A B & E Foreign Car Parts

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 11, 1977

228 N.L.R.B. 627 (N.L.R.B. 1977)

A B & E FOREIGN CAR PARTS
A B & E Foreign Car Parts and Automotive
Warehousemen Local 241, International Brother-
hood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen
and Helpers of America . Cases 20-CA-10692 and
20-RC-13107
March 11, 1977
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MURPHY AND MEMBERS
FANNING AND JENKINS
On August 31, 1976, Administrative Law Judge
James T. Rasbury issued the attached Decision in
this proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent Employer
filed exceptions and a supporting brief, and the
General Counsel filed a letter containing remarks
with respect to Respondent 's arguments in its brief in
support of its exceptions and attached the brief he
filed with the Administrative Law Judge.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three -member panel.
The Board has considered the record and the
attached 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
Relations Board adopts as its Order the recommend-
ed Order of the Administrative Law Judge, as
modified below, and hereby orders that the Respon-
dent, A B & E Foreign Car Parts, San Francisco,
California, its officers, agents, successors, and as-
signs, shall take the action set forth in the said
recommended Order, as so modified:
1. Insert the following as paragraph 1(d):
"(d) In any other manner interfering with, restrain-
ing, or coercing employees in the exercise of rights
guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act."
2. Delete from paragraph 1(c) the language
preceding "threatening."
3. Substitute the attached notice for that of the
Administrative Law Judge.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Case 20-RC-13107
be, and it hereby is, remanded to the Regional
Director for Region 20 to open and count the ballot
of Robert Deasy, to issue a revised tally of ballots,
and to take such further action as then becomes
appropriate.
228 NLRB No. 75
627
1 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
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 (C.A. 3, 1951). We have
carefully examined the record and find no basis for reversing his findings.
2 The discriminatory discharge of an employee because of his protected
concerted activities goes to the very heart of the Act. The Administrative
Law Judge omitted a broad cease-and-desist order covering the illegal
discharge which he found Respondent had committed . Consequently, as it is
found that Respondent unlawfully discharged an employee , we shall issue a
broad cease-and-desist order herein . N.LR.B. v. Entwistle Mfg. Co., 120
F.2d 532, 536 (C.A. 4, 1941).
Contrary to the Administrative Law Judge, we find that Respondent did
not violate Sec. 8(aXl) by making "disparaging" remarks about the Union.
We shall amend the Order and notice accordingly.
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
After affording all sides an opportunity to present
evidence and state their positions, the National
Labor Relations Board has found that we have
violated the National Labor Relations Act 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 unions
To bargain collectively through represen-
tatives of their own choosing
To engage in activities together for the
purpose of collective bargaining or other
mutual aid or protection
To refrain from the exercise of any such
activities.
WE WILL NOT interfere with, restrain, or coerce
our employees in the exercise of the rights
guaranteed in Section 7 of the National Labor
Relations Act.
WE WILL NOT offer employees increased wages
or improved medical insurance benefits in an
effort to induce the employees to defeat the
Union.
WE WILL NOT threaten to close the business in
the event the employees select the Union as their
collective-bargaining agent.
WE WILL NOT discharge or otherwise discrimi-
nate against employees for engaging in union or
concerted activities protected by the Act.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere
with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise
of rights guaranteed under Section 7 of the Act.
628 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
WE WILL offer Robert Deasy full and immedi-
ate reinstatement to his former position or, if that
position no longer exists, to a substantially
equivalent position, and WE WILL make him
whole for any loss in wages or other benefits
incurred by him because of our discriminatory
and unlawful conduct in discharging him on
October 3, 1976.
A B & E FOREIGN CAR
PARTS
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
JAMES T. RASBURY, Administrative Law Judge: These
consolidated cases were heard before me in San Francisco,
California, on May 5 and 6, 1976. An unfair labor practice
charge was filed by Kenneth Silbert, an attorney for the
Charging Party, on October 6, 1975, alleging the unlawful
discharge of Robert Deasy by A B & E Foreign Car Parts
(herein Respondent), because of Deasy's activities on
behalf of Teamsters Local 241 (herein Union). The charge
was served on Respondent on October 8, 1975. A
complaint issued on January 26, 1976, based on the
aforementioned charge and alleged four specific acts of
interference, restraint, or coercion by Respondent during
October in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the National
Labor Relations Act, as amended, and the unlawful
discharge of Robert Deasy because of his membership in or
activities on behalf of the Charging Union in violation of
Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act.'
A Stipulation for Certification Upon Consent Election
was executed by counsel representing Respondent and by
the counsel for the Charging Union in the following
appropriate collective-bargaining unit:
All drivers, warehousemen and countermen employed
by the Employer at its San Francisco, California
location; excluding all other employees, guards and
supervisors, as defined in the Act. [See G.C. Exh. 2(b)].
Pursuant to that consent agreement, an election was held in
the agreed-upon unit of Respondent's employees on
November 24, 1975. The election resulted in two ballots
cast for the Petitioner, two ballots cast against the
participating labor organization, and two challenged
ballots.
The two challenged ballots were those of Jerome (Jerry)
Sadhu and Robert Deasy. The Regional Director's Report
on Challenged Ballots dated January 27, 1976, resolved the
status of Jerry Sadhu by recommending that the challenge
to his ballot be sustained because the evidence clearly
revealed that he is the son of Mrs. Shanti Sadhu, the sole
owner of the Employer. Section 2(3) of the Act specifically
excludes as employees individuals who are employed by
their parents. At the time of the election, Robert Deasy was
not on the Employer's payroll, and his ballot was
challenged by the Board agent conducting the election.
The validity of this challenge will be determined by
resolving the unfair labor practice allegedly occurring as
set forth in the complaint issued in Case 20-CA-10692.
The Regional Director then consolidated this unresolved
issue in Case 20-RC-13107 and the unfair labor practice
complaint.
Briefs were filed by tie General Counsel and Respon-
dent and have been carefully considered.
Upon the entire record and my observation of the
demeanor of the witnesses, I hereby make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. JURISDICTION
During the calendar year 1975, Respondent received
within the State of California goods of value exceeding
$50,000, which goods were shipped to Respondent directly
from outside the State of California, or purchased from
suppliers of Respondent within the State of California,
which suppliers in turn had purchased said goods from
outside the State of California. At all times material herein,
Respondent has been a sole proprietorship with its
principal place of business in San Francisco, California,
where it is engaged and has been engaged in the wholesale
and retail sale of foreign car parts. On the basis of this
undenied information, I find Respondent to be an
employer engaged in commerce and in operations affecting
commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7)
of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The parties stipulated and I hereby find that the
Automotive Warehousemen, Local 241, International
Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen
and Helpers of America, is, and at all times material herein
has been, a labor organization within the meaning of
Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE ISSUES
The pleadings and the evidence presented in this case
raise the following issues:
1. Is Jerome (Jerry) Sadhu, son of the sole owner, an
agent and supervisor of Respondent within the meaning of
Section 2( 13) and (11) of the Act?
2. What was the real motivating factor which precipi-
tated the discharge of Robert Deasy?
3. Did Jerome Sadhu and/or Mrs . Shanti Sadhu
threaten , promise, or interrogate employees as alleged in
the complaint in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act?
I At the hearing, the General Counsel was permitted to amend the
complaint by including two additional allegations of 8(a )( 1) violations
A B & E FOREIGN CAR PARTS 629
IV. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES ALLEGED
A. Background
Robert Deasy was hired by Respondent on April 21,
1975,2 as a counterman at the rate of $5 per hour. Except
for a brief vacation during the month of August, he
remained employed full time until October 3, on which
date he was terminated by Respondent. The duties of a
counterman included taking orders from customers, filling
the orders, preparing invoices, stocking shelves, storing
parts, and occasionally ordering parts. At all times during
the period of Deasy's employment there were two other
countermen, Kelvin Tom and Francis Anthony. Addition-
ally, for at least a portion of the time, Paul Francis was also
employed as a counterman and at all times Jerry Sadhu
was a member of the work force performing some of the
duties of a counterman and allegedly performing addition-
al duties which made him a supervisor. There also were two
deliverymen, Dan Perez and David Genochio.
B. Jerry Sadhu's Supervisory Status
Robert Deasy testified that he first learned of possible
employment with Respondent through the California
Human Resources Development Department. An employ-
ment clerk at the Human Resources Department called
Respondent and then gave the phone to Deasy, who talked
to Mrs. Sadhu concerning his experience for a job as
counterman with Respondent. The next day, Deasy
testified that he called Jerry Sadhu on the telephone and
talked to him, at which time he again discussed his
experience as a foreign car parts counterman and gave
Jerry Sadhu the names of his former employers. Jerry
Sadhu advised Deasy that the job which had been listed
with the California Employment Department had been
filled but, in the event help was needed in the future, they
might call him. The following Monday, April 21, Deasy
received a call from Jerry Sadhu and was asked if he could
report for work immediately. Deasy reported to Respon-
dent about 11 a.m. After a brief discussion with Jerry
Sadhu regarding wages and benefits, he promptly started to
work.
Kelvin Tom testified that he first went to work for
Respondent in 1973 and remained through November
1975. During the last 6 months of his employment, he
testified, he reported to Jerry Sadhu, and it was Jerry who
gave him his work assignments . Tom also testified that,
when a problem of discounts arose that he would discuss
the problem with Jerry Sadhu, who was always able to tell
him how much of a discount was to be given to the
particular account. Tom also testified that, in January
1975, he requested permission to take his vacation from
Jerry Sadhu, which permission was granted, without
further consultation with anyone else in authority.
Daniel Perez, currently employed as a deliveryman,
testified that, at the time he was hired by Respondent, he
was interviewed by Jerry Sadhu and questioned concerning
his knowledge in the area of foreign cars and, without
consulting anyone else, Jerry Sadhu advised Perez that he
would be hired on a 2-week trial basis.
David Genochio, currently employed as a deliveryman,
testified that he heard of a possible opening from his friend,
Daniel Perez, and that he spoke directly to Jerry Sadhu in
the presence of Francis Anthony and was hired immediate-
ly by Jerry Sadhu and promptly started to work.
Kelvin Tom also testified to an occasion where Jerry
Sadhu discharged an employee who refused to perform the
work requested by Sadhu because it was shortly before 9
a.m., which was the employees' regular starting time,
whereupon he was immediately discharged by Jerry Sadhu.
C. The Union Activity of Deasy
Both Kelvin Tom and Robert Deasy testified that,
following a private discussion regarding insurance, a
question ' came up concerning the possibility of group
insurance for the employees at Respondent's place of
business. This in turn led to a suggestion that the
employees might consider the advantages of joining a
union. Following conversation with employees Daniel
Perez and David Genochio, Kelvin Tom contacted Jim
Kincaid, business representative for the Union, from
Respondent's premises by use of the telephone on either
September 15 or 16. A meeting was arranged for September
17 so that the four employees could talk to Kincaid
regarding the Union. At this- meeting in the union offices
employees Deasy, Tom, Perez, and Genochio signed union
authorization cards.3
On Monday, September 29, Kelvin Tom overheard Jerry
Sadhu mention Jim Kincaid's name on the telephone then,
following a pause, heard Jerry say, "My guys?" At the
conclusion of this telephone conversation, Tom saw Jerry
Sadhu speak to Francis Anthony in private. Later on the
same day, Deasy heard Jerry Sadhu talking on the
telephone and overheard the following conversation: "Did
you get any names? [Pause.] So that's the punk. [Pause.] So
that's the son-of-a-bitch."
The following day, Tuesday, September 30, Jerry Sadhu
told Deasy that due to the financial situation at the store
they were going to have to make some cutbacks in the
number of employees and that Deasy would have to go.
During this conversation, there was no indication that
Deasy's work had been unsatisfactory; he had not received
any written warnings during the period of his employment.
There had been no indications of an economic curtailment
or conversation indicating that Respondent was consider-
ing laying off any of its employees. Later on the same
afternoon, Deasy learned that Mrs. Sadhu had been
hospitalized, and he asked Jerry Sadhu if he might be
retained. On Friday, October 3, Deasy was "laid off."
Kelvin Tom testified that on Monday, following the
layoff of Deasy, when he was eating lunch with Jerry
Sadhu, Jerry Sadhu "asked me how well I knew Bob. I just
told him we were just friends. He said not to tell anybody
this, but the reason he had fired Bob was because he had
gone to the Union [not] because of financial reasons." In
this conversation, Jerry Sadhu further related that he had
2 The relevant and significant events relating to this case occurred in the 3 Apparently neither Francis Anthony nor Paul Francis was invited to
year 1975 and, unless otherwise indicated , all dates hereinafter will be in the attend this initial effort by the employees. Both Anthony and Paul Francis
year 1975 are related to the Sadhus.
630 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
learned about the union activities from Keith and Norman,
employees of the Lucas warehouse, which is involved in the
business of auto parts imported from England.
D. Threats and Promises
Kelvin Tom also testified that, just before he resigned his
position with Respondent on or about November 10 or 11,
he visited Mrs. Sadhu in her home, at which time Jerry
Sadhu was present. According to Tom, Jerry Sadhu and
Mrs. Sadhu were attempting to persuade him to stay on his
job with Respondent. Tom testified: "They offered me a
wage increase , plus a promise of medical benefits if I
stayed and voted the Union down."
Dan Perez testified to a statement he heard Jerry Sadhu
make at a time when both Perez and David Genochio were
present. According to the testimony, Jerry Sadhu was
posting the National Labor Relations Board poster
informing the employees of the election, at which time he
said, "If you guys want to go union, you guys would have
to find-no, he would wash his hands of it and we would
have to fmd a new boss and I would sell the shop." Neither
Perez nor Genochio responded in any manner.
E. The Respondent's Defenses
Ronald Brittain, a public accountant who services the
Respondent's account, testified, in essence, that a friend of
his son had made a comment that Deasy was not the
"salesman that he was cracked up to be." As a conse-
quence, he discussed this comment with Mrs. Sadhu and
Jerry Sadhu, and it was suggested that an audit be made of
the volume of work produced by Deasy as compared to the
other countermen. Brittain's testimony indicated that 2
days were selected at random, and the number of sales
tickets for each of the countermen counted. Deasy's
number of sales tickets was only average, but he was
receiving the highest pay of any of the countermen.
Mrs. Shanti Sadhu's testimony tended to indicate that
Deasy was only hired as a temporary employee in order to
replace Paul Francis, her nephew, who had broken his leg
in an automobile accident, and also because Jerry Sadhu
was going to be married on April 26 and would be taking a
vacation. However, there was no testimony that Deasy was
so advised at the time he was hired. Her testimony also
blamed Deasy for drinking beer on the job and entertain-
ing friends in the shop when there were customers waiting
to be assisted. Her testimony further indicated that he
spent too much time assisting purchasers of parts in how to
repair their automobiles; that Respondent had received
complaints from customers, including two undated letters
which were received on or about the date of Deasy's
termination. However, there was a paucity of testimony
and a complete absence of any written evidence to indicate
that Deasy had ever been specifically warned of any or all
4 See Wigmore, Evidence 285-290 (3d ed.); also Michael Benevento and
John Benevento d/b/a M. Benvento Sands & Gravel Co., 131 NLRB 358, 364
(1961); Marriello Fabrics, Inc. and Michael Marnello, 149 NLRB 333, 341
(1964).
5 Sec. 2(l 1) of the Act reads as follows: "Me term `supervisor' means any
individual having authority, in the interest of the employer, to hire, transfer,
suspend, lay off, recall , promote , discharge, assign, reward, or discipline
other employees, or responsibly to direct them, or to adjust their grievances,
of these shortcomings and told that, if they were not
corrected, he would be "laid off' or "discharged."
Don Ray Sharp testified that he had been a regular
customer of Respondent for a number of years but that he
became disenchanted with Deasy, who insisted on trying to
assist him rather than permitting him (Sharp) to talk to
Jerry Sadhu, who Sharp felt was better qualified to aid him
on the particular problems of his foreign automobile. The
letter which he claims to have written and mailed on
October 1 voicing his complaints to Respondent appears in
the record as Respondent's Exhibit 2. The letter is undated,
and there is no proof that it was received prior to the
discharge of Deasy.
Theresa Reena Devi Sadhu, the owner's daughter,
identified Respondent's Exhibit 1 as a customer's com-
plaint letter which she received in the mail on October 1
(again this letter was not dated). Her other relevant
testimony related to a denial that her mother had offered
Kelvin Tom an increase in wages if he would stay with
them and help to vote the Union down. Theresa Sadhu also
identified Robert Deasy's claim for unemployment insur-
ance on which he had indicated that he was "laid off."
Analysis
The alleged and apparent wrongdoer in most of this
series of events is Jerry Sadhu. He was not called as a
witness, and there was no explanation as to why he was not
called. In the absence of some reasonable explanation, the
failure of one party to call a witness within its control
justifies the reasonable inference that his testimony, if
called, would be unfavorable.4 The testimony of Deasy,
Tom, Perez, and Genochio regarding Jerry Sadhu's
authority (or apparent authority and actual conduct) to
hire, fire, and direct the efforts of the other employees; his
disparaging remarks regarding the Union; his threat to sell
the shop in the event the Union got in; and the
acknowledgment that Deasy was discharged because of his
interest and activity on behalf of the Union, stand in the
record undenied.
On the basis of the above-related incidents and the
generally credited testimony of the witnesses referred to, I
herewith fmd Jerome (Jerry) Sadhu to be, and at all times
material herein to have been, an agent and supervisor of
Respondent acting within the meaning of Section 2(13) and
2(11) of the Act .5 At the hearing, counsel for Respondent
acknowledged that Mrs. Shanti Sadhu was the sole owner
of Respondent. As such certainly she was a supervisor and
agent within the meaning of the Act.
The testimony of Respondent's witnesses at the hearing
was that of a "scattergun" with the hope that some portion
of it might provide an acceptable excuse or reason for
laying off Deasy. The reasonable, candid, and straightfor-
ward testimony of General Counsel's witnesses, whom I
have credited, when weighed in light of the adverse
or effectively to recommend such action , if in connection with the foregoing
the exercise of such authority is not of a mere routine or clerical nature, but
requires the use of independent judgment."
Sec. 2( 13) reads: "In determining whether any person is acting as an
`agent' of another person so as to make such other person responsible for his
acts, the question of whether the specific acts performed were actually
authorized or subsequently ratified shall not be controlling."
A B & E FOREIGN CAR PARTS 631
inference to be drawn by the failure of Respondent to
produce Jerry Sadhu or explain his absence, lead to the
inescapable conclusion that Respondent's reason for
discharging Deasy was pretextual and that much of the
evidence and testimony by Respondent's witnesses at the
hearing was contrived.
V. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
UPON COMMERCE
The activities of Respondent as set forth in section IV,
above, occurring in connection with the business opera-
tions of the Employer, 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 obstructing commerce and the free flow of
commerce.
VI. THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has engaged in certain
unfair labor practices, I shall recommend that it cease and
desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action
designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
Respondent having discriminatorily discharged Robert
Deasy, I find it necessary that Respondent be ordered to
reinstate him to his former or substantially equivalent
position without prejudice to his seniority or other rights
and privileges, dismissing, if necessary, anyone who may
have been hired to perform the work which he was
performing at the time of his severance on October 3, 1975.
Additionally, Respondent will be ordered to make Robert
Deasy whole for any loss of earnings he may have suffered
by reason of his unlawful termination. Backpay is to be
computed on a quarterly basis, making appropriate
deductions for interim earnings, and with interest to be
paid at the rate of 6 percent per annum as set forth by the
Board in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289 (1950);
Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716 (1962).
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.
2. The Automotive Warehousemen, Local 241, Interna-
tional Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehouse-
men and Helpers of America, is a labor organization within
the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. Jerome (Jerry) Sadhu and Mrs. Shanti Sadhu are,
and each is, a supervisor and agent of Respondent within
the meaning of Section 2(11) and (13) of the Act.
4. By discharging Robert Deasy on October 3, 1975,
because of Deasy's support and activity on behalf of the
Union, Respondent has violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of
the Act.
5. By the disparaging remarks towards the Union and
by threatening to sell the shop, Respondent by the actions
and conduct of its supervisor, Jerry Sadhu, has coerced and
6 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the
Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the findings,
conclusions , and recommended Order herein shall , as provided in Sec
threatened its employees in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of
the Act.
6. By offering Kelvin Tom an increase in wages and
improved medical insurance benefits if he would remain an
employee and help to defeat the Union, Respondent has
interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the
exercise of their rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act,
in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
7. Allegations of the complaint not specifically set forth
hereinabove as violations of the Act are to be dismissed.
VIII . DISPOSITION OF CHALLENGED BALLOT
Having found that Robert Deasy was unlawfully dis-
charged by Respondent because of his support and activity
on behalf of the Union, it is recommended that the
challenge to his ballot be overruled and that his ballot be
opened and counted. Thereafter, the results of the election
to be certified by the Board.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law,
and upon the entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c)
of the Act, I hereby issue the following recommended:
ORDERS
The Respondent, A B & E Foreign Car Parts, San
Francisco, California, its officers, agents, successors, and
assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Discharging, laying off, or otherwise discriminating
against employees in regard to hire or tenure of employ-
ment or any other term or condition of employment
because of their activities on behalf of a labor organization
or for engaging in any activity protected by Section 7 of the
Act.
(b) Promising or offering employees improved wages
and/or medical insurance benefits if they will assist in
defeating the Union.
(c) Making disparaging remarks about Automotive
Warehousemen and Local 241, International Brotherhood
of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of
America, or any other labor organization, or threatening to
close Respondent 's place of business in the event the
employees affiliate with a labor organization.
2. Take the following affirmative action designed to
effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Make Robert Deasy whole for any loss of earnings he
may have suffered as a result of his discriminatory
discharge and offer him reinstatement in the manner set
forth hereinabove in the section entitled "The Remedy."
(b) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the
Board or its agents all payroll and other records necessary
to compute the backpay rights of Robert Deasy as set forth
in "The Remedy" section of this Decision.
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.
632 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
(c) Post at its San Francisco, California, facility, copies of
the attached notice marked "Appendix." 7 Copies of said
notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for
Region 20, after being duly signed by Respondent's
authorized representative, shall be posted by Respondent
immediately upon receipt thereof and be maintained by it
for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places,
7 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 Board" shall read "Posted Pursuant
including all places where notices to employees 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 20, in
writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what
steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of
the National Labor Relations Board."