A.B.C. Liquors, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 27, 1977

227 N.L.R.B. 1582 (N.L.R.B. 1977)

1582 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
A.B.C. Liquors, Inc. and Hotel, Motel, Restaurant
Employees and Bartenders Union , Local 737,
AFL-CIO. Case 12-CA-7056
January 27, 1977
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MURPHY AND MEMBERS
JENKINS AND WALTHER
On September 13, 1976, Administrative Law Judge
Sidney J. Barban issued the attached Decision in this
proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent filed exceptions
and a supporting brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the record and the
attached Decision in light of the exceptions and
brief 1 and has decided to affirm the rulings , findings,2
and conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge
and to adopt his recommended Order as modified.3
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, A.B.C. Liquors, Inc., Tampa, Florida, its
officers, agents, successors , and assigns, shall take the
action set forth in the said recommended Order, as so
modified:
1. Delete paragraphs 1(a) and (b) and insert the
following:
"1. Cease and desist from:
"(a) Coercively interrogating its employees con-
cerning their union activities and their execution of
authorization cards for the Union.
"(b) Representing to its employees that it is acting
at the request of the National Labor Relations Board
in these interrogations.
"(c) In any like or related manner interfering with,
restraining , or coercing its employees in the exercise
of their rights protected by Section 7 of the National
Labor Relations Act."
I Respondent 's request for oral argument is hereby denied as the record,
the exceptions , and brief adequately present the issues and the positions of
the parties
2 We find merit in Respondent's motion to strike fn. 5 of the Administra-
tive Law Judge 's Decision We agree that the information in that footnote is
immaterial and irrelevant to the issues presented herein and , accordingly, we
find it unnecessary to rely on that portion of the Administrative Law Judge's
Decision
While we note , contrary to the Administrative Law Judge's observation at
227 NLRB No. 225
2. Substitute the attached notice for that of the
Administrative Law Judge.
MEMBER WALTHER, concurring in part and dissenting
in part:
I agree with my colleagues that Respondent violat-
ed Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by representing to its
employees that its general questioning of the employ-
ees was at the behest of the National Labor Relations
Board. In the circumstances of this case, I find this
representation tainted Respondent's general ques-
tioning. However, unlike my colleagues, I would find
that, had Respondent not made this representation,
the questions would have been permissible.
The facts demonstrate that Respondent had re-
ceived information that Edward Savoie, a former
supervisor who had recently been employed by
Respondent, had been instrumental in soliciting a
number of authorization cards used to support a
petition for an election at one of Respondent's stores.
Respondent brought this information to the attention
of a Board agent who instructed Respondent that
written evidence supporting its contention must be
given to the Regional Office before it would pursue
the matter further.
Accordingly, Respondent's area supervisor, Wil-
liam Lindsay, individually distributed to each em-
ployee at the affected store two documents. One
document, entitled the "acknowledgment," stated
that the purpose of the questioning was to determine
the nature and the extent of Savoie's solicitation; the
request to obtain this information came from the
National Labor Relations Board; employees were
under no obligation to answer questions and there
would be no reprisals or punishment or other adverse
effect for not doing so, nor would there be any reward
or benefits for doing so; and finally the employees
were told that their participation was strictly volun-
tary and confidential. The second document had 22
questions concerning the former supervisor's alleged
union activities. Pursuant to Respondent's indication
of the voluntary nature of the documents, 9 of the 15
unit employees filled out the questionnaire, while 2
other employees refused to fill out either the acknowl-
edgment or the questionnaire.
Despite the safeguards Respondent accorded its
employees, the Administrative Law Judge concluded
that Respondent was not justified at all in querying
its employees. As support for this dubious proposi-
fn 6 of his Decision , that a petition for an election had, in fact, been filed in
F C F Papers, Inc, a Division ofthe Mead Corporation, 211 NLRB 657 (1974),
we agree with the Administrative Law Judge , for those other reasons he
notes, that that case is inapposite to the facts of the instant proceeding.
3 While the administrative Law Judge found that Respondent had
coercively interrogated its employees in violation of Sec . 8(a)(1) of the Act,
he failed to enter a specific cease-and-desist order covering only that finding
We hereby correct the Administrative Law Judge 's recommended Order in
that respect
A.B.C. LIQUORS, INC.
tion , the Administrative Law Judge concluded that
Respondent "should have" first asked its own offi-
cials who had knowledge of this supervisor 's activities
rather than seeking the information from the employ-
ees "at a critical time at the outset of the exercise of
their right to determine whether they desired repre-
sentation ." Further, the Administrative Law Judge
found Respondent's conduct was "exacerbated" by
Respondent 's statement that it was acting on behalf
of the Board, and I agree. This deceit obviously
means that the employees ' responses were involun-
tary. However, I reject the first part of the Adminstra-
tive Law Judge 's conclusion.
The Administrative Law Judge ultimately offered
no explanation for such a finding save for his ipse
dixit statement that such conduct "necessarily"
infringed on protected rights, and his summary
citation to William Walters Inc., a/k/a Computronics,
Inc., 4 an inapposite case . William Walters did not
deal with the question of an employer's concern over
the possibility of a supervisor 's participation in
organizing a union . On the contrary , the Board has
held in F.C.F. Papers, Inc., a Division of the Mead
Corporation, 5 on facts similar to those here , that an
employer has a legitimate concern about supervisory
participation in organizing a union . As in F.C.P.
Papers, Inc., the employees here were given proper
assurances that their participation in the questioning
was voluntary and confidential , and that no reprisals
or benefits would result . The election petition previ-
ously filed with the Board made the employees' union
activity a matter of public record , and the employees
were clearly and fully aware of Respondent 's purpose
in the questioning . Hence , Respondent's questioning
the employees about a subject which the Board has
categorized in F.C.F. Papers, Inc., as a legitimate
concern would not have been unlawful absent
Respondent 's further statement that it was done at
the behest of the Board.6
4 179 NLRB 709 (1969).
5 211 NLRB 657 (1974).
6 1 agree that Lindsay's individual interrogation of employee Rodolowicz,
as detailed by the Administrative Law Judge, is a separate violation of Sec
8(a)(I) of the Act.
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
The law states that employees shall have the right:
To form, join, or assist labor organizations
To bargain collectively through represen-
tatives of their own choosing
1583
To engage in other concerted activities for
the purpose of collective bargaining or other
mutual aid or protection
To refrain from any or all such activities,
except as may be required by a legal agree-
ment between an employer and the represen-
tative of the employees.
WE WILL NOT coercively interrogate our em-
ployees concerning their union activities and their
execution of authorization cards for the Union.
WE WILL NOT represent to our employees that
the National Labor Relations Board has asked us
to question our employees concerning their union
activities or whether they have signed a card for
the Union.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner
interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees in
the exercise of their rights protected by Section 7
of the National Labor Relations Act.
A.B.C. LIQUORS, INC.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
SIDNEY J. BARBAN, Administrative Law Judge: This
matter was heard at Tampa, Florida, upon certain issues in
the consolidated complaint,' based upon a charge filed by
the above-named Charging Party (herein the Union).2 The
complaint alleges that the above-named Respondent, by
interrogating employees, by means of a questionnaire and
otherwise, concerning employee union activities and the
execution of authorization cards on behalf of the Union,
and by advising such employees that Respondent was
requested by the National Labor Relations Board to obtain
such information from those employees, violated Section
8(a)(1) of the Act.
Respondent's answer denies the commission of the
alleged unfair labor practices, but admits allegations of the
complaint sufficient to justify the assertion of jurisdiction
under current standards of the Board (Respondent, en-
gaged in the retail sale of beer, wines , and liquors in the
State of Florida, in a recent annual period, received gross
revenues from its operations in excess of $500,000 during
which period Respondent received products valued in
excess of $50,000, from suppliers who obtained those
products outside the State of Florida), and to support a
finding that the Union is a labor organization within the
meaning of the Act.
Upon the entire record in this case,3 from observation of
the witnesses, and after due consideration of the briefs filed
I The complaint in Case 12-CA-7056 was consolidated with a complaint
in Case 12-CA-7133 on March 26, 1976. After the hearing opened, the
parties entered into a settlement of the latter case, which was therefore
severed from Case 12-CA-7056
2 The charge in Case 12-CA-7056 was filed on January 5, 1976, and the
original complaint in that case was issued on February 19, 1976. The charge
in Case 12-CA-7133 was filed on February 25, 1976
3 At the hearing, Respondent requested that notice be taken of secs
(Continued)
1584 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
by General Counsel and the Respondent, I make the
following:
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
1. THE ISSUES
The General Counsel, as has been noted, asserts that the
Respondent violated Section 8(axl) of the Act by question-
ing its employees about their union activities and execution
of union cards, and advising the employees that it was
doing so on the request of the Board . Respondent asserts
that it was justified in its actions because it was seeking to
show that cards submitted by the Union in support of a
representation petition had been secured by a supervisor
and because it had been told by an agent of the Board that
the Board would not investigate the Respondent's claim of
supervisory taint unless Respondent first submitted suffi-
cient evidence in support of its claim.
II. THE FACTS
On December 8, 1975 (all dates hereinafter are in 1975,
unless otherwise noted), the Union filed a petition for
certification among the employees of Respondent's store 15
(docketed as Case 12-RC-4970). Shortly thereafter Re-
spondent's management advised their counsel , Paul Saad,
that they had been informed by managers of other
Respondent stores that the manager of store 15, Savoie, had
requested their assistance in obtaining authorization cards
for the Union from employees in their stores, and that
Savoie, himself, when discharged on December 13, asserted
that he was being terminated because of his union activities.
Saad testified that, upon contacting the Regional Office, he
was informed that Mary Lee Meder was "in charge." 4 He
thereupon drafted the following letter, dated December 17,
addressed to "Ms. Mary Lee Meder, Field Examiner,"
which he hand-delivered to Meder:
Re: ABC Liquors , Inc. Case No . 12-RC-4970
Dear Ms. Meder:
This is to advise you that I have evidence that Mr.
Savoie, Manager of the store which has been the subject
of the above designated petition, did actively engage in
the solicitation of employees working within that store
and at other stores for the purpose of signing cards on
behalf of the labor organization that filed the petition in
this proceeding.
I am in the process of gaining evidence to support
this charge and hereby request that the Regional
Director initiate an investigation to determine the
extent of supervisory participation on the part of Mr.
Savoie and to invalidate those cards obtained by him.
11020 through 11039, and sec 11392.5 of the Board 's Field Manual So far I
can determine , there are no sections presently numbered between 11030 and
11042 1 have otherwise taken notice of the sections requested I have also
taken notice of the settlement agreement in Cases 12-CA-1403, -1403-2,
attached to General Counsel 's brief.
1 Saad asserted that in the absence of the Regional Director , the Assistant
Regional Director and the Regional Attorney, he considered Meder the
acting Assistant Regional Director. This is disputed by General Counsel The
title is not important On this record, Saad was entitled to assume that Meder
was acting for the Region in respect to the pending representation matter.
I am hopeful that we shall be able to file our evidence
with your office at the beginning of the next week.
According to Saad , he told Meder the details of his
information from Respondent's management concerning
Savoie's activities, and requested that the Regional Office
initiate an investigation. Meder told Saad that he should
first "submit your evidence in support of your request" in
writing.
Saad testified that based on his experience with the
Regional Office , beginning with a case handled some 10
years previous , he was convinced that the Regional Office
would not initiate an investigation into the question of
possible supervisory taint of the petitioning Union's cards
unless direct firsthand evidence was produced , that hearsay
evidence would not suffice . However , he did not discuss
this with Ms . Meder . He states that he has since been
informed by the Regional Director that the Region will
conduct such an investigation based upon a prima facie
presentation, presumably in writing.5
Because of his belief that the Region would require
firsthand evidence , Saad did not seek written statements
from the store managers who had been contacted by
Savoie , or from the management official to whom Savoie
complained of being discharged for his union activities, all
of whom were presumably available to Saad . Saad decided,
rather , that the employees in store 15 should be questioned
directly. In pursuance of this , Saad prepared two docu-
ments which might be submitted to the employees by a
member of management . The first of these documents,
headed "ACICNOWLEIX'GMENT," reads as follows:
This is to advise you that the company is conducting an
investigation for the purpose of obtaining evidence
pertaining to the extent of the union activity of Mr.
Savoie . As Mr. Savoie is no longer with our organiza-
tion , it is necessary to discuss with you your own
personal knowledge of any such activity on his part.
Therefore , I want to advise you of the following:
1. The sole purpose of this questioning is to determine
the nature and extent of Mr. Savoie's solicitation
of your support on behalf of the union . We have
been requested to obtain this information by the
National Labor Relations Board which is the
Federal agency responsible for the final decision
as to whether or not union cards obtained by Mr.
Savoie were valid . As stated, you should be aware
that there is no other way for us to obtain this
information except by questioning our employees.
2. After you are through reading this notice, you
should be aware that you are under absolutely no
obligation to answer any questions we ask. You
5 General Counsel points out that Saad has on three occasions been
personally cited in complaints issued by the Region for interrogating
employees concerning their union activities In two cases, this conduct was
found violative of the Act. Lindsay Newspapers, Inc, 130 NLRB 680 (1961),
Gwld Industries Mfg. Corp , 133 NLRB 1719 (1961), supplemented at 135
NLRB 971 (1962). In a third case , LD Plante, eta!, Cases 12-CA-1403, -2,
a settlement agreement was entered into. The settlement agreement, of
course, does not constitute proof that conduct violative of the Act occurred
A.B.C. LIQUORS, INC. 1585
may get up and leave at this point if you wish, and
there will be no reprisals or punishment or other
adverse effect on your job if you choose not to
answer any questions. On the other hand, if you
choose to answer our questions, there will be no
reward or benefit to you in any way. Your
providing this information to us will be strictly
voluntary and strictly confidential.
3. You are requested to sign the signature line below
which will signify that you have read the foregoing
information, that you understand its comments,
and that you realize that if you choose to answer
questions you are doing so voluntarily, without
any threat of reprisal or any promise of any
reward or benefit.
The second document, in the form of a questionnaire, with
22 questions and spaces for answers, and a place for
signature, asked, inter alia, whether Savoie talked with the
employee about a union, what union, and whether this
occurred during working time, after working time, or at the
Respondent's place of business; did Savoie speak in favor
of the union, say it would get better wages or working
conditions, talk to the employees about signing a union
card, or offer such a card; did the employee sign a card
offered by Savoie or return the card to Savoie; did Savoie
invite the employee to a union meeting, encourage support
for the union, ask the employee to talk to other employees
about joining the union, say why he was interested in a
union at Respondent , say that employees who joined would
get better benefits than others, suggest that if the employee
did not join his job might be in jeopardy, say that all had
joined but the employee and that he should therefore join,
or make any promise of benefit if the employee signed a
union card andjoined the union now.
Respondent's area supervisor, William Lindsay, was
assigned the task of contacting the individual employees at
store 15. Apparently this was done individually, in some
private place. Lindsay took one employee, James Rodolow-
icz, into a back room at the store and read him the material
from the "Acknowledgment," but did not show him the
paper. Rodolowicz said that he would be willing to sign the
papers if Lindsay could show him Respondent's authority
from the National Labor Relations Board requesting
Respondent to ask these questions. Lindsay then put the
papers away, but orally asked Rodolowicz if Savoie had
given Rodolowicz a union card to sign, and when Rodolow-
icz replied in the negative, asked Rodolowicz if he had
signed a union card. Rodolowicz answered that he had and
that all of the employees had signed cards. Lindsay said he
could not believe that Rodolowicz was participating in the
union activities. Lindsay recited the benefits Respondent
offered which he said were as good or better than
Respondent's competitors, to which Rodolowicz replied
that the employees were mostly concerned with job
security.
The record shows that, of the approximately 15 employ-
ees in the unit at store 15, 9 filled out the questionnaires. It
was stipulated that one employee other than Rodolowicz
refused to sign the acknowledgment and questionnaire. The
completed questionnaires in evidence indicate that Savoie
solicited execution of several union cards.
The record shows that the petition in Case 12-RC-4970
was withdrawn by the Union and another petition for the
same unit was thereafter filed; an election was conducted
on this petition and the results of the election were certified
by the Board. A charge on behalf of Savoie alleging his
discharge to be a violation of the Act was also subsequently
withdrawn.
III. ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS
This case illustrates a growing misconception of the
nature and purpose of the Board's longstanding require-
ment that a petition for representation must be supported
by a showing of substantial interest on the part of the
employees before the Board will process such petition.
Respondent seems to contend that it may attack the
validity of such showing of interest as a matter of right,
comparing this procedure to the procedure followed in
filing objections to an election, in which the parties do act
as a matter of right. See, e.g., the Board's Rules and
Regulations, Series 8, as amended, Section 102.69. No such
rule appears permitting an attack upon a showing of
interest. Cf. Statements of Procedure, Series 8, as amended,
Part 101, subpart C, Sections 101.17 and 101.18. Rather, the
requirement that a showing of interest be made serves an
administrative purpose of the Board only, to prevent the
parties from abusing the Board's processes and wasting
Board time and money. This purpose is succinctly summa-
rized in section 11020 of the Board's Field Manual as
follows:
The requirement as to adequacy of interest on the part
of labor organizations initiating or seeking participation
in an R case helps to avoid unnecessary expenditure of
time and funds where there is no reasonable assurance
that a genuine representation question exists, and
prevents persons with little or no stake in a bargaining
unit from abusing the Agency's machinery and interfer-
ing with the normal administration of the Act.
The determination of the extent of interest is a purely
administrative matter, wholly within the discretion of
the Board. While any information offered by any party
bearing on the validity of the evidence offered in
support of an asserted interest should be received,
weighed, and, if appropriate, acted upon, there is no
right in any such party to litigate the subject, either
directly or collaterally. [Emphasis in the original.]
See also Bakelite Corporation, 60 NLRB 318 (1945); O.D.
Jennings & Company, 68 NLRB 516 (1946); Georgia Kraft
Company, 120 NLRB 806 (1958), and cases cited. As these
cases show, parties quite regularly have sought to attack the
showing of interest as a means of obtaining dismissal of the
representation petition. These attempts have been regularly
rejected by the Board on the basis that this requirement is a
matter devised by the Board for its own protection and not
subject to collateral attack. At one point, as the cited cases
show, the Board did experiment with permitting parties to
litigate supervisory taint of such showing of interest, but
1586 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
soon decided that this variation in its procedures only
served to obstruct the administration of the Act, and
reverted to its original rule that such issue should "be
investigated only administratively by the Board." See
Georgia Kraft Company, supra.
I am well aware that in most cases the Regional Office of
the Board will not be aware of such issues as supervisory
taint if the parties do not call attention to the probability
that such defect in the showing of interest exists. I am also
aware, as this case shows, that the Regional Office will not
act on a mere claim of supervisory taint without written
evidence showing a probability that such exists. A mere
claim by counsel is not enough. Obviously if this were not
so, the resources of the Board might be abused to the point
that the value of the Board's administrative rule would not
only be lost, but the use of the rule would itself lead to
obstruction and delay of the Board's procedure to deter-
mine whether employees desire representation.
In the present case, Respondent did not attempt to secure
written statements from those who had firsthand evi-
dence-store managers who had been asked by Savoie to
obtain union cards from the employees in their stores, and
management officials to whom Savoie had admitted he had
engaged in union activities-prior to engaging in interroga-
tion of the employees concerning their union activities. No
matter whether Respondent thought that the Regional
Office would not act on such evidence, if Respondent
desired to pursue the issue, this was a matter for the Board
to decide, not Respondent. Respondent should have
collected the evidence it had, and should have presented it
to the Regional Office first, rather than questioning the
employees at a critical time at the outset of the exercise of
their right to determine whether they desired representa-
tion. As Respondent is now advised, the Regional Director
would probably have acted upon such a presentation. If he
did not, he might have been subject to reversal by the
Board, but his mere refusal to act would not justify
Respondent in usurping the Board's administrative func-
tion. In the circumstances of this case, Respondent was not
justified in interrogating its employees separate and apart,
in back rooms, concerning their union activities. Such
conduct necessarily tended to interfere with, restrain, and
coerce the employees in the exercise of their attempt to
secure rights guaranteed under the Act. See William
Walters, Inc., a/k/a Computronics, Inc., 179 NLRB 709
(1969); cf. Sullivan Surplus Sales, Inc., 152 NLRB 132
(1965).6
The coercive effects of Respondent's questioning of the
employees concerning union activities was indeed exacer-
bated by Respondent's statements to the employees that the
interrogation was authorized by the Board, a conscious
device obviously intended to overcome anticipated employ-
ee reluctance to discuss union matters with Respondent.
6 Respondent 's reliance upon F C F Papers, Inc, 211 NLRB 657 (1974),
is misplaced In that case the Board held that the employer "had a legitimate
concern about supervisory participation in the union ," in questioning
employees about a supervisor 's activities at a union meeting which led the
employer to discharge the supervisor . No petition for an election was
involved . We are not here concerned with an employer 's right to protect itself
against the legal consequences of a supervisor 's assistance to a union Savoie
had already been discharged when the interrogation involved here took
place Respondent , as has been noted, had no sumlar legitimate concern with
There is no justification in this record for inferring that
Respondent was somehow invited by the Regional Office of
the Board to engage in wholesale interrogation of its
employees or to claim that it was acting on behalf of the
Board in this instance . See Burns International Security
Service, Inc., 225 NLRB 271 (1976). It is therefore found
that Respondent, by interrogating its employees concerning
their union activities, and by asserting that it was engaged
in this conduct at the request of the National Labor
Relations Board, violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. The Union is a labor organization within the mean-
ing of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. Respondent, by coercively interrogating its employ-
ees concerning their union activities and their execution of
authorization cards for the Union, and by representing that
it had been requested by the Board to engage in such
activities, engaged in unfair labor practices in violation of
Section 8(axl) of the Act, which unfair labor practices
affect commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7)
of the Act.
Tim REMEDY
It having been found that the Respondent has engaged in
unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the
Act, I shall recommend that it cease and desist therefrom
and take certain affirmative action to effectuate the policies
of the Act.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law,
and the entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the
Act, I issue the following recommended:
ORDER7
The Respondent, A.B.C. Liquors, Inc., Tampa, Florida,
its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Representing to its employees that it is acting at the
request of or on behalf of the National Labor Relations
Board in interrogating its employees concerning their
activities on behalf of or their support for a labor organiza-
tion.
(b) In any other manner coercively interrogating its
employees concerning their union or other activities pro-
tected by Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which is
necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act:
the Union's showing of interest which justified interrogation of the employ-
ees.
7 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
A.B.C. LIQUORS, INC. 1587
(a) Post at its store 15 copies of the attached notice
marked "Appendix."" Copies of said notice, on forms
provided by the Regional Director for Region 12, after
being duly signed by Respondent's authorized representa-
tive, 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 ensure that said notices are not
altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(b) Notify the Regional Director for Region 12, in
writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what
steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
8 In the event the Board 's Order is enforced by a Judgment of the United
States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by Order of
the National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursuant to a
Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the
National Labor Relations Board."