to the job as a matter of senior- ity.:' L. Alex Johanson advised Saunders that a decision to post the job had been made. but the job would not be posted so long as he pursued the grievance. Respondent later relented, however, and the fourth steel pourer posi- tion was posted on May 5,4 after which the grievance was withdrawn by Sharpley. With respect to the suspension and subseqent dis- charge of Saunders, it appears that on May 3 at noon, Saunders had an appointment with a Demko, president of a clerical union, to discuss certain interunion busi- ness. ' In the morning, Saunders advised his foreman, James Glunt, that he would be leaving at noon on union business and requested to be relieved at that time. Saunders also told Glunt that he wanted to discuss with him a safety complaint which had been filed. Glunt agreed and Saunders went to work. On this particular day Saunders was filling in as a third steel pourer to fill a vacancy. While working Saunders encountered what he felt was an unsafe condition involving an insufficient water supply and told Glunt that he wanted also to dis- cuss that at noon with him. Later in the morning Glunt advised him that a man to relieve him, Mark Simko, had been called in from home. Saunders said that this could mean another complaint since under the contract his re- placement should have come from the labor pool. At or about 11:50, after his crew had completed pour- ing a heat, Saunders went to the nearby pit shanty, a rest area utilized by employees between heats. and saw Simko. At this time Saunders was free until time for preparation of the next heat at 12:30 p.m. Saunders asked Simko why he did not relieve him so that he could leave. At this point Glunt, who was present, spoke up saying that he had told Simko that he was not to relieve Saunders until noon and told Saunders that he was not relieved until noon. Glunt concedes that he refused to allow Saunders to leave until noon despite the fact that his relief was available. Glunt had also told Simko that he was not to relieve Saunders until noon. 6 Glunt took this position because of what he described as Saunders' "attitude." By way of explanation, Glunt described his past problems with Saunders, saying, "Mr. Saunders and I have had difficulties in the past. Mr. Saunders constant- ly challenges my authority on the turn. Mr. Saunders de- termines what he'll do and what he won't do, what instructions he'll follow and what instructions he won't follow. So I have found in my dealings with Mr. Saunders I have to be very precise and very exact." t 1I is undisputed that if the job had been posted Saulnders would hase been entillcd to it based on his seniority 4 Saunders "a, suspundied oin May 3. Ahich usupensiotll svs conllerted it) discharge on May 5 n Clerical emplosees have separate union representation ' There exisls a "buddy relief" system in the plant v hich perl iiti, an employee Il lease early at the end of hi, shift if hi, relief is aailahble However. I am not salisfied. on the basis of this record. hiat this sterm applied at inmes other thai shift endinlgs Glunt then left the pit shanty and wncut to the pit office a short distance away. After finishing his coffee. Saunders also went to the pit office. Glunt told him that lie was not to leave until noon and would be disciplined it' he did. At this point Saunlders went to the con\'cinience room7 w\here he relieved himself, left his safety cloth.s, and picked up his brief case. At this time he also rmet Cimak who had been giv\en a disciplinary suspension shortly before. Saunders advised Cimak that hle would discuss that matter wAith Glunt also. At this time, about 12:1)0, Saunders returned to the pit shanit' and cdiscusscd some of the complaints with Glint, including some dis- cussion concerning Cimak's suspension and Glunt's pro- posed disciplinary action against Saunders himself. Saunders was told by (ilunt that the insubordination itivolx ed leaving the pit office to go to the convenience room. After some discussion, Saunders left and had the meeting with Demko after which he went back to the convenience room changed clothes. took a shower, and left the plant about 12:35 or 12:45. At or about I o'clock on the same afternoon, during a management discussion of the matter, Conley proposed that because of Saunders' past record he be given a 5- day suspension subject to discharge rathei than the I-day suspension which Glunt favored. A meeting was held on May 3 with Johanson, Glunt, and Conley representing the Respondent, as well as Sharpley and Saunders. Saunders was advised that lie was being given a 5-day suspension subject to discharge in view of his disciplinary record, and more particularly the disciplinary actions noted above. The next meeting under the grievance procedures of the contract was held on May 5 at which time Saunders' suspension was converted to a discharge effective May 9. In an effort to resolve Saunders' grievance at the fourth, or prearbitration, step in the procedure discus- sions were held between Eugene Harris, manager of labor relations for Eastern Steel, and Louis Kelley, staff representative for District 15 of the United Steelworkers of America. Saunders was present for at least some of these discussions. As a result of these discussions written agreement was reached resolving the grievance as fol- lows on June 30. This is to confirm our understanding as of today re- garding disposition and settlement of the above cap- tioned grievance. The Company now offers to settle this case on the basis of the following: 1. Grievant E. Saunders, Check No. 15423, will be rehired effective May 9, 1978, with full restora- tion of continuous service. The 5-day suspension issued May 3, 1978, and the discharge effective May 9, 1978, are converted to a 38-day suspension (May 4 through June 10). The 38-day suspension shall remain a part of Grievant's personnel record until January 1, 1979, provided there is no similar siola- tion of Section 11. Rule 6. of the General Safety and Ihe ,o \i ectli.clltc' roornl is Ilcalted aibit 1(X) 0 ilrd fronl Ihc pit shtnts II is a plaice x.here cipl.peses v a,th tup. change Iheir Moie..t iandi uset the restiroom fa.ilii es 1X9 DCISIONS O()F NATI()NAI. LAH()OR RLATIIONS ()OARDI Plant Conduct Rules and Regulations.1332. The grievant will be paid a lump sum of $700.00 for earnings lost during the weeks beginning June 11 and June 18, 1978 (subject to applicable FICA, taxes and other deductions). 3. The Grievant will be scheduled on vacation for the weeks beginning June 25 and July 2. 1978; therefore, the Grievant will be returned to work for the week beginning July 9, 1978, in accordance with his seniority rights. This settlement is made without prejudice to the contractual position of either party and is in full and final settlement of this grievance. If you agree that the above accurately reflects our understanding regarding settlement of this case, please confirm by signing the original and two copies of this letter in the space provided below. Return the original signed letter to this office and retain two copies for your file. This agreement was confirmed, in writing, by Kelley on July 6. While it is not part of the written agreement Saunders testified that he tentatively agreed to withdraw the unfair labor practice charge, previously filed on May 11, subject to Respondent's not protesting his unemploy- ment compensation claim. A few days later, when he was advised that his unemployment compensation claim was being disallowed because of the Respondent's con- tention that he was discharged for insubordination, he declined to withdraw the charge. Saunders testified: A tentative agreement that I would be paid a sum of six hundred dollars and if the State would release my checks there wouldn't be no appeal and if I re- ceive the checks from the Unemployment Board that he saw no reason why I shouldn't be eligible to get Sub. And, under those conditions tentatively we had an agreement, and that was the end of the meeting and we went to lunch. It is undisputed that Saunders returned to work under the terms of the settlement on July 9. B. The Analysis and Discussion I. Prior resolution of the dispute The Respondent takes the position that, apart from the merits of the case, the complaint herein should be dis- missed because the matter has been resolved by the par- ties with the execution of the settlement agreement of June 30. In support of its position Respondent cites Cen- tral Carlage Companv, 206 NLRB 337 (1973), wherein the Board dismissed a complaint based on a settlement between the parties arrived at after the issuance of the Administrative Law Judge's decision. However, there are several significant factors which distinguish the in- stant case from Central Cartage. In the instant case the extent to which settlement discussions dealt with the unfair labor practice issue is unclear. Also unclear is the extent of Saunders' participation in the discussions which led to the settlement It does not appear that Saunders has ever signed the settlement, nor does it appear that he is presently willing to accept the terms of the settlement. Saunders' position in this regard is that his assent to the settlement agreement was contingent on approval of his unemployment compensation claim. Since this contingen- cy was not met, there was, in effect, no agreement. Thus it is clear that he is presently dissatisfied with the June 30 settlement, unlike the situation in Central Cartage wherein the Board noted that "none of the charges di- rectly involved has raised any issues concerning the set- tlement, and all appear willing to abide by its terms." 8 I also note that the agreement contains no written provi- sion for the withdrawal of the previously filed charge. In these circumstances I conclude that it will not effectuate the policies of the Act to accept the settlement agree- ment of June 30) as dispositive. Accordingly, considera- tion is appropriate for the unfair labor practice allega- tions herein. 2. 8(a)(1) statements concerning the fourth steel pourer job bid Respondent, in essence, was advising Saunders that while it was not contractually obligated to post for bids the job of fourth steel pourer it would post the job on the condition that Saunders withdraw the grievance pro- testing Respondent's failure to post it. Respondent appar- ently did not want to give the appearance that the post- ing was a concession to the filing of the grievance. In my opinion such a representation is unlawful and the ille- gality has nothing to do with whether or not there actu- ally was a contractual obligation to post the job. Re- spondent could, with impunity, have said that it was not going to post the job because there was no contractual obligation to post it, but when Johanson told Saunders that the posting was contingent upon the withdrawal of the grievance, this statement coercively inhibited the protected employee activity of grievance filing. This is particularly so in circumstances where subsequently the job was posted after Saunders was discharged, without the grievance having been withdrawn. Accordingly, I conclude that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act, by advising an employee that the job posting was contingent upon the withdrawal of a grievance previous- ly filed thereon. 3. Saunders' discharge The General Counsel contends that Saunders was dis- charged for having engaged in the protected concerted activity or raising grievances with Respondent, particu- larly Glunt. Respondent denies that allegation contend- ing that his discharge was occasioned by his insubordi- nate conduct towards Glunt and his history of miscon- duct. There can be no doubt that Saunders was active in the filing of grievances. On May 3 alone, the day he was sus- pended, he had raised with Glunt for discussion the matter of a job safety problem, the contractual propriety of obtaining his relief from home rather than from the labor pool, and Cimack's disciplinary suspension. 0' ( ' , < ral , ( .. rlg c r- u ra 19() UINITFD STATE.S STEI. CO()RP)RATION On this day. Saunders requested relief at noon to per- form union business and Glunt agreed. Thereafter, at 11:50. after his relief had arrived and was available to re- lieve him. Glunt, nevertheless, instructed both his relief and Saunders himself that he could not leave until noon. Nor did Saunders lease the plant when he went to the convenience room returning at or about 12:10 for his dis- cussion with Glunt. Saunders did not leave the plant until later in the day. On these facts I cannot conclude that the disciplinary action taken by Glunt was justified based on Saunders' insubordinate conduct. But the General Counsel must do more than simply es- tablish that no legitimate justification existed for the dis- ciplinary action. The General Counsel has the obligation to show, at least by an appropriate legitimate inference, that the discharge was motivated by unlawful consider- ations. In the instant case I am satisfied that the allega- tion of misconduct is a pretext and that Respondent sus- pended and later discharged Saunders because of the contract and grievance matters he had presented as well as those he was pursuing on May 3, By way of explanation, Glunt cited Saunders' "attitu- de"for not permitting him to be relieved when there was no valid reason to detain him. In examining the e ents of May 3. particularly the contract problems raised by Saunders with Glunt that day and Glunt's past problems with Saunders' contract complaints and grievances, I am convinced that there is no other valid explanation for Glunt's action or the subsequent discharge, except as re- taliatory, taken against Saunders because of the problem that he had been and was creating by reason of raising contract issues and pursuing grievances under the con- tract. It is clear that employees have the right, under Section 7 of the Act, to engage in such activity and that the Employer violates Section 8(a)(3) of the Act when it disciplines or discriminates against an employee for en- gaging in this type of activity. Accordingly, I conclude that by suspending and subsequently discharging Saunders Respondent has violated Section 8(a)(3) of the Act. IV. tHL EFIt.CT OF ITHE UNFAIR LABOR PRAC IICIS UPON COMMIERC- The activities of Respondent as set forth in section III, above, occurring in connection with its operations de- scribed in section I, above, have a close, intimate. and substantial relationship to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States and tend to lead to labor dis- putes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce. V. IHI RI MI-l)r Having found that Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices I shall recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. I have found that Respondent discharged Earl Saunders. Jr., for reasons which offended the provisions of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act. I shall therefore recommend that the Respondent make him whole for any loss of pay which he may have suffered as a result of tile discrimination practiced against him The hackpay provided herein with interest thereon to be computed in the manner pro- scribed in F1 UW 4boolworth Company, 90 NLRB3 289 (1950). and Florida Steel Corporation. 231 NI.RB 651 (1977)Y CONCI I SIONS 01 L. Vs . Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce s, ithin the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 2. United Steelwsorkers of America. AF'L--CI() Cl C is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing em- ployees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Sec- tion 7 of the Act. Respondent ha11s engaged in alnd is en- gaging in unfair labor practices proscribed hby Section 8(a)( I) of the Act 4. [y unlaw fully discharging Earl Saunders on or about May 9, 1978. the Respondent engaged in alln unfaiir labor practice within the meaning of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law, and the entire record, and pursuant to Sectiol 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended. I hereby issue the follow ing recommended: ORDER " The Respondent, United States Steel Corporatioi. its officers. agents, successors. and assigns. shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Telling employees that the posting of bids for job vacancies is contingent on the withdrawal of grievances for failure to post such job vacancies. (b) Discharging or otherwise discriminating against any employee for engaginig in union activity. (e) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of their rights under Section 7 of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action which I find necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Offer to Earl Saunders. Jr., immediate and full rein- statement to his former job or, if it no longer exists, to a substantially equivalent job, and make him whole for any loss of pay which he may have suffered as a result of dis- crimination practiced against him in the manner set fo(rth 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 pay- roll records, social security records and reports and all other records necessary to analyze the amount of back- pay due herein (c) Post at its facilities at the Edgar Thonmson 'Works, in Braddock, Pennsylvania. copies of the attached notice Sect', generalkl I~ I'Ihtt.drme & Ih'tmni ( '. 13s NI RBi l76t I ,%2) In l tht cc' li I ltcl CtcpllIl, artc filcdi s pro. lidcd hb t'c 1()2 4h ,1 the Rulel l.lld RCglalll l ,l1 'lf i 11t NaltlOlll I .ahlol Rcltllln, IIrdl l it1 tlltillg Ch co. l, l llh. iki l ll. rctrlllllnll tiiLd ()riJtr hccliI 11 , h1ll AI pr ll icid II Sct 102 4S If the R l ,111 ind RCgtlu1 llllS. ii ,ilepi h c 0 C1 th i l oardi dl/d hctLilc' ItI filldilllg. CtII11hislilwl ,111t ()lltl .tlt( .d iii h i]cl lltix lh'C io shlall btc d iLcfl idi k.t1\ Cd 1-I 1 .ll 1't1 L''' 31g D[)1(ISIONS OF NATIONAl LABOR REL.ATIONS B()AR[) marked "Appendix."' Copies of said notice on forms to be provided by the Regional Director for Region 6, after being duly signed by Respondent's authorized repre- sentatives, shall be posted by them immediately upon re- ' B Inl Ih' c\.nl Ihit this ()rilcl is. cnio.rccd h .a Judtgnlcni of aI L nil.cd Slatco. ,'luorrt il Appeal',. tlLe i.i,rd'. ii the intice rcadilig "Po'slcd h) i()rldr atl Ihe Naililla.l I ahr Rclaltio, lloirdtl hall read "Posted I'ur.L - ait to ai Judigmenlit of he LInitld SiitLtc' C rt of Appeal, -I rifrcig ani O)rdcr of Ihe Naltiotal I abor Rctlatiiii. ilBard ceipt thereof and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Rea- sonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to ensure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other materials. (d) Notify the Regional Director for Region 6, in writ- ing, within 20 days from the date of this Order what steps have been taken to comply herewith.