St. John Medical Center

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 29, 1980

252 N.L.R.B. 514 (N.L.R.B. 1980)

DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
St. John Medical Center and Alice L. Deneen. Case
8-CA-13308
September 29, 1980
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN FANNING AND MEM-BERS
JENKINS AND PNEI.I.O
On July 22, 1980, Administrative Law Judge
Joel A. Harmatz issued the attached Decision in
this proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent filed ex-
ceptions 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, find-
ings,2 and conclusions of the Administrative Law
Judge and to adopt his recommended Order. :
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 and
hereby orders that the Respondent, St. John Medi-
cal Center, Steubenville, Ohio, its officers, agents,
successors, and assigns, shall take the action set
forth in the said recommended Order, except that
the attached notice is substituted for that of the
Administrative Law Judge.
Respondent's motion for oral argument is herebhy denied In our judg-
ment he record, including exhibits and brief, adequaltcly presenlt the
issues and the positiots of the parties
z Respondent excepts to the Administrativ e Law Judges ailure to find
that the charge was received by it on October 30, 197'), I day beyond the
10(b) period. Respondent's cotlention is without merit. G C Exh (h)
clearly shows that the charge was served or Respondenl o October 2,
1979. The date of service is the date the charge is deposited in the mail
and not, as Respondent contends, the date it is received. See Board Rules
and Regulations, Series 8, as amended, Sees 102 I11l and 102 113
: We have modified the Administrative aw Judge's notice to confiorm
to his recommended Order
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPI.OYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
After a hearing at which all sides had an opportu-
nity to present evidence and state their positions,
the National Labor Relations Board found that we
have violated the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended, and has ordered us to post this notice.
The Act gives employees the following rights:
To engage in self-organization
To form, join, or assist any union
To bargain collectively through repre-
sentatives of their own choice
To engage in activities together for the
purpose of collective bargaining or other
mutual aid or protection
To refrain from the exercise of any or all
such activities.
WE wi.LI NOT question our employees con-
cerning their own or the union activity of
their fellow employees.
WE WIIL NOT in any like or related manner
interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employ-
ees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed
them by Section 7 of the Act.
ST. JOHN MI)ICAI. CENIER
DECISION
S AII MtINI OF Tt CASE
Jo.i A. HARMAIZ, Administrative Law Judge: This
proceeding was heard by me in Steubenville, Ohio, on
May 19 and 20, 1980, upon an unfair labor practice
charge filed on October 29, 1979, and a complaint issued
on December 7, 1979, alleging that Respondent engaged
in independent violations of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by
coercively interrogating employees concerning union ac-
tivity and by soliciting grievances from employees to dis-
courage support of the Union, and violated Section
8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act by changing the shift assign-
ment of Alice L. Deneen in reprisal for union activity. In
its duly filed answer, Respondent denied that any unfair
labor practices were committed. After close of the hear-
ing, briefs were filed on behalf of the General Counsel
and Respondent.
Upon the entire record in this proceeding, including
my opportunity to observe directly the witnesses while
testifying and their demeanor, and upon consideration of
the post-hearing briefs, it is hereby found as follows:
FINDIN(i OF FACT
I. JURISI)ICTION
Respondent is an Ohio corporation with a facility lo-
cated in Steubenville, Ohio, from which it is engaged in
providing health care services on a nonprofit basis. An-
nually, in the course of said operation, Respondent de-
rives gross revenues exceeding $250,000, and receives
goods valued in excess of $10,000 directly from points
located outside the State of Ohio. The complaint alleges,
the answer admits, and I find that Respondent is now,
and has been at all times material herein, a health care
institution within the meaning of Section 2(14) of the Act
252 NLRB No. 77
514
ST. JOHN MEDICAL CENTER
and an employer engaged in commerce within the mean-
ing of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
11. Till I AHOR OR(iANIZA IION INVOI TI)
The complaint alleges, Respondent at the hearing ad-
mitted, and I find that American Federation of State,
County and Municipal Employees, herein called the
Union, is now, and has been at all times material herein,
a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5)
of the Act.
11t. Hfl A I F(i-I) NI AIR I.ABOR R C II(tIiS
A. Background
Principally involv ed herein is an issue of discrimina-
tion in connection with a union campaign initiated by the
Charging Party, a registered nurse (RN) assigned to the
Obstetrics-Gynecological Department (OB-GYN) ill the
Respondent's hospital. There are 8-9 slots in OB-GYN
to be filled by RNs on a daily, three-shift basis. Prior to
the events here in issue, with three exceptions, all RNs
were rotated among the various shifts. Thus, the three
RNs assigned to the daylight shift on a steady basis were
Eleanor Kindsvatter, the head nurse in that department.
her assistant. Joy McCraley, and the alleged discrimina-
tee herein, Alice Deneen.
Deneen testified that in April 1979,1 in connection
with a school project, she drafted a modular example of
prounion propaganda, which she showed to coworkers.
This, ultimately, evoked interest among employees in ob-
taining some form of union representation, thereby
prompting Deneen to make arrangements for a meeting
to consider that possibility. The meeting was held on
April 30, at a Holiday Inn in a nearby community. Earli-
er that morning, on the midnight shift, Assistant Director
of Nurses Mary Jane Barney had separate conversations
with RNs Jeannie Epifano and Elizabeth Sagun, both of
whom were assigned to OB-GYN. The complaint alleges
that in the course of these conversations. Barney en-
gaged in coercive interrogation and also solicited griev-
ances in violation of Section 8(a)(l) of the Act.
In addition, it is admitted that in the course of the
above conversations, Deneen was identified as the insti-
gator of union activity. According to the General Coun-
sel, Deneen subsequently was victimized by a change in
her established schedule in reprisal for her union activity.
In this connection, it is noted that since 1973 Deneen had
been assigned to the new born nursery in OB-GYN and
was not rotated to the afternoon or midnight shifts, but
worked steady day shift. Historically. Deneen was the
only RN having no vestige of supervisory responsibility
who was assigned to steady dayshift. In addition, for sev-
eral years Deneen had been the only RN assigned to the
new born nursery; when Deneen was not working that
slot was filled by a licensed practical nurse (LPN) who
was supervised by the RN in charge of labor and deliv-
ery. Nonetheless, following her return from vacation in
late July, Deneen found that she was scheduled to rotate
on the second and third shift 2 days per week. She was
informed by OB-GYN Head Nurse Eleanor Kindsvatter
Unless olherswise indicated all dates refer to 1979
that this change was necessary due to the difficult in
filling RN assigmeitnt s on the other shifts during the va-
cation period. However, upon expiration of the vacation
season, when the next schedule came out in late August
or early September Deneen was continued on a rotating
basis. In consequence, Deneen sought the assistance of
the National Labor Relations Board, and initially filed an
unfair labor practice charge on September 12, 1979. That
charge was either withdrawn or replaced by the charge
on which the instant proceeding is based, which was
filed on October 29, 1979. Based on the foregoing, it is
alleged in the complaint that Respondent violated Sec-
tion 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act by converting Deneen's
permanent day shift assignment in the nursery to a rotat-
ing schedule.
B. Interference, Restraint, and Ceorcion
Jeannie Epifano testified that, at approximately 2 am.
on April 30, she, together with Sagun, and Assistant Di-
rector of Nursing Barney participated in a conversation
in which the Union was among several topics discussed.
According to the testimony of Epifano, "it was more or
less friendly conversations among the three of us where
we each gave our personal opinion of what we felt and
what we didn't feel, and this and that."
Later that morning, according to Barney, she learned
from nmother supervisor that a union meeting had been
scheduled for that evening. She admittedly approached
Epifano and Sagun, informing them that she had learned
of the meeting. in doing so, according to the credited
testimony of Epifano, who was corroborated by Sagun,
Barney asked the RNs if the information Barney had re-
ceived was true. 2 Both Epifano and Barney agreed that
the latter's demeanor was friendly and that she was smil-
ing at the time. With respect to the alleged solicitation of
grievances, Epifano testified that during the second con-
versation they again discussed the pros and cons of union
representation, and that it was her belief that "as near as
she could recall," Barney asked what some of the prob-
lems were that contributed to the feeling that a union
was needed. Moreover, the allegation of interrogation
was also supported by testimony of Epifano, that Barney
asked who was responsible for the union activity and,
that, in response, Deneen was named. 3 Based on a com-
posite of credible testimony, I find that Sagun. in a
friendly context, did question the two RNs as to whether
a union meeting was scheduled, as to the identity of the
instigator, and as to the problems that had contributed to
union activity. At least, insofar as Barney inquired as to
the identity of the instigator of union activity, she en-
gaged in an interference with Section 7 rights unjustified
under any standards regulating coercive conduct. Hence,
I find that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(l) of the
2 According to Barney. she stated fon that occasion "there is a union
meeting tonight girls, you didn't tell me anything about it " I preferred
the account ofr Epifano and Sagun
: Barney denied asking any questions concerning the identity of the in-
stigator. but does admit that Deneen's name as volunteered in this
regard Sagun testified that she did not hear Denleen's name mentioned
during he conversation
515
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Act by coercive interrogation of employees concerning
the union activity of a coworker.
With respect to the allegation that Barney unlawfully
solicited grievances, while the evidence on which the
General Counsel relies is somewhat sketchy, it merely
portrays an isolated expression of interest in employee
complaints, lacking in indication that Barney's remarks
included any direct or implied suggestion that any such
problems would be considered by management or cor-
rected. Cf. Reliance Electric Company, Madison Plant Me-
chanical Drives Division, 191 NLRB 44, 46 (1971). Fur-
thermore, the alleged 8(a)(l) violation in this respect, oc-
curred during the second conversation that day, and fol-
lowed a prior discussion in which the RNs had willingly
exchanged their views as to the pros and cons of union
representation. In these circumstances, this subsequent
effort to discern the conditions leading to union activity
would likely be viewed as an attempt to clarify views
previously expressed by the RNs, and hence sentiment
one way or the other held by Sagun and Epifano would
in all probability have been disclosed during the earlier
conversation. Cf. Arrow Molded Plastics, Inc., 243 NLRB
1211 (1979). In these circumstances, I am not convinced
that substantial evidence shows that the inquiry by
Barney as to the problems contributing to union activity
either implied that hospital administrators would act fa-
vorably to neutalize those problems or was calculated to
uncover the specific union sentiment of the employees
involved. Thus, I shall recommend dismisaal of the alle-
gation in the complaint that Respondent violated Section
8(a)(l) through Barney's solicitation of grievances. 4
C. The Alleged Discrimination
Deneen had been employed by Respondent as an RN
since 1962. During the latter part of 1973, the RN re-
sponsible for the new born nursery on the daylight shift
retired. Deneen applied for, and after an interview was
given that position on a probationary basis.5 Following
successful completion of the probation, Deneen contin-
ued to work steady daytime in the nursery at all times
thereafter without change in her schedule until the
events here in issue.
Turning to the specific circumstances surrounding the
1979 scheduling change, Deneen was notified in late July
that it was necessary to place her on rotation because of
demands for RNs on other shifts during the vacation
period. Indeed, during this period Head Nurse Kindsvat-
ter as well as her assistant, Joy McCraley, were also ro-
tated off steady daylight, because of the shortage of
RNs. Deneen accepted this unprecedented revision in
her schedule and agreed that it was warranted. Howev-
4 See Jffco Manufacturing Company, 211 NLRB 787 (1974).
s Deneen did not strike me as an overly favorable witness. She im-
pressed as having a endency to perceive or interpret events not necessar-
ily as they were, but in a manner serving her personal interests I reject
what I perceive to be a suggestion in her testimony that she volunteered
for the nursery to accomodate the hospital. Although I believe it entirely
possible that the head nurse in OB-GYN at that time advised Deneen that
taking that position would be compatible with personal circumstances
confronting Deneen I am inclined to believe that Deneen thereafter ac-
lively pursued the job in her own interest. I also discredit any implication
arising from the testimony of Deneen that when afforded that job, she
was given a commitment that she could hold it as long as she wished
er, this view was short-lived, for after the vacation
period had ended, a further schedule was issued, through
which Deneen was continued permanently on a rotation
basis, requiring her to work all three shifts, interchange-
ably. 6 Deneen disapproved of the new schedule, believ-
ing that it was a reprisal for her union activity. She
therefore elected not to protest to hospital officials, but
instead contacted the National Labor Relations Board.
After discussing the charge with an agent of the National
Labor Relations Board, at his suggestion, Deneen dis-
cussed the matter with Jean Van Kirk, the director of
nursing services, and Delores Finley, the associate direc-
tor of nursing. She was informed by them that she would
not be reinstated to steady daytime. It was explained that
all RNs would be required to rotate on three shifts and
that a full-time RN in the nursery could not be justified
in view of a decline in the census of new births and the
need for cost containment.7
The economic justification or the change in Deneen's
schedule is not unconvincing. Over the years, a number
of factors have contributed to a downturn in the census
of new births at the Hospital. Among the contributing
influences was broadened availability and use of birth
control devices. In addition, the Steubenville area is
serviced by another general Ohio Valley Hospital which
provides birth control services which Respondent, as a
Catholic hospital, does not offer. It also appears that in
recent years a number of pediatricians and obstetricians
that had practiced at both Steubenville hospitals aban-
doned St. John and consolidated their services in the
Ohio Valley Hospital, an event which also reduced
intake at St. John. This downturn in new birth census
figures8 reduced demands upon the new born nursery. In
consequence, well prior to the advent of any union activ-
ity, on the afternoon and midnight shifts, and on daylight
when Deneen was not working, an LPN was utilized in
place of an RN in the nursery.
Thus continued utilization of Deneen full-time, on day-
light, in the nursery reflected at least two basic deficien-
cies. For while she worked steady daytime, all other
RNs in OB-GYN, except for the head nurse and assistant
head nurse in OB-GYN, rotated. Secondly, LPNs had
manned the nursery, without need for an RN in that po-
sition, on all shifts other than those filled by Deneen.
Thus, it is a fact that according to demands upon the
OB-GYN department prior to the advent of union activi-
ty, Deneen's position not only reduced the opportunity
" Exactly when this occurred is not specified on the record. From all
indications, the schedule was posted in late August or early September.
7 Finley testified that, in preparing the schedule following the vacation
period, Kindsvatter informed Finley that a morale problem existed in
OB-GYN, and that it would be difficult not to rotate Deneen because
people in the department were complaining. Finley told Kindsvatter that
it was about time that Deneen was treated like everyone else and placed
on rotation. Kindsvatter and Finley also discussed the fact that an RN in
the nursery during daylight was no longer required in view of a low
census of new horns. Parenthetically it is noted that prior to the instant
events the nursery on the afternoon and midnight shifts was attended by
an LPN, who reported to the RN in the position of "labor and delivery
nurse " Deneenl acknowledged that despite her 18 years service in the
hospital she was not qualified to serve as labor and delivery nurse, but
that all other RNs in OB-GYN were so qualified.
" See Resp Exh 5
516
ST. JOHN MEDICAL CENTER
to schedule other RNs during the daylight shift, but also
entailed the use of an RN in a position which could he
filled by a less qualified paramedical.
This continued for a time despite a decline in working
conditions of O)1-GYN personnel. For example, RNs in
that department, at times when there were few patients
demanding their care, were shifted involuntarily to other
departments in the hospital, a practice which they dis-
liked. These conditions were temporarily alleviated.
however, beginning in December 1978 when a strike
shut down operations at Ohio Valley Hospital. The
strike continued for 3 months and during that period
baby deliveries in the Steubenville area were shifted to
St. John Hospital. The dramatic increase in the number
of births during that period is evident from the fact that
between December 1978 and March 1979 there were 251
deliveries at St. John, in contrast with a total of 61 deliv-
eries during the succeeding 4-month period. This in-
crease in activity at St. John during the strike allowed
incumbent RNs broadened opportunities to work desir-
able shifts and insulated them from removal from OB-
GYN for work in other departments. However, upon
termination of the strike, morale declined and OB-GYN
RNs complained about special privileges and the fact
that they were not scheduled sufficiently to the daylight
turn. As could be expected, Deneen was the focal point
of certain of these complaints.
The rotation of Deneen did help to allay these con-
cerns. Under Respondent's manning procedures, there
were a maximum of 4 daylight slots for RNs in OB-
GYN. Thus, when Deneen was in the nursery she
blocked one of the said positions, 5 days per week.
Moreover, before Deneen's rotation, the head nurse and
assistant head nurse were required to assume the duties
of the "Post-mortum" nurse or the "labor and delivery"
nurse. By placing Deneen on rotation, however, on days
when she was scheduled to work evenings, additional
daylight vacancies were created allowing an RN that
would otherwise work an evening shift to be rotated to
daylight. Indeed, on those occasions, the combination of
Deneen's removal from the nursery, the assignment of an
LPN to replace her, and the assignment of another RN
to function either as postmortum or labor and delivery
nurse, released the head nurse and her assistant from
direct nursing and allowed them to concentrate on their
administrative responsibilities.
A further consideration not verbalized directly to
Deneen by Finley or Kindsvatter as a specific ground for
their action but nonetheless supportive thereof was the
fact that in the fall of 1978, a feasibility study of the Hos-
pital was conducted by the accounting firm of Ernst and
Ernst. In consequence, specific recommendations were
made with respect to various phases of the Hospital's op-
erations, including elimination of all special scheduling
privileges. According to the credited testimony of
Finley, the hospital was slow to implement these recom-
mendations because they related to problems which had
developed over the years and could not be eliminated
over night. Instead, head nurses in the various depart-
ments were instructed to prepare their subordinates for
eventual changes. With respect to OB-GYN, Kindsvatter
testified that nurses within her jurisdiction were in-
formed by a notice posting and a monthly meeting in
April 1979 that they could look forward to, among other
things. an elimination of special privileges. Deneen was
not recalled to rebut Kindsvatter. I credit the latter,
noting her testimony was uncontradicted and that the
delay evident in her testimony between the meetings
with OB-GYN personnel and completion of the Ernst
and Ernst study was not reduced to the implausible,
when one considers the supervening strike and the free-
dom with respect to scheduling allowed the RNs during
that period due to the increase in census.
On this record there can be no dispute with the fact
that prior to Deneen's placement on rotation, her assign-
ment as RN on steady daylight in the new born nursery
entailed an inefficient use of an overqualified RN and
narrowed the opportunity for other RNs to work the
daylight shift. Undoubtedly, issuance of a remedial order
upon the General Counsel's allegation of discrimination
in her case would perpetuate the inequity and inefficien-
cy inherent in her former arrangement. However, the in-
quiry does not end there, for, from all appearances on
this record, prior to Deneen's involvement in union ac-
tivity, Respondent, for several years, honored her privi-
leged status and had condoned their effects. The disposi-
tive question is whether the General Counsel has estab-
lished by preponderance of the evidence that the correc-
tion made in either late August or September 1979 was
either in whole or in substantial contributing part moti-
vated by Deneen's union activity. Although the question
is not free from doubt, I find that the General Counsel
has not met his burden on this record.
There is no question that Deneen's role as instigator of
the union activity which commenced in late April, was
known in advance of her placement on permanent rota-
tion. Beyond this, however, the elements of a prima facie
case of discrimination are either lacking or enshrouded
with vagueness. Thus, on the question of timing, it is dif-
ficult to conclude that the action against Deneen was
particularly suspect for, on this record, the precise status
of the organization campaign at that time is unclear. Al-
though Deneen testified generally that meetings were
held and cards were being solicited, precisely when the
former took place remains unspecified. Indeed her testi-
mony that card solicitation was still in progress at the
time of the hearing 1 year after the inception of organi-
zation activity is not at odds with the possibility that the
campaign never really reached a significant threshold. In
any event, there is nothing in the record to suggest that
at times corresponding to the permanent change in Den-
een's schedule, organization had matured to a point in-
fecting such action with inordinate suspicion. Further-
more. the evidence of animus on this record does not rise
to a level exhibiting a proclivity upon Respondent's part
to combat organization through reprisal. During an orga-
nization campaign which, according to Deneen, contin-
ued for more than a year, there is no suggestion on this
record that management formally addressed itself there-
to. and indeed the only evidence of communication be-
tween supervision and rank-and-file personnel pertaining
to that issue occurred four months earlier. Although in
the course thereof, Section 7 rights ,Were violated, that
517
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
indiscretion might be fairly described as isolated, and, oc-
curring as it did, in the context of a conversation be-
tween friends, considering its nature, it was not so griev-
ous as to be equatable with the degree of union animus
which might tend to support an inference of discrimina-
tion.
Taking full account of the persuasive economic justifi-
cation for placement of Deneen on rotation, on the entire
record I am not convinced that Respondent was obliged,
because of her known involvement in union activity, to
refrain from correcting a longstanding personnel problem
recently aggravated by a continuing downturn in census
and a concomitant unrest among Deneen's peers. I am
persuaded that Respondent placed Deneen on rotation
solely on the basis of legitimate considerations and I find
that the General Counsel has not proven by a preponder-
ance of the evidence on the record as a whole that this
occurred for reasons proscribed by Section 8(a)(3) and
(1) of the Act.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Respondent St. John Medical Center is a health care
institution within the meaning of Section 2(14) of the Act
and an employer engaged in commerce within the mean-
ing of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. American Federation of State, County and Munici-
pal Employees is a labor organization within the mean-
ing of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by
on April 30, 1979, coercively interrogating employees
concerning the union activity of a fellow employee.
4. Respondent did not violate Section 8(a)(3) and (1)
of the Act by in late August or early September 1979,
scheduling Alice L. Deneen to a permanent rotation.
5. The aforesaid unfair labor practice is an unfair labor
practice having an affect upon commerce within the
meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has engaged in certain
unfair labor practices, it shall be recommended that Re-
spondent be ordered to cease and desist therefrom and to
take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the
policies of the Act.9
9 A claim is made by the General Counsel on behalf of Deneen that in
consequence of the schedule change, Deneen lost earnings in connection
Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of
law, and the entire record in this proceeding, and pursu-
ant to Section 10(c) of the Act, I hereby issue the fol-
lowing recommended:
ORDER"'
The Respondent, St. John Medical Center, Steuben-
ville, Ohio, its officers, agents, auccessors, and assigns,
shall:
1. Cease and desist from interrogating employees con-
cerning the union activity of their fellow employees or in
any like or related manner, interfering with, restraining,
or coercing employees in the exercise of rights guaran-
teed by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which is
deemed necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Post at its facility in Steubenville, Ohio, copies of
the attached notice marked "Appendix." Copies of said
notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for
Region 8, after being duly signed by Respondent's repre-
sentative, shall be posted by Respondent immediately
upon receipt thereof and be maintained by it for 60 days
thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places
where notices to employees are customarily posted. Rea-
sonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to insure that
said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any
other material.
(b) Notify the Regional Director for Region 8, in writ-
ing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what
steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
with outside employment at several nursing homes. Were I to have round
the 8(a)(3) violation herein. any remedy would be limited to restoration
with no provision for backpay. Thus, I did not believe and discredit Den-
een's testimony that she was precluded from maintaining customary
hours of work at the nursing homes because of any conduct on the part
of Respondent herein.
io 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.
" In the event that the Board's Order is eniforced 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 Pur-
suant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an
Order of the National Labor Relations Board."
518