Acme Die Casting Corporation

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 9, 1982

262 N.L.R.B. 777 (N.L.R.B. 1982)

ACME DIE CASTING CORPORATION
Acme Die Casting Corporation and Local 456, Serv-
ice Employees International Union. Case 13-
CA-20350
July 9, 1982
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN VAN DE WATER AND
MEMBERS FANNING AND HUNTER
On February 22, 1982, Administrative Law
Judge Robert T. Wallace issued the attached Deci-
sion in this proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent
filed exceptions and a supporting brief, and the
General Counsel filed a brief in answer to Re-
spondent's exceptions.
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 2 of the Administrative Law
Judge and to adopt his recommended Order, as
modified herein. 3
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-
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 362 (3d Cir. 1951). We have
carefully examined the record and find no basis for reversing his findings.
2 The Administrative Law Judge concluded that Respondent violated
Sec. (a)(1) and (3) of the Act by laying off employees Nicholas Valen-
zuela and Jose Reynosa in retaliation for their union activities and to
deter employees from selecting the Union in the then forthcoming repre-
sentation election. We note, however, that the Union's petition for an
election was not filed until the day after the layoffs. In adopting the Ad-
ministrative Law Judge's conclusion, we find that the layoffs, in addition
to being retaliatory, were designed to deter employees from supporting
the Union generally.
Member Hunter finds it unnecessary to pass on the Administrative
Law Judge's reliance on Respondent's post-layoff campaign literature and
statements by Respondent's president to establish that animus existed at
the time of the layoffs. In so doing, he notes that Respondent's unlawful
interrogation of Valenzuela in July 1980 provides independent evidence
of animus preceding the layoffs on September 8, 1980, and he further
relies on the Administrative Law Judge's findings regarding the pretex-
tual nature of Respondent's economic defense.
I We shall modify the Administrative Law Judge's recommended
Order so as to require Respondent to expunge from its files any reference
to the unlawful layoffs of Nicholas Valenzuela and Jose Reynosa on Sep-
tember 8, 1980, and to notify them in writing that this has been done and
that evidence of these unlawful layoffs will not be used as a basis for
future personnel actions against them. See Sterling Sugars Inc. 261
NLRB No. 71 (1982).
We also shall modify the recommended Order so as to include a gener-
al cease-and-desist provision.
262 NLRB No. 97
fled below, and hereby orders that the Respondent,
Acme Die Casting Corporation, Northbrook, Illi-
nois, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns,
shall take the action set forth in the said recom-
mended Order, as so modified:
1. Insert the following as paragraph l(c):
"(c) In any like or related manner interfering
with, restraining, or coercing its employees in the
exercise of the rights guaranteed them by Section 7
of the Act."
2. Insert the following as paragraph 2(c) and re-
letter the subsequent paragraphs accordingly:
"(c) Expunge from its files any reference to the
layoffs of Nicholas Valenzuela and Jose Reynosa
on September 8, 1980, and notify them in writing
that this has been done and that evidence of their
unlawful layoffs will not be used as a basis for
future personnel actions against them."
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
WE WILL NOT discharge, lay off, or other-
wise discriminate against any of you for sup-
porting Local 456, Service Employees Interna-
tional Union, or any other labor organization.
WE WILL NOT coercively question you
about union support or activities.
WE WILl NOT in any like or related manner
interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in
the exercise of the rights guaranteed them by
Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL offer Nicholas Valenzuela immedi-
ate and full reinstatement to his former job as
setup man or, if that job no longer exists, to a
substantially equivalent position, without prej-
udice to his seniority or any other rights or
privileges previously enjoyed, and WE WILL
make him and Jose Reynosa whole for any
loss of earnings or other benefits resulting
from their layoffs, plus interest.
WE WILL expunge from our files any refer-
ences to the layoffs of Nicholas Valenzuela
and Jose Reynosa on September 8, 1980, and
WE WILL notify them that this has been done
and that evidence of their unlawful layoffs will
not be used as a basis for future personnel ac-
tions against them.
ACME DIE CASTING CORPORATION
777
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
ROBERT T. WALLACE, Administrative Law Judge:
This case was heard in Chicago, Illinois, on June 18 and
19, 1981. The charges were filed by Local 456, Service
Employees International Union, herein called the Union,
on September 10, 1980, and the complaint was issued on
November 20, 1980.1 The issues are whether Acme Die
Casting Corporation, herein called Respondent: (a) un-
lawfully interrogated an employee and (b) discriminatori-
ly laid off or discharged two employee organizers, in
violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the National Labor
Relations Act.
Upon the entire record, including my observation of
the demeanor of the witnesses, and after consideration of
the briefs filed by the General Counsel and Respondent,
I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. JURISDICTION
Respondent, a Delaware corporation, manufactures
aluminum and zinc castings at its facility in Northbrook,
Illinois, from which it annually ships goods valued in
excess of $50,000 directly to customers at points outside
the State. Respondent admits, and I find, that it is an em-
ployer engaged in commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act, and the Union is a
labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of
the Act.
II. ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
The Union began its drive to organize 120 nonsupervi-
sory employees at Respondent's plant in July 1980; and,
in furtherance of that objective, its representatives ap-
peared regularly in Respondent's parking lot and distrib-
uted literature to employees entering and leaving the
plant, and numerous meetings with employees were held
at locations away from the plant.
Nicholas Valenzuela, 2 an employee in the secondary
aluminum department, worked a shift beginning at 7
a.m., and on several occasions in early July he stopped
to talk with the organizers before entering the plant.3
Later he attended several meetings at the union hall, and
toward the end of August he opted for representation by
the Union by signing an authorization card. He then
began actively to solicit other employees to support the
Union and he distributed to them between 50 to 60 blank
authorization cards. Approximately 25 of those were
signed and returned to him by September 8. His solicita-
tion and distribution of cards was done in the cafeteria,
I Another case (Case 13-RC-15565) involving objections to an election
held on November 14, 1980, had been assigned to be heard with Case 13-
CA-20350. However, at the outset of the hearing the Union requested,
and was granted, permission to withdraw the objections.
a Five witnesses, including Valenzuela, were called by counsel for the
Oeneral Counsel. Their primary language is Spanish, and all testified
through an interpreter.
s Valenzuela claims that during this period the head of his department
(tarry Stoner) approached him while he was alone at work and asked:
"Nicholas, do you know something about the Union," to which he re-
plied: "I don't know."
restroom, and work areas of the plant, usually during his
breaktimes, within view of passing supervisors, and with-
out any attempt at concealment.
On Monday morning, September 8, Valenzuela was
told by Department Head Stoner to go to the office and
there assist two newly hired Spanish-speaking employees
in filling out employment forms. That task took about 1
hour during which Valenzuela, in Spanish, told the new
employees about the Union, and he obtained their signa-
tures on authorization cards. All the while Plant Man-
ager Harold Georgeson was about 3 feet away from Va-
lenzuela seated at his desk and alternately talking on the
phone and writing. After leaving the office Valenzuela
escorted the new employees to their assigned work area
where he showed one how to wash parts and taught the
other how to cut parts using a saw machine. At the end
of the workday, he was told to report to the office.
When he arrived there, Georgeson gave him two checks
and told him he was laid off because "we have many,
many set-up men and the work is slow." Valenzuela then
offered to work as a drill machine operator, but George-
son replied: "I'm sorry, Nicholas. The work is too slow.
I will call you. Thank you."
Valenzuela was never recalled. He had worked for Re-
spondent for over 9 years; and he was a setup man for
the last 3 years, a job he had obtained upon the recom-
mendation of Supervisor Stoner. He knew how to oper-
ate all machines in his department, and to "set up" ma-
chines to do particular jobs, and did whatever was neces-
sary to assure maximum utilization of equipment.
Two other nonsupervisory employees did setup work
as of September 8. Of those, one (Faustino Ontiveros)
had 1-1/2 years' experience and worked regulary as a
setup man, and the other (Samuel Aguirre) was an assist-
ant who Valenzuela had helped to train during the 3-
week period just prior to September 8.
Up to the time of his layoff, Valenzuela had not no-
ticed any lack of work. Like other employees, he regu-
larly put in 9 hours a day, 6 days a week, an often
worked on Sundays. In fact, he worked on the day
before he was laid off, a Sunday. During his 9 years with
Respondent, he had never been given any verbal or writ-
ten warnings, nor had he ever been laid off.
Jose Reynosa also talked to the union organizer in the
parking lot and, after attending at least five meetings in
the union hall, signed an authorization card on or about
August 30, 1980. Although he did not pass out cards at
the plant, he explained to other employees what the
Union was all about, with the aid of a "white paper" and
a sample authorization card supplied by the Union. He
had those items in hand while talking with a group of
employees just outside the cafeteria during a lunch break
on or about August 27. Stoner passed by and said,
"Break is over." That was unusual because the group
had 4 or 5 minutes left, and Stoner had not interrupted
his breaktime before even when he had exceeded the au-
thorized period. At the end of the workday on Septem-
ber 8, Stoner told him to report to the office. There he
met Georgeson who gave him two checks and told him
he was laid off. No reason was given. Reynosa had
worked for Respondent for nearly 10 months as a gener-
778
ACME DIE CASTING CORPORATION
al laborer which involved, among other things, operating
a punch press machine; and he had never received an
oral or written reprimand, nor had he been told that his
work was not satisfactory. During the month prior to his
layoff, he had worked 9 hours a day, 5 days a week, and
some Saturdays, and it appeared to him that plenty of
work was available. He had more seniority than a
number of other employees within his job classification,
including the two employees hired on the day of his
layoff.
Other than Valenzuela and Reynosa, no other employ-
ees were laid off by Respondent on September 8, nor
does it appear that any layoffs were effected during the
several months before and after that date.
Reynosa was recalled after 6 weeks and resumed per-
forming essentially the same tasks and working the same
number of hours as before, except for a "short time"
when he worked a 40-hour week.
Reynosa and three other employees4 of Respondent
also described two meetings at the plant on successive
days just prior to the representation election on Novem-
ber 14. 5 At those meetings (each of which lasted at least
an hour), Respondent's president (LeRoy Hagner),
through an interpreter, assertedly told the assembled
workers that they would lose profit sharing, free uni-
forms, and coffeebreaks if the Union won the election
and, if it lost, that he would improve communications
and rectify complaints concerning matters such as salary,
insurance, and job supervision.
In a series of undated notices posted at the plant prior
to the election, Respondent vigorously opposed the
Union. Taken together, the notices reflect a calculated
effort to evoke fear and insecurity in employees through
frequent references to the likelihood and dire conse-
quences of a strike in the event the Union was chosen as
bargaining agent. Among other things, the notice: (1) de-
picted the Union as "a group of outsiders, interested first
in their own financial success," (2) characterized the
Union as prone to calling strikes, and (3) emphasized the
"financial and mental agony" of having to go through a
strike, i.e., the consequent loss of wages, unavailability of
unemployment compensation in Illinois, possible inability
of the Union to provide strike benefits, and loss of jobs
in the event the Union's demands were unreasonable.
President Hagner testified briefly. He denied having
told the assembled employees that they would lose profit
sharing, free coffee, and uniforms if the Union won the
election or having made any promises of benefits if the
Union lost. I find his testimony unpersuasive, particularly
in light of the patent hostility to the Union displayed in
the notices to employees. Instead, I find that he did in
fact make threats of retaliation and promises of benefits
depending on the outcome of the election, as per the tes-
timony of Reynosa and the three other witnesses who, as
employees of Respondent, appeared at some risk to
themselves.
4 Marcelino Lopez, Miguel Paez, and Fredenco Valenzuela, brother of
Nicholas. As of the date of hearing, they had worked for Respondent for
approximately 2, 2-1/2, and 3 years, respectively.
i Testimony concerning those meetings was received for the purpose
of estabishing possible animus of Respondent toward the Union, and not
to establish independent uncharged violations of the Act.
During July and August 1980, Department Head
Stoner had no "direct" knowledge that a union campaign
was going on, but he was aware of rumors to that effect.
Also, he had no recollection of having inquired of Ni-
cholas Valenzuela in July concerning the Union, nor did
he recall having told Reynosa to return to his job after a
work break in August. His lack of recall, however, falls
short of a denial, and I find probable and credit the ac-
counts of Valenzuela and Reynosa. Moreover, from his
admitted knowledge of the rumors and the openness of
solicitation by the organizers in the parking lot and by
Valenzuela and Reynosa in the plant, I conclude that he
was well aware of the campaign and the activism of the
two employees, and that his awareness prompted both
the inquiry to Valenzuela and the premature termination
of Reynosa's lunch break.
Stoner also stated that he told Valenzuela that he did
not deserve a raise in response to a request by the latter
made during the week before his layoff. Valenzuela
claimed that the conversation ended at that point. But
Stoner contended that he went on to criticize Valenzuela
for not being at his proper work area when needed and
because other employees had complained to him (Stoner)
that Valenzuela was not "working properly" and "favor-
ing some people." I accept Valenzuela's version. Further,
I view the criticisms themselves as having no validity
and as an effort by Stoner to bolster the layoff action. In
this respect Stoner admitted that he never gave Valen-
zuela any verbal or written warnings and that he made
no attempt to approach him about any perceived derelic-
tion, with one possible exceptions Instead, he stated that
he asked "management" for advice and was told that
"they would look into it and see what they would rec-
ommend." I find that explanation disingenuous and in-
credible.
At the time of the hearing, setup operations in Stoner's
department were being performed regularly by two em-
ployees with another assisting; and that amount of staff-
ing had continued without change from when Valen-
zuela worked his last day as a regular setup man on Sep-
tember 8.
Plant Manager Georgeson spends 75 percent of his
time in the work areas of the plant every day. He
claimed that Stoner had not advised him of union orga-
nizing efforts and that he had no knowledge of the cam-
paign until after he laid off Valenzuela and Reynosa.
Assertedly, he decided to lay off two employees on
September 8 because a recession had started about that
time and he felt it was beginning to affect his Company.
In that regard, he had seen a computer printout of pur-
chase orders which showed "fewer and fewer jobs to be
run in the future." Also, he had noted that the volume of
aluminum ingots purchased during the third quarter of
a Although Stoner averred that on at least four occasions he spoke to
Valenzuela about fixing his (Valenzuela's) car in the parking lot during
duty time, he conceded having given him permission a number of times
so as not to inconvenience as many as seven employees in Valenzuela's
carpool; and he could recall only one instance during 1980 (in the sum-
mertime) when Valenzuela may have lacked permission. On that occasion
he simply told Valenzuela to let him know "where he was at."
779
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
1980 was down by 38 percent from the volume pur-
chased during the second quarter of that year.?
He determined that one of the two employees should
be a setup man because the Company had invested ap-
proximately $250,000 in new presses and drill/mill ma-
chines since 1979, many of which had a "memory" capa-
bility and did not have to be reset to continue jobs that
had been interrupted when machines were temporarily
diverted to other tasks. Also some of the work per-
formed in Valenzuela's department had been transferred
to a "precision machine center" established in another
area of «he plant in June.
Over a 5-year period prior to September 8, he had
"laid off" between 15 and 20 employees, but some of
those had actually been discharged for disciplinary rea-
sons. Seniority was not an important factor in decisions
regarding who should be laid off. Instead, he relied on
his assessment of the relative value of employees to the
Company. Further, when he determined that a higher
paid employee was not needed he did not offer any
option of taking a lesser paying job because an employee
who accepted that option would be "unhappy . . . and
of little value to the company."
Georgeson provided various reasons for his selection
of Valenzuela for layoff and none for Reynosa. He stated
that Valenzuela had taken two extended leaves of ab-
sence (6 and 4-1/2 weeks, respectively) over a 36-month
period, and that during those periods setup operations
had been performed satisfactorily by Ontiveros aided by
Supervisor Stoner and one "Dan Bassgar," an individual
described by Valenzuela as a "boss set-up man." Also, it
seemed to him that Valenzuela had become "disinterest-
ed" in his job after returning from the second leave on
August 13. He formed that opinion because "I had ob-
served him many times talking to individuals in other de-
partments, not doing his job and keeping other people
from working .... " Also, hie had observed Valenzuela
in the parking lot before quitting time sitting in his auto-
mobile with his engine running 5 or perhaps 10 minutes
before quitting time, and he had "observed him taking
unauthorized breaks . .. [spending] a lot of time in the
lunchroom that was unauthorized." Under cross-exami-
nation, Georgeson conceded .that Valenzuela had re-
ceived prior approval for his leaves of absence, that he
was not aware whether other employees, including setup
man Ontiveros, took extended leaves, and that he never
mentioned the perceived derelictions to Valenzuela. In
connection with the latter, he felt that it was a supervi-
sor's responsibility to impose discipline and he was sur-
prised to learn at the hearing that Stoner had not said
anything to Valenzuela.
For a "short period of time" after the layoffs George-
son reduced the workday from 9 to 8 hours for the day
shift and from 10 to 9 hours for the night shift. As of the
date of hearing no further layoffs had been effected and
four or five new employees had been hired. Although
Georgeson stated that Valenzuela was not replaced he
I Neither the printout nor the source from which he derived material
purchase data was made available at the hearing. Also, no data was pro-
vided concerning the asserted decline in orders; and, as to material pur-
chases, no annual totals are given and the third quarter of 1980 is not
compared with the third quarter of 1979.
was not aware that Aguirre had been trained to do setup
work during the 3-week period of Valenzuela's layoff.
Nor did he know whether Aguirre did setup work subse-
quent to September 8.
Analysis and Conclusions
As found above, Respondent (at least through Supervi-
sor Stone) had knowledge of the union campaign and of
the fact that Valenzuela and Reynosa were actively so-
liciting other employees on its behalf. Also, I have found
that Respondent (through President Hagner) evinced
animus toward the Union in its campaign literature and
by making threats of retaliation and promises of benefits
dependent on the outcome of the representation election.
Those circumstances, coupled with the undisputed facts
(a) that Valenzuela had worked for Respondent for over
9 years and Reynosa for 10 months during which neither
received any verbal or written reprimands; (b) that they
were the only employees laid off on September 8, 1980,
and abruptly so because they were laid off at the end of
that day (a Monday), whereas Respondent's workweek
ended on Saturday; and (c) that they were the only em-
ployees laid off during at least a I-year period extending
from July 1980 when the union drive began, persuade me
that their layoffs on September 8 were motivated by a
desire to punish them for engaging in protected activities
and to deter other employees from opting for the Union
in the then forthcoming representation election.
In reaching that conclusion, I have carefully consid-
ered Respondent's claim that the layoffs were prompted
by economic considerations, but I find that defense to be
entirely pretextual. Wright Line, a Division of Wright
Line, Inc., 251 NLRB 1083 (1980). In that regard Re-
spondent offered only the sketchiest of data to support
its claim that a production slowdown had occurred or
was impending (see fn. 7). Plant Manager Georgeson
chose not to offer Reynosa that or any other explanation
for his layoff. Indeed, on the very day the two employ-
ees were laid off, two others were hired to work in the
same job classification as Reynosa; and, despite George-
son's impression to the contrary, it appears that another
employee in fact replaced Valenzuela as a setup man.
But even if there had been a real economic reason, I
am persuaded that Valenzuela and Reynosa would not
have been the ones selected for layoff absent their activi-
ties on behalf of the Union. Here again I find significant
the circumstance that neither had ever been reprimanded
either verbally or in writing, and I find singularly un-
impressive Georgeson's stated reasons for selection of
Valenzuela and note that he offered no reason at all for
selecting Reynosa.
Stoner's inquiry to Valenzuela in July 1980 was patent-
ly coercive. Continental Chemical Company, 232 NLRB
705 (1977); American Freightways Co. Inc., 124 NLRB
146 (1959).
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. By discriminatorily laying off Nicholas Valenzuela
and Jose Reynosa because of their support of the Union,
Respondent engaged in unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 8(a)(l) and (3) of the Act.
780
ACME DIE CASTING CORPORATION
2. By coercively interrogating Nicholas Valenzuela
concerning his knowledge of the Union, Respondent en-
gaged in an unfair labor practice within the meaning of
Section 8(aXl) of the Act.
3. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has engaged in unfair
labor practices, I find it necessary to order it to cease
and desist from engaging in those practices and to take
certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the poli-
cies of the Act. Such affirmative action will include an
offer to reinstate Nicholas Valenzuela in the position of
setup man (or to a substantially equivalent position if that
job is no longer in existence) and to make the latter and
Jose Reynosa whole for any loss of earnings or other
benefits resulting from their layoff on September 8, 1980.
Any backpay is to be computed on a quarterly basis
from the date of layoff to the date of reinstatement in the
case of Reynosa and to the date of a proper offer of rein-
statement in the case of Valenzuela, in accordance with
F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289 (1950), with
interest thereon as established in Florida Steel Corpora-
tion, 231 NLRB 651 (1977); see, generally, Isis Plumbing
& Heating Co, 138 NLRB 716 (1962).
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, I issue the fol-
lowing recommended:
ORDER 8
The Respondent, Acme Die Casting Corporation,
Northbrook, Illinois, its officers, agents, successors, and
assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
* In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the
Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the find-
ings, conclusions, and recommended Order herein shall, as provided in
Sec. 102.48 of the Rules and Regulations, be adopted by the Board and
become its findings, conclusions, and Order, and all objections thereto
shall be deemed waived for all purposes.
(a) Laying off, discharging, or otherwise discriminat-
ing against any employee for supporting Local 456,
Service Employees International Union, or any other
union.
(b) Coercively interrogating any employee about union
support or union activities.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to
effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Offer Nicholas Valenzuela immediate and full rein-
statement to his former job as setup man, and make him
whole, with interest, for any loss of earnings or benefits
resulting from his layoff on September 8, 1980, in the
manner set forth in "The Remedy."
(b) Make Jose Reynosa whole, with interest, for any
loss of earnings or benefits resulting from his layoff on
September 8, 1980, in the manner set forth in "The
Remedy."
(c) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the
Board or its agents, for examination and copying, all
payroll records and reports, and all other records neces-
sary to analyze the amount of backpay due under the
terms of this Order.
(d) Post at its plant in Northbrook, Illinois, copies of
the attached notice marked "Appendix."9 Copies of said
notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for
Region 13, after being duly signed by Respondent's au-
thorized representative, 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 employees
are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken
by Respondent to ensure that the notices are not altered,
defaced, or covered by any other material.
(e) Notify the Regional Director for Region 13, in
writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what
steps it has taken to comply herewith.
* In the event that this Order is enforced by a Judgment of a United
States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by
Order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursu-
ant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an
Order of the National Labor Relations Board."
781