Child Day Care Center

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 30, 1980

252 N.L.R.B. 1177 (N.L.R.B. 1980)

CHil.D) DAY CARE CNt NT R
Child Day Care Center, Verona, Virginia and Balti-
more Regional Joint Board, Amalgamated
Clothing and Textile Workers Union Health
and Welfare Fund' and Dorothy B. Hancock
and Amalgamated Clothing and Textile Workers
Union, AFI-CIO-CLC, Local 1080A, 2 Party in
Interest. Case 5-CA-11527
September 30, 1980
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN FANNING ANI) MEMBERS
JENKINS AND PENEI..O
On July 16, 1980, Administrative Law Judge
James L. Rose issued the attached Decision in this
proceeding. Thereafter, both Respondent and the
General Counsel filed exceptions and supporting
briefs.
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
briefs and has decided to affirm the rulings, find-
ings, and conclusions of the Administrative Law
Judge only to the extent consistent herewith and to
adopt his recommended Order, as modified herein.
I. We agree with the Administrative Law
Judge's finding that Respondent gave unlawful as-
sistance to Local 1080A within the 10(b) period
and with his reliance on N.L.R.B. v. Erie Marine,
Inc., Division of Litton Industries.3 The record
shows that a union, first Local 423 and later Local
1080A, was established and existed not in response
to the employees' wishes, but at the insistence of
the Joint Board and as a result of the assistance of
Respondent. Melvin Bourne, an administrator of
the Fund with the responsibility of overseeing the
operations of the Center, testified that at a staff
meeting he personally told the employees that
there would be a union at the Center and strongly
urged them to join. Thus, it is clear that there was
employer assistance in the original establishment
and recognition of the Union. It is also clear that
Respondent recognized and dealt with the Union
on the Hancock grievance within the 10(b) period.
Therefore, we agree with the Administrative Law
Judge's conclusion that, since the Union continued
I Herein individually referred to as the Center and the Fund, respec-
tively. and collectively referred to as Respondent.
2 Herein referred to as Local 1080A (or the Union. Local 1080A is af-
filiated with the Baltimore Regional Joint Hoard oIf the Amalgamated
Clothing and Textile Workers Unioin. AFL-CIO, which is herein re-
ferred to as the Joint Hoard.
The names of Respondent and the Party in Interest were amended at
the hearing
' 465 F 2d 104 (d Cir 1972), enrg 192 NLRB 793 (1971)
252 NLRB No. 164
to exist as assisted and to be recognized with its
structure unchanged within the 6-month limitation
period, there is no bar to the finding of a violation
of Section 8(a)(2). 4
2. We do not agree, however, that the union
membership of Fund Administrator Bourne and
Center Director Cook is evidence of unlawful as-
sistance. The Board has never held that mere mem-
bership in a union by such officials shows unlawful
interference with the affairs of the union. To do so
would contravene Section 14(a) of the Act. 5 Since
nothing more than membership by Bourne and
Cook has been shown, a finding of unlawful inter-
ference in the Union's affairs cannot be sustained.6
3. Finally, we agree with the Administrative
Law Judge's finding that Respondent has violated
Section 8(a)(2) of the Act by recognizing Local
1080A because the Local has interests in conflict
with representation of Respondent's employees.
However, we base our conclusion solely on the
dual role of Carmen Papale as one of the Fund's
trustees and as the business agent who services
Local 1080A.7 We do not agree with the Adminis-
trative Law Judge's conclusion that an unlawful
conflict of interest arises from the fact that the
Joint Board, with which Local 1080A is affiliated,
appoints half of the Fund's trustees or that the
chairman of the Fund's board of trustees is the
manager of the Joint Board. The Board has held
that a union's participation in a trust fund does not
preclude its representation of the Fund's employees
where union officials do not represent a majority
on the board of trustees and there is no other
reason to suppose that the union is unable to ap-
proach negotiations with the single-minded purpose
of protecting and advocating the interests of em-
ployees. 8 Thus, the cases cited by the Administra-
4 In view of our conclusion herein, we find t unnecessary to pass on
whether the Administrative Law Judge, in finding the 8(a121) violation
properly relied on supervisory solicitation of new employees to join the
Union
Sec 14(a) prov ides:
Nothing herein shall prohibit any individual employed as a super-
visor from becoming or remaining a member of a labor organization.
but no employer subject to this Act shall be compelled to deem indi-
viduals defined herein as supervisors as employees for the purpose of
any law, either national or local, relating to collective bargaining
See NVassau and Suffolk Contractors' Association. Inc., 118 NLRB 174
(1957)
7 St. Louis Labor Health Institute, 230 NLRB 180 (1977). United Mine
Workers of .4merica Welfare and Retirement Fund, 192 NLRB 1022
(1971)
The Hancock matter exemplifies the conflict of interest. Dorothy Han-
cock was laid off on Julie 8, 1979, as a result of a decision by he Fund's
board of trustees to reduce operating costs Although Papale was on the
hboard of trustees of the Fund, he nevertheless handled Hancock's gries-
ance concerning the layoff
" Anchorage Community Hospital Inc, 225 NLRB 575 (1976); United
Mine (Wirker. supra
1 77
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL. I.ABOR RELATIONS BOARI)
tive Law Judge 9 are inapposite since therein the
union representatives held a majority on the re-
spondents' governing bodies.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Re-
lations Board adopts as its Order the recommended
Order of the Administrative Law Judge, as modi-
fied below, and hereby orders that the Respondent,
Child Day Care Center, Verona, Virginia and Bal-
timore Regional Joint Board, Amalgamated Cloth-
ing and Textile Workers Union Health and Welfare
Fund, Baltimore, Maryland, its trustees, officers,
agents, successors, and assigns shall take the action
set forth in the said recommended Order, as so
modified:
1. Substitute the following for paragraph l(a):
"(a) Recognizing or bargaining with Amalgamat-
ed Clothing and Textile Workers Union, AFL-
CIO-CLC, Local 1080A, as the collective-bargain-
ing representative of its employees unless and until
that Union has been duly certified as such repre-
sentative by the National Labor Relations Board."
2. Substitute the attached notice for that of the
Administrative Law Judge.
9 Medical Foundation of Bellaire, 193 NI.RB 62 (1971); Centrrville Clin-
ics, Incorporated. 181 NLRB 135 (1970).
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 parties participated
and were given the right to call, examine, and
cross-examine the witnesses, it has been found by
the National Labor Relations Board that we have
committed certain unfair labor practices. We have
been ordered to cease such activity, to post this
notice, and to comply with its terms.
The Act gives employees the following rights:
To engage in self-organization
To form, join, or assist any union
To bargain collectively through represen-
tatives of their own choice
To engage in activities together for the
purpose of collective bargaining or other
mutual aid or protection
To refrain from the exercise of any or all
such activities.
WE WILL NOT recognize or bargain with
Amalgamated Clothing and Textile Workers
Union, AFL-CIO-CLC, Local 1080A, as the
exclusive representative of our employees
unless and until that labor organization has
been certified by the National Labor Relations
Board.
WF WIt.. NOT in any like or related manner
interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employ-
ees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed
them by Section 7 of the Act.
WE wI.L withdraw and withhold all recog-
nition from Amalgamated Clothing and Textile
Workers Union, AFL-CIO-CLC, Local
1080A, as the exclusive collective-bargaining
representative of our employees unless and
until that Union has been duly certified as such
representative by the National Labor Relations
Board.
Our employees are free to join Amalgamated
Clothing and Textile Workers Union, AFL-CIO-
CLC, Local 1080A, or to refrain from doing so.
CHILD DAY CARE CENTER, VERONA,
VIRGINIA AND BALTIMORE REGION-
AL. JOINT BOARD, AMALGAMATED
CLOTHING AND TEXTIIE WORKERS
UNION HEALTH AND WELFARE
FUND
DECISION
STIATEMENT OF THE CASE
JAMES L. Rosr, Administrative Law Judge: This
matter was heard before me on April 17, 1980, at Staun-
ton, Virginia, upon the General Counsel's complaint
which alleged generally that the Respondent violated
Section 8(a)(2) of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended, unlawfully assisting and dominating a labor or-
ganization.
Though admitting that it does recognize and bargain
with the Party in Interest the Respondent contends that
such is not unlawful.
Upon the record as a whole, including my observation
of the witnesses, briefs, and arguments of counsel, I
hereby make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. JURISDICTION
Baltimore Regional Joint Board, Amalgamated Cloth-
ing and Textile Workers Union Health and Welfare
Fund (herein the Fund), is a jointly administered trust
fund organized pursuant to the provisions of Section
302(c)(5) of the Act which exists for the purpose of pro-
viding health care and related benefits to employees. The
Fund is financed, in part, by contributions made by cer-
tain employers pursuant to provisions of various collec-
tive-bargaining agreements.
1178
CHII.D DAY CARE CENTIER
Among other things, the Fund operates five child day
care centers in Pennsylvania, Maryland, and Virginia.
The Verona. Virginia, facility (herein the Center, and
jointly with the Fund, the Respondent) is the only one
involved in this matter.
During the 12 months preceding the issuance of the
complaint herein, the Fund received in excess of $50,000
for services furnished employers outside the State of
Maryland. The Respondent admits, and I find, that at all
times material herein, the Center and the Fund have
been a single employer and/or joint employers, and at all
times material have been an employer within the mean-
ing of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.
11. THE l.ABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
The Baltimore Regional Joint Board of the Amalga-
mated Clothing and Textile Workers Union, AFL-CIO
(herein the Joint Board), is an affiliation of about 30 local
unions in Virginia, Pennsylvania, and Maryland each of
which has delegates to the Joint Board in accordance
with its numerical membership. The Joint Board also has
a board of directors which is composed of one delegate
from each affiliated local union.
Pursuant to its bylaws, "The jurisdiction of the Joint
Board shall. . .. All local unions chartered by the Inter-
national unions within the jurisdiction of Joint Board
shall affiliate with the Joint Board .... " The Joint
Board is responsible for negotiating collective-bargaining
agreements between the affiliated locals and various em-
ployers and administrating those agreements. Although
not alleged in the complaint, it is clear that the Joint
Board is a labor organization within the meaning of Sec-
tion 2(5) of the Act.
One of the affiliated locals, Amalgamated Clothing
and Textile Workers Union, AFL-CIO-CLC, Local
1080A (herein Local 1080A or the Union), is admitted to
be, and I find that this is, a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. Local 1080A, as a
Party in Interest, was represented in this proceeding.
111. THE AI.L.EGED UNFAIR lABOR PRACTICES
A. Background Facts
There is no factual controversy in this matter, the par-
ties disagreeing only on the legal consequences of the
agreed facts.
The Fund was established in 1963 for the purpose of
providing health and eye examinations for members of
the Joint Board's affiliated locals. In 1968, following a
study by the Fund and, apparently, an amendment to
Section 302(c) of the Act, the Fund began to operate
child day care centers. The Verona facility was the first
such center opened. Its function is to provide child day
care services for employees of the local factory which
has a collective-bargaining agreement with a local union
affiliate of the Joint Board (respectively, Genesco and
Local 423).
Pursuant to its trust agreement, the Fund is supervised
by a board of trustees, five of whom are chosen by the
Joint Board and five of whom are chosen by the partici-
pating employers. The five Joint Board trustees include
Samuel Nocella, who at all times material has also been
the manager of the Joint Board, and Carmen Papale, a
business agent of the Joint Board. Since its inception,
Nocella has also served as chairman of the Fund's board
of trustees pursuant to election by a majority of the
board members.
The Fund employs two administrators to supervise the
day-to-day operations: Melvin Bourne is a professional
manager who is principally in charge of operating the
five day care centers, and Dr. Jose Martinez, who appar-
ently is involved only with the health and eye examina-
tion functions of the Fund.
Bourne was hired just prior to the Verona facility
opening. Reporting directly to Bourne are the directors
of each of the centers. Bourne in turn reports to the
board of trustees which meets quarterly; but, when there
arises a matter of urgency, he may contact and get ap-
proval from Nocella for emergency action.
Dorothy Hancock, the Charging Party herein, had
been an employee of Genesco when the Verona center
opened. She as well as other employees of the plant were
given the opportunity to seek jobs at the Center and she
in fact was hired. Though Hancock denied it, it appears
that other plant employees also went to work for the
Center when it opened. In any event, the Center opened
with about 10 employees and a director. No union repre-
sented the employees at that time although Hancock, and
presumably any others who had been employed at the
plant, had been a member of Local 423.
Bourne testified that it was his understanding from the
trustees that even though the Center was union spon-
sored the staff would not be union. It was his under-
standing that they would offer the employees the same
benefits as set forth in the collective-bargaining agree-
ment between Local 423 and Genesco, including wage
increases and the like when called for by the contract.
Indeed, Nocella testified the board of trustees decided to
keep parity between the employees of the day care cen-
ters and the employees of the plants they were servicing.
However, according to Bourne, as time went on there
began to develop some friction from the plant employees
who noted that the day care center employees were not
paying union dues but were receiving the same benefits
as the members. "So the decision was made to let our
people come into the Union, and certainly, erase a good
part of what could be a continuing point of friction be-
tween the shop, who we were here to serve, and the
people at the Center." Bourne further testified that since
he had hired most of the Verona staff and had initially
told them that they would not be union, he felt an obli-
gation to advise them of the change. Thus, he went to
Verona, held a staff meeting and told the employees that
while he could not force them to join the Union, because
Virginia is a "right to work state," he encouraged them
to do so. Thus, the Verona staff became members of
Local 423.
After a short time it was determined by the Joint
Board that the interests of these employees was substan-
tially different from the interests of the plant employees
and that they should have a separate local union. Ac-
cordingly, a charter was issued on January 5, 1972, for
Local 1080A, which thereby became an affiliate of the
1179
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Amalgamated Clothing and Textile Workers Union and
the Joint Board. Since then, Local 1080A has functioned
as an affiliate local of the Joint Board and has sent dele-
gates to the Joint Board and the Joint Board's board of
directors.
Although the Fund admits that it has recognized and
bargained with Local 1080A, there has never been a col-
lective-bargaining agreement between Local 1080A and
the Fund. Employees of the Center still receive the bene-
fits set forth in the collective-bargaining agreement be-
tween Local 423 and Genesco. Center employees do
have their dues deducted pursuant to checkoff authoriza-
tions. The Fund deducts the dues and submits the money
to the Joint Board which, pursuant to some formula,
remits a portion to Local 1080A.
About 2-1/2 years ago (probably in or about Septem-
ber 1977) Nocella talked to Bourne about a potential
problem that Bourne and the directors might have with
regard to their insurance coverage inasmuch as they
were not union members. For this reason, according to
Bourne, they joined the Union. Bourne testified that he
joined the International (probably the Joint Board) and
the Verona director at the time, Gerald Cook, joined
Local 1080A. Cook was a member of Local 1080A from
September 1977 until he resigned his job in December
1978. The present director, David Alexander, was a
member from July 8, 1979, until November 1979, at
which time it was determined that Bourne and the direc-
tors would no longer have to be members. And when
this determination was made the dues that they had paid
were refunded to them.
Cook testified that as the director of the Verona center
he was in overall charge of its operation, including the
hiring and discharge of employees, their discipline, and
the like. He further testified that employees would be so-
licited to join Local 1080A at the completion of their 6-
month probationary period. He would tell employees
that if they choose to join the Union they could do so
and he would proffer a checkoff authorization. During
the course of soliciting membership in the Union Cook
would tell the employees that he would answer any
questions about the Union.
Cook further testified that during his time as director,
on various occasions, union meetings would be held on
Center premises during regular business hours for which
the employees were paid. The parties stipulated that such
meetings occurred subsequent to Cook's resignation.
Dorothy Hancock was laid off on June 8, 1979, as a
result of a determination by the board of trustees of the
Fund to reduce operating costs. Hancock felt that she
should not have been laid off and, accordingly, filed a
grievance which was handled by the Joint Board busi-
ness agent assigned to Local 1080A, Carmen Papale.
There followed an arbitration of this matter although
Hancock, on advice of her counsel, did not attend.
Papale represented Local 1080A and Hancock while
Bourne represented the Center/Fund. The matter was
heard before a permanent arbitrator appointed, apparent-
ly, pursuant to the collective-bargaining agreement be-
tween Local 423 and Genesco.
B. Analysis and Concluding Findings
I. Unlawful assistance
As the Respondent correctly points out, simply allow-
ing a union to hold meetings on company premises is not
enough to demonstrate unlawful assistance. Duquesne
University of the Holy Ghost, 198 NLRB 891 (1972). How-
ever, here there was substantially more. Specifically, su-
pervisors of the highest level, the Fund administrator
and the Center director, were members of the Union.
Membership of such high-level supervisors shows unlaw-
ful interference with the affairs of the Union. Schwenk
Incorporated, 229 NLRB 640 (1977). In addition to being
members of the Union, the Center director solicited new
employees to join the Union. Such clearly establishes un-
lawful interference in violation of Section 8(a)(2) of the
Act. St. Vincent's Hospital, 244 NLRB 84 (1979).
While there is no evidence that the Verona director
solicited employees to join the Union within 6 months
preceding the filing of the charge herein it is clear that
Local 1080A in fact existed as assisted within the 10(b)
period. Thus, within 6 months prior to the filing of the
charge the Fund allowed the Union to use its premises to
hold meetings during which employees were paid. Also
during this period the Verona director as well as the
Fund administrator continued to belong to Local 1080A
and the Joint Board. Further, within the 10(b) period,
the Fund did in fact recognize and deal with the Union
specifically with relation to the Hancock grievance. Inas-
much as the Union continued to exist and be recognized
with its structure and the company assistance substantial-
ly unchanged throughout the 6-month period prior to
filing the charge, Section 10(b) is no bar to finding an
unfair labor practice in this proceeding. N.L.R.B. v. Erie
Marine, Inc., Division of Litton Industries, 465 F.2d 104
(3d Cir. 1972).
Although the complaint is couched in terms of domi-
nation as well as assistance, it is clear from the record
that the Respondent did not create Local 1080A and
does not really dominate it. The Respondent simply
gives Local 1080A unlawful assistance. Local 1080A was
created by and at the insistence of the Joint Board.
While the Joint Board has substantial influence over the
Fund, they are not identical. The Joint Board is not the
employer. The employer is the Fund. On these facts I
find there has been unlawful assistance but there has
been no domination requiring an order that the employer
disestablish the Union. Indeed, the employer in this case
does not have the power to do so.
Accordingly, I conclude that by assisting Local
1080A, in the manner described, the Respondent has in
fact unlawfully interfered with the administration of a
labor organization in violation of Section 8(a)(2) of the
Act.
2. Conflict of interest
The General Counsel also contends that the Fund vio-
lated Section 8(a)(2) of the Act by recognizing and bar-
gaining with Local 1080A because the Union has inter-
ests in conflict with representing the Center's employees.
1180
CHILD DAY CARE CENTER
The facts here certainly support finding a conflict of
interest-the Joint Board appoints half of the Fund's
trustees and at the same time supervises the affairs of
Local 1080A. Indeed, one of the Fund's trustees is the
business agent who services Local 1080A. The chairman
of the Fund's trustees is the manager of the Joint Board.
Clearly on these facts the Union has interests vis-a-vis the
Fund which might not be compatible with the interests
of Local 1080A members.
Such a conflict may be grounds for denying the
Union's petition for representation. Welfare and Pension
Funds, 178 NLRB 14 (1969); or, be the basis for finding
a violation of Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act, St. Louis
Labor Health Institute, 230 NLRB 180 (1977); or be an
appropriate defense to an employer's refusal to bargain
with the Union. Catalytic Industrial Maintenance Compa-
ny, 209 NLRB 641 (1974); Bausch & Lomb Optical Com-
pany, 108 NLRB 1555 (1954). Finally, to recognize or
assist a union where such a conflict of interest exists has
been held violative of Section 8(a)(2), Centerville Clinics.
Inc., 181 NLRB 135 (1970); Medical Foundation of Bel-
laire, 193 NLRB 62 (1971).
I therefore conclude that the potential conflict of inter-
est which renders Local 1080A incompetent from repre-
senting the employees of the Verona center further es-
tablishes that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(2) of
the Act in continuing to recognize Local 1080A.
IV. THE EFFECTS OF THE UNFAIR l.ABOR PRACTICES
UPON COMMERCE
The unfair labor practices found above, occurring in
connection with the Respondent's operation of the child
day care center in Verona, Virginia, have a close, inti-
mate, and substantial relationship to trade, traffic, and
commerce among the several States, and tend to lead to
labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and
the free flow of commerce within the meaning of Section
2(6) and (7) of the Act
THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has violated Sec-
tion 8(a)(2) of the Act by assisting Amalgamated Cloth-
ing and Textile Workers Union, AFL-CIO-CLC, Local
1080A, I will recommend that it cease and desist there-
from and take certain affirmative action designed to ef-
fectuate the policies of the Act.
Inasmuch as an individual employee's membership in
the Union was not predicated upon a union-security
clause in an unlawful contract (there never having been a
collective-bargaining agreement between the Respondent
and the Union), and inasmuch as there is otherwise no
evidence of coercion of any employee to join the Union
within the 10(b) period, I will not recommend that the
Respondent be ordered to reimburse its members for
dues collected. As the Board said in Unit Train Coal
Sales, Inc., 234 NLRB 1265 (1978), ". . . Board and
court precedent precludes as punitive the application of
the reimbursement remedy where, as here, there is no
evidence that the employees were coerced into signing
authorization cards for the unlawfully assisted
union . . ."
Finally, union participation in a trust fund does not
necessarily preclude its representing the fund's employ-
ees, Anchorage Community Hosiptal, Inc., 225 NLRB 575
(1976). And since the facts may change, I deem it innap-
propriate to enter a broad injunction against the Fund or
the Center ever recognizing Local 1080A or any other
affiliate local of the Joint Board on grounds of an inher-
ent conflict of interest.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of
law, and the entire record in this matter, and pursuant to
the provisions of Section 10(c) of the Act, I hereby issue
the following recommended:
ORDER
The Respondent, Child Day Care Center, Verona,
Virginia, and Baltimore Regional Joint Board, Amalga-
mated Clothing and Textile Workers Union Health and
Welfare Fund, Verona, Virginia, their officers, agents,
successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Recognizing or bargaining with Amalgamated
Clothing and Textile Workers Union, AFL-CIO-CLC,
Local 1080A as the collective-bargaining representative
of its employees.
(b) In any like or related manner interfering with, re-
straining, or coercing employees in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action:
(a) Withdraw and withhold all recognition from Amal-
gamated Clothing and Textile Workers Union, AFL-
CIO-CLC, Local 1080A, as the exclusive collective-bar-
gaining representative of any of its employees unless and
until that union has been duly certified as such represen-
tative by the National Labor Relations Board.
(b) Post at its premises in Verona, Virginia, copies of
the attached notice marked, "Appendix." 2 Copies of said
notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for
Region 5, after being duly signed by its authorized repre-
sentative shall be posted by the Respondent immediately
upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 con-
secutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including
all places where notices to employees are customarily
posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respon-
dent to ensure that said notices are not altered, defaced,
or covered by any other material.
(c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 5, in writ-
ing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what
steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
I 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 find-
ings, 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.
2 In the event that 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 Pursu-
ant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an
Order of the National Labor Relations Board "
181