Cardinal Industries

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 13, 1995

315 N.L.R.B. 1303 (N.L.R.B. 1995)

1303
315 NLRB No. 172
CARDINAL INDUSTRIES
1 The Respondent and the General Counsel have excepted to some
of the judge’s credibility findings. The Board’s established policy is
not to overrule an administrative law judge’s credibility resolutions
unless the clear preponderance of all the relevant evidence convinces
us that they are incorrect. Standard Dry Wall Products, 91 NLRB
544 (1950), enfd. 188 F.2d 362 (3d Cir. 1951). We have carefully
examined the record and find no basis for reversing the findings.
2 The General Counsel excepted, inter alia, to certain errors in the
judge’s decision. In sec. III,A,4 of his decision, the judge states that
Supervisor Eric Doltz told employee Freddie Martin that the Re-
spondent’s president, Ed Zuzelo, ‘‘would let the Union into his com-
pany,’’ when in fact, Martin testified that Doltz told him Zuzelo
‘‘would never let the Union into his company.’’ Additionally, in sec.
III,A,5, the judge refers to Martin as Freddie Brown. These inadvert-
ent errors do not affect the resolution of the case.
3 The judge’s order is modified to include traditional recognition
and bargaining language.
4 Hereafter all dates refer to 1992. The judge found that the bar-
gaining unit is all grooving crew employees employed by the Re-
spondent. The parties have not excepted to this finding.
Cardinal Industries, Inc., International Grooving
and Grinding Division and International Union
of Operating Engineers, Local No. 542. Case 4–
CA–20454
January 13, 1995
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN GOULD AND MEMBERS STEPHENS
AND TRUESDALE
On February 8, 1994, Administrative Law Judge
Martin J. Linsky issued the attached decision. Counsel
for the General Counsel and the Respondent filed ex-
ceptions and supporting briefs.
The National Labor Relations Board has delegated
its authority in the proceeding to a three-member
panel.
The Board has considered the decision and the
record in light of the exceptions and briefs and has de-
cided to affirm the judge’s rulings, findings,1 and con-
clusions2 and to adopt the recommended Order as
modified.3
The judge found that the Respondent violated Sec-
tion 8(a)(3) and (1) by terminating employees Martin,
James Leroy (Roy) Brown, and James Turner because
of their union activities, and that it violated Section
8(a)(1) by threatening that it would never permit a
union to represent its employees. No exceptions were
taken to these findings. The judge further found that
the Respondent lawfully laid off employee Charles
Coolbaugh but that it violated Section 8(a)(1) by de-
claring him ineligible for rehire because of his pro-
tected, concerted activity. The General Counsel ex-
cepted to the finding that the layoff was lawful, and
the Respondent excepted to the finding that the refusal
to rehire was unlawful. For the reasons set forth in the
judge’s decision, we agree with these findings.
The judge concluded that the Respondent’s unfair
labor practices set out above constitute ‘‘category I’’
conduct warranting the issuance of a bargaining order.
Gissel Packing Co., 395 U.S. 575 (1969). The Re-
spondent excepts to the judge’s failure to cite evidence
supporting such a remedy, and argues that ‘‘Gissel I’’
orders are not appropriate in cases where, as here, the
union has obtained authorization cards from a majority
of unit employees. The Respondent further excepts to
the judge’s failure to analyze this case under Gissel
‘‘category II’’ standards, and it contends that the ab-
sence of such an analysis precludes the issuance of a
bargaining order. For the reasons stated below, we
adopt the judge’s recommended bargaining Order.
In Gissel, the Court identified two categories of
cases in which a bargaining order would be appro-
priate. ‘‘Category I’’ or ‘‘exceptional’’ cases involve
unfair labor practices that are so outrageous and perva-
sive that traditional remedies cannot erase their coer-
cive effect, thereby rendering a fair election impos-
sible. ‘‘Category II’’ cases are the ‘‘less extraordinary
cases marked by less pervasive practices which none-
theless still have the tendency to undermine majority
strength and impede the election processes.’’ In cases
of the second category, a bargaining order should issue
where the Board finds that ‘‘the possibility of erasing
the effects of past practices and of ensuring a fair elec-
tion (or a fair rerun) by the use of traditional remedies,
though present, is slight and that employee sentiment
once expressed through cards would, on balance, be
better protected by a bargaining order.’’ 395 U.S. at
613, 614–615. Applying those principles, we find at
least arguable that a bargaining order is warranted here
under the category I standard, but in any event, the
record clearly meets the standards for category II bar-
gaining orders.
On January 2, 1992, the Respondent’s four regular
full-time grooving crew employees, Steven Baer,
Brown, Martin, and Turner, signed cards authorizing
the Union to represent them.4 On January 4 and 10,
they confronted Supervisor Eric Doltz in his hotel
room, and complained vociferously about their pay
rates and lack of fringe benefits. During each of these
confrontations, Doltz telephoned the Respondent’s
founder and owner, Edward Zuzelo, so that Zuzelo
could address the employees’ concerns directly. On
January 11, 1992, the employees, having completed
their final field assignment, returned to the Respond-
ent’s shop in Conshohocken to work on equipment.
Although there is no direct evidence that the Respond-
ent was aware that the employees had signed author-
ization cards, Zuzelo conducted a meeting on January
12, at which he told employees he would never allow
a union into his company. The judge also found that
later the same day, Zuzelo discriminatorily discharged
1304 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
5 As the judge found, it is reasonable to infer from the employees’
collectively voiced complaints that Zuzelo at least suspected that the
employees would attempt to organize if they had not already begun
doing so. In this connection, we note that although there is no direct
evidence that the Respondent knew the employees had signed au-
thorization cards at the time of Brown’s discharge, Zuzelo’s mani-
festation of his suspicions through his expression of antiunion ani-
mus at the January 12 meeting and Brown’s having engaged in
union activity in fact warrant a finding that his discharge violates
Sec. 8(a)(3). In any event, we note that the Respondent does not ex-
cept to the judge’s 8(a)(3) findings.
Chairman Gould finds it unnecessary to rely on this discussion of
the judge’s findings in the absence of exceptions thereto.
6 Although Doltz’ work log indicates that Baer, Martin, and Turner
worked approximately 10 days between January 12 and 31 (7 days
in the shop and 3 days in the field), the judge found that Martin
ad Turner did not work from January 12 until they were terminated
on February 11. The party has excepted to this finding of the judge,
and in any event, his apparent error does not affect the resolution
of the case.
Chairman Gould finds it unnecessary to rely on this discussion of
the judge’s findings in the absence of exceptions thereto.
7 Apple Tree Chevrolet, Inc., 237 NLRB 867 (1978), enf. denied
in part 608 F.2d 988 (4th Cir. 1979). Although the court of appeals
denied enforcement of the bargaining order in Apple Tree Chevrolet,
its denial was in large part dependent on its reversal of the Board’s
finding that the discharge of four employees violated Sec. 8(a)(3)
and (1) of the Act. 608 F.2d at 998. It regarded the remaining
8(a)(1) violations as insufficient support for such an order.
Brown.5 On January 24, the Respondent received a de-
mand for recognition from the Union by fax, which as
noted above, was supported by a card majority. On
February 10, Martin went to the shop and found Baer
working. Martin confronted Doltz, stating that as the
most senior employee, he and not Baer should be
working. Doltz response was that it was because of
‘‘all of this union business . . . [Zuzelo] said it’s the
company decision and that they made the decision.
[Zuzelo] will not hear of a union coming in here.’’
The following day, Office Manager Philip Zuzelo, Ed-
ward Zuzelo’s son, called Martin and Turner at home
and informed them that they were discharged.6
As the foregoing recitation of facts shows, the four
employees in the Respondent’s grooving crew signed
union authorization cards on January 2, and on January
4 and 10, confronted their supervisor with concerted
complaints about wages and benefits. When the presi-
dent of this small company confronted the men on Jan-
uary 12, he implicitly linked their complaints to union
organization, telling them that he ‘‘would not stand
for’’ a union in the company. One of the four was
fired that day, and two more were fired on February
12, after the Union had made its demand for recogni-
tion and when work was scheduled to resume after a
weather-caused hiatus. The Respondent does not dis-
pute that the grooving crew constituted an appropriate
bargaining unit and that it unlawfully terminated 75
percent of this unit. The ‘‘discharge of employees be-
cause of union activity is one of the most flagrant
means by which an employer can hope to dissuade em-
ployees from selecting a bargaining representative, be-
cause no event can have more crippling consequences
to the exercise of Section 7 rights than loss of work.’’7
It would seem beyond dispute that firing most of the
union supporters in a bargaining unit soon after they
attempted to organize would in the words of the Gissel
court, ‘‘tend to undermine majority strength and im-
pede election processes. 395 U.S. at 614. Certainly the
lesson would not be lost on Baer, the sole employee
remaining from the crew that had signed up with the
Union. Even if the unlawfully terminated employees
later accepted offers of reinstatement, we find that the
possibility of ‘‘erasing the effects’’ of the Respond-
ent’s swift and brutal response to the concerted activi-
ties of its employees and of ‘‘ensuring a fair election
. . . by the use of traditional remedies’’ is so slight,
that a bargaining order is warranted. Id.
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board adopts the rec-
ommended Order of the administrative law judge as
modified below and orders that the Respondent, Car-
dinal Industries, Inc., International Grooving and
Grinding Division, Conshohocken, Pennsylvania, it of-
ficers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the
action set forth in the Order as modified.
1. Insert the words ‘‘recognize and’’ before the
word ‘‘bargain’’ in paragraphs 1(c) and 2(c).
2. Substitute the attached notice for that of the ad-
ministrative law judge.
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
After a hearing at which all sides had an opportunity
to present evidence and arguments, the National Labor
Relations Board has found that we violated the Na-
tional Labor Relations Act and has ordered us to post
and abide by this notice.
Section 7 of the Act gives employees these rights.
To organize
To form, join, or assist any union
To bargain collectively through representatives
of their own choice
To act together for other mutual aid or protec-
tion
To choose not to engage in any of these pro-
tected concerted activities.
WE WILL NOT place employees in a category of not
being eligible for rehire because they engage in pro-
tected concerted activity.
1305CARDINAL INDUSTRIES
WE WILL NOT discharge employees because they en-
gage in protected concerted activity or activity on be-
half of a union.
WE WILL NOT fail or refuse to recognize or bargain
collectively with the Union as the exclusive collective-
bargaining representative of our employees.
WE WILL NOT threaten employees that we will never
permit a union to represent our employees.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere
with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of
their rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL offer to Roy Brown, Freddie Martin, and
James Turner reinstatement to their former positions
or, if those positions no longer exist, to substantially
equivalent positions, without prejudice to their senior-
ity and other rights and privileges and WE WILL place
Charles Coolbaugh in a category of employees not
barred from rehire.
WE WILL make Roy Brown, Freddie Martin, and
James Turner whole for any loss of pay and other ben-
efits suffered by them commencing from the date of
their unlawful discharges and make Charles Coolbaugh
whole for any loss of pay and benefits commencing
from the date he would have been rehired if not un-
lawfully barred from rehire.
WE WILL, recognize and, on request, bargain with
the Union as the exclusive collective-bargaining rep-
resentative of the employees in the appropriate unit
concerning wages, hours, and other terms and condi-
tions of employment.
CARDINAL INDUSTRIES, INC.
David Faye, Esq., for the General Counsel.
David W. Wolf, Esq., of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, for the
Respondent.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
MARTIN J. LINSKY, Administrative Law Judge. On Feb-
ruary 12, 1992, and January 11, 1993, a charge and an
amended charge in Case 4–CA–20454 were filed by Local
542, International Union of Operating Engineers (Charging
Party or Union), against Cardinal Industries, Inc., Inter-
national Grooving and Grinding Division (Respondent).
On January 29, 1993, the National Labor Relations Board,
by the Regional Director for Region 4, issued an amended
complaint in Case 4–CA–20454. The amended complaint al-
leged that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1), (3), and (5)
of the National Labor Relations Act (the Act), when it dis-
charged four employees and refused to recognize and bargain
with the Union as the exclusive collective-bargaining rep-
resentative of its grooving and grinding crew employees.
Respondent filed an answer to the amended complaint in
which it denied that it violated the Act in any way.
The amended complaint was tried before me in Philadel-
phia, Pennsylvania, over 11 days in 1993, i.e., February 17,
18, and 19, March 9, 10, 11, 17, and 19, and April 7, 8, and
9.
On the entire record in this case, to include posthearing
briefs submitted by the General Counsel and Respondent,
and on my observation of the demeanor of the witnesses, I
make the following
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. JURISDICTION
Respondent admits, and I find, that it is a Pennsylvania
corporation with an office and place of business in
Conshohocken, Pennsylvania, that it is engaged in the
grooving and grinding of highways, runways, and bridge
decks, that during the past year it purchased and received
materials valued in excess of $50,000 directly from points
outside the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and that it is en-
gaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6),
and (7) of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
I find that the Union, based on the unrebutted testimony
of Vincent Masci, which I credit that Local 542, Operating
Engineers, exists for the purpose of dealing with employers
concerning grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay,
hours, and working conditions, is a labor organization within
the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Overview
Respondent’s Grooving and Grinding Division performs a
unique type of work—primarily grooving airport runways—
with a machine developed and patented by Respondent’s
founder, Edward Zuzelo. The large groover operated by Re-
spondent is the only one of its kind and the largest grooving
machine known to exist. Respondent has never had a new
hire who had experience with Respondent’s machine or who
did not have to be trained in the operation of the machine.
The training was done on the job. The groover uses approxi-
mately 115 diamond cutting blades and cost in the area of
$1.25 million to develop when it was designed and con-
structed; the blades themselves cost up to $1400 each at re-
tail. Because the grooving process uses a tremendous amount
of water to cool and lubricate the cutting heads, Respondent
cannot operate the machine in hard freezing temperatures.
Respondent cannot choose when to perform a particular job
but must instead be governing by the scheduling demands of
its airport customers based on the customer’s scheduling pa-
rameters—since the runway must be closed to allow Re-
spondent to work. Also, the groover must travel under permit
as an oversize vehicle and various States restrict such travel
on weekends and holidays. These factors all result in Re-
spondent’s work being not only somewhat seasonal but also
extremely tightly scheduled. If work can be secured in warm-
er climes to the south then Respondent could groove
throughout the year. In 1992 after the events described herein
Respondent grooved airport runways in Mississippi, Florida,
Texas, and Louisiana. Adding to the pressure is the fact that
once a project commences, even if cold weather moves in
the company must finish its work as the customer cannot
1306 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
1 The Board’s rationale in Wright Line was approved by the U.S.
Supreme Court in NLRB v. Transportation Management Corp., 462
U.S. 393 (1983).
wait until the end of the winter to have its runway back in
working shape.
The groover crew consists of a superintendent and a four
person crew. Respondent also does grinding work with a
grinder at both airports and on bridges and highways.
Respondent was quite busy in the period September 1991
into January 1992. It did grooving work at several airports
during that timeframe to include two big jobs in New York
City. One of those big jobs was at La Guardia Airport in
Queens, New York, and the other at John F. Kennedy Air-
port also in Queens, New York. Respondent did work at La
Guardia Airport September 24 to November 9, and 23 to 27,
1991, and January 8, 1992. Respondent did work at JFK No-
vember 25 to 27, and December 17, 1991, to January 7,
1992.
Respondent had in its employ during this September 1991
to January 1992 timeframe employees in addition to its
grooving crew employees. The grooving crew employees
were regular full-time employees. The others were temporary
and worked as needed.
Respondent’s office and shop, where it repairs and main-
tains its equipment, is in Conshohocken, Pennsylvania, a sub-
urb of Philadelphia.
Eric Doltz was the superintendent of the grooving crew.
As of early January 1992 the four grooving crew employees
were Freddie Martin, who had worked for Respondent off
and on since 1978, James Turner, who had worked for Re-
spondent as a part-time driver since 1984 and full time on
the grooving crew since September 1991, Roy Brown, who
had worked for Respondent since September 1991, and Steve
Baer, who had worked for Respondent since October 1991.
On January 2, 1992, all four of these men or 100 percent
of the grooving crew employees signed and dated union au-
thorization cards in the presence of then Union Business
Agent Vincent Masci. On January 4, 1992, and again on Jan-
uary 10, 1992, these employees concertedly complained
about wages to both Superintendent Eric Doltz in his hotel
room at the Best Western near JFK Airport on January 4,
1992, and in his hotel room at the Ramada Inn near La
Guardia Airport on January 10, 1992. Both meetings took
place late in the evening before the crew would begin their
midnight shift at the airport. On both occasions Respondent’s
president and founder, Edward Zuzelo, spoke with one or all
the employees about their complaints concerning wages and
benefits. At the meeting on January 4, 1992, an employee
named Charles Coolbaugh threatened Eric Doltz that the em-
ployees would walk off the job if their complaints were not
dealt with in a satisfactory manner. Coolbaugh was, by all
accounts, the loudest complainer at the January 4, 1992
meeting.
It is uncontested that the following events occurred:
1. On January 6, 1992, Charles Coolbaugh was told by
Eric Doltz that his services were no longer needed; and his
file was marked with the entry that he was ineligible for re-
hire.
2. On January 12, 1992, Roy Brown was fired.
3. On January 24, 1992, the Union faxed to Respondent
and Respondent received a recognition demand from the
Union.
4. On February 10, 1992, Freddie Martin saw that Steve
Baer had been promoted and Eric Doltz told him that Ed
Zuzelo would let the Union into his company.
5. On February 11, 1992, Freddie Brown and James Turn-
er were fired.
6. Respondent at all times refused to recognize the Union,
advertised in late January 1992 for new employees, and hired
three new employees to replace Roy Brown, Freddie Martin,
and James Turner.
It is alleged in the complaint that Respondent violated the
Act when it discharged Charles Coolbaugh, Roy Brown,
Freddie Martin, and James Turner, that it further violated the
Act in failing to honor the union demand for recognition and,
lastly, that it violated the Act when it told an employee that
its employees would never be represented by a union.
Respondent claims it had good cause to fire the four em-
ployees and, in any event, Freddie Martin was a supervisor
and not afforded the protection of the Act. This is a classic
case for application of the Board’s landmark decision in
Wright Line, 251 NLRB 1083 (1980), enfd. 662 F.2d 899
(1st Cir. 1981), cert. denied 455 U.S. 989 (1982).1
I will address the discharges first and then address the
issue of whether or not Respondent violated the Act in its
refusal to recognize the Union as the collective-bargaining
representative of its employees and whether a bargaining
order is appropriate in this case.
B. The Discharge of Charles Coolbaugh
Charles Coolbaugh was hired by Respondent in late Sep-
tember 1991. Respondent was very busy at this period of
time. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) had re-
cently released Federal money to be spent on airport im-
provements. Respondent secured work at a number of air-
ports. In addition to its grooving work Respondent needed a
crew of workers to go to La Guardia Airport for about 6
weeks to do grinding work; i.e., a crew of three would oper-
ate a grinder which would prepare the runway for the work
to be done by the five-man groover crew which used the
very costly and unique groover developed by Respondent.
The three-man grinding crew consisted of Charles
Coolbaugh, Rex Cranmer, and Martin Ackley. Ackley was in
charge. In late November 1991 Rex Cranmer quit Respond-
ent’s employ. Martin Ackley later quit Respondent’s employ
but was brought back as a subcontractor by Respondent for
work at Kennedy Airport.
At La Guardia the wage rate for Respondent’s employees
was more than the wage rate they received at Kennedy Air-
port for the same work. Because the work was the same and
because both projects were being funded by the Federal air-
port improvement program of the FAA and because both air-
ports were located in New York City it would appear to a
reasonable person that a mistake had been made and that the
wage rate was wrong either at La Guardia or Kennedy or at
both airports. In addition, an FAA inspector named Dana
Campbell had told some of Respondent’s employees at La
Guardia that their pay was substantially less than what it
should have been. Respondent produced a thick book which
it claimed showed it was not underpaying the men. Suffice
it to say the rate of pay for groover crew is not listed but
most pieces of equipment used at the airport by the various
contractors and subcontractors was listed and rates of pay
1307CARDINAL INDUSTRIES
specified for employees using that equipment. Respondent
paid the rate of pay that individuals received who operated
a piece of equipment Respondent thought was most like the
groover.
All these factors contributed to Respondent’s employees
having a good-faith belief that they were not being properly
compensated.
On January 4, 1992, the employees met with Supervisor
Eric Doltz in his room at the Best Western motel where the
crew stayed while working at Kennedy Airport. The employ-
ees as a group concertedly complained to Eric Doltz about
their rates of pay and the lack of fringe benefits. Respondent
did offer health insurance but only after 90 days on the job.
There was no pension plan.
By all accounts Charles Coolbaugh was the loudest com-
plainer. He told Doltz that if the complaints of the employees
were not satisfactorily addressed the employees would walk
off the job. In addition, he suggested that James Turner was
paid less than Steve Baer because Turner was black and Baer
was white. Coolbaugh, Doltz, and Ed Zuzelo are white. Doltz
called Ed Zuzelo, Respondent’s founder and CEO, at his
home near Philadelphia. It was about 10 p.m. The only em-
ployee to speak with Ed Zuzelo was Charles Coolbaugh.
Zuzelo and Doltz both claimed to be of the opinion
Coolbaugh had been drinking. Coolbaugh admits that he had
consumed several beers during that day but was not drunk
or impaired for work. The men were scheduled to go to work
at midnight that night. Ed Zuzelo promised Coolbaugh and,
through Doltz, the rest of the men that their complaints
would be addressed and indeed Zuzelo conceded that some
mistakes regarding pay had been made.
Two days later, Doltz told Charles Coolbaugh that he was
no longer needed and laid him off. In addition, Respondent
caused Coolbaugh’s employment file to be noted to reflect
that due to Coolbaugh’s drinking problem he was not to be
rehired.
The General Counsel maintains that Coolbaugh was fired
because of his protected concerted activity in complaining to
Doltz and Zuzelo about wages and benefits. Needless to say,
the employees must in good faith complain about wages for
protection under the Act but they don’t have to be correct
regarding what the wages should be. Respondent maintains
that Coolbaugh was laid off on January 6, 1992, because the
work they needed him for was completed as it was for a
number of other individuals, all of whom, in addition to
Coolbaugh, were laid off on January 6, 1992. Respondent
left Kennedy the following day and returned to La Guardia
for more work. It worked at La Guardia with a substantially
smaller crew. It claims it decided not to rehire Coolbaugh
because of his drinking problem.
In point of fact Respondent did have a very large crew at
Kennedy in early January 1992 and on January 6, 1992, laid
off not only Coolbaugh but also let go David Schaik, who
had replaced Rex Cranmer, Martin Ackley, who had been
brought back as a subcontractor, two local union employees,
Manny Castro and Jose Vila, who had been added to the
crew at Kennedy, and the person from RGM, another sub-
contractor working for Respondent at Kennedy. It did not re-
place any of these individuals with other people when Re-
spondent returned to La Guardia on January 7, 1992.
Based on all the evidence, I find that Charles Coolbaugh
would have been laid off on January 6, 1992, even if he had
not concertedly complained to Eric Doltz and Edward Zuzelo
concerning wages and fringe benefits on January 4, 1992.
The question then becomes would Coolbaugh have been
permanently barred from reemployment if he had not en-
gaged in protected concerted activity on the night of January
4, 1992. I think not.
Respondent claims Coolbaugh was permanently barred
from reemployment because of his drinking problem but
Coolbaugh’s drinking was no better or worse throughout his
employment. At no time was Respondent concerned enough
to send him back to the hotel or home. At no time did
Coolbaugh’s drinking endanger any employee or any equip-
ment. Coolbaugh admits he is an alcoholic and unbeknown
to Respondent (so they could not have relied on it) he was
arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol in Decem-
ber 1991. I credit the testimony of Roy Brown, James Turn-
er, and Freddie Martin that Coolbaugh was never intoxicated
on the job and that his drinking never interfered with produc-
tion or caused a safety problem.
I contrast the treatment accorded Rex Cranmer and the
treatment of Charlie Coolbaugh. Cranmer quit Respondent
and left it somewhat in the lurch in November 1991. Al-
though Respondent exaggerates the difficulty it has in secur-
ing new employees it was nevertheless inconvenient for Re-
spondent when Rex Cranmer suddenly quit. In addition, the
biggest mishap that occurred to Respondent during the fall
of 1991 and early 1992 was when the groover was driven
off the runway twice in one night in Westchester, New York.
The driver in both cases was Rex Cranmer and yet Cranmer
was rehired by Respondent in 1993 prior to the start of the
hearing in this case.
Coolbaugh struck a nerve when he was the loudest com-
plainer at the January 4, 1992 meeting with Doltz, when he
spoke with Ed Zuzelo on the phone, when he threatened to
walk off the job, and when he suggested that James Turner
might be making less than Steve Baer because Turner was
black. Coolbaugh was going to be laid off on January 6,
1992, anyway and he was. He was permanently barred from
reemployment because of his protected concerted activity and
not because of his drinking which Respondent claims. The
failure to recall Charles Coolbaugh was a violation of Sec-
tion 8(a)(1) of the Act. The remedy for this violation will be
to make Coolbaugh eligible for rehire and make him whole
for any loss he suffered, which will have to be computed at
the compliance stage of these proceedings.
Respondent argues that no charge alleging the discharge of
Charles Coolbaugh as a violation of the Act was filed until
January 11, 1993, more than 6 months after the January 6,
1992 discharge. Respondent argues that the allegations re-
garding Coolbaugh are barred by Section 10(b) of the Act.
However, relying on Redd-I, Inc., 290 NLRB 1115 (1988),
and Davis Electrical Constructors, 291 NLRB 115 (1988), I
find the allegations regarding Coolbaugh are not time barred
because they are closely related to the charge filed on Feb-
ruary 12, 1992, less than 6 months after Coolbaugh’s layoff
on January 6, 1992, which charge alleges the discharge on
January 12, 1992, of Roy Brown and the February 11, 1992
discharges of James Turner and Freddie Martin as being vio-
lative of the Act. This is so, in part, because Brown, Turner,
and Martin participated with Coolbaugh in the protected con-
certed activity of January 4, 1992.
1308 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
C. The Discharge of Roy Brown
Roy Brown was hired by Respondent on September 24,
1991. He was hired to be and was indeed a member of the
five-man groover crew. The others were James Turner,
Freddie Martin, Steve Baer, and Eric Doltz, who was the su-
pervisor of the groover crew.
Brown credibly testified that he contacted the Union on a
number of occasions in the late fall of 1991 and along with
James Turner, Freddie Martin, and Steven Baer signed a
union authorization card at the union hall on January 2,
1992. Brown was hired as a permanent employee. After 90
days an employee became eligible for health insurance and
Brown received a written notice in December 1991 advising
him to submit information for insurance to Respondent’s of-
fice on or before December 23, 1991. This indicates that in
December 1991 Respondent did not plan to fire Roy Brown.
On January 4, 1992, as noted in section III,B, above, a
number of employees met with Eric Doltz and concertedly
complained about wages and benefits. Roy Brown was one
of those employees. Brown along with the rest of the groover
crew returned to La Guardia Airport on January 7, 1992.
On the night January 10, 1992, prior to starting work at
midnight, the groover crew went to Eric Doltz’ room to
again complain about wages and benefits. The crew was now
working at La Guardia and staying at a nearby Ramada Inn.
They had been paid some extra money since the January 4,
1992 meeting but they in good faith believed the amount
they received was insufficient. Each employee spoke over
Doltz’ hotel room phone with Edward Zuzelo. Zuzelo prom-
ised he would straighten everything out. On January 11,
1992, the crew returned to Conshohocken to work on the
equipment.
On January 12, 1992, Respondent’s management in the
person of President Ed Zuzelo, Office Manager Philip
Zuzelo, who is Ed’s son, and Eric Doltz met with the
grooving crew, i.e., Roy Brown, Freddie Martin, James Turn-
er, and Steve Baer. Each member of the crew was asked to
state what their complaints were. Martin and Turner voiced
some concerns. Brown was asked several times what he had
to say but Brown remained silent. I credit Brown, Turner,
and Martin as to what occurred at this meeting over others
present at the meeting. These three impressed me as honest
men. Brown did not yell or raise his voice at any manage-
ment representative.
In the course of the meeting Roy Brown testified that Ed
Zuzelo said ‘‘that he did not want a union in his company;
he would not have one; he would not stand for one.’’ (Tr.
70.) James Turner testified that he heard Ed Zuzelo say at
this meeting, ‘‘I don’t want no problems with the union. I
don’t want to be bothered with the union. I don’t want no
problem with it.’’ (Tr. 680.) Freddie Martin testified that at
this meeting ‘‘Mr. Zuzelo said he didn’t want any parts [sic]
of the Union because of what he had went through with
union guys on our job from other jobs and with that job, be-
cause they were on that job as well.’’ (Tr. 533.)
Doltz, Ed Zuzelo, and Phillip Zuzelo all claim that Ed
Zuzelo never said that he would not have a union in his
company. I credit Brown and Martin, however, that Ed
Zuzelo did say he wouldn’t have a union in his company.
This is evidence of antiunion bias. It is exceedingly possible
that the Zuzelos and Doltz could reasonably conclude that
this group of employees who openly complained about pay
on January 4, 1992, and again on January 10, 1992, and
who, on January 12, 1992, still had problems with the way
they were being treated might be inclined to try to bring in
a union.
There is no evidence, however, that Respondent’s manage-
ment knew that the four members of the groover crew signed
union authorization cards on January 2, 1992, and no evi-
dence that one of the employees who signed a union author-
ization card, like Steve Baer, ever told Respondent’s man-
agement that the employees had signed union authorization
cards.
Brown was fired on January 12, 1992. The General Coun-
sel maintains that Brown was fired because of his union ac-
tivity and because of his protected concerted activity in vio-
lation of the Act. Respondent maintains that he was fired be-
cause he was a terrible worker and a safety hazard due to
his poor eyesight. With respect to Brown being a safety haz-
ard Respondent established that at one time when Brown was
off duty he fell in a ditch while crossing a road. He did not
miss any work as a result of this incident and unfortunately
accidents happen. Eric Doltz, for example, fell on the ice
outside the Conshohocken facility and missed work as a re-
sult thereof. Doltz was not fired or otherwise disciplined. Re-
spondent also claims that Brown would put his hand on the
pulley belt because he couldn’t see whether the belt was
moving or not without doing that. Respondent claims putting
your hand on the pulley belt could cause serious injury. In
point of fact, Brown was never injured. I therefore credit his
denial that he never put his hand on the belt to see if it was
moving. Respondent concedes that it never asked Brown dur-
ing the 4 months that he worked for them to have his eyes
checked. Respondent also claims that Brown ran over and
damaged imbedded ground lights on the runway at Kennedy.
Brown credibly denies that this occurred. Respondent claims
and Brown concedes that there were a couple of incidents
when things went wrong. The clear thrust of the evidence,
however, is that these were normal expected problems en-
countered in the work these men did.
Grooving work was done at night. It was cold and dark
after midnight in the fall and winter of 1991–1992 in the
areas where Respondent operated. Mishaps occur. They were
minor. The cost of repair for one incident involving Roy
Brown being $40 and for another incident less than $200.
Downtime was minimal, i.e., 30 minutes or so to make re-
pairs in each instance.
The incidents occurred at the Morristown Airport in New
Jersey in mid-November 1991 and at the airport in Chester-
field, Virginia, in the late October early November 1991
timeframe. In other words prior to Respondent sending
Brown documents in mid-December 1991 concerning his
health insurance since he was coming up on 90 days employ-
ment. This clearly reflects that Respondent intended on keep-
ing Brown on as an employee and convinces one that the
mishaps on the job were not the reason for his discharge.
With respect to mishaps on the job the greatest mishap of
all occurred at the airport at Westchester, New York, in mid-
November 1991. On that occasion the groover was driven off
the runway twice and got stuck in the ground, and had to
be towed out. The driver of the groover on that occasion was
Rex Cranmer. Sometime later Cranmer quit Respondent’s
employ leaving it in the lurch somewhat. And yet Rex
Cranmer was rehired by Respondent. The difference between
1309CARDINAL INDUSTRIES
Cranmer and Brown is obvious. Cranmer did not engage in
protected concerted activity on January 4 and 10, 1992, and
did not sign a union authorization card while Brown, of
course, did all those things. Brown was upset at the January
12, 1992 meeting with Respondent’s management and imme-
diately after that meeting Brown was fired.
Brown’s position was that of ‘‘button man’’ on the groov-
er. He honestly and in good faith believed he was entitled
to operator’s pay of $35 per hour. He received considerably
less. He concertedly complained about it with his fellow em-
ployees and was fired.
Respondent’s claim that it wanted to fire Brown and the
others back in November or December but could not because
of the press of work and difficulty of interviewing and hiring
new employees is not persuasive. I note that shortly after
Roy Brown was hired an employee named Dan Hoffman
started a fight with him. Hoffman was in the wrong, was
fired, and immediately and without difficulty or delay re-
placed by Steve Baer. When Rex Cranmer quit Respondent’s
employ in mid-November 1991, he was immediately replaced
by David Schaik. When Martin Ackley was hired to do
grinding work at La Guardia Airport in September 1991 and
needed people to help him, he, without any apparent dif-
ficulty, secured the services of Rex Cranmer and Charles
Coolbaugh. And, lastly, after Roy Brown, Freddie Martin,
and James Turner were fired, Respondent ran a want ad in
the Philadelphia Inquirer newspaper. No less than 15 persons
applied and Respondent quickly hired three applicants for the
grooving crew to replace Brown, Martin, and Turner.
It is clear to me considering all the facts that Respondent
fired Roy Brown because of his protected concerted activity
in complaining about wages and benefits on January 4 and
10, 1992, and because Respondent thought that Brown and
the others may want to bring in a union and Respondent
didn’t want that based on Ed Zuzelo’s antiunion statements
to that effect at the January 12, 1992 meeting. Accordingly,
Respondent’s discharge of Roy Brown was done in violation
of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act. Roy Brown may not
be voted into the grooving hall of fame but his work record
was not the reason he was discharged.
D. The Discharges of Freddie Martin and
James Turner
The first issue to decide with regards to Freddie Martin is
whether or not he was a statutory supervisor within the
meaning of Section 2(11) of the Act and beyond the protec-
tion of the Act. It is clear to me that he was no more than
a leadman. Williamson Piggly Wiggly, 280 NLRB 1160
(1986). Martin had no authority to hire or fire or to respon-
sibly direct the work of his fellow employees. The fall of
1991 was unique in the history of Respondent’s grooving and
grinding operations. Respondent worked on occasions two
crews. This was unprecedented. When Respondent worked
two crews Freddie Martin would be in charge of one crew.
But even in the fall of 1991 the running of two crews was
relatively rare (see R. Exh. 23) and during most of the his-
tory of Respondent’s grooving and grinding operations only
one crew would be in the field. It is clear that if Doltz was
not around, Martin was in charge but his infrequent filling
in for a statutory supervisor does not make him a supervisor.
In other words, Freddie Martin was an employee within the
meaning of the Act and entitled to its protection.
Freddie Martin was employed by Respondent from 1978
to 1980 when he was fired. That 1980 discharge was not the
subject of any unfair labor practice litigation as far as this
record discloses. Martin was rehired by Respondent in 1981
but voluntarily quit in 1984. Between 1984 and 1989 Freddie
Martin worked for and with Eric Doltz. In 1989 Martin was
rehired by Respondent but again voluntarily quit in 1990. He
was hired by Respondent for the last time in February 1991
and was fired on February 11, 1992.
As noted above, a number of employees, to include
Freddie Martin, concertedly complained in good faith to Re-
spondent’s management regarding wages and benefits on
January 4 and 10, 1992. On January 11, 1992, the crew re-
turned to Conshohocken, Pennsylvania, from New York to
work on equipment. On January 12, 1992, a meeting was
held between Respondent’s management, i.e., Ed Zuzelo,
Phil Zuzelo, and Eric Doltz, and the members of the
grooving crew, i.e., Roy Brown, Freddie Martin, James Turn-
er, and Steve Baer. All four of these men had signed union
authorization cards on January 2, 1992, designating the union
as their collective-bargaining representative. However, there
is no evidence that Respondent knew this except for the fact
that Ed Zuzelo, Respondent’s founder and president, made
antiunion remarks which are set forth above in the section
in section III,C, above. At the January 12, 1992 meeting,
Martin had complaints, Turner had complaints, and Brown
was visibly upset but wouldn’t say anything. Brown was
fired later that day and Martin and Turner were fired less
than a month later. The only member of the grooving crew
not fired was Steve Baer and, although Baer was present
when the employees concertedly complained about wages
and benefits to Eric Doltz on January 4 and 10, 1992, Baer’s
only contribution to the January 12, 1992 meeting was that
he didn’t want anything to change. Baer was kept on and the
others were all fired.
Martin and Turner did not work from January 12, 1992,
until they were fired. Respondent had no work to do due in
part to the weather. In any event Martin went to the shop
on February 10, 1992, because he had a suspicion that Steve
Baer was working. Martin felt that if there was some work
to do he, as the senior man, should be doing it and not Steve
Baer who was the junior man. Martin saw Baer working in
the shop and asked Eric Doltz why Steve Baer was working
and not him. According to Martin, Doltz said, ‘‘all of this
union business and stuff—he said its the company decision
and that they made the decision and that’s what it would
be.’’ (Tr. 545.) Further, according to Martin, Doltz said, ‘‘Ed
Zuzelo . . . this is his company. He’s going to have his own
way. He will not hear of a union coming in here.’’ (Tr. 547.)
Doltz’ statements are threats in violation of Section 8(a)(1)
of the Act because it tells the employee that efforts to secure
union representation will be futile. See Honda of Hayward,
307 NLRB 340 (1992). Doltz denied making the statements
attributed to him by Martin but I believe Martin. If Martin
was of a mind to lie he could claim that Doltz told him that
Coolbaugh and Brown were fired because they complained
about wages and he and Turner would soon be fired because
they signed union authorization cards.
On February 11, 1992, Freddie Martin and James Turner
were separately called at home by Phil Zuzelo and told they
were fired. Respondent claims that Martin was fired for in-
competence. Any and all mishaps on the job when Martin
1310 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
was present were, I find, normal and do not manifest that he
was an incompetent employee. The fact is he worked for Re-
spondent on and off for years and indeed worked with Eric
Doltz without incident at a time when neither Doltz nor Mar-
tin worked for Respondent. The greatest mishap, as noted
above, during the fall of 1991 occurred in November 1991
when Rex Cranmer ran the groover off the runway at West-
chester, New York, twice and later Cranmer quit Respond-
ent’s employ at a time when they needed him. And yet
Cranmer has been rehired by Respondent. Although Martin
was in charge the night Cranmer twice ran the groover off
the runway, it was Cranmer who was operating the groover.
Respondent also alleges that Martin failed to properly
maintain the bridge deck groover. But if this was true Re-
spondent knew of it a full 2 months prior to Martin’s dis-
charge. And what took place since then, of course, was Mar-
tin’s protected concerted activity on January 4 and 10, 1992,
and his complaints on January 12, 1992. Martin had also
signed a union authorization card on January 2, 1992, and
Respondent received by fax on January 24, 1992, a demand
for recognition by the Union.
When did Respondent first learn of the union activity of
its employees? Respondent claims it did not know anything
about the Union until it received on January 24, 1992, by fax
the union demand for recognition. On January 26, 1992, a
Sunday, Respondent ran an ad in the Philadelphia Inquirer
seeking applicants for employment. Respondent claims it
placed the ad prior to its receipt of the union demand for rec-
ognition and submitted after the hearing an ad from the
Philadelphia Inquirer dated August 1, 1993, indicating that
Sunday employment ads are to be received by the paper by
9 p.m. the Thursday prior to the Sunday when the ad will
run. In other words this would tend to support the testimony
of Ed Zuzelo that the ad was placed prior to the Friday, Jan-
uary 24, 1992 receipt of the union demand for recognition.
This would tend to support Respondent’s position that they
intended to fire Martin and Turner before they knew any-
thing about the Union.
Steve Baer, the only member of the groover crew who was
not fired, signed a union authorization card along with Roy
Brown, Freddie Martin, and James Turner on January 2,
1992. He denies that he told Respondent’s management
about this. Respondent’s management claims Baer did not
tell them and I will not speculate that Baer told Respondent
about this union activity. However, the antiunion remarks
made by Ed Zuzelo at the January 12, 1992 meeting which
Brown, Martin, and Turner testified about and the antiunion
remarks Doltz told Martin on February 10, 1992, and also
the receipt of the union demand letter all occurred prior to
the discharge of Martin and Turner. I find that the ad placed
prior to the union demand letter was to replace just Roy
Brown and after the union demand letter was received on
January 24, 1992, Respondent determined to discharge both
Martin and Turner. The ad itself (R. Exh. 27) reflects that
Respondent was seeking to hire just one person. In other
words, there is no doubt that Respondent knew of the union
activity of Martin and Turner prior to their discharge.
With respect to James Turner, I note that he had worked
for Respondent off and on since 1984. He was a temporary
employee from 1984 until July 1991 when he went full time.
Respondent claims it fired Turner for incompetence as well.
It is interesting that he was an okay employee for years and
then becomes a ‘‘problem’’ only after he concertedly com-
plained about wages and signed a union authorization card.
Respondent claims that Turner drove over a curb in Win-
chester, Virginia, and broke the axle on the truck he was
driving. Turner claims it was potholes that caused the dam-
age. Whether Turner was negligent or not, the fact is the ac-
cident happened 2 months before Turner was fired. Respond-
ent also claims that Turner ran over some hoses at Hagers-
town, Maryland, which resulted in some downtime and cost
to Respondent. But this accident occurred some 4 months be-
fore he was fired.
Turner was fired only after he concertedly complained
about wages on January 4 and 10, 1992, and after he signed
a union authorization card and after Respondent received a
union demand letter. As noted above, Respondent had no dif-
ficulty in finding replacement employees and its argument
that it had to keep Martin, Turner, and Brown on the payroll
until it had some downtime to interview and hire replace-
ments is without merit. If it were true, then Respondent
would have fired Martin and Turner on January 12, 1992, be-
cause it had no work for them at that time.
It is clear that Respondent discharged Freddie Martin and
James Turner in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the
Act.
E. Respondent Should Recognize and Bargain with
the Union
The grooving crew consisted of Supervisor Eric Doltz and
four employees, i.e., the operator, the button man, and two
truckdrivers. These four employees in December 1991 and
January 1992 were Freddie Martin, Roy Brown, James Turn-
er, and Steve Baer. This is the unit appropriate for collective-
bargaining purposes. All four signed union authorization
cards on January 2, 1992, which authorized the Union to rep-
resent them. I credit the testimony of Roy Brown, Freddie
Martin, James Turner, and Union Business Agent Vincent
Masci that this occurred on January 2, 1992, over the testi-
mony of Steve Baer that he and the others signed union au-
thorization cards after Roy Brown was fired and backdated
the cards at Vincent Masci’s suggestion. Steve Baer did not
impress me by his demeanor as a credible witness.
Within a month and a half after the union authorization
cards were signed, three of the four, Roy Brown, Freddie
Martin, and James Turner had been fired.
This is a category I case under the Supreme Court’s unani-
mous landmark decision in Gissel Packing Co., 395 U.S. 575
(1969), i.e., the holding of a fair election is virtually impos-
sible because of the outrageous unfair labor practices of Re-
spondent. The best and only way to give effect to the wishes
of the employees as expressed by their signed union author-
ization cards in light of the severity of Respondent’s unfair
labor practices in unlawfully firing 75 percent of the unit is
to order that Respondent recognize and bargain with the
Union as the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of
the employees in the unit. Under the circumstances, there-
fore, Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act
when it failed and refused to recognize and bargain with the
Union after it received the January 24, 1992 demand for rec-
ognition.
1311CARDINAL INDUSTRIES
2 If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the
Board’s Rules and Regulations, the findings, conclusions, and rec-
ommended 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 purposes.
3 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
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.’’
REMEDY
In this case an appropriate remedy would be an order to
Respondent to cease and desist from its unlawful conduct, re-
instate and make whole Roy Brown, Freddie Martin, and
James Turner, remove Charles Coolbaugh from the category
of employees not eligible for rehire and make him whole for
any loss he suffered as a result of being in that category, rec-
ognize and bargain with the Union, and post an appropriate
notice.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce and
in operations affecting commerce within the meaning of Sec-
tion 2(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. Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act when it
placed employee Charles Coolbaugh in a category of persons
not to be rehired because he engaged in protected concerted
activity.
4. Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act
when it discharged Roy Brown, Freddie Martin, and James
Turner because they engaged in protected concerted activity
and because of their union activity.
5. Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act when it
threatened an employee by telling him that Respondent
would never let a union represent its employees.
6. Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act
when it failed and refused to bargain with the Union as the
collective-bargaining representative of its employees.
7. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on
the entire record, I issue the following recommended2
ORDER
The Respondent, Cardinal Industries, Inc., International
Grooving and Grinding Division, Conshohocken, Pennsyl-
vania, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Placing employees in a category of not being eligible
for rehire because they engaged in protected concerted activ-
ity.
(b) Discharging employees because they engaged in pro-
tected concerted activity or activity on behalf of a union.
(c) Failing and refusing to bargain collectively with the
Union as the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of
its employees.
(d) Threatening employees that Respondent will never per-
mit a union to represent its employees.
(e) In any like or related manner interfering with, restrain-
ing, or coercing employees in the exercise of the rights guar-
anteed by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to ef-
fectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Offer to Roy Brown, Freddie Martin, and James Turner
full reinstatement to their former positions or, if those posi-
tions no longer exist, to substantially equivalent positions,
without prejudice to their seniority and other rights and privi-
leges and place Charles Coolbaugh in a category of employ-
ees not barred from rehire.
(b) Make Roy Brown, Freddie Martin, and James Turner
whole for any loss of pay and other benefits suffered by
them commencing from the date of their unlawful discharges
and make Charles Coolbaugh whole for any loss of pay and
benefits commencing from the date he would have been re-
hired if not unlawfully barred from rehire. Backpay to be
computed in accordance with F. W. Woolworth Co., 90
NLRB 289 (1950), with interest computed as set forth in
New Horizons for the Retarded, 283 NLRB 1173 (1987). See
generally Isis Plumbing Co., 138 NLRB 716 (1962).
(c) On request, bargain with the Union as the exclusive
collective-bargaining representative of the employees in the
appropriate unit concerning wages, hours, and other terms
and conditions of employment.
(d) Preserve and, on request, make available to the Board
or its agents for examination and copying, all payroll records,
social security payment records, timecards, personnel records
and reports, and all other records necessary to analyze the
amount of backpay or other moneys due under the terms of
this Order.
(e) Post at its facility in Conshohocken, Pennsylvania, cop-
ies of the attached notice marked ‘‘Appendix.’’3 Copies of
the notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for
Region 4, after being signed by the Respondent’s authorized
representative, shall be posted by the Respondent imme-
diately 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 Respondent to ensure that the notices are not al-
tered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(f) Notify the Regional Director in writing within 20 days
from the date of this Order what steps the Respondent has
taken to comply.