AMP, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 29, 1975

218 N.L.R.B. 33 (N.L.R.B. 1975)

AMP, INCORPORATED 33
ANIP, Incorporated and Sandra L. Black . Case 11-
CA-5700
May 29, 1975
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MURPHY AND MEMBERS
FANNING AND JENKINS
On October 31, 1974, Administrative Law Judge
Walter H. Maloney, Jr., issued the attached Decision
in this proceeding. Thereafter, the Respondent filed
exceptions and a supporting brief, and the counsel
for the General Counsel filed an answering brief.
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, fmd-
ings,' and conclusions of the Administrative Law
Judge and to adopt his recommended Order.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board adopts as its Order the recommend-
ed Order of the Administrative Law Judge and
hereby orders that the Respondent, AMP, Incorpora-
ted, Kernersville, North Carolina, 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 the Administrative
Law Judge's notice.
1 The General Counsel has excepted to certain credibility findings made
by the Adnnmstrative 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 (CA 3, 1951). We have
carefully examined the record and find no basis for reversing his findings.
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
After a hearing in which both sides had an
opportunity to present evidence and state their
positions, the National Labor Relations Board has
found that we have violated certain provisions of the
218 NLRB No. 9
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, and has
ordered us to post this notice.
WE WILL NOT discharge or otherwise discrimi-
nate against employees in the hire and tenure of
their employment because they have engaged in
concerted activities which are protected by
Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act.
These activities include the right to self-organiza-
tion, the right to form, join, or assist labor
organizations, to bargain collectively through
representatives of their own choosing, and to
engage in other concerted activities for the
purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual
aid or protection.
WE wnL offer full and immediate reinstate-
ment to their former positions or, if those
positions no longer exist, to substantially equiva-
lent positions to Sandra L. Black, Margie Christi-
an, Alvie Cox, Vivian Dillard, Geraldine C. Hart,
Margaret Landon, Doretha A. Pigford, Belinda
Rikard, and Rosalie Vanhoy. WE WILL make
whole these employees for any loss of pay which
they have suffered by reason of their discharge on
April 5, 1974, with interest thereon at 6 percent.
AMP, INCORPORATED
DECISION
FINDINGS OF FACT
WALTER H. MALONEY, JR., Administrative Law Judge:
This case came on for hearing before me at Greensboro,
North Carolina, on a complaint,' issued by the Regional
Director for Region 11 and amended at the hearmg,2
alleging that the Respondent AMP, Incorporated, violated
Section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act, as
I The principal formal papers docketed in this case are as follows:
Charge filed on April 8, 1974, by Sandra L. Black, an individual; and
amended on May 14, 1974, in Case 11-CA-5700; consolidated complaint
issued on May 31, 1974, against Respondent AMP, Incorporated (AMP);
DOT Services, a Division of Dictaphone Corporation (DOT); and
Manpower of Guilford County, Incorporated, the respondent to a charge in
Case I l-CA-5736; answer filed by Respondent DOT on June 17, 1974, and
by Respondent Manpower of Guilford County, Inc., on June 11, 1974,
amended complaint against AMP and DOT only issued on July 31, 1974,
hearing held in Greensboro, North Carolina, on August 6 and 7, 1974;
briefs filed by General Counsel and Respondent AMP on September 3,
1974.
2 At the outset of the hearing, the General Counsel moved to sever the
complaint by disnussmg DOT as a Respondent. By his previously amended
complaint, he had deleted Manpower of Guilford County, Inc., which had
entered into a settlement agreement respecting the charges in Case I l-CA-
5736. DOT had also entered into a settlement agreement , by the terms of
which the discrimmatees had obtained backpay and had agreed to a notice-
mailing. By the time of the hearing, AMP had cea§ed using all of DOTs
referred employees at its Kernersville plant, and there is no indication that
any of the discnrninatees wished to work at any of the other AMP plants in
the locality. The motion to sever DOT from the amended complaint as a
party respondent was granted at the hearing. At stake in the instant
litigation is the posting of a notice by AMP.
34 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
amended. Specifically, the amended complaint alleges that
DOT and AMP, acting as joint employers,3 discharged
nine named employees because they engaged in concerted
protected activities. AMP denies that DOT and AMP are
joint employers, states in effect that discriminatees Sandra
L. Black and Alvie Cox were discharged for insubordina-
tion, and that the other seven discriminatees named in
Section 7 of the complaint were not discharged but quit in
sympathy with Black and Cox. Upon these contentions, the
issues were herein drawn.
A. The unfair Labor Practices Alleged
AMP operates several factories in the Wmston-Salem-
Greensboro area. The factory here in question, located on
Dobson Road in Kernersville, is used for the manufactur-
ing of electrical connectors which are sold to the communi-
cations industry. Employees in its assembly section bind
small electronic connectors in plastic belts, which are then
cut in strips of various lengths and shipped. In April 1974,
when the events of this case took place, AMP employed
about 85 of its own employees in its general operation at
the Kernersville plant and also employed about 120
employees, all of them women, who were referred to it by
DOT. At that time, the DOT-referred personnel, who
called themselves DOT girls, worked three shifts as well as
a great deal of overtime. As noted above, assembly
operation at Kernersville had so declined by the date of the
August hearing that all of the DOT girls, as well as some of
the regular AMP employees, had been laid off.
For the past 2-1/2 years, AMP has maintained an
informal relationship with DOT, pursuant to which it has
used the services of DOT to obtain unskilled and
semiskilled personnel at all of its five plants in the vicinity
of Winston-Salem. At Winston-Salem, DOT maintains a
local office under the management of Bonnie Ray. DOT
recruits a labor pool of available women whom it refers to
various customers, including but not limited to AMP, on
both long-term and short-term bases. Some of the
employees involved in this case had worked for AMP
regularly in excess of a year, while others had been so
employed for much shorter periods of time. Under its
working arrangement with AMP, the AMP factory at
Kernersville (or elsewhere) forwards each week to DOT
headquarters in New York a payroll slip for each DOT girl
employed during that week at its plant. DOT bills the
AMP headquarters office in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, by
invoice, a standard hourly billing charge for each employee
so listed . With respect to rank-and-file employees, DOT
bills AMP $3.25 per hour. For more skilled individuals,
such as inspectors, a higher fee is billed. DOT prepares a
weekly paycheck for each employee who submits an
approved timesheet, makes standard payroll deductions,
and then forwards its individual paychecks to AMP for
distribution. Checks are normally distributed to DOT girls
by the AMP foreman each Friday for their preceding
week's work.
3 AMP admits, and I find, that at all times material herein, it has been a
New Jersey corporation which maintains a plant at Kernersville, North
Carolina, where it is engaged in the manufacture and assembly of electrical
connectors . During the preceding 12 months, a representative period, AMP
DOT girls report for work at standard shift-starting times
established by AMP. Their hours, including overtime and
weekend work, are determined by AMP. At the time here
in question, the 40 or so DOT girls working at Kemersville
on the first shift worked under a leadlady, Frances
Carswell, who was at that time also a DOT-referred
employee. However, the assembly section employing DOT
girls was under the immediate supervision and control of
an AMP foreman, Dwayne Bourbonise. AMP retained the
right to reject any employee referred by DOT. The
foreman was empowered to order any DOT girl to leave
the premises, to grant excused absences, and to direct each
such employee in the performance of her duties. As will be
seen, the dispute giving rise to this litigation arose because
AMP set production standards for the first shift to which
some DOT girls took strong exception.
On or about April 1, 1974, Bourbonise was transferred
from the third shift to supervise the first shift. He
immediately made known to first-shift employees his
displeasure with their production. At a meeting of first-
shift employees on April 2, Bourbonise told them that he
felt they were not working hard enough, that there was too
much absenteeism, too much soldiering on the job, and
that they would have to upgrade their production. He set a
minimum daily production norm of 6,000 connectors for
each machine operator. His attempt to shape up the
operation to his liking met with a certain amount of
audible resentment. Employees complained to him on this
occasion that his production standards were excessive
because machines were constantly breaking down. Others
complained about low wages, a complaint which Bourbon-
ise told them to take to DOT as they were on DOT's
payroll, not AMP'S.
After discussing the matter among themselves, several of
the discriminatees named in the complaint suggested to
Sandra L. Black that she contact the NLRB Regional
Office in Winston-Salem for advice as to what course of
action to take. On April 4, after work, Mrs. Black phoned
the Regional Office and, upon talking to two Board agents,
was advised that employees had the right under the Act to
take concerted action to make their' grievances known to
management. She relayed this information to some of her
fellow employees. On the morning of Friday, April 5,
cutoff machine operator Alvie Cox told Leadlady Frances
Carswell that the employees wanted to have a group
meeting with Foreman Bourbonise to discuss their griev-
ances. She mentioned to Mrs. Carswell that Sandy Black
was the spokesman for the group, and that Mrs. Black had
discussed the matter with the Labor Board and had been
told that such group meetings were legally protected. Mrs.
Carswell said that she would not act as a spokesman for the
group, but would relay to Bourbonise the request for a
meeting . She did so immediately. She also informed
Bourbonise that Mrs. Black was in essence the leader of the
group that wanted a meeting..Bourbonise said he would get
back to her in a while.
shipped from its Kernersville plant to points and places outside the State of
North Carolina goods valued in excess of $50,000 It is an employer within
the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.
AMP, INCORPORATED
Bourbonise then consulted with Preston Williams, the
plant manager, about the meeting request . Williams told
him to discuss individually with any employees any
grievance that she might have but told him not to permit
any group meetings . About 9 a.m., Bourbonise went to
Mrs. Black's machine and spoke with her. He said he
would like to see her in the office alone. Mrs. Black told
him that the girls wished to meet with him as a group. He
reiterated that he just wanted to see her personally.4 Mrs.
Black told him that apparently he had not gotten the
message, but that she did not want an individual meeting
with him. At this point, Bourbonise told her, "Get your
timecard, and punch out. You're fired." 5 Mrs. Black
picked up her belongings which she kept at her machine,
stood up in her place, and stated loudly to other employees
that she had been fired. Her announcement caused a flurry
of excitement. A number of employees stood up and
questioned Bourbonise as to why he was firing Mrs. Black.
She left the area, encouraging other employees to walk out
with her as she left.
Alvie Cox shut off her cutoff machine and began
speaking to other employees. She reminded them that Mrs.
Black was acting on their behalf and encouraged them to
stand behind her. She stated that Mrs. Black had gone to
the Labor Board, that the Labor Board would stand
behind them, and that Sandy had' been fired for going to
the Labor Board. Bourbonise told Mrs. Cox twice to be
quiet and to get back to work. Mrs. Cox told him that she
was simply exercising her rights as an American citizen.
Bourbonise reminded her that, in that factory building, she
had no rights. He called her a troublemaker, told her that
she was fired, and drew back as if to touch her.6 She
warned him not to lay a hand on her or she would take him
to court. He told her to sign her timesheet and leave. She
proceeded to do so.
One employee who had stood up during the commotion,
Geraldine Hart, asked Bourbonise why he had fired Mrs.
Cox. He replied, "Come on. Let's go," and directed her to
sign her timecard. He told employee 'Vivian Dillard who
had stood up in the vicinity of Mrs. Cox and was listening
to her that she was fired and that he wanted her to leave.
Bourbonise then began pointing at other employees who
were standing up and told them to leave the plant, saying
all those who were in with those girls were fired. This group
included all of those persons named in the complaint.
Black left the plant without signing her timeslip. The
others signed their weekly timeslips as they left. They met
shortly thereafter at Mrs. Black's house and went from
there to the Labor Board to file a charge. Later in the
afternoon, Bourbonise phoned Bonnie Ray at the DOT
office to tell her what had happened. He said that he did
not need any replacements to fill the slots vacated by the
10 employees who were terminated that morning.?
4 Bourbomse testified that Mrs. Black told him that he was not going to
get her in the office and "chew her ass out." No one else among the many
witnesses who testified heard Mrs. Black make this remark . I discredit
Bourbonise's testimony to this effect and regard it as so much exaggeration
on his part.
5 Bourbomse denies using the word "fired" although he admits telling
Mrs. Black to leave. I credit Mrs. Black 's version, but my conclusion would
35
B. Analysis and Conclusions
While DOT girls were recruited by DOT, referred by
DOT, and paid on DOT paychecks, these elements of the
employment relationship were the only ones in which DOT
participated. The work these employees performed was for
AMP, on AMP premises, and under the direct, supervision
of an AMP supervisor who had complete control of the
working time of each employee in question. He could tell
them when to come, when to leave, and what to do while
they were there. There is little doubt that, as to employees
referred to the Respondent by DOT, AMP and DOT were
their joint employers, and that both are legally, responsible
under the Act for observing the requirements of Section 7
regarding such employees. I so find and conclude.
Manpower, Inc., 164 NLRB 287 (1967); The Greyhound
Corporation (Southern Greyhound Lines Division), 153
NLRB 1488 (1965).=
1. The discharge of Sandra L. Black
Immediately preceding her discharge, Mrs. Black had
exercised a degree of leadership among the disaffected
employees of the Respondent by seeking information from
this Agency about their legal rights and by initiating a
request to management for a group meeting to discuss
existing employee dissatisfaction. The fact of her leader-
ship in this effort was well known to Bourbonise when he
directed management's negative response to her. The
colloquy between Bourbonise and Black which led to her
precipitous discharge was short and, by all accounts, quiet
and largely unnoticed by other employees. Bourbonise told
her that there would be no group meeting but that he
desired an individual meeting. She persisted in her previous
request for a group meeting and told him that she did not
want to meet with him individually. In making this
response, she was acting wholly within the context of the
group request and in pursuance of the effort which she had
initiated for the purpose of discussing group grievance.
There is no credited' testimony that she was loud or
abusive, or that her reply was disruptive of production in
any way. Indeed, the whole conversation took place in a
matter of a few seconds.
Regardless of whether a formal collective-bargaining
relationship exists between an employer and its employees,
Section 7 of the Act protects concerted action' which is
undertaken for the mutual aid and protection of employees
and in aid of securing employee rights set forth herein. The
facts of this case leave no' doubt that Mrs. Black, at the
time of her termination, was acting on behalf of several
other employees at the plant to secure redress of their
grievances and that the Respondent was quite cognizant of
this fact. While the Respondent may attempt to force the
facts of this case into the mold of insubordination, the so-
called insubordination on the part of Mrs. Black amounted
to ; nothing more than an insistence upon the previous
be the same regardless of the use or nonuse by her foreman of the talismanic
word.
6 Again Bourbomse dewed using the word "fired" with regard to Mrs.
Cox. Mrs. Cox says he did and her version is corroborated, both by General
Counsel's witnesses and Respondent's witnesses . I credit their version.
7 One employee who was also terminated, Roosevelt Clark, was the
subject of the charge which was settled.
36 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
request which had been transmitted to the Respondent for
a group meeting. Her insistence on engaging in such
concerted protected activity is what caused her discharge.
Such a discharge clearly violates Section 8(a)(1) of the Act,
and a host of Board and court cases so hold. So do I.
Bettcher Manufacturing Corporation, 76 NLRB 526 (1948);
N. P. Nelson Iron Works, Inc., 80 NLRB 788 (1948);
Guernsey-Muskingum Electric Cooperative, Inc., 124 NLRB
618 (1959); Thor Power Tool Company, 148 NLRB 1379,
enfd. 351 F.2d 584 (C.A. 7, 1965); Huttig Sash & Door
Company, Inc., 154 NLRB 1567 (1965); Hugh H. Wilson
Corporation, 171 NLRB 1040 (1968), enfd. 414 F.2d 1345
(C.A. 3, 1969); Crown Central Petroleum Corporation, 177
NLRB 322 (1969), enfd. 430 F.2d 724 (C.A. 5, 1970).
Carbet Corporation, 191 NLRB 892 (1971); Will & Baumer
Candle Co., Inc., 206 NLRB 772 (1973). N.L.R.B. v.
Phoenix Mutual Life Insurance Co., 167 F.2d 983 at 988
(C.A. 7, 1948), cert. denied 335 U.S. 845; N.L.RB. v.
Hanes Hosiery Division, Hanes Corp., 413 F.2d 457 (C.A. 4,
1969).
2. The discharge of Alvie Cox
In point of time, the discharge of Alvie Cox follows hard
on the heels of the discharge` of Sandra Black. There is no
doubt that Mrs. Cox was in fact discharged and that she
was not merely removed from company premises on a
temporary basis . After some waffling on this point, the
Respondent admitted that it completely terminated her
employment relationship. Again, the justification for the
discharge is a claim that she was insubordinate to
Bourbonise . While Mrs. Black' s asserted insubordination
was in passing a group demand for a group meeting, Mrs.
Cox's asserted insubordination lay in making common
cause with Mrs. Black, who had been freshly discharged in
violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act, and also in urging
others to do likewise . Protesting an unlawful discharge and
urging others to do the same is an activity protected by
Section 7 of the Act. It is immune from lawful employer
reprisal under Section 8(a)(l) of the Act. The fact that such
a protest contravenes an employer's instructions not to
protest does not render the action insubordinate. Mrs.
Cox's statements to her fellow employees on April 5 were
short and to the point. I discredit Bourbonise's attempt to
put profanity or vulgarity in her mouth in relating the tenor
of her remarks. His action in terminating her far out-
weighed any incidental and short-lived interruption of
production which her remarks provoked, and far exceeded
any action required to maintain plant discipline. Accord-
ingly, I conclude that the discharge of Alvie Cox violated
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. See Gullett Gin Inc., v. N.L.RB.,
179 F.2d 499 (C.A. 5_1950); N.L.R.B. v. H. A. Holcombe
and J. H. Holcombe, d/b/a Holcombe Armature, 325 F.2d
508 (C.A. 5, 1963); N.L.R.B. v. Pepsi-Cola Bottling
Company of Miami, Inc., 449 F.2d 824 (C.A. 5, 1971);
N.L KB. v. J. I. Case Company, Bettendorf Works, 198 F.2d
919 (C.A. 8, 1952).
3. The discharges, of seven other DOT girls
Respondent maintains that the seven other employees
named in section 7 of the complaint were not fired but in
fact voluntarily quit their jobs, to join in the protest which
they were being urged to make in support of Sandra Black.
In support of this contention, Respondent urges that
Bourbonise did not tell employees so involved that they
were fired. He merely said to them that, if they were
leaving, they should sign their weekly pay slips so-that they
could go get paid. I discredit any testimony that he did not
tell any of these seven that they were fired. However, such
a factual determination is of limited moment, since the use
of special words is not necessary in order, to discharge an
employee, Sakrete of Northern California Inc., 140 NLRB
765 (1963). Indeed, no words at all need be employed.
Jewell Smokeless Coal Corporation, 175 NLRB 57 (1969).
The test of whether an employee has been discharged or
whether he quit is whether the statements and actions of
his employer would reasonably lead him to believe that he
had been discharged. N.L.R.B. v. Hilton Mobile Homes,
387 F.2d 7 (C.A. 8, 1967); N.L.R.B. v. Comfort, Inc., 365
F.2d 867 (C.A. 8, 1966); N.L.R.B. v. Central Oklahoma
Milk Producers Association, , 285' F2d 495 (C.A. 10, 1960).
In this case, Bourbonise pointed to employees who were
inquiring critically of him about the discharge of Mrs.
Black and told them to leave. He told them to sign their
pay slips and get their paychecks before they left. He
followed up this action by phoning the DOT manager to
tell her that he did not need any replacements for them.
These actions speak loudly and clearly to, the issue of
whether employees could reasonably be led to believe that
they were being discharged. From such actions on the part
of Bourbonise, it would be hard for any employee to
conclude other than that she had been discharged. I draw a
similar conclusion. The reason' for the terminations is
equally clear. They were voicing their objections to the
treatment of a fellow employee. As such action is protected
by Section 7 of the Act, the reprisal taken by the
Respondent against'such action violates Section 8(a)(1) of
the Act.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire
record herein considered as a whole, I-make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. AMP, Incorporated, is an employer engaged in
commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7)
of the Act. AMP, Incorporated, and DOT Services, a
Division of Dictaphone Corporation-, are joint employers
within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.
2. By discharging Sandra L. Black, Margie Christian,
Alvie Cox, Vivian Dillard, Geraldine C. Hart, Margaret
Landon, Doretha A. Pigford, Belinda Rikard, and Rosalie
Vanhoy because they engaged in concerted protected
activities, Respondent AMP, Incorporated, violated Sec-
tion 8(a)(1) of the Act.
3. The unfair labor practices set forth above in
Conclusion of Law 2 affect commerce within the meaning
of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
THE REMEDY
Having found that AMP has engaged in certain unfair
labor practices, I will recommend that it be ordered to
cease and desist therefrom , and to take certain affirmative
AMP, INCORPORATED
actions designed to effectuate the purposes and policies of
the Act. The recommended Order will provide that it be
required to offer to the nine discriminatees named in
Section 7 of the complaint reinstatement to their former or
substantially equivalent employment, and to make them
whole for loss of earnings in accordance with the
Woolworth formula,8 with interest thereon to be computed
at 6 percent per annum. I will also recommend that the
Respondent be required to post a notice advising its
employees to this effect.
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact, conclusions
of law, and the entire record in the case, and pursuant to
Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended, I hereby issue the following recommended:
ORDERS
Respondent AMP, Incorporated, Kernersville, North
Carolina, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from discharging or otherwise
discriminating against employees in regard to hire or
tenure of employment, or any terms or condition of
employment, because they have engaged in concerted
protected activities.
2. Take the following affirmative action designed to
effectuate the purposes and policies of the Act:
(a) Offer immediate and full reinstatement to Sandra L.
Black, Margie Christian, Alvie Cox, Vivian Dillard,
Geraldine C. Hart, Margaret Landon, Doretha A. Pigford,
Belinda Rikard, and Rosalie Vanhoy to their former
s F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289 (1950).
s In the event no exceptions are riled as provided by Sec 102.46 of the
Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board , the fmdmgs,
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
37
positions or, in the event their former positions no longer
exist, to substantially equivalent positions, without preju-
dice to their seniority or to other rights previously enjoyed,
and make them whole for any loss of pay suffered by
reason of the interference with Section 7 rights found
herein, in the manner described above in the section
entitled "The Remedy."
(b) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the
Board or its agents, for examination and copying, all
payroll records, social security payment records, timecards,
personnel records and reports, and all other records
necessary to analyze the amount of backpay due under the
terms of this Order.
(c) Post at the Respondent's place of business at
Kernersville, North Carolina, copies of the attached notice
marked "Appendix." 10 Copies of said notice, on forms
provided by the Regional Director for Region 11, after
being duly signed by a representative of the Respondent,
shall be posted by Respondent immediately upon receipt
thereof, and be maintained by the Respondent for 60
consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, includ-
ing all places where notices to employees are customarily
placed. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent
to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or
covered over by any other material.
(d) Notify the Regional Director for Region 11, in
writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what
steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
deemed waived for all purposes.
10 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
to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of
the National Labor Relations Board."