Anniston Yarn Mills, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 3, 1953

103 N.L.R.B. 1495 (N.L.R.B. 1953)

ANNISTON YARN MILLS, INC . 1495
ANNISTON YARN MILLS, INC . and MRS. M. A. BOWEN
LOCAL 1199, TEXTILE WORKERS UNION OF AMERICA, CIO and MRS. M. A.
BOWEN. Cases Nos. 10-CA-1.445 and 10-CB-124. April 3,1953
Decision and Order
On November 7, 1952, Trial Examiner Albert P. Wheatley issued
his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that
the Respondent Union had engaged in and was engaging in certain un-
fair labor practices, and recommending that it cease and desist there-
from and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the
Intermediate Report attached hereto. The Trial Examiner also found
that the Respondent Company had not engaged in unfair labor prac-
tices and recommended that the complaint be dismissed as to this
Respondent. Thereafter, the Respondent Union filed exceptions to
the Intermediate Report and a memorandum in support thereof.
The Board 1 has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner
at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The
rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Interme-
diate Report, the exceptions, the memorandum, and the entire record
in the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recom-
mendations of the Trial Examiner.
We have adopted the Trial Examiner's finding that the Respondent
Company did not discriminate against Mrs. Bowen in violation of
Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act solely because no exceptions were filed
to this finding by any of the parties. It is the Board's practice to
adopt, as a matter of course, findings of Trial Examiners to which no
exceptions are filed. In doing so, the Board does not pass upon the
merits of the finding or the rationale in support thereof. A finding
adopted under such circumstances is not considered a precedent for
any other case. Unlike Member Murdock, we perceive no adequate
reason for making an exception to well-established Board practice in
the present case.
Order
Upon the entire record in the case, and pursuant to Section 10 (c)
of the National Labor Relations Act, the National Labor Relations
Board hereby orders that Local 1199, Textile Workers Union of
America, CIO, Anniston, Alabama, its officers, representatives, agents,
successors, and assigns shall:
1. Cease and desist from :
a Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act , the Board has delegated its
powers in connection with this case to a three -member panel [Chairman Herzog and
Members Houston and Murdock].
103 NLRB No. 133.
1496 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
(a) In any manner causing or attempting to cause Anniston Yarn
Mills, Inc., its officers, agents, successors, and assigns to discriminate
against any employee in violation of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
(b) Restraining and coercing employees of Anniston Yarn Mills,
Inc., its successors or assigns , in the exercise of the rights• guaTanteed
in Section 7 of the Act, except to the extent that such rights may be
affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organi-
zation as a condition of employment, as authorized in Section 8 (a)
(3) of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action, which the Board finds
will effectuate the, policies of the Act :
(a) Notify Anniston Yarn Mills, Inc., its successors or assigns, in
writing, and furnish a copy thereof to Mrs. M: A. Bowen, that it-with-
draws all objections to the employment of Mrs. M. A. Bowen as a
winder, without prejudice to her seniority or other rights and
privileges.
(b) Make whole Mrs. M. A. Bowen for any loss of pay she may
have suffered, in the manner prescribed in the remedy section of the
Intermediate Report.
(c) Post at its business offices and meeting places in Anniston, Ala-
bama, copies of the notice attached to the Intermediate Report marked
"Appendix A." 2 Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Re-
gional Director for the Tenth Region, shall, after being duly signed
by an official representative of the Respondent Union, be posted by it
immediately upon receipt thereof and maintained by it for a period
of sixty (60) consecutive days thereafter in conspicuous places, in-
cluding all places where notices to members are customarily posted.
Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent Union to insure
that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other
material.
(d) Mail to the Regional Director for the Tenth Region signed
copies of the notice attached to the Intermediate, Report and marked
"Appendix A," for posting, the Respondent Company willing „at.the
Company's plant in Anniston, Alabama, in places where notices to
employees are customarily posted.
(e) Notify the Regional Director for the Tenth Region in writing,
within ten (10) days from the date of this Order, of the steps taken
to comply herewith.
2 This notice, however , shall be and hereby is amended by striking from the first para-
graph thereof the words "Recommendations of a Trial Examiner ," and substituting in lieu
thereof the words "A Decision and Order ." In the event that this Order is enforced by
decree of a United States Court of Appeals, there shall be substituted for the words
"Pursuant to a Decision and Order" the words "Pursuant to a Decree of the United States
Court of Appeals , Enforcing an Order."
ANNISTON YARN MILLS, INC. 1497
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint be, and it hereby is, dis-
missed insofar as it alleges that Respondent Anniston Yarn Mills,
Inc., discriminatorily discharged Mrs. M. A. Bowen.
MEamER MuRDOCK, concurring in part and dissenting in part :
I concur in the finding of my colleagues and the Trial Examiner
that the Union caused and attempted to cause the Employer to dis-
criminate against Mrs. Bowen in violation of Section 8 (b) (2) and
8 (b) (1) (A) of the Act and in the issuance of a back-pay order
against the Union. I dissent, however, from the failure to find
that the Employer discriminated against Mrs. Bowen in violation
of Section 8 (a) (3) and the resulting failure to employ the customary
reinstatement order which would follow such a finding.
My colleagues have failed to consider the merits of the 8 (a) (3)
allegation solely because of the absence of any specific exception to
that part of the Trial Examiner's findings dismissing that allega-
tion. Under some circumstances this may be appropriate. I can-
not join in such procedure, however, when it results as it does here
in perpetuating what seems to me a serious misinterpretation of the
Acts
The Union here successfully sought the application of a provision
of the contract to Mrs. Bowen which resulted in the cancellation of
her seniority and consequent loss of her employment. It did so be-
cause, as the Trial Examiner found, it was motivated to cause her to
be discriminated against because of her nonmembership in the Union
and her failure to participate actively in a strike. The Trial Ex-
aminer found that there was "considerable doubt" that the Union's
position as to the application of the contract in the situation was
correct. Nevertheless, he states that the Union's position was "not
so unreasonable, unsound, and unwarranted that it can be inferred that
the Company was aware that it was being taken as a pretext" to con-
ceal an intent to discriminate.' On that ground he dismisses the al-
legation of the complaint that the Employer discriminatorily dis-
charged Mrs. Bowen, citing the Ferro Stamping decision.'
What the Trial Examiner has overlooked is that Section 8 (a) (3)
of the Act in making "discrimination" an unfair labor practice has
created only one defense to discrimination. That defense is the pro-
viso permitting discrimination under valid union-shop contracts.
Even that defense is further qualified by the additional provisos (A)
and (B), and an employer cannot "justify any discrimination" under
a union-shop contract if he has reasonable grounds for believing that
8 Where any exceptions are filed , the Board is free, of course, to consider the merits
of the entire case.
• While the correctness of this finding may be debatable , it is unnecessary to my view
of the case to go into that question.
0 93 NLRB 1459, 1461.
1498 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the situations set forth in the provisos exist. No other defense to dis-
crimination than a valid union-shop contract is permitted by the terms
of Section 8 (a) (3). By considering whether the Union's contention
as to Mrs. Bowen was sufficiently plausible under the contract and
dismissing the complaint as to the Employer despite the discrimi-
nation against Mrs. Bowen because he finds it was unaware of the
discriminatory motivation of the Union, the Trial Examiner is creat-
ing and utilizing a defense to a Section 8 (a) (3) violation which is
not permitted by the Act. The Ferro Stamping decision cited has
nothing to do with the instant case because it involved a union-shop
contract and the provisos to Section 8 (a) (3) applicable to such sit-
uations. There was no union-shop contract in the instant case.
By sanctioning the dismissal of the complaint as to the Employer
despite the discrimination against Mrs. Bowen, my colleagues are
depriving her of the remedy of reinstatement which this Board has
considered (along with back pay) as necessary to remedy the effects
of discrimination. Simply ordering the Union to give back pay to
Mrs. Bowen does not fully purge the unfair labor practice. A techni-
cal omission to file a specific exception is a rather infirm basis for the
denial of the substantive right of reinstatement.
For the foregoing reasons, I would find that no valid defense exists
to the Employer's discrimination against Mrs. Bowen, and I would
consequently find a violation of Section 8 (a) (3) and order rein-
statement by the Employer and joint and several liability with the
Union on the back pay.
Intermediate Report 1
The only issue herein concerns the reason for a cancellation of the accumulated
seniority of Mrs. M. A. Bowen and the consequent loss of her job.'
On May 7, 1931, the Company's employees engaged in a work stoppage which
continued until agreement between the Company and the Union was reached
on July 16, 1951. While the strike was current and the plant shut down, Mrs.
Bowen, a nonunion employee in need of an eye operation (removal of a cataract),
secured, orally, a leave of absence for this purpose from the plant superintendent.
At that time there was no requirement that such leave of absence be in written
form. The eye operation was performed on May 31, 1951, and Mrs. Bowen did not
return to her job until on or about September 4, 1951. Meanwhile, however, she
1 At the hearing before the undersigned on September 8 and 9, 1952 , in Anniston,
Alabama, Respondents' motions to dismiss the complaint were taken under consideration.
These motions are now disposed of in accordance with the findings and conclusions made
herein. In preparing this Intermediate Report the undersigned has considered the entire
record in these cases , including briefs filed by counsel for the General Counsel, for
Respondent Company, and for Respondent Union
2 The evidence reveals and the undersigned finds that (1) Anniston Yarn Mills, Inc.
herein called the Company, during the times material herein, was engaged in commerce
within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended , herein called the
Act, and ( 2) Local 1199, Textile Workers Union of America, CIO, herein called the
Union, is a labor organization within the meaning of the Act.
ANNISTON YARN MILLS, INC. 1499
kept the Company informed as to her physical condition and as to her desires
to return to her job. She was constantly and consistently assured her job would
be available upon her return after she had recovered sufficiently to be able to
perform the necessary duties. Nevertheless, shortly after she returned to work
on or about September 4, 1951, she was informed that her old job (as a winder)
was not available to her and she was given a job as a substitute employee, without
seniority. Because she was only a substitute employee, working in the place of
employees absent, she was not able to secure constant employment. When Mrs.
Bowen complained about this situation she was offered a job (as a winder) on the
night shift, as a new employee, but declined this because of her eye condition and
severed her employment with the Company.
The General Counsel contends that Mrs. Bowen's seniority was canceled and
consequently she lost the job which she held prior to her leave of absence because
she was not a member of the Union and had not participated actively in the
strike. Respondents deny such and claim that Mrs. Bowen failed to comply with
the terms of the agreements made at the conclusion of the strike and that in ac-
cordance with the terms of these agreements she lost her seniority and conse-
quently her former job.
On June 16, 1951, the Company and the Union executed a written contract, pro-
viding, inter alia:
The terms "employee" and "employees", as used in this agreement, refer
to each employee and all employees of the Employer for whom the Union is
recognized as the exclusive representative for the purposes of collective
bargaining in accordance with this Article.'
This written agreement also provides for the filling of job vacancies on the basis
of seniority and for the posting of notices of such vacancies. It also contains
provisions concerning leaves of absence. These provisions are:
Employees desiring leave of absence shall request the same from (1) their
Overseer, or (2) the Superintendent, (3) the Assistant Superintendent, and
if more than one (1) clay, the request shall be in writing on an agreed-upon
form provided by the Employer for that purpose. The management repre-
sentative shall immediately furnish the departmental Shop Steward with a
copy of the request with his written decision thereon. The request shall
state for what purpose and to what date the leave of absence is desired,
which shall not exceed thirty (30) days' duration, except as hereinafter
provided.
Leaves of absence shall be granted for illness, including pregnancy, not to
exceed twelve (12) months.
Employees absent from work by reason of illness or other reasonable cause
shall notify their overseer at least two (2) hours prior to the beginning of
their next regular shift, shorter notification to be permitted in cases of
emergency. Proper notice of emergency absence shall constitute applica-
tion for leave of absence. Any worker failing to report back on or before the
expiration of his leave of absence shall have one additional day emergency
leave, after which he shall lose all of his accumulated seniority, and if he
over-extends his regular leave by one week, lie shall be deemed to have
voluntarily quit.
Application for extension of leave of absence shall be made in the same
way as provided for original application.
The Union was recognized as the bargaining agent for all production and maintenance
employees.
1500 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Concurrent with the execution of the written contract the Company and the
Union also entered into certain oral agreements. The pertinent oral agreements
were that (1) the strike would end that day; (2) "the employees shall be those
on the payroll May 7, 1951, the date the work stoppage began ... Any person
who quit or was discharged prior to that date are not employees and have no
claim or seniority"; (3) "all layoffs and leaves must report to work within
1 week, illness and pregnancies excepted. Notice of intention should be given
within the week"; (4) employees laid off prior to May 7, 1951, and employees
on leaves of absence which began prior to May 7, 1951, "must signify their inten-
tion of returning within" 1 week; and (5) the Union would undertake to notify
the employees of the termination of the strike and of the terms of the agree-
ments reached.4
The Union did endeavor to notify the employees of the strike-settlement terms
but failed to inform Mrs. Bowen thereof or to notify her of any obligation that
her leave of absence must be in written rather than oral form or that she was
required to signify within 1 week of the termination of the strike her intention
of returning to work when able to do so. Nevertheless, Mrs. Bowen was aware
of the termination of the strike and within 1 week of its termination did notify
the Company of her intention to return to work after recuperating. Such notice
of intention was oral, rather than in writing. The Union contends herein it
should have been in writing.
Shortly after Mrs. Bowen returned to work, on or about September 4, 1951,
Union Shop Steward Clifford Holder approached Jess Daniels, overseer, and
told him that because Mrs. Bowen did not "have a leave of absence" she didn't
have no seniority" and asked what the Company "was going to do about her job."
Daniels stated he would take the matter up with the plant superintendent. He
(Daniels) thereafter told the plant superintendent the substance of Holder's con-
versation. The plant superintendent then assembled the union shop committee
and discussed the matter with them. The committee requested that Mrs. Bowen's
seniority be canceled, that she be deemed a new employee, and that her former
job be declared vacant and notice thereof be posted on the bulletin board so that
employees could bid for the job. The plant superintendent stated he "didn't think
that this was treating Mrs. Bowen right, that she had been out on sick leave, and
had gone on sick leave at a time when there was no contract, nor requirement
that sick leaves be in writing." The shop committee took the position that by
virtue of Mrs. Bowen's failure to secure a written leave of absence she had
forfeited her seniority under the terms of the agreements of June 16, 1951, and
that in accordance with these agreements her job should be posted. At the
insistence of this committee, Mrs. Bowen's seniority was canceled and her job was
declared vacant and notice thereof was posted on the bulletin board. Mrs.
Bowen, unsuccessfully, bid for this job. Had Mrs. Bowen not been treated as a
new employee her bid would have been successful (absent the cancellation of her
seniority Mrs. Bowen was the senior employee bidding for this job).
Upon being informed that her job was being declared vacant and would be
posted for bidding, Mrs. Bowen filled in a job bid form. The form was as follows :
9 The evidence concerning the oral agreements was received subject to a motion to
strike. Said motion is now hereby denied.
ANNISTON YARN MILLS, INC . 1501
JOB BID FORM
Issued by
TEXTILE WORKERS UNION OF AMERICA, CIO
Job ---------------- Department ---------------- Shift ----------------
Time and date of bid --------------------------------------------------
Date job posted--------------------------------------------------------
Employee signature ------------------------
Union Steward signature -------------------
Mrs. Bowen took this bid form, properly executed, to the union shop steward for
his signature 6 Mrs. Bowen testified, credibly, that the conversation with the
shop steward (Clifford Holder) was as follows:
A. Yes [took bid to Holder]. And I asked him to sign it and he wouldn't
do it. He said he didn't have to.
Taint EXAMINER WHEATLEY : What did you ask Mr. Holder to sign?
THE WITNESS: The bid on the job.
Q. (By Mr. Patton.) What else did Mr. Holder say on that occasion?
A. Well, I asked him, why. I said , "Clifford", I call him Clifford. I said,
"Clifford, union is business , if it is going to be in a plant". I said, "It is
business". And I said, "You are supposed to go by rules and regulations."
And he says, "We don't go by no rules and regulations." And I say, "Well,
you are supposed to." And he says, "Well are you going to join the Union?"
I says, "Well, I came back here with that intention if I worked here, I would
go in it." And he said, "Well, if you had been here-been over here helping
us fight it out," says, "You would still have had your job, you wouldn't be like
you are now." And he turned and walked off. He never brought me any
card or anything to sign, or nothing. And it [he] never mentioned to me
any more about going in the union and -'
The testimony of Mrs. Bowen reflects that in this conversation Holder also
told Mrs. Bowen that her bid for this job was not accepted because she "had
failed to give notice in writing, or any notice, to the Company within a week
after the strike settlement" that she "still intended to come back to work." As
noted above Mrs. Bowen did give such notice of intention but not in written
form.
On the same date that Holder refused to sign Mrs. Bowen's bid he (Holder)
told Mrs. Myrtle Mae Thomas, when asked why he had failed to sign the bid,
"Hell, I didn't have to. I represent the union and she don't belong." Mrs.
Thomas also testified that on the day Mrs. Bowen left the plant (after rejecting
a job on the night shift) Holder told her (Mrs. Thomas) it was "a good thing"
Mrs. Bowen was leaving. "If she didn't we would run her out of her [here]."
There is no evidence that the Company was aware of any of these statements
by Union Steward Holder.
Conclusions
While the record reflects that Mrs. Bowen's seniority was canceled and conse-
quently she lost her former job because the Union insisted upon it, and that
the Union was motivated, at least in part, by Mrs. Bowen's failure to partici-
' As noted above, the form has a place for the signature of the union steward. Further-
more, the written contract states, inter alua, "any employee in the department shall have
the right to bid for the job by giving written bid (in duplicate) to the Immediate Super-
visor and shop steward within the bidding period."
Holder was not called as a witness and the record does not contain any explanation
as to why he was not called.
1 502 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
pate actively in the strike, there is no evidence that the Company was aware
of this motivating factor. So far as the Company was concerned the record
reveals that it succumbed to the Union's insistence that under the agreements
Mrs. Bowen forfeited her seniority and consequently her former job by virtue
of her failure to obtain written leave of absence and/or her failure to signify,
in writing, an intention to return to work. While there may be, and in the
opinion of the undersigned is, considerable doubt that this position of the Union
was correct, the undersigned believes this position, in the light of the entire rec-
ord herein, not so unreasonable, unsound, and unwarranted that it can be in-
ferred that the Company was aware it was being taken as a pretext, that the
Company was aware it was being taken to conceal intent to discriminate against
Mrs. Bowen, and that the Company had reasonable ground for believing that
the Union was seeking action against Mrs. Bowen because of her failure to par-
ticipate actively in the strike and because of her lack of union membership. In
these circumstances it is believed that the Company should be absolved of lia-
bility and that the allegations of the complaint concerning the Company should
be dismissed. See Ferro Stamping and Manufacturing Co., 93 NLRB 1459, 1461,
cited with approval in Pacific American Shipowners Association, et al., 98 NLRB
582, footnote 11. Assuming, arguendo, that the Union's interpretation of the
agreements was correct, it appears that, nevertheless, one of the chief reasons
for seeking action against Mrs. Bowen was her failure to participate actively
in the strike and her lack of union membership. Such is readily apparent from
the undenied statements of Union Shop Steward Holder, the individual who
initiated (and participated with the union shop committee in) the course of
conduct resulting in the action against Mrs. Bowen. In its brief the Union notes
that Holder "was the lowest level union representative who first received a
complaint and passed it on to the General Shop Committee." Presumably, the
above-quoted phrase is meant to connote that Holder was such a minor official
of the Union that the Union cannot be held responsible for his conduct. The
undersigned rejects any such contention. It is clear from the record herein
that the shop steward was the on-the-spot representative of the Union and was
clothed with authority to act on behalf of the Union with respect to day-to-day
problems and matters similar to the matter herein.
It is concluded that the Union caused and attempted to cause the Company
to discriminate against Mrs. Bowen because of her failure to participate actively
in the strike and because of her lack of union membership and that by such con-
duct the Union violated Section 8 (b) (2) and (1) (A) of the Act.7
In summary, the undersigned concludes and finds that (1) Respondent Com-
pany should be absolved of liability and that the allegations of the complaint
to the effect that it discriminatorily discharged Mrs. Bowen should be dismissed ;
and (2) by the conduct herein outlined, the Respondent Union committed unfair
labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (b) (1) (A) and 8 (b) (2) of
the Act and that these unfair labor practices are unfair practices affecting com-
merce within the meaning of the Act.
The Remedy
Having found that Respondent Union has engaged in unfair labor practices
in violation of the Act, the undersigned recommends that it, to effectuate the
policies of the Act, take the action hereinafter specified.
7Any contention that a finding that Section 8 (a) (3), of the Act has been violated by
the Employer is a prerequisite to a finding that Section 8 (b) (2) has been violated is
hereby rejected See Ferro Stamping and Manufacturing Co., 93 NLRB 1459; Ambassador
Venetian Blind Workers' Union, 92 NLRB 902; and National Union of Marine Cooks and
Stewards, 92 NLRB 8,77.
ANNISTON YARN MILLS, INC . 1503
The record herein reveals that the Company ceased operating the plant in-
volved herein 8 on May 15, 1952, and that at the time of the hearing herein it did
not contemplate reopening the plant. Accordingly, the Union's liability for
back pay should not extend beyond May 15, 1952, unless the plant reopened. In
the latter event, the Union's liability should encompass the period from September
4, 1951, to May 15, 1952, and the period from the date the plant reopened after
May 15, 1952, to 5 days after the date the Union notifies the Company, in writ-
ing, that it withdraws its objections to employment of Mrs. Bowen as a winder,
without prejudice to her seniority or other rights and privileges. The Union
shall deduct from the amount due Mrs. Bowen such sums as would normally
have been deducted from her wages for deposit with State and Federal agencies
on account of social security and other similar benefits. The Union shall pay
to the appropriate State and Federal agencies, to the credit of Mrs. Bowen and
the Company, a sum of money equal to the amount which, absent the discrimina-
tion, would have been deposited to such credit by the Company, either as a tax
upon the Company or an account of deductions made from Mrs. Bowen's wages
by the Company, on account of such social security or other similar benefits.
[Recommendations omitted from publication in this volume.]
e The only plant operated by the Respondent Company.
Appendix A
NOTICE
To ALL MEMBERS OF LOCAL 1199, TEXTILE WORKERS UNION OF AMERICA, CIO,
AND To ALL EMPLOYEES OF ANNISTON YARN MILLS, INC., ITS SUCCESSORS OR
ASSIGNS
Pursuant to the recommendations of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor
Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, we hereby notify you that :
WE WILL NOT cause or attempt to cause ANNISTON YARN MILLS, INC., its
officers, agents, successors, or assigns to discriminate against any employee
because of nonmembership in our organization or because of failure to sup-
port actively activities of our organization or cause or attempt to cause the
said company to discriminate against its employees in violation of Section 8
(a) (3) of the Act.
WE WILL NOT restrain or coerce employees of said company, its succes-
sors or assigns, in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act,
except to the extent that such rights may be affected by an agreement re-
quiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of employment, as
authorized by Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
WE WILL make Mrs. M. A. Bowen whole for any loss of pay she may have
suffered because of the discrimination against her.
WE HAVE no objection to the employment of Mrs. M. A. Bowen by the
ANNISTON YARN MILLS , INC., its successors or assigns , as a winder , without
prejudice to her seniority or other right and privileges. We have given
ANNISTON YARN MILLS, INC., notice to this effect.
LOCAL 1199, TEXTILE WORKERS UNION OF AMERICA, CIO,
Labor Organization.
Dated-------- By ---------------------------------------------------------
(Representative ) ( Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date hereof,
and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.