AMSCO

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 17, 1979

243 N.L.R.B. 509 (N.L.R.B. 1979)

suspensions to Tamara Broten, Debra Postle, and Betty Ol-
son "in reprisal for . ..participation on or about July 7.
1978. in a concerted temporary work stoppage at the Re-
spondent's place of business to protest the results of a new
job evaluation program."2 The case was heard in Rice Lake.
Wisconsin. on December 14, 1978.
The basic facts are not in dispute. Respondent's answer
admits that it is engaged in the manufacture of fabthricated
aluminum window and door screens, that its principal place
of business is located at Rice Lake. Wisconsin, and that it is
an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act.' Respondent admits that the following are supervi-
sors within the meaning of the Act: William C('utter. divi-
sion manager: Mary Menz. employee relations manager
(erroneously designated personnel manager in the com-
plaint): Robert Levan. quality control manager: Donald
Lang. plant superintendent (erroneously designated plant
supervisor in the complaint); Anita Berg. finals department
supervisor: and Harriet Gleason. supervisor. Further, Re-
spondent admits issuing the written warning and suspen-
sions to Broten, Postle, and Olson as "legal and proper dis-
ciplinary actions" but not as "acts of reprisal." Thus
Respondent denies that there was any violation of Section
8(a)( ) of the Act as alleged. Respondent also raised a pro-
cedural issue at the hearing--repeated in its brief that will
be dealt with first.
Sufficiency of the Complaint
Amsco, A Division of Nichols-Homeshield, Inc. and
International Association of Machinists and Aero-
space Workers, AFL-CIO. C'ase 18 ('A 5915
July 17, 1979
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS JENKINS, MURPHY, ANI) TRUI.tSDAI
On March 27, 1979, Administrative Law Judge
Harold A. Kennedy issued the attached Decision in
this proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent filed excep-
tions and a supporting brief
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional Relations Board has delegated its authority 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 briet
and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings,2 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 Rela-
tions Board adopts as its Order the recommended Or-
der of the Administrative Law Judge and hereby or-
ders that the Respondent, Amsco, A Division of
Nichols-Homeshield, Inc., Rice Lake, Wisconsin, its
officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the
action set forth in the said recommended Order.
I Respondent has requested oral argument. This request is hereby denied
as the record, exceptions, and bnef adequacy present the issues and posi-
tions of the parties.
2 Respondent has excepted to the Administrative Law Judge's apparently
inadvertent omission of the word "due" before the word "process" in the first
quotation of statements made by Respondent's attorney at the hearing ap-
pearing in the second paragraph of the section entitled "Sufficiency of the
Complaint" in the Administrative Law Judge's Decision. Although we find
merit to this exception, this finding does not affect the results herein.
DECISION
HAROLD A. KENNEDY, Administrative Law Judge: Based
on a charge filed by the International Association of Ma-
chinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO (Union),' the
Regional Director for Region 18 of the National Labor Re-
lations Board issued a complaint alleging that Respondent,
Amsco, A Division of Nichols-Homeshield, Inc., interfered
with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise
of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, by issuing written warnings and
I The original charge was filed on July 27. 1978. Amended charges were
filed on August 25 and September 25, 1978.
At the hearing Respondent moved for dismissal of the
complaint on the basis that it fails to state a cause of action.
Respondent has renewed its motion in its brief. Respondent
contends that the complaint is deficient because it omits the
word "protected." According to Respondent. the complaint
challenges concerted activity but not protected concerted
activity. Respondent's motion is without merit. Both para-
graph 4 and 5 of the complaint allege that Respondent's
conduct has interfered with "the exercise of rights guaran-
teed in Section 7 of the Act"--obviously putting in issue
protected concerted rights of Respondent's employees.
When I declined to dismiss the case at the hearing coun-
sel for Respondent claimed that Respondent was not on
notice of what might be considered protected activity under
the complaint, even though paragraph 4 specifically alleges
that Tamara Broten, Debra Postle, and Betty Olson were.
on or about July II or 12, issued warnings and suspended
in reprisal for participating in a concerted temporary work
stoppage to protest the results of a job evaluation program.
The names of the supervisors that allegedly issued such
warnings and suspensions were set forth in the complaint.
Counsel for Respondent indicated that they would leave the
2 The warnings and suspensions of Broien and Postle were allegedly issued
on or about July 11, 1978, by Quality Control Manager Robert Levan and
Supervisor Harriet Gleason, admitted supervisors of Respondent. Olson's
warning and suspension were allegedly issued on or about July 12, 1978, by
Donald Lang. an admitted supervisor of Respondent. Respondent's answer
states that Lang is plant superintendent, not plant supervisor as the com-
plaint alleges.
I Respondent does not dispute the allegations of the complaint that aver
that in 1977 Respondent shipped products out of State valued in excess of
$50.000. and that in 1977 it received materials from outside the State valued
in excess of $50,000.
243 NLRB No. 102
A M SCO 509
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
hearing and not participate further in the hearing on the
basis that to remain "would not aid in the guarantee to our
client his right to process." The General Counsel's attorney
summarized the evidence he intended to offer, and I then
indicated to Respondent's counsel that if they remained at
the hearing I would consider at the close of the General
Counsel's case-in-chief a motion from Respondent to defer
the presentation of defense evidence at a later time "in the
event ... anything comes up ... to indicate that they] were
not sufficiently apprised of." Counsel for Respondent, nev-
ertheless, chose to leave the hearing before hearing the
General Counsel's evidence.' The General Counsel's attor-
ney called one of Respondent's attorneys, Gordon Gill. to
the stand to identify an affidavit which he had signed on
August 17, 1978. The General Counsel's attorney explained
the reason for offering the affidavit as follows:
The only reason I am presenting it, to show that the
company had sufficient notice of the incidents involved
in this case. I think the complaint alone is sufficient,
but I am going to show further that they had sufficient
notice, and I am introducing it for that purpose alone.
Examination of the affidavit (G.C. Exh. 2) discloses that
Respondent's attorney, Gordon Gill, was aware "of the em-
ployee protest over the job evaluation program sometime
that Friday, July 7." According to the affidavit he visited
the plant on July 10 and was briefed by Menz and Cutter
who reported that Tammy Broten and Debbie Postle were
responsible for the protest. He spoke with Supervisor Anita
Berg who reported that Betty Olson as well as Broten and
Postle had encouraged employees to join in the work stop-
page. According to the affidavit, Berg also reported to Gill
on a meeting she had with those employees on the day of
the protest. Gordon Gill also reported interviewing Quality
Control Manager Bob Levan, Plant Production Manager
Lang, Supervisor "Angel" Gleason, and some employee
witnesses. Gill's affidavit recites that he reviewed certain
personnel records and recommended personnel action to be
taken with respect to Broten, Postle, and Olson.
Having considered the pleadings filed, Gordon Gill's affi-
davit, and the entire record, including the testimony of the
witnesses, I find Respondent's motion to dismiss to be with-
out merit. Counsel for Respondent was fully apprised of the
charges well before the date of the hearing. Accordingly,
Respondent's motion to dismiss is denied.
Respondent requests, in the alternative, that the case be
reopened so it can "defend against matters raised at this
hearing which were a surprise to Respondent." Respondent
has provided no basis for reopening, and this request is also
denied.5 Respondent was clearly on notice of the charges
well before the hearing, and there is no showing that Re-
spondent was misled in any way.
I When counsel for Respondent left the hearing room, I said "good bye,"
but the transcript incorrectly reads "good boy." The transcript is herewith
corrected in this respect.
It should be noted that at one point Respondent's counsel indicated a
willingness to appear again within 2 months or possibly 6 weeks if the entire
case would be postponed.
5 As Respondent's counsel states in its brief, I indicated that I would give
consideration to reopening of the proceeding even after they had an opportu-
nity to read the transcript of the General Counsel's witnesses, but the brief
provides no adequate basis for doing so.
Findings on the Charges
In Polytech, Incorporated, 195 NLRB 695 (1972), five em-
ployees were given 2-day suspensions for refusing, for the
first time, to perform overtime work requested of them by
their employer. The Board said [at 6961:
In determining whether or not the above-described
work stoppage was a protected concerted activity, we
are guided, in the main, by the decision of the Supreme
Court in N.L.R.B. v. Washington Aluminum Co., 370
U.S. 9. That decision held that when a group of urrep-
resented employees spontaneously ceased work after
reporting to their jobs because of unsatisfactory condi-
tion in the plant, their concerted action was entitled to
the Act's protection-and this even though the stop-
page occurred without any advance notice to the em-
ployer and there had been no prior demand for a
change in the prevailing working conditions.
In a case arising [citing First National Bank of
Omaha, 171 NLRB No. 152, enfd. 413 F.2d 921 (C.A.
8)1 subsequently, the Board held, with court approval,
that a previously unannounced concerted refusal by a
group of unrepresented employees to work overtime
one prompted by dissatisfaction with the employer's
overtime policies was a presumptively protected con-
certed activity. The Board and the court [First Na-
tional Bank of Omaha, supra] made it clear that the
stoppage did not lose its protected status because it
was limited in duration to the overtime hours or was
unaccompanied by any affirmative indication as to
what the employees intended to do in the future if the
employer continued to maintain the existing overtime
policies.
* * . . *
This analysis of the Washington Aluminum and
Omaha cases demonstrated the existence of a presump-
tion that a single concerted refusal to work overtime is
a protected strike activity; and that such presumption
should be deemed rebutted when and only when the
evidence demonstrates that the stoppage is part of a
plan or pattern of intermittent action which is inconsis-
tent with a genuine strike or genuine performance by
employees of the work normally expected of them by
the employer. We find insufficient such evidence in this
case and therefore find that the presumption has not
been effectively rebutted. We thus conclude that Re-
spondent's disciplinary suspension of the employees
was conduct violative of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
Polytech was followed by the Board's decision in Union
Electric Company, 219 NLRB 1081 (1975), involving the
suspension of two linemen for engaging in a work stoppage
to protect the suspension of two other linemen who had
refused temporary upgrading. The Board stated in Union
Electric [at 10821].
In this situation, we find the Board's decision in
Polytech, Incorporated to be controlling. There, the
Board held that separate concerted refusals to work
are presumed to constitute protected strike activity and
that this presumption may be rebutted only when the
510
about 15 employees left in the conference room and 20 or
30 outside the room.
Broten testified that shortly after returning to her work
station Anita Berg, her supervisor, called a number of em-
ployees together and told them that she was ashamed of
them for putting "Mr. Cutter on the spot like this." Broten
stated that Berg complained that employees failed to go
through "the right channels" and, turning to Broten. "said
if I was ever spokesman for anybody in her department
again she would personally see that I am out of there."
Broten stated that she did not respond at the time but later
during the lunch period pointed out to Berg that the men
from the door line had come over to her department before
employees went to see Cutter-a fact that she said Berg
acknowledged observing.
On Tuesday, July 11, Broten said that she and Debbie
Postle were called in and given suspensions by Harriet
Gleason and Bob Levan fbr their participation in the July 7
protest. She said she signed, as requested, a "warning" no-
tice which referred to her "conduct on July 7" as well as to
prior warnings.' The notice read in part:
. . On July 7, 1978 you engaged in conduct in com-
plete disregard of established procedures and policy by
leaving your work area and job when you were sup-
posed to be in production work and by encouraging,
aiding and urging an unauthorized work stoppage.
As a result of past warnings and your conduct on
July 7, 1978, you are hereby suspended from work
without pay until August 7, 1978.
On August 7, 1978, you are to report to work at your
scheduled shift at 7 AM. Failure to report as scheduled
will be construed as your resignation.
We hope the severity of this disciplinary action will
teach you to adhere to all rules and regulations and
follow established procedures and policies the same as
all others are required to do.
Broten testified that she had never participated in a work
stoppage before July 7.
Debbie Postle, a "cartoner" at the time of the hearing.
testified to the same events of July 7 as did Broten. Like
Broten. Postle was a quality control inspector on that day
working under Harriet Gleason. Postle said that she ob-
served employees from several departments at the meeting
with Cutter. She thought that there were 30 or 35 in the
conference room and 15 outside it when the meeting began.
"Everybody talked," she said. She said that she asked if a
Mr. Anderson, one of Respondent's customers located in
Minnesota, knew of "the poor management" of Nichols-
Homeshield and inquired if there was "any proof' concern-
ing the new evaluation program (which prompted circula-
I The end of the first page of the notice entitled "Job Re-Ealuation Pro-
gram." which had been posted on the bulletin board read
Should you have any questions regarding this. please see your supers l-
sor. Personnel. or myself
si/ Bill
Bill Cutter
9 he warning notice (G.C Exh. 4). referred to warnings "for careless
work" and "for failure to punch your time card" n 1977 and "fIor tardiness"
and "for failure to punch your time card" n 1978
evidence demonstrates "that the stoppage is part of a
plan or pattern of intermittent action which is inconsis-
tent with a genuine strike or genuine performance by
employees of the work normally expected of them by
the employer." We find no evidence in this case suffi-
cient to rebut this presumption of protected strike ac-
tivity. In these circumstances, we conclude that Wel-
shans and Henry engaged in protected activity when
they refused to work, in sympathy over the temporary
suspension of fellow employees who refused the dis-
puted upgrade assignments. Accordingly, we conclude
that the Respondent's disciplinary suspension of Wel-
shans and Henry, for engaging in such activity, vio-
lated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. A fortiori, the Respon-
dent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by warning
employees against engaging in similar protected con-
certed activity.
The evidence shows that on Friday. July 7, 1978. there
was a brief, one-time work stoppage to protest the new job
evaluations announced by Respondent., Under the control-
ling cases cited above, the work stoppage was presumed to
be protected activity. Respondent had an adequate oppor-
tunity to show that the work stoppage was part of the plan
of "intermittent action" inconsistent with a genuine strike
or performance by employees of work normally expected of
them, but it elected not to do so.
The testimonies of Tamara Broten, Debra Postle, Betty
Olson, and Judith Parker went unrebutted. Broten testified
that she went to the cafeteria before starting work on the
morning of July 7, 1978. "Everybody was talking about the
posting that was on the bulletin board," she said. She
checked the bulletin board and observed that as a result of
the "MIMA Job Evaluation Study" (G.C. Exh. 3 her job
as a quality control inspector had been downgraded from
labor grade 4 to labor grade 3.' She said that employees
reported to work at 7 a.m. as usual, but "there was defi-
nitely a difference in the output." "[Elverybody was just
discussing these changes."
Broten noticed that several male employees from the
"door line" department, who had gone on break around 9
a.m., had gathered near her department around 9:15 a.m.
when her group was due for a break. There was a report
that Division Manager Cutter had talked with members of
the night shift, and "everybody" then proceeded down the
hall to Cutter's office. Broten was "toward the front" and
asked Cutter's secretary if the group could see him. Cutter
agreed and met with the employees in a conference room.
Broten testified that she asked Cutter a question during the
meeting concerning the effect of the downgrading on wages.
but she said that he responded by telling her that she
"wasn't listening." Broten said that Cutter passed around a
book which had reportedly been used by "MIMA" in mak-
ing the job evaluation for Respondent. Broten stated that
she left the conference room and returned to work after
about I hour. She thought at the time that there were only
I Respondent's employees were not represented by a union at that time
I Broten testified that "close to half' of the jobs were downgraded. Debra
Postle thought that about 70 percent of the plant had been downgraded.
Broten last worked for Respondent as a "sill base operator " She left Re-
spondent's employment on December 13. 1978. the day before the hearing
AMSCO 511
DECISIONS OF NA'TIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
lion of the hook that the MIMA evaluation group had uti-
lized). Pstle said that she returned to work after about I
hour when Cutter asked the employees to do so. She said
that no strike or "work slowdown" was threatened, and
Cutter did not threaten to discipline anyone. Postle said
that she was not aware that a work stoppage at Nichols-
Homeshield had ever occurred before.
Postle also testified about the brief meeting of employees
later that morning called by Supervisor Berg at which she
said that Berg singled out Judy Parker. Dave Houk. and
Tamara Broten for criticism. At the July II meeting, to
which Levan and Gleason had called her and Broten. she
said that she told Levan that she had never heard of such a
long suspension before. She refused to sign for the written
warning given her on that day. The warning (G.C. Exh. 5),
which also refers to tardiness and absenteeism on earlier
dates, read in part:
. . On July 7, 1978 you left your work area and en-
couraged, aided and urged others to engage in an un-
authorized work stoppage contrary to established pro-
cedures and policies.
As a result of your conduct, you are hereby sus-
pended from work without pay until July 31. 1978.
You are expected to report for work on July 31. 1978
in accordance with your regular shift schedule which
starts at 7 AM. Failure to report for work as scheduled
on July 31st will be construed as your resignation.
We hope this disciplinary action will make you real-
ize that you must comply with all rules and regulations
the same as all other employees and to follow company
procedures and policies.
Betty Olson, a saw operator for Respondent at the time
of the hearing, gave testimony concerning the events of July
7 similar to that given by Broten and Postle. Olson's job.
which had included inspection work at that time. had been
downgraded two grades-from grade 3 to grade 1. Olson
testified that "we were all disgusted" over the posting of the
new labor grades that morning, and that a leadman encour-
aged employees to go in, as "some from the night group
has," and talk with Cutter. Olson testified that when she
saw employees lined up to see Cutter she grabbed her purse
and joined them.'0 She said that she returned to work
shortly after 10 a.m. and thereafter met briefly with Super-
visor Berg who said that she was "ashamed" of Olson and
certain others who had attended the meeting." On July 12
Olson met with Supervisor Lang. who handed her a notice
(G.C. Exh. 6). which read:
On July 7, 1978 you left your work area and encour-
aged, aided and urged others to engage in an unautho-
rized work stoppage contrary to established procedures
and policies.
As a result of your conduct, you are hereby sus-
pended from work without pay until July 24, 1978.
I0OIson thought that there were about 50 employees in the conference
room when she spoke up and inquired of Cutter "how a cartoner and inspec-
tor" could be classified the same as a person who sat at a table doing "latch-
ing" work. She said that Cutler's response was: "It's all in the book."
1 Olson said that there were two persons in her department who did not
go to the meeting
You are expected to report for work on luly 24. 1978
in accordance with your regular shift schedule which
starts at 7 AM. Failure to report fr work as scheduled
on July 24th will be construed as your resignation.
We hope this disciplinary action will make you real-
ize that you must comply with all rules and regulations
the same as all other employees and to follow company
procedures and policies.
Olson said that she told Lang that she would not sign for
the notice because, "I don't feel it is right." Olson stated
that this was the only disciplinary warning she had ever
received from Respondent. and that it was the only work
stoppage she had ever observed at Respondent's plant.
Judith Parker testified that she stayed at her station as a
"final operator" but was able to observe that "the guys
from the door line" took the initiative in holding the meet-
ing with Cutter.
CON(LI.USIONS -)F LAW
Based on the foregoing and the whole record. I make the
following conclusions of law:
I. Amsco. A Division of Nichols-Homeshield. Inc., is an
employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Sec-
tion 2(2). (6). and (7) of the Act.
2. By warning and suspending Tamara Broten. Debra
Postle, and Betty Olson because they engaged in protected
concerted activities, Respondent has interfered with, re-
strained, and coerced employees in the exercise of rights
guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act and thereby engaged in
unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(l)
of the Act.
RMimI)Y
Having found that Respondent engaged in unfair labor
practices. I shall recommend that it be ordered to cease and
desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action de-
signed to effectuate the policies of the Act. As I have found
that Respondent unlawfully suspended Tamara Broten.
Debra Postle, and Betty Olson. I shall recommend that Re-
spondent make these employees whole for any loss of earn-
ings they may have suffered as a result of the unlawful
action against them by payment to them of a sum of money
equal to what each of them would normally have earned as
wages from the dates of suspension to the dates of reem-
ployment, less net earnings during such period with back-
pay and interest thereon to be computed in the manner
prescribed in F W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289
(1950); Isis Plumbing & Heating Co.. 138 NLRB 716 (1962):
and Florida Steel Corporation, 231 NLRB 651 (1977)."
Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law.
the entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act,
I hereby issue the following recommended:
1 It is to be noted that Broten was suspendedt for approximately 3-1/2
weeks, Postle for approximately 2-1/2 weeks, and Olson for approximately
1-1/2 weeks. The General Counsel has urged that 9 -percent interest be paid
on the backpay. but the Board has not approved such rate. Accordingly.
such request is denied.
512
notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Re-
gion 18, after being duly signed by Respondent's represent-
ative. shall be posted by it 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 insure that said no-
tices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other mate-
rial.
(e) Notify the Regional Director for Region 18, in writ-
ing. within 20 days from the date of this Order. what steps
Respondent has taken to comply herev ith.
the National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursuant to a Judg-
ment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the Na-
tional l.abor Relations Board"
APPENDIX
Not l(1. To EMPI ()YoIS
POSrED BY ORI)*R OF ill
NAIONAI LABOR Rl Alt ONS BARI)
An Agency of the United States Government
WI Wtlll. NOI interfere with, restrain, or coerce em-
ployees by warning. suspending or discriminating
against them in any other manner for striking or for
engaging in otherwise concerted. protected activities.
Wl W11.1. NO]1 in any like or related manner interfere
with. restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise
of rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the National
I.abor Relations Act. as amended.
WI \wilI make Tamarat Broten. Debra Postle, and
Betty Olson whole for any loss of earnings they have
suffered.
WI: AsIII. expunge from our records all reference to
the written warnings and suspensions issued to Tamara
Broten. D)ebra Postle. and Betty Olson in connection
with the mneaning with Division Manager William Cut-
ter on July 7. 1978. and wtv wil .i notify each of them,
in writing, of the expunging of our records.
AMsc o. A DIvISI()N ()F NI( IH() s-HoMESIIH I).
I' ('.
ORDER"
The Respondent. Amsco, A Division of Nichols-Home-
shield. Inc., Rice Lake, Wisconsin, its officers, agents, suc-
cessors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees
by warning, suspending, or in any other manner discrimi-
nating against employees for striking or engaging otherwise
in concerted protected activity.
(b) In any like or related manner interfering with, re-
straining, or coercing employees in the exercise of rights
guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which is neces-
sary to effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Make whole Tamara Broten. Debra Postle. and Betty
Olson for any loss of earnings each of them may have suf-
fered by reason of the unlawful action against them in the
manner set forth in the remedy section in this Decision.
(b) Expunge from its records all references to the warn-
ings and suspensions issued to Tamara Broten. Debra
Postle, and Betty Olson for their "conduct" on July 7. 1978.
and notify each of them that the warnings and suspensions
issued to them have been revoked and that all such warn-
ings and suspensions in the personnel files and other records
of Respondent have been expunged."
(c) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the
Board or its agents, for examination and copying, all pay-
roll records, social security payment records, timecards.
personnel 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 premises at Rice Lake. Wisconsin, copies
of the attached notice marked "Appendix."'' Copies of said
11 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 n Sec. 102.48
of the Rules and Regulations, e adopted by the Board and become its
findings. conclusions, and Order, and all objections thereto shall he deemed
waived for all purposes.
14 Warnings and suspensions were issued to Broten and Postle on July I .
1978. The warning and suspension of Olson occurred on July 12. 1978.
J1 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
AMSCO 513