Shen-Mar Food Products, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 2, 1976

221 N.L.R.B. 1329 (N.L.R.B. 1976)

SHEN-MAR FOOD PRODUCTS, INC. 1329
Shen-Mar Food Products , Inc. and Amalgamated
Meat Cutters and Allied Workers of North
America, AFIrCIO, Local 593. Case 5-CA-6581
January 2, 1976
DECISION AND ORDER
By CHAIRMAN MURPHY AND MEMBERS
FANNING AND JENKINS
On January 31, 1975, Administrative Law Judge
Jennie M. Sarrica issued- the attached Decision in
this proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent filed excep-
tions and a supporting brief. General Counsel and
Charging Party filed cross-exceptions and supporting
briefs.
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 her recommended Order as herein
modified.
The Administrative Law Judge found that Respon-
dent's failure to deduct and remit dues of nine
employees following their resignation from the
Union and their untimely cancellation of voluntary
checkoff authorizations by necessity interferes in the
relationship of employees and their representative
and constitutes an unlawful infringement upon the
Section 7 rights of employees protected by law from
employer interference. Accordingly, she found that
by such conduct Respondent engaged in unlawful
interference under Section 8(a)(I) of the Act and
violated its bargaining duty under Section 8(a)(5).
We agree with the findings of the Administrative
Law Judge, and we additionally find that, where, as
here, an employer, ceases to deduct and remit dues in
derogation of an existing contract, it is in effect
unilaterally changing the terms and conditions of
employment of its employees and thus violates
Section 8(a)(5) of the Act.'
The Respondent interprets the collective-bargain-
ing agreement as imposing no obligation on the part
of the Respondent to deduct and remit dues to the
Union pursuant to valid checkoff authorization
where an employee has resigned from the Union. In
our view, that interpretation is clearly in conflict with
the intent of the checkoff provisions of the contract.
Article II of the collective-bargaining agreement
deals with checkoff and provides:
Section 1: The Company agrees to checkoff from
the pay of its employees, who are members of the
Union, the regular monthly dues and initiation
fees and to pay such monies collected over to the
proper officers of the Union.
Section 2: The Union agrees to furnish to the
Company, individual dues deduction authoriza-
tion slips voluntarily signed by its employees for
the purpose of this checkoff.
Section 3: The Union will idemnify and save
harmless the Company from any and all claims
and disputes by reason of the Company's acting
in reliance upon the voluntary assignments
furnished it.
Section 4: The Company shall once each month
furnish a list to the Union showing all newly hired
employees who have passed the trial period, or
who were laid off or discharged.
Many of the employees had signed checkoff
authorization cards which stated:
I hereby authorize the Amalgamated Meat
Cutters & Allied Workers of North America,
AFL-CIO, Local Union No. 593, herein called
the Union, to bargain collectively with my
Employer, named below, in my behalf.
I hereby authorize my Employer to deduct from
my earnings and pay over to Local 593 those
Union initiation fees and dues that may now or
hereafter be established by said local.
This authorization is irrevocable for a period of
one (1) year from the execution hereof or until the
termination date of the applicable collective
bargaining agreement, whichever occurs sooner,
and shall be automatically renewed for successive
periods of one (1) year or for the, period of each
succeeding applicable collective bargaining agree-
ment, whichever period shall be shorter, unless
written notice of its revocation by registered mail
to the Employer and to the Union is given by me
not more than twenty (20) days and not less than
ten (10) days prior to any such renewal date.
Article II, section' 2, of the contract requires the
Union to furnish the Respondent with the
"individual dues authorization slips"' which obvious-
ly refer to the authorization cards submitted to
Respondent. Respondent therefore knew that the
attempted revocations were untimely. We cannot
conclude that these individual dues authorization
I Bruce E. Kronenberger and Herbert Schoenbrod d/b/a American Needle',
Novelty Company, Kentucky Manufacturing Company and Harrisburg
221 NLRB No. 219
Manufacturing Company, 206 NLRB 534 (1973) See also George E Light
Boat Storage, Inc, 153 NLRB 1209 (1965).
1330 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
slips, referred to in the contract, are contracts
separately arrived at between the Union and the
employees involved, and have no bearing on Respon-
dent's contractual duty. Indeed, that construction is
tantamount to saying that the Union surrendered to
Respondent the right to unilaterally cease dues
deductions, despite the existence of valid voluntary
dues authorizations. Such an intent is so contrary to
labor relations experience that it should not be
inferred in the absence of unambiguous contract
language to that effect or a history of negotiations
demonstrating that fact.2 Neither exists in the instant
case.
Similarly, any contention that Respondent acts at
its peril by continuing to check off the dues of the
employees in question is certainly dispelled by the
third section of article II which states that the Union
will indemnify Respondent for all claims by reason
of Respondent's acting in reliance upon the volun-
tary assignments furnished it. This provision clearly
indicates that the checkoff authorization cards were
not considered by the parties as contracts separately
arrived at between the Union and the employees
involved, but rather are clearly incorporated into the
collective-bargaining agreement between the Union
and the Respondent. The last 'provision of the
checkoff article, which requires Respondent to
supply the Union with monthly lists indicating
changes in employee status, further supports the
conclusion that the checkoff cards should not be
looked at apart from the contract.
Thus, upon examining the entire checkoff article
which clearly incorporates by reference the voluntary
checkoff authorizations, we conclude that the first
section of that article contains language of conven-
ience rather than limitation, since the checkoff
authorizations executed by employees also authorize
the Union to bargain for the individual signatories.
To view the first section in isolation, and to conclude
that resignation from the Union relieves employees
and the Employer of their obligations under the
contract, would render the specific procedures and
times for revocability of the voluntary checkoff
authorizations virtually meaningless.
Finally, Respondent's defense is predicated on its
reliance on state law to the effect that an employer
cannot deduct dues after an employee has terminat-
ed his membership in the union by resignation. In
this regard, we agree with the Administrative Law
Judge that the dues checkoff herein does not, in and
of itself, impose union membership or support as a
condition required for continued employment, and
that matters concerning dues-checkoff authorization
and labor agreements implementing such authoriza-
tions are exclusively within the domain of Federal
law, having been preempted by the National Labor
Relations Act and removed from the provision of
Section 14(b) by the operation of Section 302.
We also find merit in the cross-exceptions of the
General Counsel and the Charging Party with respect
to the failure of the Administrative Law Judge to
require the payment of interest on the back dues
owed to the Union by Respondent as a consequence
of its unlawful refusal to check off and remit such
dues to the Union.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 Respondent,
Shen-Mar Food Products, Inc., Bridgewater, Virgin-
ia, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall
take the action set forth in said recommended Order
as modified herein.
1. Substitute the following for paragraph 2(a):
"Honor the contract checkoff provisions and the
valid dues-checkoff authorizations filed with it, and
remit to the Union dues it should have checked off
pursuant to the collective-bargaining agreement in
effect between the parties together with interest at 6
percent per annum."
2. Substitute the attached notice for that of the
Administrative Law Judge.
CHAIRMAN MURPHY, concurring:
I concur in the conclusion of my colleagues, but
rely on the terms of the dues-checkoff authorizations
themselves, which provided that the authorizations
would be irrvocable for a period of 1 year or until
termination of the contract, whichever occurred
sooner. As it is undisputed that the revocations
herein were untimely, the Respondent by honoring
them unilaterally changed a term or condition of
employment in violation of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of
the Act.
2 See C&C Plywood Corporation, 148 NLRB 414 ( 1964), enfd 385 U.S 421
(1967).
3 The Baton Rouge Water Works Company, 170 NLRB 1183 ( 1968), W
P. Ihrie & Sons, 165 NLRB 167 (1967).
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
We hereby notify our employees that:
SHEN-MAR FOOD PRODUCTS, INC.
WE WILL NOT refuse to check off union dues
pursuant to dues-checkoff authorizations and to
remit such dues to the Union under the checkoff
provisions of our collective-bargaining agreement.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner
refuse to bargain collectively with the representa-
tive of our employees and thereby interfere with,
restrain; and coerce our employees with respect to
rights protected by Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL, honor the contract checkoff provi-
sions and the valid dues-checkoff authorizations
filed with us and remit to the Union dues we
should have checked off pursuant to the collec-
tive-bargaining agreement between the parties,
together with interest at 6 percent per annum.
SHEN-MAR FOOD
PRODUCTS, INC.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
JENNIE M. SARRICA, Administrative Law Judge: This
case was heard before me in Waynesboro, Virginia, on
November 14, 1974,i pursuant to charges filed on March 7,
and amended September 12, resulting in a complaint
issued September 26. The complaint, as amended at the
hearing, alleges that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1)
and (5) of the Act by, on and since September 7, 1973,
unilaterally ceasing ' to check off and remit dues to the
Union pursuant to the valid checkoff provisions of their
collective-bargaining contract covering the period March
13, 1972, through March 11, 1975. A timely answer was
filed by Respondent denying the commission of any unfair
labor practices . All parties appeared at the hearing and
were afforded full opportunity to be heard and to present
evidence. Briefs were received from all parties. Upon the
entire record, consisting - entirely of stipulations and
documentary evidence , ,I make the following:
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
1. JURISDICTION
Respondent, a Virginia corporation, is engaged in the
food processing business at its Bridgewater , Virginia,
facility. During the preceding 12 months, a representative
period , Respondent sold and,shipped products in interstate
commerce valued in excess of $50,000 to purchasers
located outside the State of Virginia . At all times material
herein, Respondent is and has been, an employer as
defined in Section 2(2) of the Act, engaged in commerce
and in operations affecting commerce as defined in Section
2(6) and (7) of the Act.
1 All dates are in 1974 unless otherwise indicated
2 Variations in the precise wording of some cards submitted in evidence
were not pointed to as having any significance in relation to the issues here
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION
1331
Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Allied Workers of
North America, AFL-CIO, Local 593, the Charging Party
herein, is a labor organization within the meaning of
Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The Issues
1. Whether it is a violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of
the Act to honor untimely revocations of dues checkoff
authorizations in the context of a subsisting labor agree-
ment containing a valid checkoff provision.
2. Whether a state court decision interpreting the
statute and precedent in a right-to-work state as requiring
such action by Respondent constitutes a defense.
B. The Contract Checkoff Provisions
The contract checkoff provisions are as follows:
ARTICLE II
Checkoff
SECTION 1: The Company agrees to check off from the
pay of its employees, who are members of the Union,
the regular monthly dues and initiation fees and to pay
such monies collected over to the proper officers of the
Union.
SECTION 2 : The Union agrees to furnish , to the
Company, individual dues deduction authorization
slips voluntarily signed by its employees for the
purpose of this checkoff.
SECTION 3: The Union will indemnify and save
harmless the Company from any and all claims and
disputes by reason of the Company's acting in reliance
upon the voluntary assignments furnished it.
SECTION 4: The Company shall once each month
furnish a list to the Union showing all newly hired
employees who have passed the trial period, or who
were laid off or discharged.
The checkoff authorization cards signed by employees of
Respondent read , in pertinent part , as follows: 2
This authorization is irrevocable for a period of one (1)
year from the execution hereof, or until the termination
date of the applicable collective bargaining agreement,
whichever occurs sooner, and shall be automatically
renewed for successive periods of one (1) year or for the
period of each succeeding applicable collective bar-
gaining agreement , whichever period shall be shorter,
unless written notice of its revocation by registered
mail to the Employer and to the Union is given by me
presented , and it is deemed sufficient to set forth the language of most of the
authorizations involved.
1332 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
not more than twenty (20) days and not less than ten
(10) days prior to any such renewal date.
C. The Events Involved
The facts are not in dispute here. During the period
beginning with the month of September 1973, and the date
of the hearing herein, and at times other than those
permitted by the individual checkoff authorizations, nine
specified employees of Respondent wrote letters cancelling
their checkoff authorizations which Respondent honored
by discontinuing the deductions from their pay for
remittance to the Union.3
D. Contentions of the` Parties
It is the General Counsel's contention that as Respon-
dent was under a contractual obligation , to deduct and
remit dues under the valid checkoff authorizations, its
ceasing to perform this contractual obligation by honoring
untimely and ineffective revocations thereof constituted
violations of Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act. In addition
to cited cases involving this statute , the General Counsel
claims support for his theory of the case in its consistency
with the general principles of contract law involving
actions for intentional interference with existing contractu-
al relationships between the employees and the Union, and
the Respondent's knowledge of the untimeliness and
ineffectiveness of the attempted withdrawals as intentional
interference which is prima facie sufficient for liability.
In defense of its actions, Respondent relies upon the
Virginia statute governing union-security agreements and
state court decisions interpreting contract checkoff provi-
sions as encompassed by the Section 14(b) authority
making state right-to-work laws applicable in determining
the validity of such authorizations .4 Respondent classifies
dues checkoff and authorization agreements as a form of
union security covered by the Section 14(b) deferral to
state law , while the General Counsel and the Union both,
with impressive court citations, assert that checkoff
provisions, as distinguished from union-security provisions,
fall under the preemption of Federal law under Section 302
of the statute.
3 It appears that the deferral procedure under Collyer Insulated Wire, A
Gulf and Western Systems Co., 192 NLRB 837 (1971), instituted by the
Regional Director , was unproductive since Respondent resisted efforts to
invoke arbitration . Thus, the Regional Director issued the complaint herein.
Accordingly , deferral to the contract settlement procedure is not suggested.
See Gray-Hobart Water Corporation, 210 NLRB 742 (1974).
4 Specific reliance is placed upon Roberto Ferro, et at v. Hercules
Incorporated Radford Army Ammunition Plant, Radfora Virginia and Local
3-495, Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers International Union, 'AFL-CIO,
Fairlawn, Pulaski County, by Judge A. William Arthur, Wytheville,
Virginia, dated May 20, 1970, and upon title 40, article 3, chapter 4 of the
Virginia Code, including the following:
Sec. 40-72. Employer not to require payment of union dues, etc. -
No employer shall require any person, as a condition of employment or
continuation of employment , to pay any dues, fees or other charges of
any kind to any labor union or labor organization.
E. Analysts
Preemption issues aside, it should be noted that, with
respect to the cases relied upon by the General Counsel to
establish that the Respondent's actions here constituted
violations of the Act, the checkoff authorizations involved
were not executed or renewed as an implementation of a
contract union-security provision.5 Nor is this a case in
which, after "deauthorizatioii' in an election and without
an attempted revocation of any checkoff authorization, the
employer elected to interpret the "deauthorization" as an
automatic elimination of the "dues-checkoff' provisions as
well as the union-security provisions of the contract, and
unilaterally ceased dues deductions.6 I find these to be
significant distinctions from the circumstances in the case
at hand and, accordingly, do not find the holdings in those
cases dispositive of the allegation of unlawful conduct here
being considered.
More guidance is apparent in the resolution of a similar
issue in American Needle & Novelty7. There, after the
termination date of the supportive contract, the employer
checked off union dues but did not remit such moneys to
the union , maintaining that since no contract existed after
the termination date thereof, it was under no obligation to
transmit such dues to the union. Having found that the
parties orally agreed upon a complete contract and that
such contract was binding upon them, for a specified period
beginning at the end of the expired contract, the Board
concluded that the employer was required by the contract
to check off union dues for the employees who had signed
written authorizations and to remit the same to the union.
Since the employer had failed to remit such dues it was
found to have violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act.
As authority for this ruling, reliance was placed on cases
holding that conduct which breaches a contract and which
also, in effect, unilaterally changes conditions of employ-
ment, is tantamount to a refusal to bargain and that both
the courts and the Board are vested with jurisdiction to
give relief for the wrong.8
- As the revocations here were clearly and admittedly
untimely and no unusual circumstances such as a deau-
thorization election had occurred to support a departure
from the clear language of the authorizations, Respondent
was under a contract obligation to deduct and remit dues
as though no attempt at revocation had been made. Thus,
any reliance by Respondent upon the ineffective revoca-
Respondent also asserts that under a North Carolina interpretation of the
provisions of an identical statute, checkoff authorizations which were
automatically renewable and irrevocable for successive periods of I year,
etc. were held to be unlawful, and that this same interpretation should be
given the Virginia statute which Respondent urges is applicable here. Thus,
Respondent appears to be adding the defense that , aside from the
revocation factor, the checkoffagreements themselves were unlawful.
5 Cf. Penn Cork & Closures, Inc., 156 NLRB 411 (1966); Bedford Can
Manufacturing Corp., 162 NLRB 1428 (1966); Cast Optics Corporation, 184
NLRB 1 (1970), enfd. 458 F.2d 398 (C.A. 1, 1972).
8 Cf. W. P. Ihrie'& Sons, Division of Sunshine Biscuits, Inc., 165 NLRB
167 (1967)
7 Bruce E. Kronenberger and Herbert Schoenbrod d/b/a American Needle
& Novelty Company, Kentucky Manufacturing Company and Harrisburg
Manufacturing Company, 206 NLRB 534 (1973).
8 This ruling which appears in , the decision of the Administrative Law
Judge was not altered by the Board.
SHEN-MAR FOOD PRODUCTS, INC.
tions as legal justification for its refusal to carry out its
contract commitment is comparable to reliance by the
employer in American Needle & Novelty upon the nonexis-
tence of a viable contract to support payment of the funds
deducted.
However, it has long been held that not every breach of a
collective-bargaining agreement constitutes an unlawful
refusal to bargain and/or interference, restraint, and
coercion of employees with respect to rights protected by
the Act .9 It would seem that in the context of a subsisting
collective-bargaining agreement the conduct complained
of as an unlawful refusal to bargain as well as a contract
breach should be of such a nature as would have an
adverse impact upon the conditions of employment
established by the agreement, or would reasonably be
expected to undermine the status of the employee
representative or constitute rejection of the concept of
collective bargaining fostered by the statute.
It may be that Respondent's failure and refusal to
continue deductions and remittance of dues for the named
individuals in accordance with the contractual checkoff
provision did not literally amount to a unilateral change in
the conditions of employment generally or of those
individuals in particular. Nevertheless, by thus injecting
itself into the relationship between those employees and
the Union, Respondent has not only failed in its contract
obligation but has also thrown its weight against the
position and status of the statutory representative of its
employees. A forseeable effect of such action is the
undermining of the Union which could only defeat the
stability collective bargaining is designed to foster. Addi-
tionally, such conduct, of necessity, interferes in the
relationship of employees and their representative and
constitutes an unlawful infringement upon the Section 7
rights of employees protected by law from employer
interference. Accordingly, I find that by such conduct,
Respondent engaged in unlawful interference under
Section 8(a)(1) and violated its bargaining duty under
Section 8(a)(5) of the Act.
In so holding, I reject Respondent's contention that
contract checkoff provisions are a form of union security 10
given over to the control of the states under Section 14(b)
of the Act and that its conduct here is protected, indeed
required, by Virginia's right-to-work statute and state court
decisions interpreting the Virginia law to be applicable to
checkoff provisions of a labor agreement. I do not propose
to advance an interpretation of the Virginia statute in this
respect or of the cases applying it. For, I am convinced that
matters concerning union dues-checkoff authorizations
and labor agreements implementing such authorizations
are exclusively within the domain of Federal law, having
9 See Old Line Life Insurance Company of America, 96 NLRB 499, 500
(1951); cf. C& S Industries, Inc., 158 NLRB 454,458 (1966).
10 The fact that checkoff provisions may, and probably do afford a union
assurance of dues collections for a time certainly does not place it in the
category of union security as that term is used in labor parlance. Union
security deals with a requirement of union support under threat ofjob loss.
Payroll deduction of union dues is merely a wage assignment , a financial
accommodation to the union and to its members. It does not in and of itself
impose union membership or support as a condition required for continued
employment. In other words the job is not at stake because of a contractual
dues-checkoff provision.
11 Cases cited by the General Counsel as support for this conclusion
1333
been preempted by the National Labor Relations Act as
amended and effectively saved from the provision of
Section 14(b) thereof by operation of Section 302.11
IV. THE EFFECTS OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
UPON COMMERCE
The activities of Respondent set forth in section III,
above, found to constitute unfair labor practices, occurring
in connection with the, operations described 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 disputes burdening and
obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
As Respondent has been found-to have engaged in unfair
labor practices, I shall ^ recommend that it be ordered to
cease and desist therefrom and to take specific action set
forth below in the recommended Order, designed to
effectuate the policies of the Act.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact and the entire record
in this case, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Respondent is an employer engaged in com-
merce and in operations affecting commerce within the
meaning if Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.
2. The Union is a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. Respondent has committed unfair labor practices
within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act by
failing and refusing to check off union dues pursuant to
valid checkoff authorizations and to remit same to the
Union pursuant to the collective-bargaining agreement in
effect between the parties.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law,
and the entire record in this case, and pursuant to Section
10(c) of the Act, I hereby issue the following recommend-
ed:
ORDER 12
Shen-Mar Food Products, Inc., its officers, agents,
successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Failing and refusing to check off union dues pursuant
to valid checkoff authorizations and to remit same to the
Union pursuant to the collective-bargaining agreement in
effect between the parties.
include State of Utah v. Montgomery Ward & Co., 120 Utah 294,233 F.2d
685, 28 LRRM 2284, cert. denied 342 U. S. 869; International Brotherhood of
Operative Potters, AFL-CIO v. Tell Chair Company, 295 F.Supp. 961, 70
LRRM 3113 (1968); Sea Pak Division of W. R. Grace & Co. v. Industrial,
Technical and Professional Workers, etc., 300 F.Supp. 1191, affd. 73 LRRM
3007 (C. A. 5), and 400 U. S. 985 (1971). ,
12 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the
Board's Rules and Regulations, the findings, conclusions , recommenda-
tions, and recommended Order herein shall , as pro7vic° ed 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
1334 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
(b) In any like or'related manner failing or refusing to
bargain collectively with the. representative of its employ-
ees and thereby interfering with, restraining, and coercing
its employees with respect to rights protected by Section 7
of the Act:.
2. Take the following affirmative action designed to
effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Honor the contract checkoff provisions and the valid
dues-checkoff authorizations filed with it and remit to the
Union dues it should have checked off and to be checked
off pursuant to the collective-bargaining agreement be-
tween them.
(b) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the
Board or its agents for examination and copying, all
records necessary to analyze the amount due under the
terms of this Order.
"*a- 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
,(c) Post at its place of business at Bridgewater, Virginia,
facility copies of the - attached notice marked
"Appendix." 13 Copies of said notice, on forms provided by
the Regional Director for Region 5, after being duly signed
by Respondent's representative, shall be posted by Re-;
spondeni 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 5, in writing,
within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps the
Respondent has taken to comply-herewith.
Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the
National Labor Relations Board."