Longshoremen's Local 10

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 14, 1981

254 N.L.R.B. 540 (N.L.R.B. 1981)

I)DECISIONS OF NA1ONAI LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
International Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's
Union, Local No. 10 and Pacific Maritime As-
sociation. Case 20-CB-4997
January 14, 1981
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN FANNING AND MEMBERS
JENKINS AND PENELLO
On August 14, 1980, Administrative Law Judge
Russell L. Stevens issued the attached Decision in
this proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent filed ex-
ceptions and a supporting brief, and the Charging
Party filed an answering 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
briefs and has decided to affirm the rulings, find-
ings,' 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, International
Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's Union,
Local No. 10, its officers, agents, and representa-
tives, shall take the action set forth in the said rec-
ommended Order, except that the attached notice
is substituted for that of the Administrative Law
Judge. 2
MEMBER JENKINS, dissenting:
I disagree with my colleagues' adoption of the
ruling by the Administrative Law Judge that the
elimination of racial discrimination in the selection
of walking bosses is irrelevant to the disposition of
this case. This ruling is not in accord with our na-
tional labor policy, is not required by Section
8(b)(1)(B) of the Act, and denies the Respondent
Union a fair hearing on the violation with which it
is charged. The right of an employer to select its
own representatives, protected by Section
i Member Penello agrees with the Administrative L.asw Judge's finding
that International Organization of Mfasters. Mates and Pilots (.Ne port
Tankers Corporation), 233 NLRB 245 (1977), order vacated and remanded
Newport Tankers Corporation v N.L.R B., 575 F 2d 477 (4th Cir. 1978), is
readily distinguishable from the instant case Member Peiello further
notes that he continues to adhere to his dissenting opinion in ,ewport
Tankers.
2 We shall, in accord with standard Board remedial practice, substitute
a "Notice to Employees and Members" in lieu of he "Nolice to IEmploy-
ees" recommended by the Administratise Law Judge
8(b)(l)(B), does not include the right to discrimi-
nate racially in such selection.
Evidence bearing on the discriminatory selection
of walking bosses and the Union's effort to elimi-
nate such discrimination is material, and necessary,
to a determination of the motive for Respondent's
action and whether such action violated Section
8(b)(1)(B) as alleged. See my dissenting opinion in
Laborers' International Union of North America,
AFL-CIO, Local 478 (International Builders of Flor-
ida, Inc.), 204 NLRB 357 (1973). In view of the
specific provisions prohibiting discrimination of
any kind in the parties' contract, the Union has a
legal right as a statutory representative to insure
that discriminatory practices are not established or
continued and that its duty to represent fairly and
in good faith the interests of minorities within the
unit is not impaired by the employer or another
union. Westinghouse Electric Corporation, 239
NLRB 106 (1978).
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES AND MEMBERS
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAIl LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WIll. NOT restrain or coerce Pacific
Maritime Association (PMA), or any of its em-
ployer-members, in the selection or retention
of their representatives for the purpose of col-
lective bargaining or the adjustment of griev-
ances.
WE WILL NOT engage in work stoppages or
threaten to engage in work stoppages for the
purpose of restraining or coercing PMA, or
any of it employer-members, in the selection of
their representatives for the purpose of collec-
tive bargaining and the adjustment of griev-
ances.
WE WILL notify PMA and its employer-
members that the Union has no objection to
the employment of Clarence Small, William
Brown, and Haus Blase as walking bosses.
INTERNATIONAL LONGSHOREMEN'S
AND WAREHOUSEMEN'S UNION,
LOCAL No. 10
DECISION
STIAEMENT OF THE CASE
Russk.I .L. STEVENS, Administrative Law Judge: This
case was heard before me in San Francisco, California,
254 NLRB No. 65
540
LONGSHOREMEN'S LOCAL 10
on June 25, 1980.1 The complaint issued February 6,
1980, is based on a charge filed on January 3, 1980, and a
first amended charge filed on January 23, 1980, by Pacif-
ic Maritime Association (herein called PMA). The com-
plaint alleges that International Longshoremen's and
Warehousemen's Union, Local No. 10 (herin called Re-
spondent or the Union), violated Section 8(b)(1)(B) of
the National Labor Relations Act, as amended (herein
called the Act).
All parties were given full opportunity to participate.
to introduce relevant evidence, to examine and cross-ex-
amine witnesses, to argue orally and to file briefs. Briefs,
which have been carefully considered, were filed on
behalf of the General Counsel, the Union, and the
Charging Party.
Upon the entire record, and from my observation of
the witnesses and their demeanor, I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. JURISDICTION
Pacific Maritime Association, with a place of business
in San Francisco, California, is and has been, at all times
material herein, an organization comprised of employers
engaged in the movement of cargo on oceangoing ves-
sels to and from the Pacific Coast ports of the United
States, and which exists for the purpose, inter a/ha, of
representing its employer-members in negotiating and ad-
ministering collective-bargaining agreements with var-
ious labor organizations, including Respondent.
At all times material herein, Marine Terminals Corpo-
ration (herein called Marine); Crescent Wharf and Ware-
house Company (herein called Crescent); and Matson
Terminals, Inc. (herein called Matson), have been, and
now are, employer-members of PMA.
During the calendar year ending December 31, 1979,
the employer-members of PMA, in the course and con-
duct of their business operations, derived gross revenues
in excess of $50,000 for the transportation of freight and
commodities from the State of California directly to
points outside the State of California.
I find that Marine, Crescent, and Matson, each, are
now, and at all times material herein have been, employ-
ers engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section
2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
International Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's
Union, Local No. 10, is, and at all times material herein
has been, a labor organization within the meaning of Sec-
tion 2(5) of the Act.
II. THE AI.LEGED UNFAIR ABOR PRACTICI-S
A. Background2
PMA, on behalf of its employer-members, and the In-
ternational Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's Union
(herein called ILWU), on behalf of itself and its locals in
I All dates herein are within I'79, unlcs slated to be olherisee
2 This background summary is based on credited testimony. sipull-
tions of parties, and evidence nolt l dtlpule
California, Oregon, and Washington, are parties to an
agreement effective July 1, 1978, to July 1, 1981. The
contract is titled Pacific Coast Longshore Contract Doc-
ument (herein called PCLCD). Section 11.1 of the agree-
ment states "There shail be no strike, lockout or work
stoppage for the life of this agreement." Respondent is
one of the ILWU locals subject to PCLCD. ILWU
Local 91, also encompassed by PCLCD, is the exclusive
bargaining representative for all registered walking
bosses employed by PMA's employer-members in San
Francisco and Oakland, California. PMA and Local 91
(as well as some other locals) are parties to an agreement
for the same term as PCLCD. PMA and Local 91 are
parties to a supplementary agreement, relevant portions
of which are as follows:
SECTION 2. ADDING TO LIST OF REGIS-
TERED WALKING BOSSES
2.1 A proposal by either the Employers or the
Union to increase the number of men on the active
registered list of walking bosses in each of the three
areas (San Francisco, Stockton and Sacramento)
shall be submitted to the Joint Labor Relations
Committee for consideration.
2.2 If agreement is reached by the Joint Labor
Relations Committee on the number of men to add
they shall then be selected by the Employers. Prior
to reaching a final determination on the selection of
men, the Employers agree to review with the Union
the qualifications of men proposed for addition to
the registered list.
2.21. When a company loses the services of any
of their steadily employed walking bosses as a result
of death, retirement, or leaving the industry, the
company shall concurrently have the right to select
and employ replacements for such men.
2.22 If agreement cannot be reached by the Joint
Labor Relations Committee on adding of men to
the registered list, the matter can then be referred
to the Area Arbitrator for determination through
the contract grievance machinery.
Walking bosses are supervisory representatives of em-
ployer-members of PMA in the performance of cargo
handling and stevedoring activities covered by PCLCD.
They have authority to supervise, place, or discharge
men, and direct the work of longshoremen. They partici-
pate in grievance proceedings involving longshoremen
who fail to work as directed, or otherwise misbehave on
the job. Counsel stipulated that walking bosses are super-
visors within the meaning of the Act, and are representa-
tives of employers for purposes of collective bargaining
or adjustment of grievances within the meaning of Sec-
tion 8(b)(1)(B) of the Act. Three walking bosses are in-
volved in this controversy, i.e., Clarence Small,3 William
Brown, and Haus Blase. All three were named walking
bosses December 29, 1979.
Approximately in 1964, and occasionally since 1973,
Local 10 has contended that there have been discrimina-
:' IlilXhid ii.1, ilre referrled Io herein Iheir Sl ilatrnle,
541
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
tion, nepotism, and favoritism in the selection and regis-
tration by PMA of walking bosses. So far as the record
shows, such allegations have not been the subject of find-
ings or decisions by any arbitrator, administrative law
judge, or court. The subject has been discussed, howev-
er, between PMA and Local 10. Respondent contends
that it has received complaints concerning such allega-
tions, but that matter was not before the Administrative
Law Judge for hearing in this case, and Respondent's
offer of evidence to support its allegations was rejected
as being irrelevant to the issues herein. 4
In early December 1979, PMA selected Small, Brown,
and Blase to become walking bosses, and Local 91 ob-
jected. The dispute was referred to an arbitrator, pursu-
ant to the collective-bargaining agreement between PMA
and Local 91. Local 91 contended that, although the
three men were qualified to be walking bosses, they did
not have "clearance from Local 10." The matter was
heard December 14, and by decision dated December 21,
the arbitrator, Hans P. Schnitler, ordered that the three
men should be registered as walking bosses. They were
registered, with the registrations to be effective Decem-
ber 29.
In the late afternoon of December 28, Larry Wing,
then president of Local 10, called Craig McFate, PMA's
assistant manager, and asked for a meeting the following
morning, due to a problem with Small, one of the newly
registered walking bosses. McFate relayed that message
to James Edwards, manager of the northern California
area of PMA. The following morning at approximately
7:50, Edwards, McFate, and Vincent La Maestra, PMA's
labor relations assistant, met with Wing, Local 10's vice
president, Willie Zenn, Local 10's business agent,
Andrew Dulaney, secretary-treasurer, George Kaye, and
relief business agent, Lawrence Thibeaux. Wing and
Kaye said the Union "had a problem with the selection
of the three walking bosses," and that, in their opinion,
"the men would not work with Mr. Small on that day."
Small had been scheduled to work that day as a walking
boss. Edwards asked what section of the contract was in-
volved, and Wing and Kaye replied that the dispute was
not covered by the contract. However, they said, they
felt Local 10 should have some "input" in the selection
of walking bosses, and they believed that, in the past,
there had been favoritism, nepotism, and discrimination
in the selection of walking bosses. At approximately 8
a.m., Small attempted to start work with the longshore-
men who had been assigned to him, but the men refused
to work, as did 10 or 12 other longshoremen on a related
operation involving the same ship. The other 10 or 12
had been assigned to another walking boss. PMA offi-
cials then called an area arbitrator on the telephone, and
he came to the area to arbitrate the matter on the job.
The union representatives refused to participate in the ar-
bitration. After an ex parte hearing, the arbitrator found
that Local 10 was in violation of the contract by causing
a work stoppage. Subsequently, the arbitrator reduced
his decision to writing. The award never was appealed.
The arbitrator then attempted to call Local 10 officials
4 Laborers' International Union of North .merica, AFL-CIO, Local 478
(International Builders of Florida. Inc.), 204 NLRB 357 (1973). enfd. 503
F.2d 192 (D.C.Cir. 1974).
on the telephone, but was unable to reach them. The ar-
bitrator then called the Union's chief dispatcher at the
union hall, and asked that he send new men to the job.
PMA later was informed that the jobs had been posted,
but that no men would take the jobs.
On January 2-6, Local 10 caused work stoppage on 11
separate occasions. The details of those stoppages were
almost the same as the stoppage of December 29. In each
instance, union officials appeared when Small, Brown, or
Blase were to act as walking bosses; those officials talked
with the longshoremen, who then refused to work; arbi-
tration was requested by PMA representatives, but the
Union failed or refused to participate in arbitration pro-
ceedings; ex parte arbitrations were held, and the award
was in favor of PMA; new longshoremen were requested
by PMA, but no one would accept the jobs. In some in-
stances, there were slight differences in the chain of
events, but those differences are irrelevant-the pattern
of conduct always was the same.5
On January 6 the dispute was referred for coast arbi-
tration and subsequently, the coast arbitrator, Sam
Kagel, found that the arbitration decisions of the area ar-
bitrator were proper. Kagel directed Respondent to
cease and desist in its illegal work stoppages, and in its
noncompliance with arbitration awards.
B. Contentions of the Parties
The General Counsel contends that the work stop-
pages constituted coercion of PMA in the latter's selec-
tion of its bargaining representatives, in violation of Sec-
tion 8(b)(1)(B) of the Act, and that Respondent's motive
in causing the stoppages is immaterial.
Respondent's attorney stated Respondent's contentions
at the hearing:
And the specific demand which Local 10 has
made is that PMA negotiate with it and Local 91-
both unions having an interest in the matter-some
set of non-discriminatory objective criteria which
would comply with title seven requirements. And
which would also fulfill Local 10's obligations
under the civil rights laws to take affirmative action
in its role as collective bargaining agent.
And the dispute over the three walking bosses
who we'll hear more about-was not aimed at forc-
ing the employer to discharge any particular indi-
vidual or to appoint any particular individual but
merely a refusal by Local 10 to recognize such pro-
motions until guidelines had been adopted.
C. Nature of the Work Stoppages
Section 8(b)(l)(B) of the Act provides:
It shall be an unfair labor practice for a labor orga-
nization or its agents-
(I) to restrain or coerce . . .
Testimony and evidence cover all work stoppages, and resultant
events. in detail.
542
LONGSHOREMEN'S LOCAL 10
(B) an employer in the selection of his representa-
tives for the purposes of collective bargaining or
the adjustment of grievances.
It is noted at the outset, that this case does not involve
the theory of concerted activity. The right to engage in
such activity is protected by the Act, and decisions and
opinions concerning the Act. What is involved, is a spe-
cific prohibition in the Act of a union restraining or co-
ercing an employer in its selection of bargaining repre-
sentatives.
In Laborers' Local 478,6 the Board held that the right
to strike or engage in concerted activity does not include
the right to dictate to an employer that it select a par-
ticular supervisor who would have the power to adjust
grievances. 7
Subsequently, the Board decided in International Orga-
nization of Masters, Mates and Pilots8 that a union's pick-
eting a vessel to compel the addition of another officer
to the ship's complement did not violate Section
8(b)(1)(B), since the actual selection of the new officers
would be left solely in the hands of the employer. After
reviewing some of the legislative history of the Act, the
Board stated:
As is evidenced from the legislative history, Con-
gress enacted Section 8(b)(1)(B) to protect an em-
ployer from a union which might seek to impose its
will on the employer by dictating whom it should or
should not select as its collective-bargaining repre-
sentative or grievance adjuster.
The Board then continued:
MMP's conduct herein does not diminish in any
way the Employer's unfettered right to select the
representative of its choice. While concededly the
Employer might be forced to hire an additional
third mate, the choice as to who that third mate
shall be is totally within its discretion and control.
There is nothing in the record evidence to indicate
that MMP sought to have one of its own members
selected as the additional third mate. Indeed, in
light of the Employer's current collective-bargain-
ing agreement with MEBA covering all deck offi-
cers, we doubt that the Employer could have se-
lected another third mate from among MMP's
members or that MMP realistically expected the
Employer to do so.
The Union here seeks to bring itself within the protec-
tion of International Organization of Masters, Mates and
Pilots, and similar cases, by contending that it was not
seeking the discharge or demotion of Brown, Blase, and
Small, nor was it seeking the selection of any particular
person as walking boss. However, that argument ignores
' Laborers International Union of North America, AFL-CIO, Local 478
(International Builders of Florida), supra.
7 To the same effect, see Operating Engineers. Local Union Vo. 3 of the
International Union of Operating Engineers. AFL-CIO (Redi-Mir Products,
Inc., d/b/a Visalia Redi-Mix). 219 NLRIH 531 (1975)
International Organlzation of Masters. Mates and Pilots ('ewpor IanA-
ers Corporation), 233 NLRB 245 (1977).
the record. It may well be, as argued by the Union, that
on one or more occasions the men refused to work for
all walking bosses on a particular job, and further, that
the Union never named desired replacements for the
three walking bosses, nor named them as targets for dis-
charge. However, those matters do not alter the nature
of the stoppages: (I) When Wing called on the telephone
December 28 to ask for a meeting with PMA, he named
Small as a reason for the "problem." (2) Each work stop-
page was directed specifically to Brown, Blase, or Small.
(3) No work stoppage was directed to any other walking
boss. (4) The Union admittedly wanted to be given the
right of "input" into the selection of walking bosses, and
was not given that right so far as Brown, Blase, and
Small were concerned. Only those three were the targets
of work stoppages. (5) This controversy dates from 1963,
yet on no occasion did the selection of walking bosses
result in work stoppages, until Brown, Blase, and Small
were selected.
Local 91 represents walking bosses. Local 10 has no
authority over walking bosses, and is given no contrac-
tual authority to play any role in their selection or ad-
ministration. The fact that work stoppages restrain and
coerce requires no citation.
It is clear from the foregoing, and found, that Respon-
dent sought, through unauthorized work stoppages, to
force PMA to forgo the services of Brown, Blase, and
Small as walking bosses, in violation of the Act.9
Further evidence of the illegal nature of the Union's
work stoppages, is the mechanism it attempted to force
on PMA. The Union seeks "input" into the selection
process for walking bosses, and wants a "pool" of poten-
tial selectees that it has agreed to, under criteria for
qualification that the Union would help establish. The
Union complains of discrimination, nepotism, and favorit-
ism, which are conclusive allegations, subject to subjec-
tive considerations. PCLCD has specific provisions
against discrimination of any kind,t ° and PMA and
Local 91 are bound by those provisions. Neither PMA
nor Local 91 has been found in contravention of those
provisions, so far as the record shows. In any event,
PMA is the employer, and has sole control over the se-
lection process for walking bosses, subject only to the
provisions of its contract with Local 91. Clearly, what
the Union wants is a process that, in the Board's lan-
guage, would "diminish . . . the Employer's unfettered
right to select the representative of its choice."" If
given what it wants, the Union would play a role in es-
tablishing criteria for employees who would constitute
the "pool" from which walking bosses would be select-
ed. Those criteria would reflect what the Union thinks is
discrimination, nepotism, and favoritism. In other words,
the Union wants to substitute its judgment for, or add it
to, that of PMA, in selecting walking bosses. Picketing
to effect such an intrusion into PMA's prerogatives, is
contrary to the Act.'2 It may well be that, if the Union
u Lahrers Local 478, upra.
In Sec 13. p 75, and addendum, p. 185
International Organization of A1Mastvrs. .ats and Pdotm. supra
" Ilorida Power light C(a Internaional Brotherhood of Electrical
R4orAcri, l.ocal 641. er a. 417 S 79(), 803 (1974) See also International
Continued
543
I).ECISIONS OF NATIONAL. L.ABOR RELATIONS BOARD
took part in establishing criteria, it would be only a part,
rather than exclusive control, of criteria. However, that
part inevitably would impinge on the right of PMA to
exercise control over its representatives in an unfettered
manner. It is just such a situation that Section 8(b)(l)(B)
was enacted to protect against. The Union's contention
that its actions are justified because of its favorable mo-
tives is contrary to controlling law. The Union's motives,
however noteworthy, are irrelevant. t3
Respondent also argues that what it seeks is participa-
tion in establishing criteria for promotion, which, it con-
tends, is a legitimate subject for bargaining. However,
that argument is similar to the argument concerning dis-
crimination, and it is without merit for the same reasons,
i.e., the sole issue here is whether or not Section
8(b)(1)(B) has been violated; it is not whether the Union
may have good reason for wanting to participate in se-
lection of walking foremen, which selection under the
Act is vested exclusively in PMA.
IV. Ilk IEFFECI OF THEI UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICF.S
UPON COMMERCE
The activities of Respondent, set forth in section III,
above, occurring in connection with its operations de-
scribed in section I, above, have a close, intimate, and
substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce
among the several States, and tend to lead to labor dis-
putes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free
flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has engaged in certain
unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8(b)(1)(B) of
the Act, I shall recommend that it be ordered to cease
and desist therefrom, and take certain affirmative actions
designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and
the entire record, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
I. Marine Terminals Corporation, Crescent Wharf and
Warehouse Company, and Matson Terminals, Inc., are
engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6)
and (7) of the Act.
2. Respondent, International Longshoremen's and
Warehousemen's Union, Local No. 10, is a labor organi-
zation within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. By its work stoppages, as found above, Respondent,
International Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's
Typographical Union Leo:al 38. AFL-CIO and lnternational 'ypographical
Union Local 165, AFIL-CIO and Scale C'ommittee v N.L.R.B.. 278 F 2d
(Ist Cir. 196))
1' Laborers' Ixwal 4
7
8, upra. See also Silver Bar local Union No Y62,
International Brotherhood of Pulp. Sulphite and Paper Mill Werkrs ( Alaska
Lumber and Pulp Co.. Inc.), 198 NL.RH 751 (1972) Local 333. United
Marine Division I .I...,.4FL-C10 (Morania Oil lankir. Inc.l, 233 N.RB
387 (1977) Cf IEmporium C(apweli C, \v. I4'e',rn Addilion (ornurii
Organization. e t. 421 U.SJ 510 (1975)
Union, Local No. 10, has engaged in unfair labor prac-
tices in violation of Section 8(b)(l)(B) of the Act.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor
practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Sec-
tion 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of
law, and the entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c)
of the Act, I hereby issue the following recommended:
ORDER 4
The Respondent, International Longshoremen's and
Warehousemen's Union, Local No. 10, San Francisco,
California, its officers, agents, and representatives, shall:
I. Cease and desist from:
(a) Restraining and coercing PMA or any of its em-
ployer-members, in the selection or retention of their
representatives for the purpose of collective bargaining
or the adjustment of grievances.
(b) Engaging in work stoppages or threatening to
engage in work stoppages for the purpose of restraining
or coercing PMA or any of its employer-members, in the
selection of their representatives for the purpose of col-
lective bargaining and adjustment of grievances.
2. Take the following affirmative action, which I find
will effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Notify PMA and its employer-members, that tne
Union has no objection to the employment of Clarence
Small, William Brown, and Haus Blase as walking
bosses.
(b) Post at its San Francisco, California, worksite, and
its principal office, copies of the attached notice marked
"Appendix. ""' Copies of said notice on forms provided
by the Regional Director for Region 20, after being duly
signed by an authorized representative of Respondent,
shall 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 members are customarily posted. Rea-
sonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to insure that
the notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any
other material.
(c) Furnish to said Regional Director copies of the
aforementioned notice for posting by PMA, that Compa-
ny willing, at the work stoppage premises.
(d) Notify the Regional Director for Region 20, in
writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what
steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
14 In the event no exceptionls are filed as provided by Sec 102 46 of
the Rules ad Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the
findinlgs, conclusions, ad 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 bc deemed aived for all purposes.
In the evecin that this ()rder is enforced by a Judgment of a United
States Court of Appeals, the ords in the noice reading "Posted by
Order of the National l.abor Relations Board" shall read "'Posted Pursu-
.ant to ai Judgmenlt of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an
()rder if the Natilonal Labor Relations Board "
544