Hormigonera Del Toa, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 28, 1993

311 N.L.R.B. 956 (N.L.R.B. 1993)

956
311 NLRB No. 94
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Hormigonera Del Toa, Inc. and Union de
Tronquistas de Puerto Rico, Local 901, Inter-
national Brotherhood of Teamsters. Case 24–
CA–6406
May 28, 1993
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS DEVANEY, OVIATT, AND
RAUDABAUGH
On September 24, 1992, Administrative Law Judge
Donald R. Holley issued the attached decision. The
Respondent filed exceptions and a supporting brief,
and the General Counsel filed an answering brief.
The National Labor Relations Board has delegated
its authority in this proceeding to a three-member
panel.
The Board has considered the decision and the
record in light of the exceptions and briefs and has de-
cided to affirm the judge’s rulings, findings, and con-
clusions and to adopt the recommended Order as modi-
fied.
We agree with the judge’s finding that the Respond-
ent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by discharging
employees Ramon L. Santiago, Joel Fernandez,
Guzman Santiago, and Efrain Resto because they had
engaged in protected concerted activity. Specifically,
the judge found that these employees had concertedly
refused to work on Friday, September 20, 1991, to in-
fluence the Respondent to raise their hourly wage, to
grant them an annual 25-cent raise, and to provide
them with a health plan. The judge further found that
the Respondent tendered letters to the striking employ-
ees on Monday, September 23, informing them that
they were deemed to have resigned from their jobs the
previous Friday and that these letters constituted dis-
charge notices.
Of significance to the relief he recommended, the
judge found that the discharges occurred on September
20 because the discharge letters referred specifically to
the employees’ protected activity on that date, and that
their economic strike thereafter converted to an unfair
labor practice strike. Accordingly, the judge ordered
reinstatement and backpay for the strikers and required
the Respondent to terminate any replacement workers
hired after September 20.
The Respondent has excepted to the finding that the
employees had been discharged and argues that, rather,
they had quit their employment. Alternatively, the Re-
spondent argues that the employees’ economic strike
did not convert to an unfair labor practice strike until
September 23, the day the strikers received the ‘‘res-
ignation’’ letters, that the Respondent was therefore
privileged to fill their jobs with permanent replacement
workers before September 23, and that the strikers had
in fact been permanently replaced before they received
the Respondent’s September 23 letters. Accordingly,
the Respondent argues, the strikers are not entitled to
reinstatement and backpay. Although we agree with
the judge that the Respondent discharged the strikers
for their protected concerted activity in violation of
Section 8(a)(1), we find merit in the Respondent’s con-
tentions that the strike had not yet converted to an un-
fair labor practice strike at the time of the discharges,
September 23, and that the Respondent had at that
point hired permanent replacements for three of the
striking employees.
Seven of the Respondent’s eleven concrete truck
drivers met at various times during the week of Sep-
tember 16, 1991, to discuss wages, the need for a med-
ical plan, and selection of a union. After meeting with
the Union, employees Fernandez, Resto, and Ramon
and Guzman Santiago signed union authorization
cards. Employee Ramon Santiago authored a letter,
which the seven employees presented to the Respond-
ent’s plant manager, Jose Fonseca, about 7:10 a.m. on
Friday, September 20. The letter stated, in part:
Today, all the employees wish to express a silent
strike in pursuance of the right that our salaries be
increased to $5.75 per hour.
We will not work today . . . until an accord is
reached.
Later that morning, Company President Antonio
Joglar met with the employees and told them that the
plant was in no position to give them a wage increase,
but that steps had already been taken to establish a
medical plan by the end of the year. The employees
caucused outside the plant. Employee Ramon Santiago
then told Joglar that the Company’s position was unac-
ceptable. Joglar replied that the board of directors
would meet on Saturday and that he would give the
employees the board’s decision in writing on Monday,
September 23. The employees continued their walkout
for the rest of Friday.
The following morning, September 21, the board of
directors met, calculated the cost of the employees’
wage demands at $108,000 annually, and decided that
they would replace the drivers rather than agree to the
demands. Joglar conveyed the directors’ decision to
Plant Manager Fonseca that morning. Later that day,
Fonseca offered driver positions to three individuals
who had job applications on file, and all three accept-
ed. There is no issue as to the replacements’ qualifica-
tions. One reported to work on September 23, the oth-
ers later in the week.
On Monday, September 23, the employees who had
struck on Friday reported to the plant shortly before
their 7 a.m. starting time but remained outside. Presi-
dent Joglar called the plant at 7:30 a.m., learned from
Fonseca that the employees who had struck on Friday
had again failed to report to work, and drew up letters,
957HORMIGONERA DEL TOA, INC.
1 Although the General Counsel adduced evidence that the employ-
ees had no timecards to punch on Friday and Monday mornings, the
judge credited the testimony of the Respondent’s plant manager that,
at 6 a.m. Friday morning—and consistent with past practice— time-
cards for all employees were removed from the rack and forwarded
to personnel for payroll purposes; that, at the same time, new time-
cards were placed on top of the timeclock for employees to punch
on arrival at the plant; and that the striking employees’ cards re-
mained on top of the timeclock until the following Thursday, when
they were removed.
2 See Abilities & Goodwill, 241 NLRB 27 (1979).
Member Raudabaugh agrees that the strikers were unlawfully dis-
charged on September 23. He disagrees with his colleagues, how-
ever, that this discharge converted the strikers into unfair labor prac-
tice strikers. For that reason, a request for reinstatement is not a nec-
essary act to trigger reinstatement and backpay liability. See Abilities
& Goodwill, supra.
3 The record shows that the Respondent had hired only three per-
manent replacements by that date and that the replacement of the
fourth discharged employee by Guillermo Rodriguez did not occur
until October 1992. As the record does not indicate which of the
strikers Rodriguez replaced, we leave to compliance which of the
four strikers is entitled to the offer of reinstatement and backpay as
not having been replaced as of September 23, 1991. Of course, the
Respondent is also obligated to reinstate any of the remaining three
to their former, prestrike positions if those positions become vacant
by virtue of the departure of replacements, whether permanent or
temporary, with backpay running from the date of the replacements’
departure.
which he brought to the plant and handed to each of
these employees about 9:30 in the morning. Referring
to the previous Friday’s work stoppage, the letters stat-
ed, in part:
The circumstance of having abandoned your work
without first holding a dialogue, then bringing
later on some demands which we cannot face eco-
nomically at this time, in addition to your refusal
to work if your conditions are not met exactly the
way we [sic] stated them, we have to interpret it
as a resignation from your job, leaving us without
alternatives and unfortunately we have to accept
your decision effective today Monday, September
23, 1991.
The letters also stated that the Friday work stoppage
had ‘‘forced [the Respondent] necessarily to cover par-
tially some vacancies and reduce [its] operations to be
able to recover in part from the losses’’ it had suf-
fered.
After receiving the letters, the employees left the
plant and went to the Union to discuss the situation.
At some point thereafter, three of the employees who
had received the letters requested reinstatement and re-
turned to work. The Union filed the instant charge al-
leging that the remaining four employees—R.
Santiago, Fernandez, Guzman Santiago, and Resto—
had been unlawfully discharged.
For the reasons set forth by the judge, we find that
the September 23 letters were discharges and that ter-
mination of the employees for engaging in a protected
strike violated Section 8(a)(1) and converted the strike
to an unfair labor practice strike. We disagree, how-
ever, with the judge’s finding that the strikers were
discharged on Friday, September 20. The
uncontroverted testimony of the Respondent’s wit-
nesses plainly establishes that the discharge letters
were composed and delivered on Monday, September
23, and the General Counsel has not shown the dis-
charge decision was made the previous Friday and de-
layed until after it had hired replacement workers.1
Thus, we do not find support in the record for the
judge’s holding that the discharges occurred on Sep-
tember 20. We find instead that the strike that had
begun on Friday, September 20, continued on Monday,
September 23, and that the discharges occurred on the
date that they were effectuated, Monday, September
23.
Because the discharges violate the Act, the strike
converted to an unfair labor practice strike on Sep-
tember 23. On Saturday, September 21, however, when
the permanent replacements were hired, the employees’
stoppage remained an economic strike. An employer
need not discharge permanent replacements it has hired
for economic strikers, even though the strike and strik-
ers thereafter convert to unfair labor practice status.
See Wilder Construction, 276 NLRB 977, 982 (1985),
enfd. 804 F.2d 1122 (9th Cir. 1986); SKS Die Casting
& Machining, 307 NLRB 207 (1992). Nor is it nec-
essary for the unlawfully discharged unfair labor prac-
tice strikers, whether or not replaced, to make uncondi-
tional requests for reinstatement in order to qualify for
reinstatement and backpay.2 Accordingly, we shall
modify the judge’s recommended remedy to require it
to offer reinstatement and backpay only to any em-
ployee who had not been permanently replaced on or
before September 23, 1991.3
REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent engaged in unfair
labor practices in violation of Section 8(a)(1), we shall
order it to cease and desist and to take certain affirma-
tive action designated to effectuate the policies of the
Act.
Having found that the Respondent unlawfully dis-
charged four employees, we shall order it to reinstate
to his former position the one employee of the four
who had not been permanently replaced on or before
September 23, 1991, if necessary terminating any em-
ployee hired to replace that employee after September
23, 1991, and to make him whole for any loss of earn-
ings or other benefit computed on a quarterly basis
from the date of discharge to the date of a proper offer
of reinstatement, less any net interim earnings, as pre-
scribed in F. W. Woolworth Co., 90 NLRB 289
(1950), plus interest as computed in New Horizons for
958 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
1 All dates herein are 1991 unless otherwise indicated.
the Retarded, 283 NLRB 1173 (1987). We shall fur-
ther order that the Respondent place those employees
for whom no employment is available by virtue of
their having been permanently replaced on or before
September 23, 1991, on a preferential hiring list based
upon seniority, or some other nondiscriminatory basis,
for employment as jobs become available.
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board adopts the rec-
ommended Order of the administrative law judge as
modified below and orders that the Respondent,
Hormigonera Del Toa, Inc., Toa Alta, Puerto Rico, its
officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the
action set forth in the Order as modified.
1. Substitute the following for paragraph 2(a).
‘‘(a) Offer to the unreplaced employee among
Ramon L. Santiago, Joel Fernandez, Guzman Santiago,
and Efrain Resto immediate and full reinstatement to
his former position, or, if that job no longer exists, to
a substantially equivalent position, with full seniority
and all other rights and privileges restored, and make
him whole for any loss of earnings or other benefits
he may have suffered by virtue of his discharge in the
manner set forth in the Amended Remedy section of
the Board’s Decision and Order. Those employees for
whom no employment is available by virtue of their
having been permanently replaced on or before Sep-
tember 23, 1991, shall be placed on a preferential hir-
ing list based upon seniority, or some other non-
discriminatory test, for employment as jobs become
available.’’
2. Substitute the attached notice for that of the ad-
ministrative law judge.
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
The National Labor Relations Board has found that we
violated the National Labor Relations Act and has or-
dered us to post and abide by this notice.
Section 7 of the Act gives employees these rights.
To organize
To form, join, or assist any union
To bargain collectively through representatives
of their own choice
To act together for other mutual aid or protec-
tion
To choose not to engage in any of these pro-
tected concerted activities.
WE WILL NOT discharge our employees for engaging
in protected concerted activities for the purposes of
collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere
with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of
their rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL offer to the unreplaced employee among
Ramon L. Santiago, Joel Fernandez, Guzman Santiago,
and Efrain Resto immediate and full reinstatement to
his former position or, if that job no longer exists, to
a substantially equivalent position, with full seniority
and all other rights and privileges restored, and make
him whole for any loss of earnings or other benefits
he may have suffered by virtue of his discharge and
WE WILL place those employees for whom no employ-
ment is available by virtue of their having been perma-
nently replaced on or before September 23, 1991, on
a preferential hiring list based on seniority, or some
other nondiscriminatory basis, for employment as jobs
become available.
WE WILL expunge from our files any reference to
the discharges of the four employees named above and
notify them in writing, in both English and Spanish,
that this has been done and that evidence relating to
their discharges shall not be used against them in any
way.
HORMIGONERA DEL TOA, INC.
Stanley A. Orenstein, Esq., for the General Counsel.
Rafael Cuevas Kuinlam, Esq. (Cuevas Kuinlam &
Bermudez), of Hato Rey, Puerto Rico, for the Respondent.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
DONALD R. HOLLEY, Administrative Law Judge. On an
original charge filed by the Union on September 27, 19911
(amended on November 8), the Regional Director for Region
24 of the National Labor Relations Board issued a complaint
on November 8 which alleged, in substance, that on or about
September 23, Hormigonera Del Toa, Inc. (the Respondent)
violated Section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act
by discharging employees Ramon L. Santiago, Joel
Fernandez, Guzman Santiago, and Efrain Resto because they
engaged in protected concerted activities. Respondent filed
timely answer to complaint which denied it had engaged in
the unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint.
The case was heard in San Juan, Puerto Rico, on March
16, 1992. All parties appeared and were afforded full oppor-
tunity to participate. On the entire record, including careful
consideration of posthearing briefs filed by the parties and
from my observation of the demeanor of the witnesses who
appeared to give testimony, I make the following
959HORMIGONERA DEL TOA, INC.
2 The original letter was in Spanish.
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. JURISDICTION
Respondent, a corporation duly organized under and exist-
ing by virtue of the laws of the Commonwealth of Puerto
Rico, is engaged in the manufacture of ready-mix concrete
at a facility located in Toa Alta, Puerto Rico. It annually pur-
chases products valued in excess of $50,000 directly from
suppliers located in Puerto Rico which, in turn, purchase
such supplies from suppliers located outside the Common-
wealth of Puerto Rico. It is admitted, and I find, that Re-
spondent is an employer engaged in commerce within the
meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.
II. STATUS OF LABOR ORGANIZATION
It is admitted, and I find, that the Union is a labor organi-
zation within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
FACTS
In mid-September 1991, Respondent employed some 11
concrete truckdrivers at its Toa Alta, Puerto Rico plant. Dur-
ing the workweek which commenced on September 16, driv-
er Ramon Santiago testified that he and the other drivers dis-
cussed some problems which included the need for a medical
plan, better salaries, and the organization of a union. There-
after, seven of the drivers (Miguel A. Reyes, Roberto Rivera,
McDaniel Mojica, Joel Fernandez, Guzman Santiago, Efrain
Resto, and Ramon Santiago) met at Ramon Santiago’s home
on the morning of September 18 to discuss their work-related
concerns. About 10 a.m., Ramon Santiago telephoned the of-
fice of the Union and learned he should talk to Juan Negron.
Shortly before noon, Guzman Santiago, Efrain Resto, Joel
Fernandez, and Ramon Santiago met with Negron at the
union hall where they discussed their rights and signed union
cards. Thereafter, Ramon Santiago prepared a letter which
stated the following (Jt. Exh. 2):2
COMPANIA HORMIGONERA DEL TOA
Subject:
Today, all the employees wish to express a silent
strike in pursuance of the right that our salaries be in-
creased to 5.75 per hour.
We will not work today . . . until an accord is
reached . . . .
But we can reach a written accord:
Our preoccupations are:
(1) A Health Plan
(2) We wish that an increase of 25 cents be given
to us each year, starting next January 1992.
(3) We belive that our responsibilities are many
with respect to the low salary we receive, so we can
pay for your expenses.
We, the employees want your reply.
The seven above-named employees who attended the Sep-
tember 18 meeting all signed the letter.
On Friday, September 20, Ramon Santiago and Joel
Fernandez handed the above-quoted letter to Jose Fonseca,
Respondent’s plant manager, about 7:10 a.m. The employees
indicated they wished to discuss the letter with Antonio
Joglar, the president of the Company. Joglar was contacted
at the San Pablo Hospital and Ramon Santiago spoke with
him. Santiago explained the employees were not working and
wished to speak with him about salary increases and other
working conditions. Joglar urged Santiago to continue to
work until he could meet with the employees.
Joglar arrived at the plant around 11 a.m. and the seven
employees who had attended the earlier meeting at
Santiago’s house entered the plant to meet with him. He told
the employees the plant was in no position to give them a
wage increase to $5.75 per hour, but approaches had already
been made to establish a medical plan no later than the end
of the year. Santiago suggested that the employees go outside
to meet so they could give him a reply. Santiago returned
in about half an hour to tell Joglar his position was not ac-
ceptable. Joglar indicated the board of directors would meet
on Saturday and he would give the employees their decision
in writing on Monday.
Respondent’s board of directors met about 9 a.m. on Sat-
urday. They calculated that raising all employees by the
amount demanded would cost them an additional $108,000
per year and decided they would replace the drivers rather
than grant the increases demanded. Joglar testified he in-
formed Plant Manager Fonseca of the board’s decision about
11 a.m. on Saturday.
Plant Manager Fonseca testified that Joglar informed him
of the partner’s decision and instructed him to start hiring re-
placements. He testified he offered permanent driving posi-
tions to three individuals on Saturday. They were Jaime Ri-
vera, Jose Martinez, and Wilfredo Fines. He indicated Fines
told him he could start work on Monday, September 23, but
Rivera and Martinez indicated they would start work on
Tuesday, September 24. Rivera and Fines corroborated
Fonseca’s claim that he hired them on Saturday, September
21, and that they started to work on September 23 (Fines)
and September 24 (Rivera). Respondent placed in evidence
as Respondent’s Exhibits 2 and 3 payroll records for the
week beginning September 20 and ending on Thursday, Sep-
tember 26. They reveal that Fines and Rivera started to work
on the dates they claim they started, and they worked every-
day thereafter through Thursday, September 26. With respect
to Martinez, the payroll records reveal that he worked 26-1/2
hours straight time and 3 hours overtime during the period
Tuesday, September 24, through Thursday, September 26.
Fonseca testified that subsequent to the time Rivera, Fines,
and Martinez were hired, one Guillermo Rodriquez was of-
fered a job as a driver at some point in October after he
completed truckdriver training for which he was not paid.
Rodriquez accepted the offer and went on the payroll the
first or second week of October 1991.
On Monday, September 23, Respondent conveyed the
board of director’s decision to the seven striking employees
960 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
3See Jt. Exhs. 3(a) and (b) through 6(a) and (b).
by delivering to them, at approximately 9:30 a.m., letters ad-
dressed to them individually, which uniformly stated:3
By this means I want to inform you that the directors
of this Corporation have met with regard to the situa-
tion arisen last Friday, September 20, 1991, in which
you and a group of co-workers abandoned your work
thus causing damagers to our enterprise and unneces-
sarily causing us economic losses.
The circumstance of having abandoned your work
without first holding a dialogue, then bringing later on
some demands which we cannot face economically at
this time, in addition to your refusal to work if your
conditions are not met exactly the way we stated them,
we have to interpret it as a resignation from your job,
leaving us without alternatives and unfortunately we
have to accept your decision effective today, Monday,
September 23, 1991.
We regret that this situation arises at this moment
wherein the Corporation has suffered great losses be-
cause of breakages in addition to the possible losses of
contracts and commitments which has forced us nec-
essarily to cover partially some vacancies and reduce
our operations to be able to recover in part from the
losses we have had due to your action.
We sincerely regret this decision from you all which
has been detrimental to you as well as to us.
Yours truly,
Hormigonera Del Toa, Inc.
(sgd.)
Antonio Joglar Moreno
President
At unspecified times after September 23, 1991, striking
employees Miguel Reyes, Rafael Rivera, and McDaniel
Mojica abandoned the strike and requested reinstatement.
They were returned to work.
Employee Ramon Santiago testified the 7 striking employ-
ees viewed the letters given them by Respondent on the
morning of September 23 as letters of discharge. He indi-
cated that on receipt of the letters, the striking employees left
the plant and went to discuss the situation with the Union.
Thereafter, on September 27, 1991, the Union filed the origi-
nal charge in the instant case naming employees R. Santiago,
Fernandez, Guzman Santiago, and Efrain Resto as alleged
discriminatees. While the record reveals the alleged
discriminatees have not picketed or demonstrated at the Re-
spondent’s plant since September 23, 1991, it fails to reveal
that the employees or the Union acting on their behalf, have
offered unconditionally to return to work at Respondent.
In addition to seeking to establish that the striking employ-
ees were discharged on September 23, 1991, by offering in
evidence the Joglar letters which were given to them on that
962 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
5 If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the
Board’s Rules and Regulations, the findings, conclusions, and rec-
ommended Order shall, as provided in Sec. 102.48 of the Rules, be
adopted by the Board and all objections to them shall be deemed
waived for all purposes.
6 If this Order is enforced by a judgment of a United States court
of appeals, the words in the notice reading ‘‘Posted by Order of the
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.’’
THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent engaged in unfair labor
practices, I shall recommend it be directed to cease and de-
sist therefrom and take certain affirmative action designed to
effectuate the purposes of the Act.
Having found that Respondent unlawfully discharged
Ramon L. Santiago, Joel Fernandez, Guzman Santiago, and
Efrain Resto, I recommend it be ordered to reinstate those
employees to their former positions, if necessary, terminating
the services of any employees hired to replace them, and
make them whole for any loss of earnings and benefits they
suffered as a result of their unlawful discharges, less any in-
terim earnings, with the sums due and interest thereon cal-
culated in the manner set out in F. W. Woolworth Co., 90
NLRB 289 (1950), New Horizons for the Retarded, 283
NLRB 1173 (1987). I also recommend Respondent be or-
dered to expunge from its records and files any reference to
the discharges of the four employees named above and that
they be notified in writing, both in English and Spanish, that
this has been done and evidence relating to their unlawful
discharges shall not be used against them. I further rec-
ommend that the notice attached hereto be prepared and post-
ed both in English and Spanish.
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on
the entire record, I issue the following recommended5
ORDER
The Respondent, Hormigonera Del Toa, Inc., Toa Alta,
Puerto Rico, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns,
shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Discharging its employees for engaging in protected
concerted activities for the purposes of collective bargaining
or other mutual aid or protection.
(b) In any like or related manner interfering with, restrain-
ing, or coercing employees in the exercise of their rights
guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to ef-
fectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Offer Ramon L. Santiago, Joel Fernandez, Guzman
Santiago, and Efrain Resto immediate and full reinstatement
to their former positions, if necessary terminating any em-
ployees hired to replace them, with full seniority and all
other rights and privileges restored, and make them whole
for any loss of earnings or other benefits they may have suf-
fered by virtue of the unlawful discrimination against them
in the manner set out in the remedy section of this decision.
(b) Expunge from its records and files any reference to the
discharges of the four employees named above and notify
them in writing, in both English and Spanish, this has been
done and that evidence relating to their unlawful discharges
shall not be used against them in the future.
(c) Preserve and, on 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 necessary to determine the
payments which will make whole the four employees named
above for the discrimination practiced against them.
(d) Post at its facility at Toa Alta, Puerto Rico, copies of
the attached notice, in Spanish and English, marked ‘‘Appen-
dix.’’6 Copies of the notice, on forms provided by the Re-
gional Director for Region 24, shall be signed by an author-
ized representative of Respondent and posted immediately
after their receipt and maintained for 60 consecutive days in
conspicuous places, including all places where notices to em-
ployees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be
taken by the Respondent to ensure that the notices are not
altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(e) Notify the Regional Director in writing within 20 days
from the date of this Order what steps the Respondent has
taken to comply.