Alco Electric Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 30, 1981

258 N.L.R.B. 819 (N.L.R.B. 1981)

AI.C() EECTRIC CO.. INC.
Alco Electric Co., Inc. and Gilbert Rivera. Case 2-
CA-16819
September 30, 1981
DECISION AND ORDER
By MEMBERS FANNING, JENKINS, ANI)
ZIMMERMAN
On September 29. 1980, Administrative Law
Judge Howard Edelman issued the attached Deci-
sion in this proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent
filed exceptions and a supporting 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 brief
and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings, and
conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge and
to adopt his recommended Order.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 and
hereby orders that the Respondent, Alco Electric
Co., Inc., Bronx, New York, its officers, agents,
successors, and assigns, shall take the action set
forth in the said recommended Order, except that
the attached notice is substituted for that of the
Administrative Law Judge.
Respondent has excepted io certain credibility findings made by the
Administrative Law Judge. It is the Board's established policy no 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. Sndard Dry 4a/l 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.
In accordance With his dissent in Olympic Medical (Corporation. 250
NLRB 146 (198(). Member Jenkins :ould aard interest on, he hackpay
due based on the formula set forth thereill
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAl. LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WIll. NOT discharge or otherwise dis-
criminate against our employees in order to
discourage membership in, or activities on
behalf of, Local 363, International Brother-
hood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehouse-
men and Helpers of America, or any other
labor organization.
258 NLRB No. 110
WE Wll. NOT in any other manner interfere
with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exer-
cise of their rights guaranteed in Section 7 of
the Act.
WI: wii.t. offer to Gilbert Rivera immediate
and full reinstatement to his former job or, if
that job no longer exists, to a substantially
equivalent position, without prejudice to his
seniority or other rights and privileges previ-
ously enjoyed, and make him whole for any
loss of earnings or benefits he may have suf-
fered by reason of our discrimination against
him, with interest.
AI.CO EI.ECTRIC Co., INC.
DECISION
SI'AIMENI O THE CASI
HOWA.RD E)tI MSAN. Administrative Law Judge: This
case was heard by me in New York, New York, on May
8, 1980. This case originated pursuant to a charge filed
by Gilbert Rivera, an individual, on October 12. 1979.
On December 6, 1979, a complaint issued alleging that
Alco Electric Co., Inc., Respondent herein, had dis-
charged Rivera because he had joined, supported. or as-
sisted Local 363, International Brotherhood of Team-
sters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of Amer-
ica, herein called the Union, in violation of Section
8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act.
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT
Respondent is a New York corporation with an office
and place of business in Bronx, New York, where it has
been engaged as an electrical subcontractor in the build-
ing and construction industry installing electrical wiring
and fixtures in residential and commercial buildings. Re-
spondent, since at least 1976 and continuing up to the
present time, has been and is now an employer-member
of United Construction Contractors Association, herein
called the Association, which is an organization com-
posed of employers engaged in the construction industry
and which exists for the purpose, inter alia, of represent-
ing its employer-members in negotiating and administer-
ing collective-bargaining agreements with various labor
organizations including the Union herein.
The Association had a collective-bargaining agreement
with the Union since June 30, 1976, this agreement ex-
pired on June 30, 1979. The collective-bargaining agree-
ment covered a unit of electrical apprentices, mechanics,
and journeymen. Respondent, a member of the Associ-
ation, is bound by the terms of the collective-bargaining
agreement between the Association and Local 363.
Henry Moses. president director of Respondent, testified
that as yet no new bargaining agreement has been nego-
tiated. However. at the date of this hearing the parties
were currently in negotiations for a new agreement.
819
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The employer-members of the Association in the
course and conduct of their business operations collec-
tively, annually derive and during the past year derived
gross revenues in excess of $500,000. The employer-
members of the Association in the course and conduct of
their business operations annually and collectively pur-
chase and receive and during the past year did purchase
and receive at New York State locations, goods and ma-
terials valued in excess of $50,000 directly from points
outside the State of New York.'
I find the Association, and Respondent as a member of
the Association, are engaged in commerce within the
meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act. Town
House Restaurant, 203 NLRB 864 (1973); Local 3., Inter-
national Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO
(Atlas Reid, Inc.), 170 NLRB 584 (1968).2
II. THE I.ABOR ORGANIZATION INVOIVED
Respondent admits and I find that the Union herein is
a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5)
of the Act.
111. RESPONDENT'S RELATIONSHIP WITH THE UNION
Henry Moses, Respondent's president, testified that on
or about October 1979, he employed a total of 13 unit
employees (apprentices, mechanics, and journeymen) of
which 11 were members of the Union. Foreman Obdulio
Rivera, an admitted supervisor within the meaning of
Section 2(11) of the Act, testified that during the same
period, Respondent employed approximately 11 unit em-
ployees of which 7 or 8 were union employees. The col-
lective-bargaining agreement contained a union-security
clause which required membership in the Union after 7
days from the beginning of employment or the effective
date of the agreement, whichever is later.
According to Moses, although the 1976 bargaining
agreement has expired, he had continued to apply the
terms of the expired collective-bargaining agreement to
those employees who are members of the Union. He
does not apply terms of this agreement to nonunion em-
ployees. In this connection, Moses admits that he contin-
ues to deduct and remit union dues pursuant to the con-
tract's union-security clause to the Union on behalf of
those employees who are members of the Union. Al-
though the expired collective-bargaining agreement pro-
vides that each employer shall hire employees through
the Union and that an employer may hire from outside
sources only if the Union is unable to supply employees.
Moses testified that he routinely hires employees off the
street based on their prior experience in the electrical in-
dustry or through recommendations of other employers
or employees rather than through the Union's hiring hall.
' Respondent's answer denied knowledge or information as to par. 2(d)
and (e) of the complaint which alleged the gross revenues and purchases
of the Association. During the course of the hearing herein, Respondent
amended its answer to admit par. 2(d) and (e) of the complaint.
2 Respondent's answer denied knowledge or information concerning
par. 3 of the complaint which alleges that the Association and Respond-
ent are now and have been at all times material herein, employers en-
gaged in commerce within the meaning of Sec. 2(2), (6). and (7) of the
Act.
In addition, the Association's agreement also provides
that the employer make specified monetary contributions
for each employee employed by the employer, to a pen-
sion fund, annuity fund, or joint industry fund. Moses
presumably makes such contributions for union members.
IV. rHE DISCHARGE OF GIllBERT RIVERA
Gilbert Rivera, the Charging Party herein, began work
for Respondent on July 16, 1979. 3 His classification was
that of mechanic. He received a rate of $5.50 per hour.
Gilbert Rivera testified that he was initially interviewed
for employment by Foreman Obdulio Rivera. He filled
out no application form but was instructed by Foreman
Rivera orally to commence work on July 16. According
to Gilbert Rivera during his employment interview with
Foreman Rivera, he informed Foreman Rivera that he
was a member of Local 815, International Brotherhood
of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of
America, and that he had obtained this membership as a
condition of employment in connection with his prior
job. According to Gilbert Rivera, Foreman Rivera re-
plied that Respondent was a teamster shop represented
by a different local, but that there should be no trouble
transferring from one Teamsters local to another.
The workweek for all Respondent's electrical employ-
ees is from Monday through Saturday, 48 hours per
week with 8 hours' overtime. All employees are expect-
ed to work Saturday.
Gilbert Rivera commenced working on July 16 at
359-99 Bainbridge Avenue, Bronx, New York, where
Respondent was engaged in renovation work. He
worked continuously at this location from July 16
through July 25.
As of the payroll period ending August 1, Gilbert
Rivera received a pay increase from $5.50 to $6 per
hour. According to Moses, Rivera received this raise be-
cause of the excellent quality of his work at this time.4
Gilbert Rivera was next assigned to work at a renova-
tion project located at 325 West 45th Street, New York,
New York, where he worked from July 26 through Sep-
tember 8. From September 10-24, Rivera was assigned
to work at a job called the Arden Street job. This pro-
ject is a Federal project and Rivera received a rate of
$9.50 per hour.s From September 26 until his discharge
on October 10. Gilbert Rivera returned to work at the
West 45th Street job. The electrical work performed by
Rivera at all of the above jobs consisted of rewiring elec-
tric circuits, adding additional circuits, properly distribut-
ing existing circuits and adding light switches and wall
sockets.
Gilbert Rivera testified that at various times during his
employ he questioned Foreman Rivera as to his joining
the Union. Each time Foreman Rivera responded that
' All dates herein are 1979, unless otherwise specifically indicated
4 According to the testimony of Moses. mechanics are paid an approxi-
mate rate of $6 per hour except on jobs inrolving Federal contracts
where their pay rate required by Federal lass is $9.50 per hour. The col-
lective-bargaining agreement between the Association and the Union
does not set forth the pay scale for covered employees for the years 1978
and 1979. The pay rate set forth in the year 1977 was $5.95 per hour.
" The exact address of the Arden Street job is not set forth in the hear-
ing record
820
ALCO ELECTRIC CO., INC.
the Union would send for him at which time they would
require that he fill out certain papers, presumably a
membership application and dues-checkoff card. Fore-
man Rivera admitted that Gilbert Rivera asked him on
several occasions when he could join the Union, and he
replied, "When we know we can keep you." According
to Foreman Rivera, employees were permitted to join
the Union only after Respondent made a decision that
the employee was a qualified employee and they intend-
ed to retain him as a permanent employee. Moses testi-
fied that he determines the length of this trial period. It
could be 3 months or a year and a half. There is no spec-
ified trial period set forth in the Association agreement.
However, article 6 of that agreement, relating to the dis-
charge of employees provides that "after an employee
shall have been employed for 28 days, no employer shall
have any right to an immediate discharge except for dis-
honesty, drunkeness or assault."
Moses testified that when Gilbert Rivera commenced
working on the 45th Street job (July 26 through Septem-
ber 8) he began receiving complaints from the job that
Rivera was slow and required help to perform his work.
In his regard, Foreman Rivera testified that he visits
each jobsite several times per week that he frequently
observed Rivera at work and that his work was
unacceptably slow. He testified that he spoke to Rivera
about his slow work frequently. Gilbert Rivera concedes
that Foreman Rivera criticized his work as being too
slow on numerous occasions.
Additionally, Moses testified that on several occasions
Gilbert Rivera left the jobsite without permission during
working hours. In this connection, Moses testified that
on one occasion he went to the Arden Street job where
Rivera was assigned looking for him and he was no
where to be found. On another occasion, at another job-
site Moses testified he received a call from the construc-
tion foreman at that jobsite who was unable to find
Rivera. The construction foreman informed Moses that
he was unable to put up sheet rock because Rivera had
not yet performed his assigned electrical work.
Additionally, Moses testified that Gilbert Rivera's ab-
sence record was intolerable. In this connection, payroll
records establish that during the 13 weeks that Rivera
worked for Respondent, he was absent a total of 19 out
of 78 working days. In addition, during this period
Rivera worked only a full workweek during 3 of those
13 weeks. Further, although Saturday work was re-
quired, Rivera worked only 3 out of 13 Saturdays. Ac-
cording to the undisputed testimony of Moses, work was
available 6 days a week, throughout the course of Ri-
vera's employ.
Moses testified that as a result of Gilbert Rivera's
work record described above, sometime in late Septem-
ber, he told Foreman Rivera to fire Gilbert Rivera.
Foreman Rivera testified that Moses repeatedly told him
to get rid of Rivera but that he persuaded Moses each
time to give Rivera another chance in the hope that the
quality of his work and his absence record would im-
prove.
Gilbert Rivera testified that not having been contacted
by the Union since his employ sometime on or about Oc-
tober 5, he telephoned the union office and spoke with a
clerical. He informed the clerical that he was employed
by Respondent and had been a member of Local 815 of
the Teamsters and wished to transfer to the Union. The
clerical informed him that Pat Bellontoni, a union dele-
gate, would contact him. Rivera left a private phone
number where he could be reached. On October 10, in
the morning, not having been contacted by the Union,
Rivera again contacted the Union by phone and request-
ed to speak with Bellontoni. Rivera testified that he
made this phone call from a nearby pay phone. Accord-
ing to Rivera, at I p.m. on October 10, Bellontoni tele-
phoned him. 6
According to Rivera, Bellontoni informed him that he
had telephoned Respondent's office in response to his
telephone calls and asked Rivera whether he had re-
ceived word of such contact. Rivera stated he had not
received any message from the office of such call. Rivera
then informed Bellontoni that he wanted to join the
Union. Rivera then told Bellontoni that he had to return
to the job but would get back to him later.
Henry Moses testified that sometime on October 10,
during the workday, he had tried to locate Gilbert
Rivera. When he was unable to do so he contacted Fore-
man Rivera and asked, "Where the hell did he [Gilbert]
go this time." Foreman Rivera responded, "Oh he went
to the Union." Moses then stated, "Get rid of him, once
and for all, period."
Gilbert Rivera testified that sometime on October 10,
following his conversation with Bellontoni he received a
telephone call from Foreman Rivera at the jobsite. Fore-
man Rivera told him that he was fired. Rivera asked
why he was fired and Foreman Rivera responded that he
had been informed by Moses that the union delegate had
called and stated that Rivera must be discharged because
he did not belong to the Union. Foreman Rivera did not
indicate who the union delegate had spoken with. Rivera
told Foreman Rivera that he did not believe this. Fore-
man Rivera then stated, "Moses did not like you calling
the Union."
Foreman Rivera testified that he recalled this tele-
phone conversation with Gilbert Rivera but did not
recall what transpired during this conversation except
that he did recall informing Rivera that he was terminat-
ed because of his poor work. He denied that he told
Rivera that the Union demanded his discharge because
of his nonmembership or that Moses did not like him
calling the Union. He asserted that Rivera told him that
he wanted to join the Union and that he said that it was
too late now. I credit Gilbert Rivera's version as to this
telephone conversation.
The record does not establish where Rivera received this telephone
call,
I found Gilbert Rivera to be honest and forthright in response to the
questions put to him on both direct and cross-examination In this con-
nection he readily admitted the criticisms concerning his work alleged by
Moses and Foreman Rivera. In addition. I do not believe that Gilbert
Rivera had either the inventiveness nor imagination o make up the testi-
mony concerning his conversation with Foreman Rivera. Further. in
view of the admission made by Moses to discharge Rivera upon hearing
that he had contacted the Union, I conclude that Gilbert Rivera's lesti-
mony is credible.
821
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
On October 11, in the morning, Gilbert Rivera visited
the Union's office in Mineola, Long Island, and spoke
with Pat Bellontoni. He informed Bellontoni of his dis-
charge and of his conversation with Foreman Rivera.
Bellontoni denied that he had told Moses or any Re-
spondent representative that he should be discharged for
his nonmembership in the Union. According to Rivera,
Bellontoni stated, "There's no reason for me to say
that-my purpose is to have members and right now we
need members."
Later that same day, about 5:30 p.m., Gilbert Rivera
went to Respondent's office to pick up his paycheck. At
this time he met Foreman Rivera. He told Foreman
Rivera that someone was lying when they told him that
the Union wanted him fired because of his nonmember-
ship. He told Foreman Rivera that he had gone to Min-
eola that morning and spoken with Bellontoni who had
denied ordering his discharge. According to Rivera,
Foreman Rivera stated, "Well that's what Moses told
me." Foreman Rivera then told Rivera that "he
shouldn't have called the Union in the first place. Moses
did not like it and in any event, Moses wasn't too happy
with his work."
Gilbert Rivera testified that, on October 12, he tele-
phoned Moses and told him that he wanted an explana-
tion as to why he had been terminated. He told Moses
that Foreman Rivera had told him that he was terminat-
ed because he was not a member of the Union. Moses
told him that it was also because of his poor job per-
formance. Rivera repeated to Moses that Foreman
Rivera had told him that it was because of the Union. At
this point, Moses stated that his going to the Union had
little to do with it and that he should not have gone to
the Union.
Moses testified that he had a telephone conversation
with Rivera following his discharge. According to
Moses, Rivera told him that Foreman Rivera had said
that he was fired because he wanted to join the Union.
Moses told him he was fired because his work was unsa-
tisfactory. I credit Rivera's version of this telephone con-
versation. 8
Analysis and Conclusion
The evidence in this case establishes conclusively that
Gilbert Rivera was discharged by Respondent because
he attempted to join the Union.
That the discharge of Rivera was discriminatory is es-
tablished by Moses' testimony wherein he concedes that
upon becoming aware on October 10, through Foreman
Rivera, that Gilbert Rivera had contacted the Union ear-
lier that day, he told Foreman Rivera on the spot to "get
rid of him once and for all." 9 It is further established by
' As set forth above, I found Rivera to be a credible witness. More-
over, in view of Moses' admissions concerning his decision on October
10 to fire Rivera upon learning about Rivera's contact with the Union. I
find Rivera's version of his telephone conversation with Moses to he con-
sistent with the admissions of Moses. Moses. throughout his testimony.
both on direct and on cross-examination was frequently vague and unlre-
sponsive in his answers.
9 The record does not establish how Foreman Rivera became aware
that Rivera had contacted the Union on the morning of October 10, the
day of his discharge. However, Gilbert Rivera testified that Bellontoni
told him he (Bellontoni) had called Respondent's office in response o Ri-
the credited testimony of Gilbert Rivera that upon being
informed of his discharge by Foreman Rivera, Gilbert
Rivera questioned the stated reason for the discharge,
namely, that the Union had requested that Respondent
discharge him because of his nonmembership in the
Union, and Foreman Rivera replied that Moses did not
like his calling the Union. Similarly, on October 11, the
day following Rivera's discharge, Rivera again confront-
ed Foreman Rivera and told him that Union Representa-
tive Bellontoni had denied requesting his discharge.
Foreman Rivera responded that he should not have gone
to the Union in the first place; Moses did not like it, and
in any event, Moses was not happy with his work. It is
conclusively established by the credited testimony of
Gilbert Rivera that during a telephone conversation with
Moses on October 12, he pressed Moses as to the real
reason for his discharge and Moses admitted that "The
Union had a little to do with it." Adding that "he
shouldn't have gone to the Union anyway."
It could be argued that Respondent had no motive to
terminate Rivera in that Respondent had a collective-bar-
gaining agreement with the Union. However, the evi-
dence establishes that not all Respondent's unit employ-
ees covered by this agreement were members of the
Union. Moreover, Moses admitted that he did not en-
force the provisions of the agreement with respect to
nonunion members and that the agreement only applies
to union members. This being the case, it can be fairly
presumed that Respondent was opposed to Rivera's join-
ing the Union as it would require substantial constribu-
tions by Respondent to the union funds. Additionally,
the Association's agreement discharge clause provides
that an employee employed for 28 days shall be exempt
from immediate discharge except for dishonesty, drunk-
enness, or assault. Application of this provision to Rivera
whose work Respondent was not satisfied with, would
make it difficult for Respondent to terminate his employ-
ment.
Respondent contends that Rivera was discharged be-
cause his work was not satisfactory. The evidence does
establish that Rivera was a slow worker and was warned
about his slow work on numerous occasions by Foreman
Rivera and Moses, a fact which Rivera generally con-
cedes. In addition, the evidence establishes that Rivera
was at various times unreliable in that he was away from
his job station during working hours without permission.
Further, the evidence establishes that Rivera's attendance
record was unsatisfactory. However, Moses condoned
Rivera's unsatisfactory work record. Although he repeat-
edly instructed Foreman Rivera to discharge Gilbert
Rivera, he was persuaded each time by Foreman Rivera
to give him another chance in the hope that his work
would improve. It was only when Moses became aware
that Rivera had contacted the Union that he insisted that
Rivera be discharged.
vera's telephone call on October 10. just hours prior to notification of his
discharge.
822
ALCO ELECTRIC CO., INC.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Association and Respondent are employers en-
gaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6)
and (7) of the Act.
2. The Union is a labor organization within the mean-
ing of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. By discharging its employee Gilbert Rivera, Re-
spondent engaged in discrimination in regard to hire or
tenure of employment or other terms or other conditions
of employment discouraging membership in or activities
on behalf of a labor organization in violation of Section
8(a)(l) and (3) of the Act.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practice affects commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
THE REMEI)Y
It having been found that Respondent has engaged and
is engaging in unfair labor practices, in violation of Sec-
tion 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act, it will be recommended
that Respondent cease and desist therefrom and take af-
firmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the
Act.
It is recommended that Respondent offer Gilbert
Rivera full reinstatement to his former job or, that if
such a job no longer exists, to a substantially equivalent
position of employment, without prejudice to his senior-
ity or other rights and benefits, and to make Rivera
whole for any loss of pay or benefits he may have suf-
fered as a result of the discrimination against him, as
found herein, by payment to him of a sum of money
equal to that he would have earned as wages or other
benefits from the date of his discharge to the date of an
appropriate offer of reinstatement by Respondent, less
net earnings during that period with interest thereon to
be computed in the manner described in F. W. Woolworth
Company, 90 NLRB 289 (1950), and Florida Steel Corpo-
ration, 231 NLRB 651 (1977). °
Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of
law, and upon the entire record, and pursuant to Section
10(c) of the Act, I issue the following recommended:
ORDER "
The Respondent, Alco Electric Co., Bronx, New
York, Inc., its officers, agents, successors, and assigns,
shall:
'o See, generally. Bim Plumbing & lealing Co.. 138 NLRB 716 (1962).
" In the eent no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec 102 46 of
the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board. the
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Discharging or otherwise discriminating against its
employees in order to discourage membership in, or ac-
tivities on behalf of Local 363, International Brotherhood
of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of
America, or any other labor organization.
(b) 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 purposes of the Act:
(a) Offer to Gilbert Rivera immediate and full rein-
statement to his former job or, if that job no longer
exists, to a substantially equivalent position, without prej-
udice to his seniority or other rights and privileges, and
make him whole for any loss of earnings, or benefits he
may have suffered by reason of Respondent's discrimina-
tion against him, as set forth in The Remedy section of
this Decision.
(b) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the
Board, or its agents, for examination and copying, all
payroll records, social security records, time cards, per-
sonnel records and reports, and all other records neces-
sary to facilitate effectuation of the order herein.
(c) Post at its offices and place of business in Bronx,
New York, copies of the attached notice marked "Ap-
pendix."2 Copies of said notices on forms provided by
the Regional Director for Region 2, after being duly
signed by an authorized representative of Respondent,
shall be posted by it immediately upon receipt thereof,
and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereaf-
ter, in conspicuous places, including all places where no-
tices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable
steps shall be taken by Respondent to insure that said no-
tices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any materi-
al.
(d) Notify the Regional Director for Region 2, in writ-
ing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what
steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
findings. 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.
" 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 hb
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 "
823