Bayliner Marine Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 21, 1974

215 N.L.R.B. 12 (N.L.R.B. 1974)

12 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Bayliner Marine Corporation and David E. Brooks.
Case 19-CA-6714
November 21, 1974
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS FANNING, KENNEDY, AND PENELLO
On May 10, 1974, Administrative Law Judge Her-
man Corenman issued the attached Decision in this
proceeding. Thereafter, 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 conclu-
sions of the Administrative Law Judge and to adopt his
recommended Order as modified herein.
Respondent contends, inter alia, that the record as a
whole fails to support the Administrative Law Judge's
conclusion that Respondent possessed knowledge of
the union activity of employees S. Kron, D. Kron, and
Brooks at the time of their alleged unlawful discharges
and that because such knowledge is a prerequisite of
finding an 8(a)(3) violation that aspect of the complaint
must be dismissed. We find merit in this contention.
In finding that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3)
of the Act by discharging the above-mentioned em-
ployees, the Administrative Law Judge concluded that
the work performance of the above-named employees
was not, as Respondent had argued, the moving cause
for their discharge. In reaching this conclusion, the
Administrative Law Judge stated that he was both
"satisfied" that any derelictions in duty were of a minor
nature, insubstantial, and distant in point of time from
the date of the discharges, and "convinced" that the
discharges were effectuated to stop the union activities
of the alleged discriminatees who by reason of their
duties had contact with the employee complement as a
whole.' The threshold question of employer knowl-
edge of such union activities was, however, resolved by
merely indicating that such knowledge may be, and
often is, established by circumstantial evidence.
However, no attempt was made to assess the probative
value of the circumstantial evidence bearing on this
issue.
At the outset, we note that our inquiry does not
involve an attempt to pinpoint the most reasonable
motivation for an employee's discharge, for it is well-
established that an employer may discharge an em-
ployee for good reason, bad reason, or no reason at
all.' Rather it is the General Counsel's burden to es-
tablish a particular motivation on the part of the em-
ployer, a discriminatory motivation. Because company
knowledge of union activity is a fundamental prerequi-
site in the establishment of that motivation, it is also the
General Counsel's burden to prove by substantial evi-
dence the existence of such knowledge. Suspicion sur-
rounding the discharge will not replace the need for
such proof.' In the context of the instant proceeding,
it is clear to us that the General Counsel failed to
establish, and the Administrative Law Judge erred in
concluding, that Respondent was, in fact, aware of the
union activity of the employees involved at the time of
their terminations. The only evidence bearing on Re-
spondent's knowledge of general union activity is the
admission by several of Respondent's officials that they
had heard "rumors about a union." The testimony of
Respondent's president, Edson, is typical, "occasion-
ally there was a union mentioned in the plant but it was
on a continuing basis . . . it was neither more intense
or any less intense than it had been for years." Supervi-
sor Olson, who ordered the discharges of the employees
involved, testified that he had not heard even general
rumors about a union coming to Respondent at the
time of the discharges. By their own admission, the
alleged discriminatees discussed possible unionization
with only approximately 25 fellow employees in a work
force of 500 employees. Whatever discussions did take
place were admittedly conducted in secret and none of
the employees discussed their activity with any of Re-
spondent's supervisory personnel. With respect to the
alleged discriminatees themselves, no evidence at all of
possible knowledge on Respondent's part of the union
activity of the Kron brothers was presented. Brooks
testified that about a week or two before his discharge
he mentioned to a fellow employee his view that "the
company needed a union in there really bad." When the
employee told Brooks that a supervisor was standing
nearby, the discussion closed. Another employee testi-
fied that Brooks had once asked him whether he had
received a union card but, because a supervisor -was
standing nearby, the employee gave an evasive answer.
Finally, the General Counsel attempted to establish
Respondent's knowledge of union activity by virtue of
a conversation between Brooks and Respondent's
president, Edson, after Brooks had been discharged, in
which Edson questioned Brooks about his union ac-
tivity. However, Edson, the brother-in-law of Brooks,
also gave uncontradicted testimony that he had called
his mother and sister 2 days earlier to let them know
Brooks had been discharged and during the course of
i Member Fanning would affirm the Administrative Law Judge in full Press v NL.R B, 301 US. 103 (1937)
2 Bonn Packing Co, Inc, 208 NLRB 280 (1974) See also Associated 3 Lyn-Flex Industries, Inc., 157 NLRB 598, 599 (1966)
215 NLRB No. 11
BAYLINER MARINE CORPORATION
that conversation he was told of Brooks' union activity
for the first time.
The foregoing is the only record evidence of Respon-
dent 's knowledge of either general union activity and,
more particularly, the union activity of the Kron broth-
ers and Brooks. Admittedly , the discharges , coming 1
day after these three individuals had attended a union
meeting with three other employees , would arouse sus-
picions as to Respondent 's motivation in terminating
the alleged discriminatees . But in the absence of more
substantial evidence of Respondent ' s knowledge of
union activity and on the basis of the entire record
herein , we cannot conclude that the inference to be
drawn from the timing of these discharges rises bove
the level of mere suspicion . For that reason , we shall
dismiss the 8(a)(3) allegations in the complaint and
amend the Administrative Law Judge 's recommend-
ed Order and Notice accordingly.
The finding of the Administrative Law Judge with
respect to counsel for Respondent 's attempts to secure
the statement given by employee Blish to a Board agent
is further supported by Hilton Hotels Corporation
d/b/a Statler Hilton Hotel, 193 NLRB 197, 203, 205
(1971). To the extent that Member Kennedy 's disagree-
ment on this point implies that we are unduly restrict-
ing an attorney "properly engaged in pretrial prepara-
tion after a complaint has been issued ," we note that
this finding is consistent with the policy of the Board
not to release such statements until such time as the
employee involved actually testifies at the applicable
Board proceeding . See Board Rules and Regulations,
Section 102.118. The need to insure the confidentiality
of these statements coupled with their eventual availa-
bility after the employee's testimony does not, in our
view, unduly limit the scope of the attorney's pretrial
preparation. In this regard we further note that
McClain Industries, cited by our dissenting colleague,
sp..cifically stated that Raser Tanning Company v.
N.L.R.B.,4 similarly involving attempts to secure
these statements , was "inapposite" to McClain because
it dealt with "the question whether pretrial statements
of witnesses in the possession of the Board must be
provided the respondent for cross-examination
purposes."' Thus the McClain court itself recognized
the legitimate distinction between the possibility of any
discovery in Board proceedings and the availability of
the sworn statements of potential witnesses.6
4 276 F 2d 80 (C A 6, 1960), cert denied 363 U S 830 (1960)
5 McClain Industries, Inc v NL R.B, 381 F Supp 187, fn 3 (D C Mich,
1974)
6 Respondent further excepts to the Administrative Law Judge 's finding
that Respondent also violated Sec 8 (a)(1) by attempting to secure the
statement of employee Loerch , on the ground that such a violation was not
alleged in the General Counsel 's complaint Because the remedy herein
would be unaffected by consideration of this additional exception in the
same context, we do not reach it
ORDER
13
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Re-
lations Act, as amended , the National Labor Relations
Board adopts as its Order the recommended Order of
the Administrative Law Judge as modified below and
hereby orders that Respondent Bayliner Marine Cor-
poration , Arlington , Washington , its officers , agents,
successors , and assigns , shall take the actions set forth
in said recommended Order as so modified:
i. Delete paragraphs 1(a) and 2 (a) and (b) and relet-
ter the remaining paragraphs accordingly.
2. Substitute the attached notice for that of the Ad-
ministrative Law Judge.
MEMBER KENNEDY, dissenting in part:
I would not find that Respondent 's attorney violated
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act during his pretrial prepara-
tion of Respondent 's defense to the General Counsel's
complaint . The meeting between Respondent 's attor-
ney and employee Blish took place just 3 days before
the unfair labor practice case trial began . The attorney
properly identified himself to the employee and ex-
plained that he was preparing for the trial. At the outset
of their conversation , the attorney assured Blish that he
had no obligation to speak with him and that the em-
ployee could leave without any reprisal. Later in the
conversation the attorney again assured the employee
that Blish was under no obligation to give the attorney
a copy of his statement . In these circumstances where
an attorney gives such clear assurances and safeguards
to an employee and is properly engaged in pretrial
preparation after a complaint has been issued , I would
follow the Fourth Circuit's decision in Robertshaw
Controls Company, Lux Tine Division v. N.L.R.B., 483
F.2d 762 (1973), and find no violation of the Act.
To predicate a finding of an 8(a)(1) violation, as my
colleagues do, on the notion that a respondent attor-
ney's pretrial preparation will not be hindered by what
he may find out later after the trial has begun, ignores
the difference between thorough pretrial preparation
and preparation of rebuttal evidence to the General
Counsel ' s case-in-chief. Furthermore , the majority's
view presupposes that every employee who gives an
affidavit to a Board agent during an investigation will
automatically be called as a witness at trial by counsel
for the General Counsel. If the General Counsel or the
charging party chooses not to call that employee as a
witness, then that employee 's statement will not be
available to respondent 's attorney under the Board
Rules and Regulations, Section 102.118.
It is no longer tenable , in my view , for the Board to
espouse a per se approach to the finding of a violation
of the Act where a respondent's attorney gives the
employee clear assurances and safeguards and is prop-
14 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
erly engaged in pretrial preparation of respondent's
defense to a complaint.
If this Board is determined to deprive counsel a rea-
sonable opportunity to prepare their defense to unfair
labor practice complaints issued by the General Coun-
sel of this Board, then we must be prepared to accept
discovery procedures. See the decision of Judge De-
Mascio in McClain Industries, Inc. v. N.L. R.B., 381
F.Supp. 187 (D.C. Mich., 1974). Board proceedings are
not so unique that respondent 's counsel must be pre-
pared to defend their cases in the dark.
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
The National Labor Relations Board having found,
after a trial, that we violated the National Labor Rela-
tions Act:
WE WILL NOT threaten to close the plant if a
union comes in.
WE WILL NOT interrogate employees concerning
their union sympathies or opinions.
WE WILL NOT request employees to repeat what
they have told Board agents, nor will we request
employees to produce copies of written statements
or affidavits given by them to agents of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board.
WE WILL NOT in any like manner interfere with
your right to engage in concerted or union activi-
ties , or to refrain therefrom.
BAYLINER MARINE CORPORATION
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
HERMAN CORENMAN, Administrative Law Judge: This case
was tried before me at Seattle , Washington , on March 7 and
8, 1974, upon a charge filed by David E. Brooks, an in-
dividual, on October 30, 1973, against Bayliner Marine Cor-
poration , herein called the Respondent , and a complaint is-
sued against the Respondent January 25, 1974, on behalf of
the General Counsel by the Regional Director of Region 19
of the National Labor Relations Board , herein called the
Board . The complaint alleges that the Respondent violated
Section 8 (a)(3) and ( 1) in the discharge of three employees
and engaged in alleged acts of interference , restraint, and
coercion in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. The Re-
spondent 's answer admitted that it discharged the three em-
ployees but denied that it engaged in unfair labor practices
within the meaning of the Act.
Upon the entire record , including my observation of the
demeanor of the witnesses , and after careful consideration of
the briefs filed by the General Counsel and the Respondent,
I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
The pleadings establish , and I find , that the Respondent is
a Delaware corporation engaged in the manufacture*of boats
at plants located in Arlington , Washington , and Pipestone,
Minnesota; and also operates four retail stores in Seattle,
Washington . The Respondent 's annual gross volume of sales
exceed $500 ,000 and the Respondent annually purchases and
receives from sources outside the State of Washington goods
and supplies delivered to it in Washington , valued in excess
of $50,000. Only the manufacturing plant in Arlington,
Washington , is involved in this proceeding . The Respondent
is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
II THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The pleadings establish , and I find, that Teamsters Unions
Local 38 and Local 174, affiliated with the International
Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs , Warehousemen and
Helpers of America, hereinafter referred to collectively as the
Union , are now , and have been at all times material herein,
labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the
Act.
III THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
The Arlington , Washington , plant manufactures pleasure
boats. It employs approximately 500 people . The plant covers
a span of approximately 12 acres . Situated about the premises
are 14 pickup points where waste , refuse, and discarded
materials accumulated during the manufacturing process are
deposited in containers to be picked up by a three -man crew
who operate two trucks and a forklift in the collection of these
waste materials which in the record are described as garbage
rather than trash . There was an outside garbage crew, com-
posed of three men,' who routinely collected the garbage at
the 14 pickup points daily and hauled it to a city dump about
one-quarter mile distant from the plant . The three men com-
prising the garbage crew were discharged from their employ-
ment simultaneously on October 26, 1973. One of the em-
ployees named David E . Brooks operated the forklift which
would lift the garbage to the truck level where Darrel and
Steve Kron would empty the boxes of garbage onto the truck.
Steve Kron 's brother , Darrel Kron , was the leadman of the
garbage crew. Usually one or both of the Krons would drive
the loaded garbage truck to the city dump . The garbage crew
would ordinarily collect the garbage at the 14 pickup points
once or twice a day , and they would average about six truck
load trips to the dump each day.
A. The Union Activity of the Garbage Crew
About 2 or 3 weeks before their discharge on October 26,
1973, the three members of the garbage crew during their
garbage collecting trips contacted a number of employees to
solicit their interest in unionization. In their efforts to seek
' Prior to July 1973, the garbage crew was composed of five men , but this
crew was reduced to three men in or about July 1973
BAYLINER MARINE CORPORATION
unionization, the two Kron brothers visited the office of the
Teamsters Union Local 38 at Ev -.rett, Washington, a week or
two prior to their discharge to seek advice on how to organ-
ize. There they were told to set up a meeting of the Respon-
dent's employees which the union official could attend and
apprise them of the benefits of unionization.
On the following day, the Kron brothers and Brooks, dur-
ing their garbage collecting activities about the premises, dis-
cussed the values of unionization to employees whom they
contacted in the course of their work. During their discus-
sions with employees, the three members of the garbage crew
learned that an employee named Randy Loerch was going to
hold a union organizational meeting at his home Thursday
evening, October 25. Having learned of this meeting at Lo-
erch's house, the garbage crew members solicited the attend-
ance of other employees at this meeting. The meeting was
held as scheduled on the evening of October 25, and it was
attended by Brooks, the two Kron brothers, James Blish,
Curtis Bailey, and Randy Loerch. Loerch passed out union
literature and cards to those present. They agreed to affiliate
with Local 174 located in Seattle rather than Local 38 at
Everett. All agreed that they would each attempt to hold
meetings at their own homes and distribute union cards and
urge those who attended to do likewise. At this meeting in
Loerch's home, Brooks told the group there was a probability
that he would be transferred to the swing shift on the follow-
ing Monday and everyone agreed this was a good idea as it
would afford Brooks the opportunity to get the people on the
swing shift interested in the Union. At this meeting, the two
Krons and Brooks signed union authorization cards.
B. The Events of October 26, 1973
The three-member garbage crew started work as usual at
7:30 Friay morning, October 26. Brooks testifies he went to
the office of Kenneth Olson, his supervisor, about 8 a.m. on
October 26 and talked to him privately. Brooks told Olson he
was not sure that he still wanted to go on the swing shift.
According to Brooks, Olson told him that the paperwork had
already been completed and that Brooks was to report on the
swing shift the following Monday.2 According to Brooks'
te' amony, when Olson told him that the paperwork had
already been made out and that he was to get 25 cents per
hour more, Brooks told Olson he would go on the swing shift.
Olson testified he first started talking to Brooks about
transferring to the swing shift about 3 weeks prior to the
expected transfer. At that time, according to Olson, Brooks
did not want to make the transfer because of domestic prob-
lems he was having with his wife at the time. Olsc- further
testified that the last time he discussed the transfer with
Brooks was on the morning of October 26. At that time,
Brooks still was not sure whether he wanted to make the
2 Brooks testified he first talked to Olson about going on the swing shift
about 2-1 /2 months earlier when he approached Olson for a wage increase
At that time, Olson told Brooks he could receive 25 cents more per hour
by going on the swing shift
3 The termination notice gives no reason for the discharge, but to the
question posed in the notice, "would you reemploy for some other kind of
job," the answer is checked "No" and the reason noted, "work perfor-
mance "
4 The credible testimony of Brooks and the two Kron brothers of their
conversation with Olson in his office about 4 p in on October 26 stands
uncontradicted in the record
15
transfer. Olson testified he told Brooks that he ought to make
the move, that it would be worth his while, but Brooks gave
no definite yes or no answer at the time.
All three members of the garbage crew testified that in the
afternoon of Friday, October 26, their supervisor, Ken Olson,
spent an inordinate time observing their activities. They testi-
fied that on the afternoon in question Olson made his appear-
ance five or six times, whereas ordinarily he would be seen
by them only once or twice during an entire day.
Darrel Kron, the garbage crew' s leadman , testified that
previously the garbage crew had a hard time getting hold of
Olson and when they tried to contact him, he was never
around, but on October 26, Darrel Kron testified, "every
place we turned, he was there."
About 1 o'clock in the afternoon of October 26, Olson told
the three people in the garbage crew that he wanted to see
them in his office just before the end of the day. About 10 or
15 minutes before quitting time, the three members of the
garbage crew went to Olson's office as he had previously
directed. According to Darrel Kron's testimony which is
substantially corroborated by his brother, Steve Kron, and by
Brooks, when they arrived at Olson's office, Olson picked up
three slips or termination notices and handed one to each of
them The garbage crew asked what it was about, and Olson
replied he didn't know "that it was orders from the office for
him to give them to us." Leadman Kron testified credibly
that Olson told them that he didn' t agree but that was his
orders. Olson further told the garbage crew that he didn't
know the reason they were being terminated.' According to
Steve Kron's credible testimony, Olson told him that he
didn't think it was right, that we were doing a good job.
Brooks testified that Olson told them that he had gotten
several phone calls from some of the big shots in the office
to let us go. After the conversation in Olson's office 4 the
three members of the garbage crew went over to Personnel
Manager Ted Becker's office and were followed by Olson.
They showed him their termination notices and asked him
what it was about. Becker said that he did not know, that it
was the first time he ever heard about it or had seen them.
Becker told the three he would see if he could find out what
had happened. He left the office for a few minutes and on his
return he told the group that he still did not know what the
termination slips were about and that he would find out by
Wednesday when Vice President of Material Bob Schwartz
was supposed to be back.'
Becker set up an appointment for the three members of the
garbage crew for 9 o'clock Wednesday morning to meet with
him so that he could in the meantime learn the reason for
their discharge and let them know Wednesday. On the fol-
lowing Wednesday, the three members of the garbage crew
5 Becker testified that, on the morning of the discharges, Olson came to
him and said he had better start looking for another cleanup crew because
he was getting sick and tired of the job performance of the crew Becker
testified that around 4 p in that same day the garbage crew came into his
office with Ken Olson and told him they had been fired and wanted to know
the reason why Becker testified, "This came as a shock to me right at this
day because everybody's there, and I didn't know why or anything, what led
to the circumstances except what he [Olson] had said that morning " Beck-
er's testimony is corroborated by Olson, who testified that on the morning
of October 26 he went into Ted Becker's office and told him he should start
looking for another crew
16 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
met with Becker in his office at 9 a.m. The garbage crew men
asked Becker if he had found out the reason they were fired
and he replied that he had not found out anything more than
what was on the termination slips; namely, "work perfor-
mance." Becker also told the crew the Respondent was going
to contract out the garbage work and gave that as another
reason they were fired.6
C. Brook's Meeting With Edson on Monday, October 29
David Brooks, one of the members of the garbage crew, is
married to the sister of Orin Edson, the Respondent's corpo-
rate president, and he was hired at the suggestion of Mr.
Edson. On the Monday morning following his October 26
discharge, Brooks secured an appointment to see Mr. Edson
and, after waiting most of the morning, he saw Mr. Edson
about noon alone in his office. After being seated, Brooks
testified credibly that he said to his brother-in-law, Mr Ed-
son:
"Orin, I don't want you to think I'm a cry baby or
anything , but you do know I got fired on Friday and I
don't know why." He told me that, according to his
record, it was "work performance." I said, "My God,
work performance." I had so many praises from other
supervisors, and he said, "Not according to my record."
I said to him, "How am I supposed to support my wife?"
He told me that there were other factories in the immedi-
ate area and he also said in that same statement, "So,
why don't you let this cool down for a while, for a week
or so?" I said to him, "I don't know," and then it was
silent , neither one of us said anything for a couple of
minutes. Then he told me there was talk of a union
coming in there, and I told him I didn't know anything
about that. He said, "Dave, you shouldn't lie to me." I
said I wasn 't. He said, "No." Then I told him that there
was spreading around the plant like wild fire, the talk
about union activities, and that more or less concluded
our conversation. I got up and started walking and he
said he was sorry, and I said , "Yes, OK."
Mr. Edson concedes that he did have a conversation with
his brother-in-law Brooks concerning his discharge. He testi-
fied that when Brooks got up to leave, "I walked over to him
and I asked him if he had anything to do with unions .. .
he said not . . . and it is not too difficult to tell when Dave
was lying, so I asked Dave again, `Are you sure Dave?' some-
thing to that effect, and he said yes, and I dropped the subject
and walked out."'
6 Contrary to Becker's statement to the three men, the Respondent did
not contract out the garbage collection Becker concedes, however, that he
might have mentioned the contracting out of the garbage collection to the
crew as one of the reasons they had been let go
7 Edson testified he was prompted to ask Brooks if he had anything to do
with unions because on the Saturday following Brooks' discharge, Edson
called his own mother and explained to her that Brooks was no longer with
the Company, and in the course of this conversation his mother told him
that Brooks had been planning on joining the Union or something to that
effect This , according to Edson's testimony , was how he learned about the
Union.
D The Work History of the Three Members of the
Garbage Crew
Darrell Kron began working for the Respondent in
December 1972 He was the leadman of the outside garbage
crew. He testified that, while in the Respondent's employ, he
was never at any time given any disciplinary warnings about
his work. He also testified that he was praised at least two
dozen times by Supervisor Ken Olson, Plant Superintendent
Ron Cooley, Vice President of Material Bob Schwartz, and
Personnel Manager Ted Becker. Darrel Kron testified that
the last time he was praised was on Friday morning, October
26, about 9:30 a.m. at the southeast corner of the assembly
building. The other two members of the garbage crew were
also present, and Olson told the crew as he walked by that
they were doing a good job and to keep up the good work.
Brooks testified that he was hired in June 1973. He testified
that he had never been disciplined or warned about his work
by his supervisor, Ken Olson Brooks further testified that he
did receive praise from officials of Respondent about the good
work of the garbage crew on several occasions, the last time
a day or two before his discharge on October 26. On that last
occasion, Brooks testified, the praise was given by both Olson
and Vice President Bob Schwartz together. Brooks testified
that Olson and Schwartz both said that the crew was doing
the best work of any garbage crew that had ever been with
the Respondent and to keep up the good work.
Brooks admitted that for personal reasons, involving
domestic discord with his wife, his job performance was af-
fected at the plant and that complaint was made about it 2
or 3 weeks before his discharge. Brooks testified that he did
not talk to his supervisor, Olson, about his job performance
but merely about his personal problems at home. In this
connection, Leadman Darrel Kron conceded that, in or about
August or September 1973, he and his brother Steve Kron
were having problems with Brooks resulting from his family
problems. This caused Brooks to lag in his work and slow
down, and Darrel tried to keep him going. Darrel concedes
that he complained to Supervisor Olson about Brooks, who
by his lagging was causing the crew to fall behind. Steve Kron
also testified in agreement with Brooks and his brother Dar-
rell that Brooks was having family problems in September
1973 when he wasn't paying too much attention to what he
was doing, but that in October 1973 "Brooks' work was 100
percent better."
Steve Kron began working for the Respondent May 14,
1973. Corroborating his brother, he testified that on the
morning of October 26 Supervisor Ken Olson was walking by
and he told the crew that they were doing a real good job and
to keep up the good work. Kron testified that Bob Schwartz
also praised the crew on October 26, but Brooks places the
date of Schwartz' praises as a day or two before the date of
their discharge on October 26.8 Steve Kron testified credibly
and without dispute that Schwartz' praise of the crew re-
sulted, from their discovery in the garbage of some new
material that people had thrown into the trash boxes rather
than return to the store room. Steve Kron testified credibly
8 Schwartz was not at the plant on October 26; for that reason, I credit
Brooks' testimony that Schwartz' praise of the crew occurred a day or two
before October 26, rather than on October 26 as testified to by Steve Kron
BAYLINER MARINE CORPORATION 17
and without dispute that Schwartz told the garbage crew that
"things were looking good , and that we were doing a real
good job ." Schwartz testified that he did recall the occasion
when the garbage crew had found some obsolete engine parts
which were going to the dump . Schwartz testified "in terms
of motivation , I told them I was glad they were looking out
for this type of thing."
E. Respondent 's Knowledge of Union Activity by the
Garbage Crew
No members of management who testified admitted having
any knowledge of any union activity specifically by the three
members of the garbage crew before the October 26 dis-
charge, although most of them conceded there were rumors
throughout the plant that union organization was going on.
Thus Vice President Schwartz testified that he was aware
there were rumors of union activity . Vice President of Fi-
nance Don Saunders testified that he had no knowledge of the
union activity of the garbage crewmembers and the first he
learned of the discharge of the three members of the garbage
crew when Ted Becker came into his office on Friday after-
noon , October 26, and said , "I fired Orin 's brother-in-law."
Saunders testified he replied , "Good deal , or it 's about time;
I think , were my specific words." Saunders testified further
that he then went to President Edson 's office and told him
that Ken Olson had fired the garbage crew , and Edson re-
plied , "I understand ." Saunders recalls further that he said
to Edson , "'I hope I 'm not screwing a bunch of stuff in your
family for you or something ,' and as I recall , he just repeated,
`I know, I understand."'
There is testimony by employees Blish and Bailey that
Brooks talked to them about the Union within the hearing of
supervisors . Thus, Blish testified that on one occasion Brooks
in a loud voice asked him if he had a union card at the time
Blish's foreman , Dave Newsom , was in the immediate
vicinity . Blish testified credibly that at the time he was on top
of a truck chaining down a load , Dave Brooks was on the
ground below him, and Newsom was just on the other side
of the truck . Blish testified that when Brooks asked the ques-
tion whether he had any union cards Blish answered he didn't
have any and "I was a dummy just like he was." Blish testi-
fied he gave this answer because he was afraid Newsom who
was standing on the other side of the truck had overheard the
conversation.'
Employee Curtis Bailey credibly testified that on one occa-
sion he was engaged in removing the cab rack off of one of
the trucks when Brooks approached him in a joyous mood
about the Union . Bailey testified he told Brooks to "cool it"
because his supervisor , Ron Hydorn , was just on the other
side of the truck . Bailey testified that on this occasion Brooks
was talking very loudly. Brooks was on the ground standing
close to the truck while Supervisor Hydorn was on the other
side of the truck in Bailey 's view , but not in Brooks' view.
Hydorn conceded by his testimony that before the discharge
9 Newsom testified that, prior to the October 26 discharge of the garbage
crew, he had no personal knowledge as to whether Brooks or the two Kron
brothers were involved in any union activity . In view of other testimony
relating to the conduct of Newsom , I do not credit his denial that he had
no knowledge of the garbage crew's union activity.
of the garbage crew , he had heard rumors "floating around"
of union activity.
F. Acts of Interference, Coercion, and Restraint
Employee James Blish credibly testified that some time in
the week following the discharge of the garbage crew he asked
Supervisor David Newsom if he had heard anything more
about the Union . Blish testified that Newsom told him that
he had heard Mr. Orin Edson was going to shut the plant if
the Union got in . Because of this remark made to him by
Newsom , Blish testified that he got together with employee
Randy Loerch and they decided to drop "the whole business
about the Union as they did not want 400 or 500 people to
be laid off without any job." Newsom , called as witness for
the Respondent , did not deny having made this remark to
Blish , but appeared to be nonplussed and unable to under-
stand Respondent 's counsel 's questions about this conversa-
tion . Newsom testified that on another occasion in the latter
part of October he approached his crew who were sitting on
boat bunks discussing insurance and profit -sharing during
the lunch period . Newsom testified he joined in the conversa-
tion and , during the course of the conversation , expressed his
opinion that the "company would rather close than have a
union."
I find that Newsom 's statements to Blish that he had heard
that Mr. Orin Edson was going to shut the plant if the Union
got in and his further remark to his crew during the lunch
period that the Company would rather close than have a
union coerced and restrained employees in the exercise of
their Section 7 rights, and thereby violated Section 8(a)(1) of
the Act.
On Monday , March 4 , 1974, Blish's supervisor , Newsom,
asked him if he could go up to the office where the Respon-
dent's lawyer , Mr. Rayton , waited for him: Blish and Mr.
Rayton were alone . Rayton identified himself as the Respon-
dent 's attorney and told Blish he was investigating and pre-
paring for trial the unfair labor practice case that had been
filed by Brooks . Before he went any further , Rayton told
Blish that Blish had no obligation to speak with him and that
he could leave without any reprisals. In the course of the
conversation , Rayton asked Blish if a Board agent had inter-
viewed him, and, when he said yes, inquired if Blish had been
subpenaed by the Board or had been requested to testify, and
Blish answered yes. Rayton then asked Blish if he would
mind telling him the gist of his testimony and Blish agreed
to. During the course of the conversation , it developed that
Blish had given a written statement to the Board . Rayton
asked Blish if he would let him have a copy of the written
statement , and he agreed to, even though cautioned by Ray-
ton he was under no obligation to give him a copy . Rayton
instructed Blish to bring the statement down the next morn-
ing to Vice President Saunders. Blish brought the statement
down and turned it over to Saunders who made a photocopy
of the statement and returned Blish's copy to him.
It is now well established by Board precedent that Mr.
Rayton 's interrogation of rBlish concerning what he told the
Board agent and Rayton 's request for a copy of Blish 's state-
ment previously submitted to a Board agent in connection
with the case, even though voluntarily submitted by Blish,
amounted to illegal interrogation and interference with the
18 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Board's processes in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
See Kay Corporation d/b/a Holiday Inn of Chicago-South,
Harvey, 209 NLRB 11 (1974), Robertshaw Controls Com-
pany, Lux Time Division, 196 NLRB 449, 455-456 (1972),
Waggoner Corporation, 162 NLRB 1161, 1162-63
(1967).10
On Friday, November 2, 1973, Supervisor Ron Hydorn
held the usual biweekly safety meeting of the mechanical
employees in his department of the plant. At this safety meet-
ing one of the employees mentioned the fact that he had heard
that the garbage crew had been fired because of their union
involvement. One of the other men in the group there said,
according to Bailey's testimony, "We got to face up to it that
there's bound to be a union come in some time." When this
remark was made, Mr. Hydorn, who was presiding, then told
the group that if they wanted to discuss the Union "it's a
closed door now and it won't go any further than here, but
we can talk about it." Bailey testified credibly that everybody
said what they wanted to say, and then Ron Hydorn gave his
opinion of the Union. Bailey credibly and without contradic-
tion testified that Hydorn told the group that if a union came
in there was a possibility of wages going up and therefore they
would have to charge more for their boats and it wouldn't
stay in a competitive field, and if this happened then it was
going to cost more to sell the boats, production would drop
off, and there would possibly be layoffs
I find that Supervisor Hydorn's invitation to the employees
to discuss the Union in his presence, thereby disclosing their
feelings and sympathies for or against the Union, was a form
of interrogation in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. I
find, however, that Hydorn's opinion expressed to.the em-
ployees that a union would possibly mean higher wages, re-
sulting in a higher sales price for the boats which would
decrease sales, reducing production and as a consequence
there would possibly be layoffs, does not amount to a threat
of reprisal but merely the expression of opinion privileged by
Section 8(c) of the Act. See Bostitch Division of Textron, Inc.,
176 NLRB 377 (1969); T M. Duche Nut Co., Inc., 174 NLRB
457 (1969); Wagner Industrial Products, Inc., 170 NLRB
1413 (1968); TRW Electronic Component Division, TRW,
Inc., 169 NLRB 21 (1968).
I further find that President Edson's suggestion to recently
discharged David Brooks that there was talk of a union com-
ing in and Edson's admonition to Brooks, "Dave, you
shouldn't lie to me," when Brooks told -him he knew nothing
about it amounted to an illegal form of interrogation in viola-
tion of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act."
10 Mr Rayton stated on the record that he also followed the same proce-
dure in interviewing employee Loerch This conduct by Mr Rayton also
violated Sec 8(a)(1) of the Act
" Contrary to the contention of the Respondent, I have concluded that,
even though Brooks was a discharged employee, he was nevertheless an
employee within the meaning of Sec 2(3) of the Act In Pittsburgh Plate
Glass Company, 177 NLRB 911, 913 (1969), the Board discusses the status
of employees in unfair labor practice situations where the statute has been
applied to persons who have not been initially hired by an employer or
whose employment has terminated Illustrative are cases in which the Board
has held that applicants for employment (Phelps Dodge Corporation v
NLR.B, 313 U S 177, 182-187 (1941)) and registrants at hiring halls
(Local 872, International Longshoremen's Association, AFL-CIO, 163
NLRB 586 (1967)) who have never been hired in the first place-as well as
persons who have quit (Goodman Lumber Company, 166 NLRB 304
(1967)) or whose employer has gone out of business (Chemrock Corpora-
G. Reasons Assigned for the Discharge of the Garbage
Crew
Supervisor Kenneth Olson testified that no one ordered
him to fire the three-man garbage crew, and that the decision
to fire Brooks and the two Kron brothers was his and his
alone. Olson testified that up until the last 3 months of their
employment they were doing a satisfactory job, but from that
point their work "fell off." To start with, Olson pointed to the
family problems Dave Brooks was having, and Olson had
several meetings with Brooks about his problem which was
affecting his work performance. According to Olson, Brooks
accused the Krons of stealing aluminum, but Olson was un-
able to prove it. Olson testified credibly that Leadman Darrel
Kron requested him to terminate Brooks because of his slow-
ness on the forklift. Brooks, however, was not discharged
and, according to Kron, Brooks' work improved in October.
About the same time that Kron had complained about
Brooks, Brooks came to Olson on one occasion and told him
he was having a hard time finding the other members of the
crew after lunch, and that they were taking too long for a
lunchbreak, spending too much time at the dump. Olson
testified that on this occasion, about October, Brooks sug-
gested that Olson terminate the two Krons. Olson testified
further that the garbage collection problems were caused by
Brooks taking time off, and this "put them in a bind. Their
morale seemed to change." Olson testified that on one Satur-
day he noticed the two Kron brothers working on their own
car. Olson further testified he had received complaints of
trash not being picked up and about the garbage crew stand-
ing around. Olson further relates that on one occasion he
walked over to the woodshop and he observed at 7:45 a.m.
(the shift starts at 7:30) that the two Krons were walking out
with a cup of coffee. Olson testified, "They jumped in the
trucks, started up and went to dump a load."
Olson also recalled that David Brooks left the company
property on two occasions without checking with him. Olson
was aware of the fact that Brooks was the brother-in-law of
Company President Orin Edson.
Olson testified that he wanted to transfer Brooks to the
second shift because he felt that if he transferred him to the
second shift that would relieve the problems he had with
Brooks getting along with the crew. Olson testified he first
talked to Brooks about transferring to the second shift 3 or
4 weeks prior to his discharge, but Brooks was not in favor
of transferring because of his family problems. Olson testified
his thought was to move Brooks to the second shift and get
another employee to work with the two Krons so as to speed
up their production. Olson stated he was trying to solve the
problem this way because of the fact that Brooks was the
president's brother- in-law . Olson testified that Friday morn-
ing, October 26, was the last time he discussed the transfer
with Brooks. Brooks told him he still was not sure he wanted
to make the move. Olson urged Brooks to make the move,
"that it would be worth his while."
Olson testified he decided to terminate the three-man gar-
bage crew at 1 o'clock in the afternoon12 on October 26. 01-
Leon, 151 NLRB 1074, 1067-79 (1965)) are "employees" embraced by the
policies of the Act s
12 On cross-examination , Olson testified he made up his mind to discharge
the three men about 2 30 or 2 45 p in
BAYLINER MARINE CORPORATION
son testified that what made him decide finally to discharge
the three individuals was that he felt"that transferring Brooks
to the second shift "would just compound the problems."
Olson testified as follows: "I didn't feel that they, looking
over the work that they were doing at that present couple of
months, I felt I was getting about 50 percent production out
of them. Instead of compounding the problem, I just decided
to solve it." Olson testified he arranged for the three men to
be in his office at 4 o'clock that same day and he gave them
as the reason for their discharge "work performance."
Reciting the events which caused him to discharge the
three men, Olson testified as follows: "Well, it was a combina-
tion of things. The build up to the, I was getting 50 percent
production out of them. The big thing that really caused it
was the complaining of David Brooks about the Krons and
the outside clean-up crew. I wasn't able to spend very much
time and-I'd been putting out boats. For 3 months there, I
was getting very little cooperation out of them."
H. Analysis and Conclusionary Findings
The testimony of Olson as well as other members of man-
agement that Olson, and Olson alone, made the decision to
discharge the garbage crew is refuted by his conduct on Octo-
ber 26 when he handed Brooks and the two Krons their
termination slips at 4 p.m. The testimony of the two Krons
and Brooks stands uncontradicted that when Olson handed
them their termination notices he told them that he didn't
know what it was about, that he was ordered from the office
to give them the termination notices, that he didn't agree, but
those were his orders." In the face of this uncontradicted
evidence in the record supplied by the two Krons and Brooks,
the innocuous incidents proffered by the Respondent to jus-
tify the terminations, especially of the two Kron brothers, do
not withstand scrutiny. There was a time in September when
it appears that there was good reason to discharge David
Brooks, the president's brother-in-law, and it is reasonable to
assume that his relationship saved him his job. However,
Olson's testimony that, rather than transfer Brooks to the
swing shift as he had been considering for some time and
actually effectuated on the morning of October 26, he sud-
denly decided in the afternoon on October 26 to fire the entire
crew is not convincing. The inference to be drawn is that
some time later that day Olson received his orders to dis-
charge the entire garbage crew who in the last 2 or 3 weeks
had taken the lead in spreading the word to unionize the plant
and who had attended a union organizational meeting on the
night of October 25. In this connection it is noted that Per-
sonnel Director Becker was unable to enlighten the three men'
of the reasons for their discharge other than the phrase "work
performance" as well as the false reason that the garbage
hauling was to be contracted out. Moreover, when Vice Presi-
dent Saunders notified President Edson on October 26 of the
discharge, Edson expressed no surprise, replying nothing
13 Brooks testified credibly and without contradiction that Olson told the
crew that he had gotten several phone calls from some of the "big shots"
in the office to let us go and then at that time handed us our termination
notices Brooks further testified credibly and without contradiction that
Olson said this was going to put him in one hell of a bind because he did
not know who was going to pick up the garbage
19
more than "I know; I understand." Moreover, when Brooks
visited Edson's office on the Monday following his discharge,
it was Edson who after a moment of silence mentioned to
Brooks that there was talk of a union coming in, and when
Brooks replied that he knew nothing about it, Edson admon-
ished him with the words, "Dave, you shouldn't lie to me."
The inference is clear that the order to discharge the three
men came from the highest level of management and did not
originate with Olson as he testified. This hostility of the Re-
spondent to unionism permeated to the lower levels of man-
agement as is evidenced by the conversations between em-
ployee Blish and Supervisor Newsom in the week following
the discharge of the garbage crew. At that time when Blish
inquired of Newsom if he had heard anything more about the
Union, Newsom replied he had heard Mr. Orin Edson was
going to shut the plant if the Union got in. Moreover, New-
som admitted by his own testimony in the record that he told
the people under his supervision in the latter part of October
that he thought "that the Company would rather close than
to have a Union." 14
Although there is an absence of direct evidence that the
Respondent was aware of the union activities of Brooks and
the two Kron brothers, it is well established and well recog-
nized by the Board and the courts that proof of such knowl-
edge of an employee's union activity, as well as proof of a
discriminatory layoff, is seldom established by direct evi-
dence, and may be, and generally is, shown by circumstantial
evidence. See Betts Baking Co. v. N.L.R.B., 380 F.2d 199
(C.A. 10, 1967); N.L.R.B. v. Edward Tepperd/b/a Shoenberg
Farms, 297 F.2d 280 (C.A. 10, 1961); Texas Industries, Inc.,
156 NLRB 423, 424-426 (1965). The Circle K Corporation,
173 NLRB 713, 714 (1968); Wiese Plow Welding Co., Inc.,
123 NLRB 616, 618 (1959); Famet, Inc. v. N.L.R.B., 490
F.2d 293 (C.A. 9, 1973); N.L.R.B. v. Miller Redwood Com-
pany, 407 F.2d 1366, 1369 (C.A. 9, 1969); Santa Fe Drilling
Company v N.L.R.B., 416 F.2d 725, 732 (C.A. 9, 1969).
As I have recited earlier in this decision, Supervisor Olson
who discharged Brooks and the two Krons told them that he
did not know what it was about, but that he had orders from
the office to hand them the termination slips, and he didn't
agree with it. I am convinced that the minor derelictions in
the work performance of the garbage crew over the past few
months were not the moving cause for the crew's discharge.
I am satisfied that the reasons advanced for the discharge
were of such a minor nature, so insubstantial, and so distant
in point of time from the October 26 discharge date as,to have
played no part in the Respondent's decision to discharge the
crew." On the contrary, I am convinced that the discharges
were effectuated to put an end to the prounion solicitation
engaged in by the three individuals who, in the course of their
" Because of the unconvincing reason proffered by Newsom which he
testified led him to the conclusion that the Company would close down
rather than have a union, I do not credit his denial that anyone ever told
him that Mr Edson said he would close down the plant in the event the
Union organized the employees.
15 For example, Vice President of Material Schwartz testified that on one
occasion he observed the garbage crew sitting in the truck after he was
returning from lunch He did not know when it was , who was in the truck
or whether or not they were having their lunch, and he did not stop to
inquire There was testimony from Personnel Manager Becker about the
lawn being littered, but that was the responsibility of a different crew
20 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
duties, had ready access to the employees throughout the 12
acres of the plant. Schwartz admitted he never mentioned any
dissatisfaction to the members of the garbage crew and admit-
ted he had praised them on several occasions. Vice President
of Finance Saunders testified that on one occasion he had
seen the garbage crew just sitting and talking in July or
August. I do not credit Saunders' vague testimony about
making complaints to Olson many times during the day as
Olson passed his office, especially in view of his self-contra-
dictory testimony earlier that he had complained to Mr. Ol-
son concerning the job performance of the garbage crew only
on one occasion. Sometime in the summer of 1973, the city
of Arlington complained about paper being strewn along the
public road, but the garbage crew promptly remedied this,
and there were no complaints during October according to
the testimony of Personnel Manager Becker. There was also
some innocuous testimony that on one occasion an employee
named Nelson saw the two Kron brothers in September en-
gaging in a bit of horseplay by throwing a few small articles
from the top of the truck to Brooks who was on the ground.
In sum, I find that the moving cause for the discharges of
Brooks and the two Kron brothers was their union activity
and not the reasons assigned by the Respondent. I, therefore,
find that by discharging these three individuals the Respond-
ent engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of
Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce within
the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. The Union is a labor organization within the meaning
of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. By threats to close the plant if the Union came in, by
interrogating employees concerning their union sympathies
and feelings about unionism, and by requesting employees to
produce copies of their statements or affidavits given to
agents of the National Labor Relations Board, the Respond-
ent has interfered with, restrained, and coerced employees in
the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, and
has thereby engaged in unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
4. By discharging David Brooks, Darrel Kron, and Steven
Kron, and thereby discriminating in regard to their hire and
tenure of employment, in order to discourage membership in
the Union, the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in
conduct banned by Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act.
5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor
practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section
2(6) and (7) of the Act.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law
and the entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the
National Relations Act, as amended, I hereby issue the fol-
lowing recommended:
IV THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON
COMMERCE
The activities of Respondent set forth in section III, above,
occurring in connection with Respondent's operations de-
scribed in section I, above, have a close and intimate relation-
ship to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States
and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing
commerce and the free flow thereof.
V THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has engaged in and is en-
gaging in certain unfair labor practices, I shall recommend
that it cease and desist therefrom and take certian affirmative
action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
I have found that Respondent discharged David Brooks,
Darrel Kron, and Steven Kron because of their activities on
behalf of the Union. I shall, therefore, recommend that Re-
spondent reinstate them to their former jobs or, if the jobs no
longer exist, to substantially equivalent positions, with all
their seniority and other rights and privileges, and make each
of them whole for any loss of pay which he may have suffered
as a result of the discrimination practiced against him. The
backpay provided for herein shall be computed in accordance
with the Board's formula set forth in F W. Woolworth Com-
pany, 90 NLRB 289 (1950), with interest thereon at the rate
of 6 percent per annum computed in the manner prescribed
in Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716 (1962).
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclu-
sions, and upon the entire record in this case, I hereby make
the following:
ORDER16
Respondent Bayliner Marine Corporation, its officers,
agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Discharging employees for engaging in union activity.
(b) Interrogating employees concerning their union sympa-
thies or opinions, threatening that the plant will close if the
Union comes in, requesting employees to repeat what they
have told Board agents, and requesting employees to produce
copies of statements or affidavits previously given to Board
agents.
(c) In any like manner interfering with, restraining, or
coercing employees in the exercise of their rights guara__ °ed
under Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which is necessary
to effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Offer to employees David Brooks, Darrel Kron, and
Steven Kron immediate and full reinstatement to their former
jobs or, if the jobs no longer exist, to substantially equivalent
positions, without prejudice to their seniority or other rights
and privileges; and make them whole, in the manner set forth
in the section of the Decision entitled "The Remedy," for any
loss of earnings incurred by them as a result of their discharge
on October 26, 1973.
(b) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the
Board and its agents, for examination and copying, all payroll
16 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 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
BAYLINER MARINE CORPORATION
records , social security payment records , timecards, person-
nel records and reports, and all other records necessary to
ascertain the backpay due under the terms of this recom-
mended Order.
(c) Post in its plant at Arlington, Washington, copies of the
attached notice marked "Appendix [omitted from
publication]."" Immediately upon receipt of said notice, on
" In the event that the Board's Order is enforced by a Judgment of a
United States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by
Order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursuant
to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order
of the National Labor Relations Board "
21
forms to be provided by the Regional Director for Region 19
(Seattle, Washington), the Respondent shall cause the copies
to be signed by one of its authorized representatives and
posted, the posted copies to be maintained for 60 consecutive
days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places
where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasona-
ble steps shall be taken by the Respondent to insure that said
notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other
material.
(d) Notify the Regional Director for Region 19, in writing,
within 20 days from the receipt of this Decision, what steps
the Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
6