United States Postal Service

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 28, 1980

250 N.L.R.B. 1195 (N.L.R.B. 1980)

UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE
United States Postal Service and Capital City
Branch #129, National Association of Letter
Carriers, AFL-CIO. Case 15-CA-7317(P)
July 28, 1980
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN FANNING AND MEMBERS
JENKINS AND PENELLO
On April 16, 1980, Administrative Law Judge J.
Pargen Robertson issued the attached Decision in
this proceeding. Thereafter, the Respondent filed
exceptions and a supporting brief, and the General
Counsel filed a brief in support of the Administra-
tive 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. 2
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,
United States Postal Service, Baton Rouge, Louisi-
'The Respondent 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 respect to credi-
bility unless the clear preponderance of all of the relevant evidence con-
vinces us that the resolutions are incorrect. Standard Dry Wall Products.
Inc.. 91 NLRB 544 (1950). enfd, 188 F.2d (3d Cir 1951). We have care-
fully examined the record and find no basis for reversing his findings In
addition, Respondent's reliance on United States Postal Service, 242 NLRB
228 (1979), is misplaced. There, unlike the present case. the union ste-
ward admittedly informed the respondent that his presentation of the em-
ployee's grievance was finished before respondent threatened him with
disciplinary action for his refusal to obey respondent's repeated orders to
return to work Member Penello finds it unnecessary to distinguish that
case inasmuch as he did not dismiss the complaint therein on the merits
but rather on the basis of the sound principles set forth in American Fed-
eration of Musicians. Local 76, AFL-CIO (Jimmy Wakely Show), 202
NLRB 620(1973).
a In par. l(c) of his recommended Order, the Administrative Law
Judge issued a broad recommended Order rather than the narrow order
customarily issued by the Board in similar cases involving 8(alI) threats
of disciplinary action. Ryder Truck Lines, Inc., 239 NLRB 1009 (1978).
The Administrative Law Judge also inadvertently inserted as par. 2(b) of
his recommended Order the paragraph customarily added to Board
orders to preserve records for computation of hackpay in discriminatory
discharge cases, which we hereby delete. Finally, since Respondent's is-
suance of a warning letter to Edwards is violative of Sec. 8(aHI) of the
Act, we find it unnecessary to determine whether such conduct also vio-
lates Sec. 8(a)3) of the Act, as the Administrative Law Judge found. We
shall modify the Administrative Law Judge's recommended Order and
notice accordingly.
250 NLRB No. 156
ana, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns,
shall take the action set forth in the said recom-
mended Order, as so modified.
1. Substitute the following for paragraph i(c):
"(c) In any like or related manner interfering
with, restraining, or coercing employees in the ex-
ercise of the rights guaranteed them by Section 7
of the Act."
2. Delete paragraph 2(b) and reletter the subse-
quent paragraphs accordingly.
3. 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
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.
In recognition of these rights, we hereby
notify our employees that:
WE WILL NOT threaten our employees with
disciplinary action because of their activities
during grievance proceedings.
WE WILL NOT issue official letters of warn-
ing, or otherwise impose disciplinary action
against our employees because of their activi-
ties in grievance proceedings while fulfilling
the role of union steward.
WE WILL 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 National Labor Rela-
tions Act, as amended.
WE WILL rescind and expunge from our rec-
ords all copies of the letter of warning issued
to employee Moses Edwards on April 20,
1979, because of his activity during a griev-
ance proceeding while serving as union ste-
1195
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ward and we will take no action against him
based in whole or in part upon that reprimand.
UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
J. PARGEN ROBERTSON, Administrative Law Judge:
This case was heard on December 17, 1979, in Baton
Rouge, Louisiana. The complaint issued on July 27,
1979, pursuant to a charge filed on June 7, 1979. The
complaint alleges that Respondent threatened an employ-
ee with discipline and issued a written warning to that
same employee because of the employee's activity as ste-
ward in processing an employee grievance.
Upon the entire record' and from my observations of
the witnesses, and after due consideration of the briefs
filed by General Counsel and Respondent, I hereby make
the following:
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
A. Jurisdiction
Respondent admitted, and I find, that the Board has
jurisdiction over this matter by virtue of Section 1209 of
the Postal Reorganization Act (herein PRA, 39 U.S.C.
Sec. 101, et seq.). The facility involved in this proceeding
is the Southeast Station, Baton Rouge, Louisiana. Re-
spondent is now, and has been at all times material
herein, an employer within the meaning of the PRA.
B. Labor Organization
Respondent admitted, and I find, Capital City Branch
129, National Association of Letter Carriers, AFL-CIO,
is, and has been at all times material herein, a labor orga-
nization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Act.
C. The Evidence
This entire case involves a grievance meeting between
a grievant, the union steward, and the grievant's supervi-
sor. Pursuant to a prearranged meeting, arranged for the
purpose of discussing two grievances of employee Clau-
dette Griffin, Mrs. Griffin and her representative, Union
Steward Moses Edwards, met with Station Manager
Kenneth Burns in Burns' office on April 13, 1979. The
meeting was called pursuant to step I of the collective-
bargaining agreement. During the meeting Edwards pre-
sented two grievances on behalf of Mrs. Griffin, a letter
of warning which Mrs. Griffin received on March 27,
1979, and a suspension she was awarded on April 4,
1979. Edwards had received an extension of the time re-
quired for processing the first step of the grievance pro-
cedure when Burns was unavailable for an earlier meet-
ing.
I I have considered Respondent's motion to correct the record and
General Counel's opposition thereto. I hereby grant Respondent's
motion in its entirety.
The meeting started at 8:30 a.m. The parties testified in
agreement that Edwards spent the first 30 minutes of the
meeting discussing Griffin's March 27 letter of warning.
The contract provides that Burns had the authority to
resolve Griffin's grievances during this first-step meeting.
However, the grievance regarding the letter of warning
was not resolved. Edwards then proceeded to the second
matter, the suspension of Mrs. Griffin.
During the discussion of Mrs. Griffin's suspension a
dispute arose between Burns and Edwards. As a result of
that dispute Edwards received an "official letter of warn-
ing" dated April 20, 1979. That warning, plus a threat
which Burns allegedly made during the April 13 meet-
ing, constitutes the basis for the complaint.
Both Edwards and Griffin testified that Burns threat-
ened Edwards with disciplinary action during the discus-
sion of Mrs. Griffin's suspension. According to Edwards,
he was commenting to Burns regarding the allegation in
Griffin's notice of suspension that she had loudly com-
mented, "This is all a big joke." Edwards was arguing
that that particular comment may have been made re-
garding something unrelated to her work. Edwards testi-
fied:
And I said to Mr. Burns, "If someone could pass
you and I and say 'Shorty' this would not mean that
they are referring to me even though I might think
so." Mr. Burns said, "Mr. Johnson said she said
that." And my reply to this, "I have as much right
to believe Mrs. Griffin as you have to believe Mr.
Johnson." And I said, "This is all a big joke, isn't
it?" Mr. Burns says, "Mr. Edwards, if you can dis-
cuss this grievance as a responsible adult, we'll do
so, but if you continue in this vein I'll take disci-
pline against you."
Mrs. Griffin testified:
Then Moses looked over and he said, "Right here it
says she's charged with passing the supervisor's
desk and saying this is all a big joke." He said, "If
she were to pass by you and you were sitting at the
desk and she would say look at the short man,
would you just assume that she was talking to
you?" And Mr. Burns started to get upset, so Moses
said, "The reason I said short man is because I, too,
am a short man, and it wouldn't bother me, if some-
body said look at the short man." So Mr. Burns said
we'd wasted enough time on this. "I don't have any
more time to waste on this foolishness. If you don't
have anything else to say, then we can just call this
closed, and you can take your grievance to the next
step." Moses said, "You can't tell me what step to
take my grievance to." So he said, "Well, I don't
intend to sit here wasting any more of my time with
this." Moses said, "Well, it says right here in this
book," and Moses pulled the contract out, "It says
right here," and Mr. Burns stood up and he said, "I
don't intend to waste anymore time and I'll tell you
one thing, Mr. Edwards, if you don't shut up,
you're going to find yourself in some serious trou-
1196
UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE
ble. You're going to find yourself with some disci-
plinary action and some time off.
Mr. Burns testified:
At one point I stated to him, "You know, you're
lucky that I don't call the city police and have you
ejected." When I said that, again, it was like putting
a bomb in the situation. It was that much louder
that he became, and that much more yelling and
telling me that I would sit and listen to what he had
to say. There's been testimony that I threatened him
with some-a letter or some time off. I don't recall
making that statement, but if that was made, it
would have been made at that time. ....
The evidence is not in dispute that Burns called in an-
other supervisor, Donald Schultz. After some further ar-
gument regarding Burns' request that Edwards and Grif-
fin leave his office, Edwards left after being asked to
leave by Schultz.
On April 20 Edwards received an official letter of
warning because of the April 13 incident. Burns was
asked why he gave Edwards the letter of warning. He
replied:
He was given warning because of the fact that I
ended the grievance, I told him he could carry it to
step two, but he, more or less, took my office as a
hostage. I could not proceed with the balance of
my work for the day. I needed to be making tele-
phone calls on the "watts" line that was at my desk.
I couldn't use that phone. I couldn't proceed with
any work. I was, more or less, in captivity by Mr.
Edwards, because he refused to leave my office.
The April 20 letter of warning to Edwards reads:
This official letter of warning is being issued to
you for the following reasons:
Insubordinate behavior and disrespect to a supervi-
sor. On the morning of April 13, 1979, at 8:30 a.m.,
you and I began discussion of a Step I grievance in
my office. There were two grievances involved,
and we spent over 30 minutes discussing the first
grievance. I listened patiently to your presentation
and took appropriate notes. I listened to approxi-
mately 10 minutes of your presentation on the
second grievance. At that time, you began to
"preach" and ask rhetorical questions not expecting
an answer. You were informed that if you wanted
to discuss the grievance with logic and as a respon-
sible adult, we would continue the discussion, but
that I did not have time to continue in the present
vein.
At that time, you became very upset and stated
that you would take as long as you wanted to and
would say anything you wanted to say. You were
argumentative and shook your copy of the National
Agreement at me stating that you had your rights as
a steward, plus you were on your own time. I in-
formed you that I was through talking and through
listening. You continued arguing that I had to listen
to whatever you had to say. You were informed
that you could take the grievance to Step 2. You
then stated that I didn't tell you where to take the
grievance. You were instructed to leave my desk.
You did not leave but continued ranting and raving
and told me I couldn't tell you what to do because
you weren't on the clock. I then informed you that
you were at my desk and again ordered you to
leave. You did not leave so I asked Mr. Don
Schultz to enter my office as a witness to your in-
subordinate behavior. I instructed you for the third
time to leave my desk immediately. You made no
motion to leave and told me to "hush" my mouth.
At that point, I informed you that if you weren't
away from my desk in 3 minutes, I would have you
ejected. I then left the office to call the E&LR Sec-
tion.
It is hoped that this official letter of warning will
serve to impress upon you the seriousness of this of-
ficial letter of warning and that future disciplinary
action will not be necessary. If you are having diffi-
culties that I am not aware of concerning this
matter, please consult with me promptly. However,
I must warn you that future instances of insubordi-
nate behavior and disrespect will result in more
severe disciplinary action being taken against you,
including suspensions or removal from the Postal
Service.
You may appeal this official letter of warning in
accordance with Article XV of the National Agree-
ment within 14 days of your receipt of this letter.
/s/ Kenneth O. Burns
/s/ KENNErH O. BURNS
Manager, Southeast Station
D. Conclusions
1. Credibility
I found Moses Edwards and Claudette Griffin to be
straightforward, credible witnesses. I was impressed with
the demeanor of each of them and I have concluded that
both were telling the truth to the best of their ability.
However, to the extent there are conflicts between Ed-
wards and Griffin, I have credited Mrs. Griffin. It is ap-
parent that Moses Edwards became emotionally involved
in the April 13 meeting. On that basis I have decided
that Mrs. Griffin's recollection of the events during that
meeting is probably more reliable than Edwards.
On the other hand I do not credit the testimony of
Kenneth Burns to the extent it conflicts with other evi-
dence. Mr. Burns' testimony regarding the reason he
gave Edwards a letter of warning does not stand up in
light of other evidence. According to Burns' testimony,
he disciplined Edwards because Edwards prevented him
from proceeding with his day's work. However, the evi-
dence demonstrates that no more time was used on the
grievance regarding Mrs. Griffin's suspension, and the
argument between Edwards and Burns that arose during
that grievance discussion, than was used during the dis-
cussion of Mrs. Griffin's first grievance. The first griev-
ance required approximately 30 minutes according to the
1197
I)ECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
versions of all three witnesses. Respondent called one of
its supervisors, Donald Schultz, who testified that he was
called into Burns' office at approximately 9 a.m., regard-
ing Edwards' refusal to leave Burns' office. If Schultz'
recollection is correct as to the time, then he was called
in immediately after discussion began on the suspension
grievance. Schultz testified that Edwards left Burns'
office approximately 15 to 20 minutes after he arrived.
Furthermore, Edwards' letter of warning, which was
written by Burns, indicates that Edwards' presentation of
the second grievance had lasted only 10 minutes when
he and Edwards started arguing. Burns estimated that
Edwards remained in his office approximately 15 minutes
after Burns first told him to leave. Therefore, the evi-
dence indicates, and I find, that Burns' alleged basis for
the warning is not supported by the record. Further-
more, the warning letter itself conflicts with Burns' testi-
mony regarding the reason for the warning. The letter
goes to great lengths to explain that Edwards was re-
ceiving a warning because of his insubordinate behavior
and disrespect toward Burns. Therefore, I find that
Burns was impeached on the most material aspect of his
testimony, the testimony regarding the April 13 meeting.
2. The allegations
By 1969 the Board had clearly articulated the law
dealing with disciplining employees because of their ac-
tions in grievance meetings. In Crown Central Petroleum
Corp., 177 NLRB 322 (1969), the Board stated:
... the "master-servant" relationship does not
carry over into a grievance meeting, but there is in-
stead at such a meeting only company advocates on
the one side and union advocates on the other side
engaged as opposing parties in litigation. Accord-
ingly, with respect to the grievance in issue, Manly
was at the grievance meeting, not in the role of a
"master," but as a company advocate and one of
the parties involved in the litigation, and in fact one
of the parties directly involved in the grievance
itself. As such, he was subject to the same free ex-
change of remarks as any other company repre-
sentative, and his supervisory disciplinary authority
was not involved. To hold otherwise would im-
properly interfere with such a free exchange, and
might indeed leave no free exchange at all in the
countless situations of smaller employers with no in-
dustrial relations department, where only supervi-
sors represent the employer in grievance meetings.
In Bob Henry Dodge Inc., 203 NLRB 78 (1973), the
Board found that an employee, while acting in his role of
union steward, acted defiantly toward his employer and
accused him of untruths. Nevertheless, the employer was
held to have violated Section 8(a)(I). There the Board
stated:
. . . absent unusual circumstances not here present,
the protections accorded employees under the Act
are not dependent upon the merit, or lack of merit,
of the concerted activity in which they engage,
even though such activity embraces the disobedi-
ence of an order of management.
In Sarah Manufacturing Company, Inc., 202 NLRB 666
(1973), an employee was discharged after making a
prounion speech to a group of 100 employees during his
lunch break. The employee refused to lower his voice
even though his employer directed him to do so on three
occasions. There the Board stated:
It follows that, even though on company property,
Alvarez was engaged in an activity Respondent had
no right to limit absent some showing that the con-
duct sought to be restricted-here Alvarez' loud
tone-was having some demonstrably disturbing ef-
fects on plant business or operations such as dis-
tracting employees, if any, who were at work
during what was the noon break for others.
. . .Under the Act, the manner in which an em-
ployee carries on his protected activities is not sub-
ject-save for limited exceptions not relevant
here-to the whim, wish, or authority of his em-
ployer. Consequently this is not a case of Alvarez'
improper insubordination but rather one of Chema-
li's unlawful interference with, and restraint and co-
ercion of, Alvarez in the exercise of activities pro-
tected by Section 7 of the Act.'
Here, Moses Edwards was off work on April 13. He
came to the station pursuant to Burns scheduling the
first-step meeting on that date. This was the second oc-
casion in which Edwards came to the station on one of
his off days to discuss Mrs. Griffin's grievances with
management. On April 9, Edwards attempted a step I
discussion with Supervisor Donald Schultz. Schultz told
Edwards that he could not discuss the grievance. There-
after Edwards talked with Station Manager Burns and
Burns directed him to return on April 13 for a discussion
of the grievances under step 1.
When Edwards and Griffin arrived for the scheduled
meeting at 8:30 a.m., on April 13, Burns invited them to
his office. All agreed that the discussion of the first
grievance took approximately 30 minutes. The first
grievance was not resolved.
Edwards then went into the second grievance, the one
involving Mrs. Griffin's suspension. Edwards contended,
in part, that the letter of warning, which was the subject
of the first grievance, could not be used as a basis for the
suspension, because the letter of warning had not, at that
time, been sustained. Edwards also argued with some of
the factual findings expressed in the letter of suspension.
According to Mrs. Griffin's testimony, which I have
credited, Edwards was pointing out that a comment by
Mrs. Griffin that "this is all a big joke," may not have
been in reference to her letter of warning, when Burns
said that he had wasted enough time on this. Burns re-
marked, "I don't have any more time to waste on this
foolishness. If you don't have anything else to say, then
we can just call this closed, and you can take your griev-
I See. also, Chrysler Corporanron, 228 Nl.RB 486 (1977), and AMC 4ir
Conditioning Co. 232 NIRH 283 (1977).
1198
UINITED STATES P()STAL SERVICF.
ance to the next step." Edwards responded, "You can't
tell me what step to take my grievance to." Burns then
said, "Well, I don't intend to sit here wasting any more
of my time with this."
Edwards then took out a copy of the collective-bar-
gaining agreement and said, "Well it says right here in
this book." Burns stood up and said, "I don't intend to
waste any more time and I'll tell you one thing, Mr. Ed-
wards, if you don't shut up, you're going to find yourself
with some disciplinary action and some time off.a You
have exactly three minutes to get away from this desk
and get off of these grounds, or I'm going to call the
police and have you physically ejected." Edwards re-
plied, "Okay, call them."
Burns left the office and returned with Supervisor
Donald Schultz. Schultz asked Edwards to leave and,
after a few minutes, Edwards left the office.4
Edwards was involved in the grievance proceeding in
his role of union steward. He was, therefore, engaged in
activity protected by Section 7 of the Act. I find that
Burns, by threatening disciplinary action if Edwards did
not shut up, interfered with, restrained, and coerced Ed-
wards in his protected activity.5
I find that Edwards' actions in resisting Burns' order
that he leave his office was not unreasonable under the
circumstances. The evidence demonstrates that Edwards
was fully prepared to present Mrs. Griffin's grievances.
He had been prevented from presenting the step I pre-
sentations on April 9. The circumstances in which he
was cut off by Burns during his April 13 presentation un-
derstandably upset Edwards. I find that Edwards' subse-
quent action in refusing to leave Burns' office does not
justify Respondent's disciplinary action against him for
actions taken during the exercise of protected activity. 6
Upon the foregoing findings of fact and upon the
entire record, I hereby make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Respondent is an employer within the meaning of
the PRA.
a Burns testified, "There's been testimony that I threatened lEdwardsl
with some-a letter or some time off. I don't recall making that state-
ment, but if that was made, it would have been made at that time" I fail
to understand how Mr. Burns, or anyone for that matter, could recall
when they made a particular statement and, at the same time, have no
recollection of ever making the statement. In any event I fully credit
Mrs Griffin.
4 Schultz testified that he was called into the office by Burns at ap-
proximately 9 a.m. This supports Griffin's and Edwards' versions demon-
strating that the dispute arose shortly after discussion started on the
second grievance I fully credit Griffin's testimony that Edwards lert at
Schultz' request shortly after Schultz came into the office. Neither
Schultz' testimony nor a handwritten statement which he prepared on
April 13. regarding the incident with Edwards and Burns. supports his
contention that Edwards remained in the office, refusing to leave. for
some 15 to 20 minutes after Schultz came in Additionally. on April 13,
Schultz told employee Willy James Butler of his involvement in the Inci-
dent. Schultz' comments to Butler demonstrate that Schultz' involvement
in the incident was more in line with the testimony of Griffin and Ed-
wards. that Schultz was in the room for only a short time
n Triangle Sheer ;feial fWorks, 237 NLRB 364 (197g)
0 The testimony of employees demonstrates that Edwards' actsi.ty did
not disrupt work
2. Capital City Branch 129, National Association of
Letter Carriers, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within
the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. By threatening its employee with disciplinary action
because of his activities in processing a grievance, Re-
spondent has engaged in unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
4. By issuing an official letter of warning to its em-
ployee because of his activities in processing a grievance
as union steward, Respondent has engaged in unfair
labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(l) and
(3) of the Act.
5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor
practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Sec-
tion 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
THE RF.MI)Y
Having found that Respondent has engaged in unfair
labor practices, I shall recommend that it be ordered to
cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative
action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of
law, and upon the entire record, and pursuant to Section
10(c) of the Act, I hereby issue the following recom-
mended:
ORDER 7
The Respondent, United States Postal Service, Baton
Rouge, Los Angeles, its officers, agents, successors, and
assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Interfering with, restraining, and coercing its em-
ployees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them in
Section 7 of the Act, in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of
the Act, by threatening its employees with disciplinary
action because of its employees' activities in the process-
ing of employee grievances.
(b) Issuing official letters of warning to its employees
because of its employees' activities in the processing of
employee grievances.
(c) In any other manner interfering with, restraining,
or coercing employees in the exercise of their rights
guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which will ef-
fectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Rescind, expunge from its records, and give no
consideration to the official letter of warning issued em-
ployee Moses Edwards on April 20, 1979, because of his
activities as a union steward processing grievances under
the terms of the collective-bargaining agreement.
(b) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the
Board or its agents, for examination and copying, all
payroll records, social security payment records, time-
cards, personnel records and reports, and all records nec-
I In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec 102 46 of the
Rules and Regulatiolns of the National Labor Relafionls Board. the find-
ings. conclusions, and recommended Order herein shall, as pro .ided ill
Sec 112 48 of the Rules and Regulations. he adopted by the HBoard anid
hecome its finlding,, conlrcIlusion. and Order, and all oh.iect lloi thereto
,hall he deemed waived for all purpos,.e
1199
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
essary to analyze the amount of backpay due under the
terms of this Order.
(c) Post at its Southeast Station, Baton Rouge, Louisi-
ana, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix. " 8
Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional
Director for Region 15, after being duly signed by Re-
" IIl the evlt that his ()rder is cnforced by a Judgment of the United
States Courl lof Appeals, the words in the notice readilig "Posled by
Order of the Nattilonal I.:lhor Relitions HBoard" shall read "Posted Pursu-
ant to a Judgment of the United State% Court of Appeals Enforcing an
Order of the National ahor Relations Hoard "
spondent's authorized representative, shall be posted by
Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and be
maintained for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in con-
spicuous places, including all places where notices to em-
ployees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be
taken by Respondent to insure that said notices are not
altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(d) Notify the Regional Director for Region 15, in
writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what
steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
1200