Barkus Bakery

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 5, 1986

282 N.L.R.B. 351 (N.L.R.B. 1986)

I
BARKUS BAKERY
Caress Bake Shop , Inc. d/b/a Barkus Bakery and
Bakery, Confectionery and Tobacco Workers
International Union, Local 12, AFL-CIO-CLC.
Case 6-CA-18814
351
notice is substituted for that of the administrative
law judge.
APPENDIX,
5 December 1986
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN DOTSON AND MEMBERS
JOHANSEN AND STEPHENS
On 16 July 1986 Administrative Law Judge
Arline Pacht issued the attached decision. The Re-
spondent filed exceptions and a supporting brief,
and the General Counsel fled an answering brief.'
The National Labor Relations Board has delegat-
ed its authority in this proceeding to a three-
member panel.
The Board has considered the decision and the
record in light of the exceptions and briefs and has
decided to affirm the judge's rulings, fmdings,2 and
conclusions and to adopt the recommended
Order.$
ORDER
The National Labor, Relations Board adopts the
recommended Order of the administrative law
judge and orders that the Respondent, Caress Bake
Shop, Inc., Allison Park, Pennsylvania, its officers,
agents, successors, andassigns, shall take the action
set forth in the Order, except that the attached
1 In not granting a visitatorial clause as part of her recommended
remedy, the judge gave some examples of when , in her opinion, such a
medial provision would be "undoubtedly appropriate ." In the absence
of exceptions, we do not reach or pass on her comments concerning the
appropriateness of visitatorial clauses in those or other situations.
2 In affirming the judge 's conclusion that the Respondent violated Sec.
8(a)(1) of the Act on 23 January 1986 by attempting to eject the Union's
organizers from the premises of the Highway Inn and by calling the
police to assist in their removal, we , do not rely on her finding that the
union agents never set foot on the Respondent's property. Rather, we
rely, on the fact that the Respondent 's representatives never distinguished
between the premises of the Respondent and those of the Highway Inn,
and that the union agents were,told they had no right to be on the High-
way Inn property. The Respondent clearly was attempting to prevent the
union representatives from distributing literature anywhere in the parking
lot, including the portion leased by the Highway Inn's proprietor.
Because we affirm the judge 's finding of an 8(a)(1) violation based on
the Respondent's attempt to eject the Union 's agents from property other
than its own, we do not reach the issue, discussed in fn. 8 of the judge's
decision, of whether the Union would have been entitled to contact em-
ployees on the' Highway Inn property if that property had been owned
or controlled by the Respondent.
We correct the following inadvertent errors in the judge 's decision: (1)
The last sentence of part II,A should refer to ". . . the right hand corner
of the bakery [not tavern] itself . "; (2) the second sentence in par. six
of part II ,B should read "By 1985, only 16 of the original 46 employees
.. "; (3) the penultimate sentence in that same paragraph should be de-
leted altogether. The testimony on which it apparently is based was the
subject of an objection and motion to strike by the Respondent's counsel,
and the objection was sustained. None of those errors affects our decision
or that of the judge.
a The Respondent has requested oral argument . The request is denied
as the record, exceptions , and briefs adequately present the issues and the
positions of the parties.
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
The National Labor Relations Board has found
that we violated the National Labor Relations Act
and has ordered us to post and abide by this notice.
WE WILL NOT attempt to prevent or interfere
with representatives of the Bakery, Confectionery
and Tobacco Workers International Union, Local
12, AFL-CIO-CLC, or of any other union, distrib-
uting union literature to our employees on the
property adjacent to our premises, now leased to
the Highway Inn, nor will we summon the police
to assist in removing them or threaten them with
arrest.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner
interfere with, restrain, or coerce you in the exer-
cise of the rights guaranteed you by Section 7 of
the Act.
CARESS BAKE SHOP, INC. D/B/A
BARKUS BAKERY
Ronald J. Andrykovitch, Esq., for the General Counsel.
Nicholas A. Pasciullo, Esq., of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania,
for the Respondent.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
ARLINE PACHT, Administrative Law Judge. Based
upon a charge filed on 24 January 1986,1 as amended on
4 March, a complaint issued on 7 March alleging that
Caress Bake Shop, Inc. d/b/a Barkus Bakery (Respond-
ent or Bakery) violated Section 8(a)(1) of the National
Labor Relations Act (the Act) by promulgating an un-
lawful no-distribution' rule and by preventing union
agents from distributing literature to Bakery employees.
The Respondent filed a timely answer denying it had
violated the Act.
A trial was held before me in Pittsburgh, Pennsylva-
nia, on 8 May. On the entire record, including my obser-
vation of the demeanor of the witnesses, and consider-
ation of briefs submitted by the parties,2 'I make the fol-
lowing
All dates refer to 1986 unless otherwise noted.
$ In her posttrial brief, the General Counsel moved to correct the tran-
script. Having received no opposition to the motion from Respondent,
and having reviewed the transcript and finding that the proposed correc.
tions are accurate , the General Counsel's motion is granted.
282 NLRB No. 55
352 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. JURISDICTION
Caress Bake Shop, Inc ., a Pennsylvania corporation
with an office and place of business in Allison Park,
Pennsylvania , 3 manufactures , sells, and distributes candy
and baked goods . During the year ending 31 December
1985, a representative period , Respondent in the course
of its business operations sold and shipped goods valued
in excess of $50,000 from its Allison Park facility directly
to points outside the State and derived gross revenues in
excess of $500,000. Accordingly, the complaint alleges,
Respondent admits, and I find that Caress Bake Shop,
Inc. is an employer within the meaning of Section 2(2),
(6), and (7) of the Act.
Bakery, Confectionery and Tobacco Workers Interna-
tional Union, Local 12 (Union or Local 12 ) is and has
been at all times material a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
II. ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The Setting
Respondent , previously owned by the Barkus family,
is located in Allison Park, a community on the northern
outskirts of 'Pittsburgh . In 1983 Carl Colteryahn pur-
chased the Respondent and is the sole stockholder of the
corporation . At the same time, but acting in an individ-
ual capacity, Colteryahn purchased the property and the
plant in which the bakery is situated , as well as an adja-
cent parcel of land that houses another freestanding
building. As an individual owner, Colteryahn leases the
plant at Allison Park to Respondent and the adjoining
building and surrounding property to another tenant, Ve-
ronica Herman, proprietor of a tavern known as,the
Highway Inn. Respondent's Allison Park facility inclddes
a bakery, candy room, shipping and receiving area, and a
retail shop . A diagram of the property, introduced into
evidence as Joint Exhibit 1, shows that the Caress plant
occupies its entire site (referred to as parcel one), leaving
no parking space for the employees, all of whom com-
mute to work by private automobile. However, ample
parking space is available on the acreage leased to the
adjacent Highway Inn. Consequently , to alleviate the
transportation problems of the bakery employees, Colter-
yahn negotiated a lease with Herman that expressly pro-
vides that "the Lessor [Colteryahn] its agents, employ-
ees, business invitees , other lessees, and the agents, em-
ployees and business invitees of such other lessees shall
have the right of free, continuous and uninterrupted use
in common with Lessee [Herman] of the parking and
passage areas of the demised premises for the purpose of
traversing the area and parking thereon ." (See G . C. Exh.
8.)
Joint Exhibit 1 further demonstrates that access to the
Allison Park facility is limited. Both the Bakery and the
Highway Inn face a four lane state highway and are bor-
dered in the rear by a creek . No sidewalk or shoulders
abut either side of the highway that has a 45-mile-per-
3 The Respondent has retail outlets throughout the Pittsburgh area but
only its Allison Park facility is involved in this proceeding.
hour speed limit . Apart from the highway, no other
public roads - approach Respondent's facility . The record
indicates that the nearest stop light and crossroad inter-
secting the highway are at least several hundred yards to
the south of the Bakery . A cutout or depression in the
curb allows employees to exit from the highway and
enter the Highway _ Inn parking area . Although specific
spaces are not assigned to Respondent's employees, most
of them park on the side of the tavern closest to the
Bakery ' and then enter ' a nearby employee entrance. Only
one sign was posted on the right hand corner of the
tavern itself indicating that the area below it was desig-
nated for customer parking.
B. The Union 's Organizational Efforts
In December 1985 , the Union began its third effort to
organize the Bakery employees . The first campaign,
which took place in 1981 , culminated in an election that
the Union lost. At that time , the Union received an Ex-
celsior list containing the names and addresses of 46 em-
ployees then in the defined appropriate unit.4
In 1984 Local 12 again attempted a short -lived organi-
zational drive, confining its efforts to one mailing to the
employees identified on the 1981 Excelsior list. The
Union abandoned its efforts without filing an election pe-
tition when employees failed to demonstrate sufficient in-
terest.
Robert Meier, Local 12's vice president , testified that
the following year, when several employees expressed a
renewed interest in representation, the Union decided to
contact the employees directly by leafletting at their
place of employment . Thus, on 18 December 1985,
Meier and Leon Swimmer, a local 12 executive board
member, parked Meier 's car on the Highway Inn lot at
approximately 6 a.m. The union agents approached em-
ployees as they arrived at work over staggered starting
times, distributed union materials , and engaged a number
of them in brief conversation . At some undefined point
during the morning , Edward : Torr, Respondent's general
manager, emerged from the Bakery and told the union
representatives to leave as they were on private proper-
ty. When Meier responded that he was on Highway Inn
property, Torr claimed that Respondent owned that land
too. Ton returned to the plant without further comment
after Meier insisted that he had as much right to be there
as any other member of the public . Meier and Swimmer
remained outside the Highway Inn and continued distrib-
uting literature to the bakery employees without further
interruption. They did not depart until 10 a.m.
Meier and Swimmer repeated their campaigning; ef-
forts on 23 December and 3 January . On each of these
occasions, they parked on the Highway Inn lot and
handed out literature to the bakery employees for several
hours without interference . In fact, none of Respondent's
agents were aware of their presence on these dates. This
was not to be the case on their fourth and final venture
to the Highway Inn parking area . In the early morning
4 Although the Union petitioned to represent only the production and
maintenance employees in 1981 , the Regional Director's Decision and Di-
rection of Election expanded the, appropriate unit to encompass office
and sales personnel at the Allison Park facility.
BARKUS BAKERY 353
hours of 23 January, Meier and Swimmer returned to the
Highway Inn parking lot. When they attempted to hand
material to Respondent's operations manager, John
Kwasniewski, he asked Meier to leave the premises.
Meier told Kwasniewski, as he had told Torr, that he,
like other members of the public, had a right to remain.
Kwasniewski then entered the Bakery. Approximately 15
minutes later, three police cars arrived at the scene and
parked in front of Meier's cans After conferring with
Kwasniewski, a police lieutenant asked Meier whether he
had permission to be at that location and if he knew that
he was trespassing. Meier again expressed his view that
he had a right to be there and that he was not even on
the Respondent's property. The police officer maintained
that he had no right to park on the Highway Inn lot
either and admonished Meier that he would arrest him
for disorderly conduct if any bakery employee was of-
fended by the union agents' presence or by the material
they were distributing. Meier testified without controver-
sion that the lieutenant then asked Kwasniewski whether
any of the employees were offended and received a neg-
ative response. After this, the police simply left.
This confrontation with the police occurred while 5 to
10 bakery employees passed by on their way to work.
Swimmer attempted to hand out literature and talk with
them, but, as he testified, he perceived a marked reluc-
tance on the employees' part to acknowledge him or to
accept any of the materials, in contrast to their friendlier
reception on former occasions. After the police left,
Meier and Swimmer remained for another half hour but
then they also departed and did not return to the Allison
Park facility for fear of further hostile encounters.
In addition to their on-site contacts with employees,
during the same time period, the Union also sent out two
or three mailings to those employees for whom they had
names and addresses. By 1985, only 15 of the original 46
employees on the Excelsior list remained in Respondent's
employ. In addition to those 16, the Union obtained the
names and addresses of 9 other current employees. Thus,
because 80 employees were on Respondent's payroll by
February 1986, the Union had the names and addresses
of 31 percent of the work force.6 In addition to the sev-
eral mailings, Meier also testified that he made approxi-
mately 12 telephone calls to employees. The Union made
no other efforts to contact employees by alternative
means. They did not place advertisements in either of the
two major newspapers in the Pittsburgh area nor resort
to any of the numerous metropolitan Television or radio
stations because, as Meier stated, the cost of such com-
munications would have been prohibitive.' He further
5 In par . 5,b of its answer to the complaint, Respondent gratuitously
represented that its supervisor, Jim McKee , telephoned the police in re-
sponse to complaints from employees who were allegedly frightened by
the union agents Respondent neither presented evidence to support this
allegation nor controverted Meier's testimony that Kwasnieski informed
the police that no employees were offended by the Union's presence.
Thus, I attach no weight to the allegation in par 5,b of the answer
6 At the time of the hearing the number of employees had grown to
86 No evidence was adduced that might prove that the Union knew
which 16 employees of the original 46 remained in Respondent 's employ
by December 1985
7 Meter testified that a one-tune , single page advertisement in the
major Pittsburgh paper would cost $6400 and cost $3900 in the other
maintained that the use of a sound truck would have
been futile, because the Bakery's plant windows were
sealed in the winter. He knew of no billboard close to
the plant nor any location on or near the highway that
would permit handbilling in safety. The widespread dis-
persal of employees throughout 18 townships and 17 dif-
ferent zipcode areas of Pittsburgh led the union repre-
sentatives to conclude that home visits would be difficult
and time consuming, even if they had all the employees'
names and addresses. Meier also attributed the failure to
establish an in-plant organizing committee to the fact
that the employees were fearful of demonstrating interest
in the Union. Finally, he testified that he did not attempt
to obtain the names and addresses of employees by trac-
ing license plate numbers when he learned there would
be a $5 charge for each such inquiry.
II][. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUDING FINDINGS
The issues to be resolved in this case are whether Re-
spondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by promul-
gating and maintaining in a discriminatory manner, a no-
distribution, no solicitation rule, attempting thereby to
prevent union representatives from handbilling bakery
employees in violation of their Section 7 right to orga-
nize.
In NLRB v. Babcock & Wilcox Co., 351 U.S. 105
(1956), the Supreme Court formulated a balancing test to
determine when an employer's right to exclude nonem-
ployees from its property must yield to the employees'
right to obtain a union' s message first hand at the work
site. The Court framed the accommodation in these
terms:
[A]n employer may validly post his property against
nonemployee distribution of union literature if rea-
sonable efforts by the union through other available
channels of communication will enable it to reach
the employees with its message and if the employ-
er's notice or order does not discriminate against
the union by allowing other distribution. [Id. at
112.]
If the evidence in this case established that Respondent
owned or even controlled the parking area surrounding
the Highway Inn, then the instant case would appropri-
ately be resolved under the guidelines set forth in Bab-
cock ,& Willcox, supra. However, Babcock & Wilcox is in-
apposite here, for the evidence in this case clearly shows
that the union agents were on the Highway Inn premises
and never set foot on Respondent's property. Thus, the
Respondent had no legal authority to attempt to eject
them from land over which it had no control.
In its answer to the complaint and through half of the
trial in this matter, Respondent claimed that it owned the
Highway Inn property. In fact, Respondent knew that
this was not true. During the trial, when the General
Counsel received, under subpoena, the lease that Colter-
yahn negotiated with the proprietor of the Highway Inn,
daily Pittsburgh journal The cost of advertising on any one of the many
radio or television stations in the Pittsburgh metropolitan area also was
equally expensive.
354 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the General. Counsel learned that the Caress Bakery Cor-
poration had no ownership interest in parcel two. Then,
on further inquiry by the General Counsel, Colteryahn
ultimately acknowledged that he purchased parcel two
solely as an individual and leased it to Herman with a
reservation expressly limited to parking privileges for the
lessor (Colteryahn) and certain persons in a business rela-
tionship, to him.
After the truth of Colteryahn's ownership and rental
arrangements of parcel two was revealed, Respondent
.devised a claim that the lease created an easement in Re-
spondent's behalf that gave it the right to eject the union
organizers. On construing the lease (G.C. Exh. 8), I find
no basis for Respondent's contention. The applicable lan-
guage in the lease provides that Colteryahn' s lessees, its
agents, employees, and business invitees, have a limited
interest extending solely to parking privileges on the
Highway Inn property. Respondent is not even identified
by name in the lease. Rather, as a lessee, the Bakery is
'perhaps a third party beneficiary of a narrow provision
in a lease between two separate, independent parties.
That lease vests no authority in Respondent to exercise
dominion over strangers who may park on property
leased to the Highway Inn.
Based on Colteryahn's account of a conversation with
Ms. Herman, Respondent also attempts to argue that
their true intent in negotiating the lease was to restrict
parking for their own purposes and prohibit parking by
outsiders. The lease contains no language that would
support such an intent. If adequate parking space (on a
lot over an acre in dimension) was an important matter
of genuine concern, it is difficult to believe that express
restrictions would not appear in the lease or in any other
writing. Further, Respondent failed to call Herman to
verify, Colteryahn's testimony. Moreover, no evidence
was adduced that she, as lease-holder of parcel two, ever
questioned or complained about the presence of the
union representatives, or posted notices prohibiting such
visitors, or reserved the parking area for any exclusive
purpose. Consequently, I conclude that at no time were
the union agents on Respondent's premises or trespassers
on Highway Inn property. Accordingly, Respondent had
no legal right to prevent nonemployees from distributing
union literature there. By attempting to eject Meier and
Swimmer on 23 January and by calling the police to
assist in their removal, Respondent interfered with its
employees' organization rights in violation of Section
8(a)(1) of the Act. See Gainesville M,fg. Co., 271 NLRB
1i86, '1188 (1984).8
B Assuming, arguendo, that Respondent had authority to exclude non-
employees from the parcel two parking area, I would find, nevertheless,
that such right should yield to the Union's right to communicate with the
bakery employees because they were relatively inaccessible through
other means of communication See Babcock & Wilcox, supra at 112 The
undisputed evidence shows that the employees are widely dispersed in a
densely populated metropolitan area . They do not walk nor take public
transportation to work . Thus, it would be highly unlikely for a union or-
ganizer to encounter them on the street near the Bakery or in their com-
munities. Moreover, even if the Union had a complete list of employees'
names and addresses (rather than a bare 31 percent), locating and travel-
ing to their residences for home visits would be arduous and very time
consuming . Further, given the numerous media outlets in the area , adver-
tising on radio, television, or in the press would be exceedingly expensive
and minimally cost effective . As noted in Hutzler Brothers Co., 241
However, I do not find that Respondent's conduct on
18 December 1985, rises to the level of an unfair labor
practice. By all accounts, General Manager Torr's ex-
change with Meier was brief and ended with Torr
simply retreating to the Bakery. No evidence was ad-
duced that any employees were present during this ex-
change. Thereafter, the union representatives apparently
felt unconstrained, for they continued their activities that
same morning without interruption and returned on three
subsequent occasions. Although I recognize that in order
to violate the Act,, a respondent's conduct merely must
tend to be coercive. I cannot conclude the evidence
shows such a tendency on 18 December. Although Torr
may have overstepped the bounds of his jurisdiction, he
did .not intrude upon his employees' Section 7 rights.
Thus, it would be inappropriate to recommend a cease-
and-desist order with respect to Respondent's conduct as
alleged in paragraph 10(a) of the complaint.
The General Counsel also contends that Respondent
did not have an established rule prohibiting solicitation
or distribution on its premises ; rather, it hastily invented
such a policy as an expedient after Local 12 agents ap-
peared. In support of his theory, the General Counsel
notes that Respondent's agents failed to allude to such a
rule on either 18 December or 23 January. The General
Counsel also points out that the rule was not in written
form and was communicated orally to the employees, ac-
cording to Torr, before he became general manager.
Concededly, Torr's testimony was generalized and
vague, but this alone is insufficient to tip the scales in
favor of the Union. The major defect in the General
Counsel's case on this issue is that he relies almost entire-
ly on speculation arising from the omission of reference
to such a rule by Respondent's managers.9 But such
omissions may be explained by perfectly legitimate rea-
sons including sheer inadvertence. Similarly, Torr's ad-
mission that he had never before invoked the rule may
indicate only that no need to do so arose during his
tenure with Respondent. Standing alone, the fact that the
rule was not often applied in the past does not prove that
it was exercised in a discriminatory manner against the
union officials. Surely, sounder evidence is required to
carry the burden of proof on "this issue. At a minimum,
long-term employees could have been summoned to testi-
NLRB 914, 917 (1979), enf. denied 630 F.2d 1012 (4th Cir. 1980), cam-
paigning costs may not be dispositive, but neither must they be discount-
ed in assessing whether alternative modes of communication are reasona-
ble. The record also suggests that campaigning by sound truck in the
dead of winter on a road with a 45-mile-per-hour speed limit, or renting
nonexistent billboards, would be equally futile. Putting cost aside, the
Union could run a motor vehicle check to obtain employees' names and
addresses, but to do so, the Union would have to enter the tavern park-
ing area, the very act which Respondent claims is forbidden. Finally, the
record indicates that no public area exists close to that Bakery where the
Union could handbill in safety. Accordingly, were, I to reach this issue, I
would conclude that the Union had no reasonable means to communicate
with the majority of Respondents employees through other available
channels so that access to the parking area used by Respondent's employ-
ees was necessary.
9 Solo Cup Co., 172 NLRB 1110 (1968), cited by, the General Counsel
as support for drawing such an inference is inapposite for there the ad-
ministrative law judge found that the company admitted it had agreed
with other businesses to exclude union organizers from an entire industri-
al area. Id. at 1118.
BARKUS BAKERY
fy about Respondent's past practice ,:and policy'iii'this
regard. Because the evidence on this issue is inconclu-
sive, I am unable to find that Respondent published and
promulgated a discriminatory no-solicitation , no-distribu-
tion rule on 18 December and, therefore, will recom-
mend that this allegation of the complaint be dismissed.
On the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and on
the entire record in this case, I make the following
CONCLUSIONS OF LAw
1. Respondent Caress Bake Shop, Inc. is an employer
engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6)
and (7) of the Act and the Union is a labor organization
within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
2. By attempting to prevent union representatives from
distributing literature to bakery employees in the parking
area of the property adjacent to Respondent, leased by
the Highway Inn, and by summoning the police to assist
in their removal on 23 January 1986, Respondent inter-
fered with its employees' right to organize, thereby vio-
lating Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
3. The aforesaid unfair labor practice effects commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1)
of the Act, I will recommend that it be ordered to cease
and desist therefrom and that it take certain affirmative
action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. Spe-
cifically, Respondent will be ordered to post the notice
attached to this Decision as Appendix A and to abide
therewith.
The General Counsel urges that the recommended
Remedy and Order include a visitorial clause on the
grounds that such a clause is needed to assist the Board
in verifying Respondent's compliance therewith.
In numerous circumstances , such as those outlined in
the General Counsel 's motion, a visitorial clause un-
doubtedly is appropriate . " ° However, I am not persuad-
ed that the Board requires the same stringent investiga-
tive power in this case simply to ascertain whether or
not Respondent has posted the notice and is abiding by
its dictates. Therefore, the General Counsel 's request to
include a visitorial clause in the proposed Order is
denied.
10 E.g., in cases involving backpay or the discriminatory operation of
hiring halls.
355
On; these findings' of fact and conclusions of law and
on the entire record, I issue the following recommend-
edll
ORDER
The Respondent, Caress Bake Shop, Inc., d/b/a
Barkus Bakery, Allison Park, Pennsylvania, its officers,
agents, successors, and assigns, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Attempting to prevent or interfere with representa-
tives of Local 12 or any other union from distributing
union literature to bakery employees on premises leased
to Highway Inn (parcel two) or summoning police to
assist in their removal and threatening them with arrest.
(b) In any like or related manner interfering with, re-
straining, or coercing employees in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act:
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to
effectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Post at its Allison Park, Pennsylvania facility,
copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix."12
Copies of the notice, on forms provided by the Regional
Director for Region 6, after being signed by the Re-
spondent's authorized representative, shall be posted by
the Respondent immediately upon receipt and maintained
for 60 consecutive days in conspicuous places including
all places where notices to employees are customarily
posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respond-
ent to ensure that the notices are not altered, defaced, or
covered by any other material.
(b) Notify the Regional Director in writing within 20
days from the date of this Order what steps the Re-
spondent has taken to comply.
IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that insofar as the com-
plaint alleges other violations of the Act that have not
been found to constitute unfair labor practices, these alle-
gations are dismissed.
11 If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the Board's
Rules and Regulations , the findings, conclusions, and recommended
Order shall, as provided in Sec. 102.48 of the Rules, be adopted by the
Board and all objections to them shall be deemed waived for all pur-
poses.
12 If this Order is enforced by a judgment of a United States court of
appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by Order of the Nation-
al 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."