Daniel Construction Company

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 14, 1981

257 N.L.R.B. 1276 (N.L.R.B. 1981)

DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Daniel Construction Company, A Division of Daniel
International Corporation and Local Union No.
4 and its Branches, International Union of Op-
erating Engineers, AFL-CIO. Case I-CA-
17113
September 14, 1981
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS FANNING, JENKINS, AND
ZIMMERMAN
On February 4, 1981, Administrative Law Judge
Peter E. Donnelly issued the attached Decision in
this proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent filed ex-
ceptions and a supporting brief, and the General
Counsel filed exceptions and a supporting brief and
a brief in partial support of the Administrative Law
Judge's Decision.
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
briefs and has decided to affirm the rulings, find-
ings,' and conclusions of the Administrative Law
Judge and to adopt his recommended Order, as
modified herein.
The Administrative Law Judge found that Re-
spondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by
Employee Relations Manager Johnson's misstate-
ment of law to employee Hamill. We find merit in
Respondent's exceptions to this finding.
At one of Respondent's preelection "roundtable"
meetings, employee Hamill asked Johnson whether
she would have to join the Union if it won the
election. He responded that she would have to do
so. The Administrative Law Judge found Johnson's
statement was inaccurate since an employee would
have to join the Union only if the parties negotiat-
ed a collective-bargaining agreement which includ-
ed a union-security provision. He concluded that
the misstatement of law had a coercive effect since
it induced "an incorrect concept of compulsory
union membership which would affect employee
'The General Counsel has excepted to certain credibility findings
made by the Administrative Law Judge. It is the Board's established
policy not to overrule an administrative law judge's resolutions with re-
spect to credibility unless the clear preponderance of all of the relevant
evidence convinces us that the resolutions are incorrect. Standard Dry
Wall Products Inc., 91 NLRB 544 (1950), enfd. 188 F.2d 362 (3d Cir.
1951). We have carefully examined the record and find no basis for re-
versing his findings.
We hereby correct the following inadvertent errors of the Administra-
tive Law Judge which are insufficient to affect our decision. The Admin-
istrative Law Judge stated that the Union filed its representation petition
on November 5, rather than November 7, 1979. He further set forth the
name of counsel for the General Counsel as "Arnold S. Cohen," rather
than "Ronald S. Cohen."
257 NLRB No. 176
free choice in the election." Although we agree
that Johnson's statement was clearly a misstatement
of law, we do not agree that it was violative of the
Act.
Thus, in Edward A. Utlaut Foundation, Inc.,
d/b/a Edward A. Utlaut Memorial Hospital and Fair
Oaks Nursing Home, 249 NLRB 1153, 1158 (1980),
the Board concluded that an employer's preelec-
tion misstatement that if the union won the election
the employees would have to join the union and
pay dues, although objectionable, did not constitute
a violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. In so
doing, the Board found that the employer's missta-
tement contained no express threat that the em-
ployer by its own action would impose dire conse-
quences, such as discharge, on the employees and
no implicit threat to the employees' rights. John-
son's similar misstatement of law contains no threat
to interfere with the employees' rights and, there-
fore, is not coercive within the meaning of Section
8(a)(1) of the Act. Accordingly, we conclude, con-
trary to the Administrative Law Judge, that Re-
spondent did not violate the Act by Johnson's
statement to employee Hamill.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Re-
lations Board adopts as its Order the recommended
Order of the Administrative Law Judge, as modi-
fied below, and hereby orders that the Respondent,
Daniel Construction Company, A Division of
Daniel International Corporation, Greenville,
South Carolina, its officers, agents, successors, and
assigns, shall take the action set forth in the said
recommended Order, as so modified:
1. Delete paragraph l(b) and reletter the subse-
quent paragraph accordingly.
2. Substitute the attached notice for that of the
Administrative Law Judge.
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT threaten employees with loss
of future employment if they select Local
Union No. 4 and its Branches, International
Union of Operating Engineers, AFL-CIO, as
their collective-bargaining representative.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner
interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employ-
ees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed
1276
DANIEL CONSTRUCTION COMPANY
them by Section 7 of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act.
DANIEL CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, A DI-
VISION OF DANIEL INTERNATIONAL COR-
PORATION
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
PETER E. DONNELLY, Administrative Law Judge: The
original charge herein was filed by Local Union No. 4
and Its Branches, International Union of Operating Engi-
neers, AFL-CIO, herein called the Union or the Charg-
ing Party, on January 31, 1980. An amendment thereto
was filed on March 19, 1980. A complaint thereon was
issued on March 28, 1980, alleging that Respondent vio-
lated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by implementing changes
in its benefits program and changing its system of grant-
ing wage increases. Further, that Respondent, through its
representatives, made certain statements which interfered
with the employees' organizational rights in violation of
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. An answer thereto was timely
filed by Respondent. Pursuant to notice thereof, a hear-
ing was held before the Administrative Law Judge at
Rumford, Maine, on September 25 and 26, 1980. Briefs
have been timely filed by the General Counsel and Re-
spondent which have been duly considered.
FINDINGS OF FACT 2
I. RESPONDENT'S BUSINESS
Respondent is a South Carolina corporation engaged
as a general contractor in the building and construction
industry, with its principal office and place of business in
Greenville, South Carolina. The Employer maintains a
place of business at a papermill owned and operated by
The complaint was amended at the hearing. First, paragraph 7 was
amended to reflect the correct titles of certain supervisory employees as
follows: Emerson Johnson, manager, employee relations; George Ma-
chino, chief field engineer; Michael Westbrook, project personnel man-
ager. Second, paragraph 8 was amended to add paragraphs (h), (i), and
(j) as follows: "(h) In or about January 1980, Respondent, by its agent
Michael Westbrook, at the mill, told an employee at a meeting that if the
Union got in Respondent could not give a general increase to employees;
(i) In or about January 1980, Respondent, by its agent Emerson Johnson,
at the mill, told an employee at a meeting that if the Union came in she
would have to join in the Union; (j) On or about January 29, 1980, Re-
spondent, by its agent William Milling at the mill told employees at a
meeting, 'It's no secret that Daniel is actively engaged in negotiating for
the job in Madison. We don't know yet if we have the job, but I can tell
you Madison Mills has decided to build that job open shop. I think it is
fair to say that they will be watching the outcome of this election."
2 There is conflicting testimony regarding many of the allegations of
the complaint. In resolving these conflicts, I have taken into considera-
tion the apparent interests of the witnesses. In addition, I have considered
the inherent probabilities; the probabilities in light of other events; cor-
roboration or lack of it; and consistencies or inconsistencies within the
testimony of each witness and between the testimony of each and that of
other witnesses with similar or apparent interests. In evaluating the testi-
mony of each witness, I have relied specifically on his or her demeanor
and have made my findings accordingly, and while apart from consider-
ations of demeanor, I have taken into account inconsistencies and con-
flicting evidence, my failure to detail each of these is not to be deemed a
failure on my part to have fully considered it. Bishop and Malco, Inc.
d/b/a Walker's, 159 NLRB 1159. 1161 (1966).
Boise Cascade Corporation in Rumford, Maine, where it
is engaged in a construction project. During the past cal-
endar year Respondent, in the course and conduct of its
business operations, performed construction services
valued in excess of $50,000 in States other than the
States of South Carolina and Maine. During the past cal-
endar year, in the course and conduct of its business op-
erations, Respondent received at the above mill goods
and materials valued in excess of $50,000 directly from
points outside the State of Maine. Based on these juris-
dictional facts, I find that the Employer is an employer
engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6)
and (7) of the Act.
II. LABOR ORGANIZATION
The complaint alleges, the answer admits, and I find
that the Union is a labor organization within the meaning
of Section 2(5) of the Act.
Ill. ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Facts
1. Background
On November 5, 1979, the Union filed an election peti-
tion seeking to represent a unit of some 20 to 23 field en-
gineers employed by Respondent at a construction pro-
ject in Rumford, Maine, where Respondent is engaged in
building an addition to a papermill owned by the Boise
Cascade Corporation.3 A decision directing an election
issued on January 7, 1980. 4 An election was held on Feb-
ruary 5, 1980. All ballots cast in that election have been
impounded because the charge herein is a blocking
charge, filed by the Union on January 31, 1980. No re-
quest to proceed has been filed thereto.
During January 1980, Respondent conducted a series
of some four or five meetings described as "roundtable"
meetings, wherein it made antiunion presentations appar-
ently for the purpose of dissuading employees from se-
lecting union representation. These meetings were at-
tended by the field engineers and representatives of man-
agement, including Milling, Johnson, Machino, and
Westbrook.
Gary Michelewicz testified that at one of the later
"roundtable" meetings, Westbrook told him that a new
salary review program and benefits had been introduced
by Respondent and that he would advise them individ-
ually about the specifics of it at a later meeting. Mi-
chelewicz also testified that sometime later during the
second or third week in January, he was called aside by
Westbrook and told the details of the new salary review
program as well as the specifics of other newly instituted
company benefits. Michelewicz also testified that this
conversation took place after the booklet "New and Im-
3 Respondent employs some 1,000 to 1500 employees at this project
including some 135 to 350 salaried employees. Approximately 20 to 23 of
the salaried employees are Field engineers in the classifications of nonex-
empt salaried employees. Overall. Respondent is an international corpora-
tion, operating about 200 construction projects and employing about
15,000 salaried employees and 50,000 hourly employees
4 All dates refer to 1980 unless otheruisc indicated
1277
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
proved Benefits" (G.C. Exh. 4) had been given to him at
a meeting at the end of January, prior to the election, in
the meeting room of the trailer complex at the project. 5
Michelewicz testified that this meeting was attended by
field engineers as well as other salaried employees, and
that management representatives including Westbrook
and "an accountant from Greenville" went over the new
benefits and conducted a question-and-answer session.
Westbrook, on the other hand, testified that the book-
let was distributed for the first time on February 12 and
13, when meetings were conducted, with all of the ap-
proximate 135 salaried employees by local and corporate
management officials, including Hugh Earnest, director
of personnel for Respondent stationed at Greenville,
South Carolina. According to Westbrook, this was the
only meeting of salaried employees concerning the new
benefits attended by anyone from Greenville. West-
brook's memo, dated February 11, sets out those employ-
ees who were to attend and a schedule of five meetings
to be conducted on February 12 and 13. A careful
review of this record, including Westbrook's testimony
and his memo of February 11, satisfies me that the meet-
ing attended by Michelewicz and Poulin wherein the
booklet was distributed to them actually took place on
February 12 and 13, after the February 5 election and
not at any of the "roundtable" meetings preceeding the
election. Since Michelewicz and Poulin testified that
their conversations with Westbrook took place after they
had received the booklet, the conversations necessarily
took place after the February 5 election and I so find.
Accordingly, those statements, which I conclude were
made by Westbrook, were made postelection, and will be
evaluated as such.
Michelewicz testified, with respect to one of the
"roundtable" meetings, that Westbrook told the employ-
ees, that "if the Union election succeeded that Daniel
would never negotiate a contract. They would start bar-
gaining at zero and that they would stretch the bargain-
ing out over the whole course of the job and wages
would end up being frozen for the whole job. Also our
benefits would be frozen." Further, that "if the Union
was voted in Daniel would start negotiating offering us
zero dollars an hour." Further, "He said that they would
start bargaining at zero and that they could freeze our
wages because they wouldn't have to negotiate any
more. They wouldn't have to negotiate a satisfactory
contract they could hold it up until the job was over and
our wages would be frozen until the job was over in-
cluding our benefits."
According to Poulin, Westbrook told them at a
"roundtable" meeting that, "until both parties agreed on
a contract that wages and benefits would have to be
frozen." Poulin also testified that Westbrook stated, "that
the company could not give a general increase if the
Union wanted to campaign during a bargaining session
or a negotiating period. The Company gives an increase
once a year; a general increase. I believe he said that that
would be what they are or the Company could not give
I Robert Poulin, another field engineer, also testified that the booklet
was distributed about the third week in January, prior to the February 5
election, at a meeting of all salaried employees where "an accountant
from Daniel's" explained the new wage program and benefits to them.
that increase." In addition, he testified that Westbrook
said that "anytime a wage was granted to an employee
during the bargaining or negotiating period was happen-
ing that the Union and the Company would have to ap-
prove it."
With respect to Johnson, Poulin testified that at one of
the "roundtable" discussions, in response to a question,
Johnson said that "if they were to go Union that the
wages would not necessarily be increased, that the bar-
gaining would begin at zero, and just as long as the
Company bargained in good faith we might not even
make as much as what we were making at that time."
Again, in response to another question, Johnson told an
employee that if Respondent went Union "if you stayed
on the job you would have to be accepted into the
Union."
Westbrook denies that he told the field engineers at
any of the "roundtable" meetings that Respondent would
not negotiate a wage increase, but rather told them that
wage increases would have to be negotiated by the par-
ties. He concedes that, after consulting counsel, he did
say that wages would be frozen until agreement was
reached by Respondent and the Union.
Westbrook also denies saying that Respondent would
stretch out negotiations for the life of the job or that Re-
spondent would never negotiate with the Union.
Likewise Johnson denies saying that bargaining would
begin at zero, only that bargaining on wages and benefits
would begin from where they are now and could go
either up or down. Johnson, however, does concede that
he did tell an employee (Dorothy Hamill) that he
thought she would have to join the Union if the Union
won the election. Having reviewed the entire record and
in view of the above-noted credibility criteria, and par-
ticularly the confusion of dates in the minds of Mi-
chelewicz and Poulin as to their receipt of the booklet, I
am satisified that the accounts of the "roundtable" meet-
ings advanced by Westbrook and Johnson are the more
accurate, and I credit them.
The General Counsel also contends that a portion of
the written speech delivered at a "roundtable" meeting
in late January also violated the Act. It is undisputed
that at this meeting Project Manager William Milling
stated, "It's no secret that Daniel is actively engaged in
negotiating for the job in Madison. We don't know yet if
we have the job, but I can tell you that Madison Mills
has decided to build that job open shop. I think it is fair
to say that they will be watching the outcome of this
election."
Turning now to the new wage and benefit programs,
Mary Ellen Farrell, wage and salary analyst for Re-
spondent, testified that Respondent's wage and benefit
programs are reviewed on a continuing basis and are im-
plemented and administered on a companywide basis and
applied to all construction sites in the United States.
With respect to the new wages and benefits program
in issue, Farrell testified that work began in or about
July 1979. The proposed wage increase received tenta-
tive final approval in late October or early November
1979; approval being tentative due to the fact that Re-
spondent was observing the Federal wage guidelines es-
1278
DANIEL CONSTRUCTION COMPANY
tablished by the council on wage and price stability and
the establishment of the annual guidelines had been de-
layed. Respondent's fiscal year runs from November 1 to
October 31, at which time wage increases are normally
granted. In December 1979 without awaiting approval
from the council, new wage and benefits were instituted,
with the wage increases retroactive to November 1,
1979. In addition, a new system of granting increases,
providing, inter alia, for shorter salary review periods
was introduced to become effective January 1, 1980,
along with certain other benefits.
It is undisputed that the wage program and benefits
were not limited to the field engineers at Respondent's
Boise Cascade project but were instituted and imple-
mented corporatewide, at all construction sites to all sal-
aried employees, including nonexempt salaried employees
such as the field engineers wherever located.
The new salary program and benefits, while imple-
mented at all Respondent's projects at the same time,
were not explained to all employees at all projects at the
same time. There were delays in dispatching corporate
officials to the various jobsites, and it was not until Feb-
ruary 12 and 13, that any formal explanation was made
by corporate officials from Respondent's home office in
Greenville, South Carolina, to the salaried employees at
the Boise Cascade project in Rumford, Maine. This was
done in a series of five meetings, over a period of 2 days,
on February 12 and 13, as discussed above.
B. Analysis and Discussions
As to those allegations involving changes in the
system of granting wage increases and the improved
benefits, as well as the announcement and implementa-
tion thereof, it should be noted that Respondent is under
no absolute prohibition in the matter of granting benefits
to employees, even during the course of a union organiz-
ing campaign. However, it is true that benefits an-
nounced and granted during such a sensitive period will
be closely scrutinized. Indeed, the Board has held, in the
matter of granting wage increases, that there arises a
strong presumption of illegality in the granting thereof
during a union campaign; however, an employer is free
to grant benefits as if the union were not in the picture,
i.e., as it would in its normal business operations, absent
any union organizing effort. Newport Division of Wintex
Knitting Mills, Inc., 216 NLRB 1058 (1955).
An examination of the pertinent evidence in the instant
case convinces me that this presumption has been over-
come by Respondent, inasmuch as it has shown ample
justification for the benefits announced and implemented
herein. First, the record shows that there exists a stand-
ard corporate program as to wages and benefits which is
applied to all similarly classified employees. None of the
Benefits involved in this case were limited to the em-
ployees being organized; i.e., field engineers at the Boise
Cascade jobsite in Rumford, Maine. 6 Benefits in issue
The General Counsel, in its brief, renewed its objection to the receipt
of certain of Respondent's exhibits. I adhere to my rulings as to those
exhibits However, the entire record herein, even apart from those exhib-
its, make it clear that the wage and benefit changes instituted b Re-
spondent were companywide changes, not limited to the unit of field en-
gineers at the Boise Cascade project
were granted nationwide at essentially all corporate job-
sites, to all salaried nonexempt employees, including field
engineers. The record discloses that Respondent normal-
ly granted companywide wage increases annually on No-
vember 1, in conformity to its fiscal year, and that the
amount of the increases followed the guidelines estab-
lished by the Federal council on wage and price stability.
In 1979, however, bureaucratic delays in establishing the
guidelines delayed final corporate approval of any wage
increase until December, with wage increases retroactive
to November 1, 1979. Certain other benefits, including a
change in the system of granting wage increases, became
effective companywide on January 1, although an official
corporate explanation thereof did not take place at the
Boise Cascade project until February 12 and 13, with
more detailed individual employee explanations taking
place thereafter through supervisors. In short, there is
nothing in this record to suggest that the wage increases,
changes in the wage system, or the new benefits in issue
were announced, implemented, or granted so as to inter-
fere with the field engineers at the Boise Cascade project
in the matter of union representation. Rather, I am per-
suaded that the benefits were undertaken in the normal
course of Respondent's business operations and would
have taken place regardless of the union organizing
effort among the unit of field engineers at Respondent's
Boise Cascade jobsite. 7
As to the allegation of coercion with respect to the
above-quoted portion of a talk given by Milling, it is
clear that Respondent was holding out to the field engi-
neers the possibility of future employment with Respond-
ent within the State of Maine at the Madison Mills in
Madison, Maine. Milling's remarks clearly implied that if
the Union succeeded in organizing the field engineers,
Respondent would not get the contract for that job since
"Madison Mills has decided to build that job open shop."
While Respondent makes the assertion that Madison
Mills had decided to build the job "open shop," Re-
spondent nowhere makes any effort to substantiate this
naked prediction of prospective loss of employment by
objective considerations. Indeed, Milling did not even
testify. In these circumstances, I conclude that Milling's
remarks, as alleged by the General Counsel in its amend-
ment to the complaint, were coercive in violation of Sec-
tion 8(a)(1) of the Act.
With respect to the allegation that Westbrook told em-
ployees that wages would be frozen, I have credited
Westbrook. Accordingly, I am satisfied that his remarks,
viewed in context, were not threats, but were essentially
accurate observations concerning negotiations in the
event of a union victory, i.e., that in the event employees
voted for union representation, any wage increase could
not be unilateral, but would have to be negotiated be-
tween Respondent and the Union. This does not violate
Section 8(a)(l) of the Act.
7 In iews of my conclusion that certain statements alleged by the Gen-
eral Counsel as coercive, with the respect to Westbrook, occurred some-
time after the booklet captioned "New and Improved Benefits" was dis-
tributed on February 12 and 13. those remarks concerning wages and
benefits obviously must be viewed in a postelection context Thus exam-
ined. I cannot conclude that such remarks, even assuming, as I do, that
theN were made. could have had any coerc.e effect.
1279
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
As to the allegation that Respondent coerced field en-
gineers by telling them that it could bargain from zero, I
am satisfied that the record as to this allegation, viewed
in its totality, shows that the import of these statements
was to the effect that bargaining would begin, not from
zero, but from whatever wages and benefits were at the
time of negotiations, and that they could be modified
either up or down, in conformity to whatever agree-
ments Respondent and Union reached during the course
of negotiations. Such statements do not violate Section
8(a)(1) of the Act.
Likewise, with respect to the allegation that West-
brook told the field engineers that Respondent would not
give a wage increase to employees if the Union was
voted in. In essence, Westbrook was telling the field en-
gineers that if the Union was voted in, Respondent
would no longer be free to grant wage increases without
first negotiating with the Union for such wage increases.
This is no more than an exposition of one aspect of Re-
spondent's legal bargaining obligation and does not vio-
late Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
The General Counsel also alleges that Johnson co-
erced the field engineers by telling one of them that if
the Union was elected to represent them they would
have to join the Union. Johnson concedes that he said
this. Obviously this statement is not accurate. Whether
or not such an obligation ever arises depends upon
whether or not the parties negotiated such a union-secu-
rity type of provision. The promulgation of such misin-
formation does have a coercive effect since it induces an
incorrect concept of compulsory union membership af-
fecting the free choice of employees in the matter of
union representation in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the
Act.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
UPON COMMERCE
The activities of Respondent set forth in section III,
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 ob-
structing commerce and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor prac-
tices in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. I shall
recommend that Respondent be ordered to cease and
desist therefrom and from infringing in any like or relat-
ed manner upon its employees' Section 7 rights, and that
it take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate
the policies of the Act.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and
the entire record in this proceeding, I make the follow-
ing:
I 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 find-
ings, conclusions, and recommended Order herein shall, as provided in
Sec. 102.48 of the Rules and Regulations, be adopted by the Board and
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. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing em-
ployees in the exercise of their rights guaranteed in Sec-
tion 7 of the Act, Respondent has engaged in and is en-
gaging in unfair labor practices proscribed by Section
8(a)(1) of the Act.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of
law, and the entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c)
of the National Labor Relations Act, I hereby issue the
following recommended:
ORDER8
The Respondent, Daniel Construction Company, A
Division of Daniel International Corporation, Greenville,
South Carolina, its officers, agents, successors, and as-
signs, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Threatening employees with loss of future employ-
ment if they selected Local Union No. 4 and Its
Branches, International Union of Operating Engineers,
AFL-CIO, as their collective-bargaining representative.
(b) Telling employees that if Local Union No. 4 and
Its Branches, International Union of Operating Engi-
neers, AFL-CIO, were selected as their collective-bar-
gaining representative, they would have to join said
Union.
(c) In any like or related manner interfering with, re-
straining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of
their rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to
effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Post at its jobsite in Rumford, Maine, copies of the
attached notice marked "Appendix." 9 Copies of said
notice on said forms provided by the Regional Director
for Region 1, after duly signed by Respondent's author-
ized representatives, shall be posted by it immediately
upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 con-
secutive days thereafter, in conspicuously located places,
including all places where notices to employees are cus-
tomarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the
Respondent to ensure that said notices are not altered,
defaced, or covered by any other material.
(b) Notify the Regional Director for Region 1, in writ-
ing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what
steps have been taken to comply herewith.
become its findings, conclusions, and Order, and all objections thereto
shall be deemed waived for all purposes.
9 In the event that 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 Pursu-
ant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an
Order of the National Labor Relations Board."
1280