Gladstone Food Products Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 28, 1971

192 N.L.R.B. 267 (N.L.R.B. 1971)

GLADSTONE FOOD PRODUCTS CO. 267,
Gladstone Food Products Co. and Theodore G. Gault,
Jr. Case 17-CA-4399
July 28, 1971
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS
FANNING AND BROWN
On April 13, 1971, Trial Examiner Stanley N.
Ohlbaum issued his Decision in the above-entitled
proceeding, finding that the Respondent had engaged
in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices
and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom
and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the
attached Trial Examiner's Decision. Thereafter, the
Respondent filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's
Decision and a supporting brief.
-Pursuant to the, provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
powers in connection with this case to a three-member
panel.
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial
Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no
prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are
hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial
Examiner's Decision, the exceptions and brief, and
the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the
findings,' conclusions, and recommendations of the
Trial Examiner.
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 Trial Examiner and hereby orders that
the Respondent, Gladstone Food Products Co., its
officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the
action set forth in the Trial Examiner's recommend
Order, as modified below.
1. Insert the following as paragraph B, 3, of the
Trial Examiner's recommended Order and renumber
the present paragraphs accordingly.
"(3) Notify immediately the above-named individu-
als, if presently serving in the Armed Forces of the
United States, of the right to full reinstatement, upon
application after discharge from the Armed Forces, in
accordance with the Selective Service Act and the
Universal Military Training and Service Act, as
amended."
2. Substitute the notice to employees attached
hereto for that recommended by the Trial Examiner.
I The Respondent has excepted to certain credibility findings made by
the Trial Examiner . It is the Board's established policy not to overrule a
192 NLRB No. 51
Trial Examiner's resolutions with respect to credibility unless the clear
preponderance of all of the relevant evidence convinces us that the
resolutions were incorrect . Standard Dry Wall Products, Inc., 91 NLRB 544,_
enfd , 188 F.2d 363 (CA. 3). We- have carefully examined the record and
find no basis for reversing his findings.
The Respondent's allegations of prejudice on the part of the Trial
Examiner are unfounded and are hereby rejected.
APPENDIX B
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
After a trial before a Trial Examiner of the National
Labor Relations Board, at which all, sides had the
opportunity to present evidence and arguments, it has
been decided that we, Gladstone Food Products Co.,
have violated the National Labor Relations Act. We
have been ordered to post this notice and to carry out
its terms.
The National Labor Relations Act gives you, as an
employee, these rights:
To engage in self-organization
To form, join, or help unions
To bargain collectively through a representa-
tive of your own choosing'
To act together with other employees to
bargain collectively or for other mutual aid or
protection and
If you wish, not to do any of these 'things.
Accordingly, we assure you that:
WE WILL NOT violate any of your rights listed
above.
WE WILL offer Theodore G. Gault, Jr., and
Mark D. Cowles full and unconditional reinstate-
ment to their former jobs and employment
eligibility status with us, and WE WILL reemploy
them just as if we had not discharged them on
August 6,1970.
WE WILL pay Theodore G. Gault, Jr., and Mark
D. Cowles for any wages they lost after we
discharged them on August 6, 1970, plus interest.
All of you are free to engage in concerted activities
for the purpose of collective bargaining with us or for
the purpose of other mutual aid or protection
concerning your working conditions as well as your
wages and hours; and to do so through representa-
tives of your own choosing, withoutanyinterference,
restraint, or coercion by us.
GLADSTONE FOOD
PRODUCTS CO,,
(Employer)
Dated By
(Representative) (Title)
268 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
We will notify immediately the above-named individ-" I P
uals, if presently .serving in the Armed Forces of the
United States, of the right to full reinstatement, upon
application after discharge from theArmed Forces, in
accordance with the Selective -Service Act and the
Universal Military Training and Service Act.
This is an official notice and must not be defaced by
anyone.
This notice must-remain posted for 60 consecutive
days from the date of posting and must not be altered,
defaced, or covered by any other material.
Any, questions concerning this notice or compliance
with its provisions may be directed to the Board's
Office,1610 Federal-Building, 601 East Twelfth Street,
Kansas City, Missouri 64106, Telephone 816-374-
5181.
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
STANLEY `N. OmLBAuM, Trial Examiner: Based upon a
charge filed on August 7 as amended September 8, resulting
in a complaint issued on,- September 24; 1970,1 by the
Board's Regional Director," for Region 17, the above-
entitled-proceeding under the, National Labor Relations
Act as amended, 29 U.S.C.A. Sec. 151_ et seq. ("Act") was
heard, before me in Kansas City, Missouri, on February 25,
19,71,, with, all parties participating throughout in person or
through counsel and afforded full opportunity, to adduce
testimonial ,, and documentary proof, cross-examine, pro-
pose findings and conclusions, argue orally, and present
briefs . Subsequent to the trial, proposed findings -and
conclusions and a brief were received from counsel for
Respondent on March 25, 1971; those, together with all
evidenceand contentions,' have been carefully considered.
Upon the, entire record2,and my observation of the
testimonial, demeanor of the witnesses, I make the
following: -
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
1. PARTIES ; JURISDICTION
At all material times, Respondent Gladstone Food
Products Co. has been and is a Missouri corporation with a
place ' of business in Gladstone, Missouri, engaged in
manufacture and distribution of food products. In the
course and conduct of its said business , operations
Respondent's sales and shipments directly in interstate
commerce annually exceed $50,000.
1 find that at all material times Respondent has been and
is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of
1 Dates throughout are ' i 970, unless otherwise specified.
2 Trial transcript as corrected in respect to typographical and obvious
errors listed on annexed "Appendix A."[Omitted from publication.]
S Gault had also worked " for Respondent during the preceding (i.e.,
1969) summer, from July to October.
4 Most employees merely signed their first names . The signatures and
identities of twelve of these were satisfactorily established at the hearing.
According to the charge , Respondent's" total workforce consists of 19
Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act, and that` assertion of}
jurisdiction in this proceeding is proper.,
Il. ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. ,Issue
The basic issue here arises out of the allegation in the
complaint, denied in the answer, that Respondent violated
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by discharging from its employ
Theodore G. Gault, Jr., -and Mark D. Cowles because of
their activities in connection with a petition purposedrto
obtain from Respondent an afternoon "break" period for
Respondent's employees.
B. Fads as Found
Respondent produces and distributes to jobbers. or
middlemen Mexican food products including, tacos, mer-
chandised under 'various, trade names. In its ' processing
operations, Respondent= utilizes' housewives as well as local
high school students; during summers ,' the high school
students' work full-time (i.e., 5 days per week, 8 hours per
day), replacing housewives, who remain home with young
children. -
As of the summer of 1970, Respondent's factory
employees received a 10 or 15-minute= work "break" in the
morning, but none in the afternoon. At the end o€ July and
beginning of August, Respondent's employees discussed
among themselves the desirability of, obtaining a similar
brief afternoon. "break" because ;of the, heat in the factory.
Theodore G. Gault, Jr., a high school student employed ' by
Respondent for the summer3 as a taco belt operator,
volunteered Tto draft a' petition to that effect for the
employees if they would sign it. They agreed to do so. Gault
thereafter prepared the petition and brought it with him on
the morning of August 6 (Thursday), at which time it was
signed by the employees. In the handwriting of Gault, it
states:
We, the following employees of Gladstone-Variety-
Food Products, feel the need fora ten minute break in,
the -afternoon in addition,to the morning break.' It is
generally hotter in the afternoon and thus a break is just
as essential then as in the morning. We, respectfully
request such a break effective today, Thursday, August
6, 1970.
There , follow. fifteen signatures.4
After the circulation and signing of, this petition,
Respondent's supervisor Foreman-who is also die son-in-
law, of its principal and president, Joseph
Catalano--approached Mrs. Margaret Phillippie, who has
been in Respondent's employ for about three years and is
still currently in its employ,5 at her Workplace and asked
her in a "very, low" tone of voice about thee petition' and
whether "all that it consisted of was it 10-minute break";
employees.
5 Mrs. Philhppie so testified under subpoena. It has been said that such
testimony by a current employee subject to employer ire, may be entitled,to
added weight by reason of the circumstance that it is given at risk of
employer retaliation. Georgia Rug Mill, 131 NLRB -1304, 1305 (fn: 2),
enforced as mod., 308 F.2d 89 (C.A. 5); Berta v. R. A. C. Steel Products,
Inc., 312 F, 2d 14, 16 (C.A. 4).
GLADSTONE FOOD PRODUCTS CO.
Mrs. Phillippie:told Foreman it did. It was conceded by
Joseph Catalano, Respondent's principal and president,
during his, testimony, that Foreman (his- son-in-law) is a
supervisor of Respondent, just below Catalano''s^son Joseph
M. Catalano (Respondent's vice president and general
manager and the ranking Company official after Catalano
himself) in Respondent's hierarchy.
Shortly after the described "very low" tone of voice
inquiryto Mrs. =Philli ppie by Supervisor Foreman, Gault
and his close associate and friend Cowles (also a student
summer , employee) were summarily Fdsscharged without
explanation by. Nick Clements, _a leadman ;just below
Catalano's son,-m-law Foreman in the chain of command.
The circumstances of these discharges were that Clements
handed Gault and' Cowles their paychecks-with pay only
through, midday of that .day,,' a Thursday (Friday is
Respondent's usual ,payday)-indicating they could see
Foreman and to punch out. When Gault and Cowles asked
Foreman why they had been discharged, Foreman replied,
"If J you ]_ want to know the truth it was becauseI [we] had
heard that [you] were passing around a petition" and that
"[we] weren't, going to _have [you] running, [our] business
for [us.]" Foreman was not .produced in any- way to
controvert the foregoing, which was convincingly testified
to - by Gault and Cowles., Since' Joseph -M., Catalano,
Respondent's vice.president and general manager came in
at this point, _ Gault and Cowles likewise, asked him why
they had been discharged; Vice President,,.Catalano's
explanation, however, was that the company had
"overproduced" and had "too many supplies in the
warehouse ," adding that they would probably have to
terminate eight or nine more employees., When Gault and
-Cowles - close friends and associates - returned to
Respondent's plant,-late that afternoon to, pick up their
motor pool passenger Anderton, they again -encountered
Vice President ;Catalano, who asked if they had returned
"to work some _ more -today," -adding, "You probably
weren't working hard enough:" :Returning again at the end
of the afternoon, Gault and Cowles once more asked
Foreman why they had been discharged. Foreman replied,
"[You] talked about controversial topics at the,factory"
and that the order to discharge them had come "from the
office." As already indicated, Foreman was, without
explanation,,, not produced` as a witness by Respondent;
consequently, the last quoted remarks, credibly ascribed to
Foreman, likewise,^itand wholly uncontroverted. Gault and
Cowles thereupon put the petition up near thewtimeclock
and left.
After Gault and Cowles were discharged, two other
employees `were -assigned to their work. Within a few days,
four to six new; employees were hired.
Respondent produced only two witnesses, Respondent's
President Joseph -Catalano and his son, its Vice President
and General Manager Joseph M. Catalano. As has already
been indicated, Respondent's Supervisor Foreman
(President Catalano's-x son-in-law), who was directly in-
volved in the discharges in question, was unexplainedly not
6 Credited testimony shows ' that, notwithstanding Vice President
Catalan's statement , no other employees were terminated ; and Catalano's
own testimony not only does not prove otherwise , but concedes that, to the
contrary, additional employees were hired within a few days after the
269
produced . Although Vice President Catalano insists that
Gault' and Cowles were ' terminated ' because there was
"nothing , for them to do," no convincing , proof, was
submitted as to why these two mparticular-leaders:of the
employees'- "petition" activity-were singled out for
discharge, nor for the necessity thereof at the particular
time here involved, on the very heels of the petition,-nor for
the precipitate nature of, the discharge (Thursday after-
noon, not Friday payday, and without even allowing the
.two employees to,work -out that day).,,Based.'upon' the
record as a whole, including my , extremely - favorable
demeanor impressions of General Counsel's witnesses
(including persons currently in Respondent 's employ) as
distinguished from the evasive and otherwise unsatisfactory
quality of some of Vice President Catalano's te stimony,
coupled with the unexplained, failure of, Respondent to
produce any business records, whatsoever , I donot -credit
Respondent's conclusionary contention .that it discharged
these particular two employees under ;the circumstances
shown , because it had "overproduced ," with excessive
merchandise in its warehouse and no further need forttheir
services . I credit the testimony ofGeneral Counsel's witness
Cowles, a college student of soberly impressive demeanor
who had been working in Respondent's, warehouse, to the
effect that warehouse inventories had not , reached any
discernibly different level than previously . Furthermore,
even if, as Vice President Catalano ,swore, he had shortly
before then cancelled a 1000-case taco order becauseof the
dubious financial stability of the - customer, there is no
credible proof that any substantial portion of that order
had been filled but not, shipped, nor that • in; any event the
merchandise could not be sold elsewhere in -the regular
course, nor that Respondent had,taken on excess ,labor; for
that purpose . - Furthermore, no, records whatsoever were
produced to substantiate this alleged , conclusionary, and
equivocal claim. Moreover, it was credibly establishedthat
following the discharge of Gault and, Cowles other
employees were assigned to their work ,•andVice-President
Catalano conceded , that he hired new employees the
following week , For these reasons I do not credit
Respondent's contention that Gault and, Cowles, were
discharged, under the-circumstances shown;- because "the
-work run out, and there was nothing-for them to do:'
Respondent also contends. that it- was wholly without
knowledge of the employees ' described petition ` until after
Gault and Cowles, had been discharged. I unqualifiedly
reject this contention. As credibly-indeed
uncontrovertedly-established, 'Respondent possessed ac-
tual knowledge of the _ petition;through, its -Supervisor
Foreman.7 It is not to, be -assumed that the information
which Supervisor Foreman had acquired and also gleaned
or corroborated from Mrs.' Phillippie was kept, by
Supervisor Foreman from his superiors, his own father-in-
law and brother-in-law., Cf. N.LR.B v. Sequoyah Mills,
Inc., 409 F.2d 606, 609.(C.A. 10). Nor may it be-regarded as
sheer coincidence that Gault and Cowles: were within an
hour or so thereafter, on Thursday - afternoon, without
discharge of Gault and Cowles.
r Respondent's contention -that this proceeding must fail because the
petition itself was not physically delivered to it -by its employees=like a
summons in a lawsuit is so devoid of merit as not to warradtcomment.
270 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
notice ,precipitately discharged, only to be followed by the
hiring of other employees. Id
Respondent's' Vice President Catalano conceded that at
the time here iii' question Respondent gave its employee s-a
10-minute work "break" only in the morning, but that at
other tunes' an'emlployee,could be excused from work'for
the purpose of going 'to the toilet, or other satisfactory
reason, only upon requesting' and receiving individual
permission. He testified that since the described episode
(resulting in_ the discharge of Gault and Cowles) the
employees ', 10-minute morning "break" has been discontin-
ued.
There can be no question that the employees who,were
discharged were, in seeking to obtain an afternoon work
"break" for Responde nt's> employees, engaging in lawful
concerted activity, subject to the Act's protections. Cf.
NLRff v. Washington Aluminum Company, 370 U.S. 9, 17;
Morrison-Knudsen Company, Inc., 173 NLRB 56 and
cases cited at 59, enfd. 418 F.2d 203 (C.A. 9). For so doing,
they could not be discharged by their employer, as upon the
entire record III find they were, without violating Section
8(axl) of the Act.'
As has frequently ', been" pointed out, in assessing an
employer's' true reason for the discharge of employees
engaged in protected concerted activity, important clues
include" the leadership or' prominence in that activity of the
discharged-employees N.LR.B. v. Sequoyah Mills, Inc.,
supra; N.LR.B.- v. Council Manufacturing Corporation, 334
F.2d 161, 1664(C.A. 8), the-otherwise satisfactory perform-
ance of the discharged employees NLRB. v. Elias Brothers
-Big Boy, " Inc.,' 325,F2d 360, 366` (C.A. 6), the absence of
discharge of other employees in the same work category
(N.LR.B. v. Nabors, 196 F.2d 272, 275-76 (C.A. 5), cert.
'denied, 344 ^ US., 865), the employer's continued need for
such-employees (NLRB. v." Local 776, IATSE (Film
Editors), 303'F:2d 513, 519 (C.A. 9), cert. denied, 371 U.S.
826), the timing ' of the discharges (N.LRB. v. Sequoyah
Mills, Inc.,`supra, Tele-Trip Company, v. N.L.R.B., 340 F.2d
"575, 579-80 (C.A. 4); NLR.B. v. Montgomery Ward & Co.,
242 F.2d 497, 502 (C.A.1), cert. denied, 355 U.S. 829), the
precipitate nature ' of the discharges vis-a-vis the employer's
discovery, of the, discharged employees' activities (Tele-Trip
Company v. NLRB., supra; N.L.R.B. v. Council Manufac-
tttring Corporation, supra), the replacement of the
"discharged-employees (NLRB. v. Superior Sales, Inc., 366
F2d` 229, 235 (C.A. 8), NLRB: v. Davidson Rubber
Company, 305 F.2d 166, 168-69 (C.A. 1); N.LR.B. v. Local
776, IATSE (Film Editors), supra; N.LR.B. v. Montgomery
Ward & Co., supra), the employer's implausible explana-
tions,forits action (N.LRB. v. Harry F. Berggren & Sons,
Inc., 406 F.2d 239, 245-46 (C.A. 8), cert. denied, 396 U.S.
823), and the employer's unexplained failure to support, its
alleged justification for "suspicious" discharges through its
records and available witnesses. In this case , almost all if
not, all of these elements are present , thus truly constituting
a case where Respondents contentions simply "fail[s ] to
8 Proposed findings of fact numbered 1, 2, 3, and 4 are refused.
Proposed conclusions of Ylaw , lettered A, B, and,-C are disallowed as
improper in, form since the}/ state mere abstract alleged propositions of
law; governing considerations of law , aare ,, mentioned or , reflected in the
-stand under scrutiny" (N.LR:B. v. Dant, 207"F2d 165, 167
(C.A. 9), and cases cited). -
Upon the foregoing findings and the entire record , I state
the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. At all material times, Gladstone-Food Products Co.,
Respondent herein , has been and is an employer engaged in
commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7)
of the Act.
2. Jurisdiction is properly asserted in this proceeding.
3. By the conduct set forth in section"ll, supra,
consisting of the discharge -from y its employment, of
Theodore G. Gault, Jr., `and mark D. 'Cowles under `the
circumstances described and found, Respondent- has
interfered with, restrained; and coerced its employees, and
is continuing so to do, in the exercise of rights guaranteed to
said employees by Section 7 otthe 'National 'Labor
Relations Act, as amended, and has thereby engaged and is
continuing to engage in unfair labor practices in violation
of Section 8(a)(1) of said Act.
4. ` The aforesaid unfair ,labofpractices affect commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6)°and (7) of said Act.
5. Respondent has failed 'to° establish through a' `fair
preponderance, of the substantial credible evidence upon
the record as a whole in this} proceeding, its further
defenses, or any 'thereof, set forth in paragraph 4 of its
answer ' herein s
REMEDY
Respondent' having been found to have violated Section
8(axl) of the Act, I shall recommend the usual cease and
desist order and affirmative relief customarily provided in
cases of this nature , .including, since discharged employees
are involved, reinstatement and backpay requirements, as
well as posting of a-notice to all employees . Backpay for the
discharged employees (Theodore-G. Gault, Jr., and Mark
D. Cowles) shall reimburse- them for pay which they lost in
consequence of the = described unlawful discharges, plus
interest, less applicable earnings if any, all to be computed
in the manner prescribed by the- Board in F. W. Woolworth
Co., 90 NLRB 289, and Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., Inc.,
138 NLRB 716; and Respondent will be required to make
available necessary records for that purpose. In view of ,the
fact that the unfair labor practices here are, of a, nature
which strike directly at the most primary, basic, and
fundamental rights guaranteed to employees under the Act,
namely summary discharge of employees for attempting to
exercise the elementary right to ask, their employer for a
brief respite from work, during the oppressive summer
afternoon heat, I believe it to, be reasonably and fairly
required to include a provision requiring Respondent to
cease and desist from any infringement , upon, the,rights of
its employees secured by Section 7 of, the Act.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and
conclusions of law and upon the entire record, and
Findings, Conclusions, and Decision herein. Although Respondent's
postheanng brief (concluding, paragraph) purports to raise a jurisdictional
argument, admissions contained in Respondent's answer eliminated such
an issue from this case.
GLADSTONE FOOD PRODUCTS CO. 271
pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, I hereby issue the
following recommended: 9
ORDER
It is hereby -ordered that Gladstone Food Products Co.,
its officers , agents, successors , and assigns, shall:
A. Cease and desist from:
1. Discharging, terminating the employment of, laying
off, - furloughing, or failing to rehire or reinstate or
reemploy, or threatening so to do, any employee for
preparing, circulating, signing, or requesting any other
employee to prepare, circulate, or sign, any lawful petition
concerning working conditions, or for otherwise exercising
or attempting to exercise any right or engaging or
attempting -to engage in- any concerted activity protected
under the National-Labor Relations Act as amended.
2. In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or
coercing employees in the exercise of their right of self-
organization; to form,- join, or assist any labor organiza-
tion; to bargain- collectively through representatives of their
own choosing; - to engage in concerted activities for the
purposes of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or
protection; or to refrain from any and all such activities.
B. Take the following affirmative actions necessary to
-effectuate the policies of the Act:
1.1 Offer Theodore G. Gault, Jr_, and Mark D. Cowles
unconditional reinstatement to their former jobs and
employment eligibility status with Respondent in the same
fashion and for all purposes, including but not limited to
8 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Section 102.46 of
the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the
findings, conclusions , and recommended Order herein shall, as provided in
Section 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.
10 In the event that 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
seniority, as though Respondent had not discharged said
Theodore G. Gault, Jr.; and Mark D: Cowles on August 6,
1970. -
2. Make Theodore G. Gault, Jr., and Mark D. Cowles
whole, in the manner set forth in the "Remedy" portion of
this Decision, for any loss of pay suffered by them as the
result of their unlawful discharge by Respondent on August
6,1970. - - -
3. Preserve and, upon request , make available to the
Board and its agents, for examination " and copying, all
payroll records, social security payment records , timecards,
personnel records and reports, and all other records
necessary to analyze the amounts of backpay due
hereunder.
4. Post in its plant in Gladstone, Missouri, copies of the
notice attached hereto marked "Appendix B."10 Copies of
said notice, on forms provided by the Board's Regional
Director for Region 17, shall, after being duly signed by
,Respondent's authorized representative , be posted by
Respondent 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 to insure that said Notices are not ' altered,
defaced, or covered by any other material. '
5. Notify said Regionall Director, in writing, within 20
days from receipt of this Decision and recommended
Order, what steps Respondent has taken to - comply
herewith." -
BOARD" shall be changed to read "POSTED PURSUANT TO ' A
JUDGMENT, OF THE 'UNITED STATES COURT OF ^ APPEALS
ENFORCING AN ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELA-
TIONS BOARD."
11 In the event that this recommended Order is adopted by the Board
after exceptions ,have been filed, this provision shall be modified to read:
"Notify said Regional - Director for Region 17, in writing, within 20 days
from the date of this Order, what steps Respondent has taken to comply
'herewith.'' -