Asplundh Tree Expert Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 16, 1975

220 N.L.R.B. 352 (N.L.R.B. 1975)

352 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Asplundh Tree Expert Company and International
Union of Operating Engineers , Local 465, AFL-
CIO. Cases 11-CA-5909 and 11-CA-5921
September 16, 1975
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MURPHY AND MEMBERS FANNING
AND PENELLO
On May 20, 1975, Administrative Law Judge Ivar
H. Peterson issued the attached Decision in this pro-
ceeding. Thereafter, the 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 as modified herein.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Re-
lations Board adopts as its Order the recommended
Order of the Administrative Law Judge as modified
below and hereby orders that the Respondent, As-
plundh Tree Expert Company, Raleigh, North Caro-
lina, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall
i The Administrative Law Judge found that Area Supervisor Kelly ques-
tioned employee Atkins, the leading union proponent, concerning union
activities and asked Atkins which employees were trying to bring the Union
in. He also stated to Atkins that he would discharge the employees who
started the union "mess" if he found out who they were and warned Atkins
against messing with the Union if he wished to keep his job The Adminis-
trative Law Judge also found that a supervisor , Kearney, told employee
Steins that Carolina Power and Light would lay off Respondent's employees
who worked on Carolina Power projects if they got the Union in We find
that such interrogation and threats were unlawful under Sec. 8 (a)(1) of the
Act. The Administrative Law Judge in his recommended Order directed
that Respondent cease and desist engaging in unlawful interrogation. He
failed to include a similar provision covering the making of unlawful
threats. We shall modify the order and notice to correct such omission
2 The Respondent attacks the recommended Order on several grounds.
First , it claims that at most its discharge of Atkins, Algood, and Clark-
assuming it was unlawful-merely accelerated their economic layoff by 2
weeks and, thus, that a usual reinstatement and backpay order is unwarrant-
ed. However , there is some evidence that subsequent to the unlawful dis-
charges Respondent hired employees in jobs such as those previously occu-
pied by the dischargees . For that and other reasons we find that the issues
raised here by the Respondent can best be resolved at the compliance stage
of this proceeding. Second , Respondent claims that it should not be ordered
to offer reinstatement to Algood and Clark because, as all parties have
stipulated , it has already done so However, there is no stipulation or other
evidence that Algood and Clark were offered full reinstatement as custom-
arily required by the Board . Consequently , we find the usual reinstatement
220 NLRB No. 59
take the action set forth in the said recommended
Order, as modified below:
1. Add the following as paragraph 1(b) and relet-
ter the subsequent accordingly:
"(b) Threatening its employees with discharge if
they engage in union activities or otherwise support
the Union."
2. Substitute the attached notice for the Adminis-
trative Law Judge's notice.
order for Algood and Clark is necessary and proper . The claims made here
by Respondent concerning prior offers of reinstatement can, again , best be
resolved at the compliance stage of this proceeding Finally, the Respondent
claims Atkins should be demed reinstatement because at the time of his
discharge he threatened to beat up Kelly . However, at the time of the inci-
dent Kelly ignored the remark and there is nothing in the record to suggest
Atkins really intended , much less that he actually attempted , to engage in
any violence . His comment was clearly nothing more than a rough remark
by a man under the stress of discharge and a wholly insufficient basis, we
find , on which to deny Atkins his right to reinstatement.
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 discrimi-
nate against any employee, for joining or assist-
ing International Union of Operating Engineers,
Local 465, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organi-
zation, or for engaging in other activity protect-
ed by the Act.
WE WILL NOT unlawfully question employees
about their union or protected concerted activi-
ties.
WE WILL NOT threaten our employees with
being discharged if they engage in union activi-
ties or otherwise support the Union.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner restrain or
coerce employees in the exercise of any right
guaranteed under Section 7 of the Act, including
the right to refrain from engaging in any or all of
the activities guaranteed thereunder.
WE WILL offer Craig Algood, Justin Atkins,
and John Bruce Clark immediate and full rein-
statement to their former jobs, or if those jobs
are not available, to substantially equivalent po-
sitions, and make them whole for any loss of
earnings they may have suffered as a result of
our discrimination against them.
All our employees are free to become, remain, or
refrain from becoming or remaining, members of the
above-named Union, or any other labor organiza-
tion.
ASPLUNDH TREE EXPERT COMPANY
A
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
ASPLUNDH TREE EXPERT CO.
It. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The Sequence of Events
IvAR H. PETERSON , Administrative Law Judge: I heard
these cases in Raleigh, North Carolina, on March 20 and
21, which were based on charges, subsequently amended,
filed by International Union of Operating Engineers, Local
465, AFL-CIO, herein called the Union, and the com-
plaint, as amended at the hearing, issued by the Regional
Director for Region 11.1 Briefly stated, the complaint al-
leged that since on or about April 24, 1974, the Respondent
had interfered with the Section 7 rights of its employees by
questioning them concerning their union or other concert-
ed activities, threatening them with discharge because of
their union or concerted activities, and terminating three
employees, (Craig Algood, Justin Atkins, and John Bruce
Clark) on October 18, for the reason that they joined or
assisted the Union or engaged in other union or concerted
activities for the purpose of collective bargaining and mu-
tual aid and protection. By such conduct, the complaint
alleged that the Respondent had engaged in unfair labor
practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Sec-
tions 2(6) and (7) and 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act. On Janu-
ary 29, the Respondent filed its answer admitting certain
jurisdictional allegations of the complaint and the supervi-
sory status of the individuals so named in the complaint;
however, the Respondent denied that it had engaged in any
conduct violative of the Act.
Upon the entire record in the case, and from my obser-
vation of the witnesses as they testified and careful consid-
eration of the briefs filed with me by counsel for the Gen-
eral Counsel and the Respondent, on or about April 22, I
make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. JURISDICTION
The Respondent, a Pennsylvania corporation, is engaged
in service work for public utilities. Only its Raleigh, North
Carolina, location is involved in this proceeding. The Re-
spondent admits and I find that it meets the jurisdictional
standards of the Board and is engaged in commerce within
the meaning of the Act; it is also admitted and I find that
the Union is a labor organization within the meaning of
Section 2(5) of the Act. The following persons are admitted
to have been supervisors within the meaning of Section
2(11) of the Act and occupied the positions following their
names: George Kelly, area supervisor; Joseph Whitley,
general foreman ; Kenneth Stewart, general foreman;
Charles Murray, foreman; Otis L. Green, foreman.
1 The original charge in Case I I -CA-5909 was filed on October 23, 1974,
and the charge in Case I I -CA-5921 was filed on October 30. The earlier
charge was amended on November 19 and January 8 The order consolidat-
ing the cases, and the complaint and notice of hearing were issued on Janu-
ary 27.
353
At the time with which we are here concerned, the Re-
spondent was performing work for the Carolina Power &
Light Company, herein referred to as CP&L, clearing right-
of-way for the installation of transmission lines. This work
consisted of removing and trimming trees, limbs, shrub-
bery, and other growth insofar as necessary in order to
provide adequate clearance for the Respondent's lines. All
the alleged discriminatees were working on the same crew
engaged in the foregoing operations.
Late in September Atkins called the president of the
North Carolina AFL-CIO and arranged a meeting with a
union organizer for the purpose of endeavoring to organize
the Respondent's employees. Thereafter, employee meet-
ings were held at the Holiday Inn in Raleigh. The first
meeting was held on September 26 and thereafter every
Thursday, with the last meeting being held on October 17.
Atkins testified that in addition to himself three other fore-
men, Jaffer Tyler, Otis Green, and Alan Perry attended
these meetings . Atkins passed out some authorization cards
and a pamphlet received from the Union. Atkins related
that early in October he had a conversation with Kelly at a
service station some 4 or 5 miles from Respondent's office.
According to Atkins, Kelly asked him if he had heard any-
thing about any union activities, to which Atkins replied in
the affirmative and stated that he had been to union meet-
ings . He further related that Kelly asked him which em-
ployees were attempting to get the Union in but Atkins
said he did not know all of them and did not give any
names to Kelly. Thereupon, Kelly "told me that this state
had a right to work law and he asked me did I know what
the right to work law meant." Atkins testified that he an-
swered he did not "exactly" know what it meant to which
Kelly responded, so Atkins testified, "that means that if we
find out you are going to start a mess about a Union, you
can lose your job," and added that if he found out "who
started this mess about the Union they are not going to
have any job," and advised Atkins "if you want to keep
your job I'd advise you don't mess with the Union." John
Moore, who held the job of foreman at the time in ques-
tion, testified that he told General Foreman Stewart "that
the boys were trying to get the Union in" following the
meeting of the employees at the service station, and specifi-
cally mentioned Atkins. During the week ending October
12, employee Steins discussed the Union with Supervisors
Kearney and Moore. According to Steins, Kearney said
that CP&L "would lay us off if we . . . started to get the
Union in." Later on the same day, Steins had a conversa-
tion with Moore who stated that CP&L "would frown on a
union and they would lay us off."
The last union meeting among the Respondent's em-
ployees was held on October 17. In addition to Supervisors
Murray, Green, and Tyler, the following employees were
present: Atkins, Algood, Clark, Perry, MacJones, Labing-
er, and Steins.
On the following day, October 18, all of these men other
than Steins were laid off. Steins testified, without contra-
diction, that he did not think Tyler knew him by name.
354 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The Respondent adduced testimony to the effect that the
October 18 layoff was necessitated, as was the earlier one
in March and the succeeding one this past February, be-
cause of the request from CP&L that the Respondent re-
duce its personnel. Forester Massey, of CP&L, whom I
called as a witness to identify a certain document, testified
that, in the morning of October 15, he had a conversation
with Area Supervisor Kelly in which he informed Kelly
that CP&L "would continue to pay for the services of the
log loader and the other matters, including wages for the
crews necessary to operate the log loader, and the bombar-
dier, until October 29." In his letter dated October 15 to
Kelly, Massey stated that because of the "great lack of new
work here in the Raleigh area, I believe we'd better have
you remove 2 climbing crews, too," in addition to discon-
tinuing operating the bombardier, because in his view
CP&L would not "need so many climbing crews which
have been doing the new work, in the main, as we ..."
However, Massey did not mail the letter until October 22.
Massey further related that, on October 14, Atkins came
into the office and was told that CP&L "had no more work
for the log loader to be done, that we had a open position
in another crew and we asked him at that time if he would
accept the position as a climber, temporarily, sir." To this,
so Massey testified, Atkins said that he needed a day or
two off to attend to some personal business and that he
would advise Massey. Kelly testified that the October 18
layoffs were precipitated by directions from Massey. In
this regard, he related that Massey told him that the Re-
spondent would have to let certain crews go and that he
would write Kelly a letter confirming the conversation. Ac-
cording to Kelly, he received the letter "the last part of the
following week," after having been informed by telephone
from Massey, who was on vacation, that he had come into
the office on Tuesday and had forgotten to mail the letter.
Kelly stated that he told Massey that he had already "tak-
en care of the cuts."
Kelly, when asked whether he had any knowledge as to
any union activity engaged in by any of the three alleged
discriminatees prior to their layoff on October 18, an-
swered that he "had no factual information." If this answer
means that he knew nothing about any employee having
engaged in union activity, I do not believe it. As previously
related, Tyler admitted that he discussed the union activi-
ties of the employees with all the foremen and supervisors,
and that Otis Green, who had been employed by the Re-
spondent prior to October 18, when he was laid off, testi-
fied that he had attended union meetings , and had spoken
to General Foreman John Boykin thereafter. Green, in re-
sponse to a question whether he told Boykin that he had
been at a union meeting, replied, "Oh, he knowed that, I
didn't have to tell him." Charles Murray, who had been
employed by the Respondent during September and Octo-
ber, testified that he attended more than one union meet-
ing and, in a conversation with General Foreman Joe
Whitley, concerning the meeting at the service station, stat-
ed that he thought it had to do with the Union. Whitley, so
Murray testified, asked him what he thought about the
matter, to which Murray replied that he had never been a
member of a union but that, if it would help the men, he
was in favor of it. Foreman John Moore testified that, dur-
ing the week ending October 11, he had a conversation
with Steins concerning the Union, in which Steins stated
that he was going to a union meeting, Moore testified that
he replied, "I told him I was not having anything to do
with it, that I didn't want no part of it." He also testified
that he told General Foreman Stewart "that the boys were
trying to get the Union in," and that he named Atkins in
that connection. General Foreman Kearney testified that
there was talk about the Union's organizing effort among
the employees, about the time that the meeting at the ser-
vice station was held.
We turn now to a consideration of the alleged superviso-
ry status of Atkins. Until October 14 or 15, Atkins was
classified as "log loader foreman," at an hourly rate of
$4.10 an hour. The acknowledged supervisory foremen
were paid $4.64 an hour. With the exception of an 11-week
layoff following mid-March 1974, Atkins worked continu-
ously for the Respondent and, after about the first year,
operated a log loader, except that for the last 2 or 3 days he
worked as a climber. Customarily, Atkins worked alone.
However, as General Foreman Boykin testified, on occa-
sion another employee would work with Atkins but that it
was "rare that he would take a man with him." Atkins did
not maintain any work records on other employees and he
was never told that he could exercise any supervisory au-
thority, and testified that he had never done so.
Counsel for the Respondent, in his brief, states that
counsel for the General Counsel, "while alleging that
Respondent's foremen are supervisors within the meaning
of Section 2(11) of the Act, is attempting to simultaneously
maintain that Atkins, who was a foreman and was paid at
the foreman rate, was not a supervisor...." This posi-
tion, he contends, "is not only inexplicable, but at variance
with prior holdings of this very region," and in that con-
nection refers to Case 11-RM-1136, in which the Regional
Director, under date of May 17, 1967, directed an election
among employees in a unit described as all "overhead line
construction and maintenance employees . . . but exclud-
ing foremen, office clerical employees, professional em-
ployees, guards and supervisors as defined in the Act." In
this regard, counsel argues that there is no compelling evi-
dence or reason "why a distinction should be made as to
one foreman the precedental value of prior Eleventh Re-
gion decisions should be lightly reversed." He also refers to
the Board's decision in a prior case involving the Respon-
dent, 161 NLRB 1397 (1966).2
B. Discussion and Conclusions
Counsel for the General Counsel, in his brief, contends
that the record here discloses the Respondent had knowl-
edge of the union activity in which the alleged discrimina-
tees engaged, and that it was opposed to such activity.
Moreover, he contends that the timing of the terminations
2 In that case, the Board found ment in certain exceptions filed by the
Respondent to the Trial Examiner's decision, and approved the request of
the Charging Party in that case to withdraw the charge. That case involved
an individual who held the position of crew foreman which, according to the
Trial Examiner's decision, was stipulated to be a supervisory position within
the meaning of the Act.
ASPLUNDH TREE EXPERT CO.
demonstrates that they were occasioned by union activity,
and that the mathematical probabilities indicate that the
terminations were occasioned by union activity, and finally
that the Respondent held out pretextuous reasons for the
terminations.
On the other hand , counsel for the Respondent argues
that its basic position is that Atkins was a supervisor within
the meaning of Section 2(11) of the Act and that "in no
way could his separation have violated Section 8 (a)(3) of
the Act as alleged ." Moreover , he contends that , even if it
be found that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3) in
terminating Atkins, there is "sufficient , admitted and cor-
roborated evidence on the record that Atkins is not entitled
to reinstatement or backpay inasmuch as at or about the
time of this separation from Respondent 's employ , he seri-
ously threatened to assault the very supervisors by whom
he would have to be employed. Nothing in the National
Labor Relations Act suggests the requirement of the rein-
statement of an employee which would interfere with nor-
mal plant discipline by an insubordinate employee." With
regard to Algood and Clark, counsel asserts that "there is
an utter failure of proof " that the Respondent knew that
either had engaged in union activities.
It appears clear that Massey was dissatisfied with the
performance of the bombardier in that it was cutting some
4,000 feet of right-of-way per week whereas another ma-
chine was cutting between 12,000 and 14,000 feet in the
same period . Kelly related that on October 14 he went to
Massey's office and learned that construction work was
decreasing and that this would necessitate a reduction in
personnel . According to Kelly, he told Massey that the Re-
spondent did not have any work for the log loader and that
"if we don't have anything for the machine my conscience
won't let me steal from him by trying to scrounge beyond a
certain time to keep it out there even though we did have to
pay the rent on it on the yard."
Concerning this testimony , counsel for the General
Counsel asserts that Kelly was asking me "to believe some
things which are simply unbelievable ." He argues that
Kelly's assertions that he "could not in good conscience"
continue to charge the operation of the machine to CP&L
is a "strange position ," since Kelly's "prime obligation"
was to the Respondent and inasmuch as it would appear
that CP&L "was perfectly capable of making decisions re-
garding its own expenses ." Kelly testified that when he
spoke to the foremen on October 7 concerning possible
layoffs he told them that they should, among other things,
learn what the right -to-work law means ; however, he de-
nied that he said anything about the Union or union activi-
ties . In this connection , counsel for the General Counsel
points out that Atkins testified that a day or two previously
Kelly had questioned him about the Union and had stated,
in substance , that the state right-to-work law permitted the
Respondent to discharge employees for engaging in union
activities . Secondly, he notes that Kearney testified that
about that time the foremen realized that the state 's right-
to-work law related to union activities.
Counsel for the General Counsel also points out , in con-
nection with the termination of Atkins, that Kelly, after he
laid off several employees on October 18, later that day
found a job for Tommy Ennis , who had not attended the
355
October 17 meeting, had no prior experience as a foreman,
and was junior to some employees who were laid off.
We turn next to a consideration of the terminations, first
taking up the case of Atkins and his alleged supervisory
status . Admittedly, Atkins decided when and for how long
he would break for lunch, had an expense account and was
authorized to charge gasoline, was reimbursed for stamps
purchased, and was authorized to spend money for keys.
He admitted that, when working as a bucket operator, he
could not purchase stamps, keys, and gasoline using the
Respondent's credit. He also admitted that he filled out a
form called "Line Clearing Report" as a foreman, but that
he did not do so when an employee. He also testified that
he filled out a sheet that contained the dates and names of
persons on the crew and the time they started, went to
lunch, and quit, and that he mailed these sheets to the
customer and the general foreman. He also took the
foreman 's first-aid course and attended foremen 's meetings
which were not attended by employees.
It is, of course, clear that neither the title "foreman" nor
the rate of pay received by an individual establishes that
that individual has the authority of a supervisor. In a re-
cent case 3 the Board found that an individual classified as
a "foreman," who spent between 60 and 75 percent of his
workday in manual labor, worked alongside the laborers,
directed their work and trained them, ordered necessary
amounts of concrete, laid off employees when instructed to
do so, and advised supervision concerning absences, was
not a supervisor within the meaning of Section 2(11) of the
Act. In Electric Wiring, Inc., 193 NLRB 1059 (1971), the
Board adopted its Trial Examiner's finding (at 1062) that
individuals who were considered by the vice president of
that respondent "to be `superintendents' or 'job foremen'
in the sense that he places them `in charge of' building and
constructed projects" on which that respondent was a sub-
contractor were nonsupervisory. After carefully consider-
ing the evidence, I come to the conclusion that, at no time
here material was Atkins a supervisor within the meaning
of Section 2(11) of the Act. There is no evidence that he
possessed or exercised any of the authority that would qua-
lify him as a supervisor as that term is defined in the Act.
While he did on occasion ask other employees to assist him
with work on the log loader, there is evidence that other
employees not claimed to be supervisors made similar re-
quests. Moreover, it seems clear that on October 14 or 15,
Atkins became a member of Green's crew, a position clear-
ly of a nonsupervisory nature. Thus, it would appear that,
even if Atkins were found to be a supervisor while occupy-
ing the position of log loader foreman, at the time of the
layoff on October 18 he was occupying a nonsupervisory
position.
Upon all the evidence I conclude and find that the Re-
spondent, by Area Supervisor Kelly, questioned employee
Atkins about union activities and threatened him and other
employees with discharge if they supported the Union. In
addition, Steins was threatened with a mass layoff if the
Union became the employees' collective-bargaining repre-
sentative. I further find that, on October 18, the Respon-
3 Local 44, Bricklayers, Masons and Plasters International Union, AFL-
CIO, (Raymond International, Inc), 207 NLRB 354 (1973)
356 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
dent laid off eight employees who had attended a union
meeting the night before , including the alleged discrimina-
tees, Atkins, Algood, and Clark. By terminating these three
employees the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1)
of the Act.
Such conduct, occurring in connection with the opera-
tions of the Respondent as described above, has a close,
intimate , and substantial relation to trade , traffic, and
commerce among the several States and tends to lead to
labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and
the free flow of commerce.
THE REMEDY
It having been found that the Respondent engaged in
unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (3)
of the Act, it will be recommended that the Respondent
cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative ac-
tion designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. It will be
recommended that the Respondent offer Craig Algood,
Justin Atkins, and John Bruce Clark immediate and full
reinstatement to their former position or, if not available,
to an equivalent position, without prejudice to their senior-
ity and other rights and privileges, and make them whole
for any loss of earnings they may have suffered by reason
of the discrimination against them, by payment to them of
a sum of money equal to that which they would have
earned from the date of their discharge to the date of the
offer of reinstatement, consistent with Board policy set
forth in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NNRB 289 (1950),
with interest or backpay to be computed in the manner set
forth in Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716
(1962).
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and con-
clusions of law, upon the entire record in these proceed-
ings , and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, I hereby
issue the following recommended:
4In 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 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
ORDER4
Respondent, Asplundh Tree Expert Company, Raleigh,
North Carolina, its officers , agents, successors , and assigns,
shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Questioning employees concerning their union or
other protected concerted activities.
(b) Unlawfully discharging or otherwise discriminating
against any employee or in any other manner interfering
with, restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of
their rights under Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which is
deemed necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Offer to Craig Algood, Justin Atkins, and John
Bruce Clark immediate reinstatement to his former job or,
if that job no longer exists, to a substantially equivalent
position, without prejudice to his seniority and other rights
and privileges.
(b) Make the said employees whole for any loss of earn-
ings they may have suffered by reason of the Respondent's
unlawful discrimination against them in the manner set
forth in the section of this decision entitled "The Remedy."
(c) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the
Board or its agents, for examination and copying, all pay-
roll records, reports, and all other records necessary to ana-
lyze the amounts of backpay due under the terms of this
recommended Order.
(d) Post at its premises in Raleigh, North Carolina, cop-
ies of the attached notice marked "Appendix." 5 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 the Respondent im-
mediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for
60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, in-
cluding all places where notices to employees are custom-
arily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Re-
spondent to insure that said notices are not altered,
defaced, or covered by any other material.
(e) Notify, the Regional Director for Region 11, in writ-
ing, within 20 days from the date of this Order what steps
the Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
5 In the event 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
Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the
National Labor Relations Board."