Communications Workers of America, Local No. 2550

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 20, 1972

195 N.L.R.B. 945 (N.L.R.B. 1972)

COMMUNICATIONS WORKERS OF AMERICA, LOCAL NO. 2550
Communications Workers of America, Local No. 2550,
AFL-CIO and American Telephone and Telegraph
Company, Long Lines Department . Case 6-CB-
2090
March 20, 1972
DECISION AND ORDER
By CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS JENKINS
AND KENNEDY
On November 22, 1971, Trial Examiner John M.
Dyer issued the attached Decision in this proceeding.
Thereafter, Respondent filed exceptions and a support-
ing brief, and the Charging Party filed an answering
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 Trial
Examiner's Decision in light of the exceptions and
briefs and has decided to affirm the Trial Examiner's
rulings, findings, and conclusions and to adopt his
recommended Order.
ORDER
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 Trial Examiner and hereby orders that Respondent,
Communications Workers of America, Local No.
2550, AFL-CIO, its officers , agents, and representa-
tives, shall take , the action set forth in the Trial Ex-
aminer 's recommended Order.
' The Respondent's request for oral argument is hereby denied as the
record, including the exceptions and briefs, adequately sets forth the issues
and the positions of the parties
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
JOHN M. DYER, Trial Examiner. On February 22, 1971,1
the American Telephone and Telegraph Company, Long
Lines Department, herein called the Company or Charging
Party, filed a charge alleging that Communications Workers
of America, Local No. 2550, AFL-CIO, herein called the
Union, Respondent, or Respondent Union, violated Section
8(b)(1)(B) by coercing the Company, on and after February
3, in the selection of the Company's representatives for the
purpose of collective bargaining or adjusting grievances. On
July 27, the Regional Director for Region 6 issued a com-
plaint, amended at the hearing in this matter, which in addi-
tion to the requisite jurisdictional and commerce facts alleges
that the Union struck on February 3 and picketed the Com-
pany from February 5 until February 10 seeking, inter alia,
' Unless specifically stated otherwise all events referred to in this matter
occurred during 1971
195 NLRB No. 163
945
the removal of Charlotte Gnmme from her supervisory posi-
tion as group chief operator.
The Union's answer, as amended at the hearing, admitted
the requisite jurisdictional and commerce information, ad-
mitted that Charlotte Grimme was a supervisory employee,
but stated her position was at the lowest level of managerial
responsibility and authority, and admitted that she handled
grievances at the first level, at which level, the answer
averred, grievances were seldom resolved. The answer admit-
ted that certain employees began a work stoppage on Febru-
ary 3 and that the Union struck and picketed Respondent
from February 5 until February 10, but stated that this action
was taken as a protest to an accumulation of unresolved
grievances and to the Company's delay in responding to the
grievances. The answer stated that one of the grievances dealt
with harassment and discourtesy by supervisors and that
Group Chief Operator Charlotte Grimme was one of the
chief offenders in, this area and that the Union sought her
temporary removal from the work area pending a final deter-
mination of the grievances so that the situation wouldn't be
further exacerbated. The Union stated that it subsequently
withdrew this request and that this grievance plus others are
advancing in the grievance machinery, but that, by engaging
in the action it did, Respondent was engaging in protected
concerted activity and did not thereby violate Section
8(b)(1)(B) of the Act.
All parties were afforded full opportunity to appear, to
examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to argue orally at
the hearing which was held on September 15 in Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania. All parties have filed briefs which have been
carefully considered.
The question presented in this case is whether Section
8(b)(1)(B) is violated when one of the objects of a union's
strike is the temporary or permanent removal of a supervisor
from supervising a particular unit of employees, or whether
as the Union contends, such activity is legitimate protected
activity under Section 7 and not violative of the Act.
The parties are essentially in agreement on the facts, al-
though there is some contention as to whether the Union
sought Mrs. Grimme's transfer, demotion, or termination. It
appears to me that resolution of that contention is not essen-
tial when what is admittedly sought is the removal of a super-
visor as a supervisor from a unit over which management has
placed her. The question is essentially one of interpretation
of the law and I will find herein that Respondent has violated
Section 8(b)(1)(B) by its acts.
On the entire record in this case, I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I CHARGING PARTY'S BUSINESS AND THE UNION
The Charging Party is a New York corporation which
provides interstate communication services throughout the
United States and overseas and has a gross annual volume of
business in excess of $1 million. During the past year the
Company at its Pennsylvania facilities received goods and
materials directly from outside the Commonwealth of Penn-
sylvania valued in excess of $50,000. The Charging Party has
its principal offices in New York, but in this case only the
facilities in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, are involved.
The parties admit and I find that the Charging Party is an
employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Sec-
tion 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
The parties admit and I find that the Union is a labor
organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
946 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
II THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Background and Facts
In February there were two overseas operations in Pitts-
burgh employing approximately 300 operators who were
supervised by 12 group chief operators. Charlotte Grimme
was hired on May 4, 1970, and became a group chief opera-
tor. The next or second level of supervision was the opera-
tions manager, Miss Leon, and her supervisor (third level)
was the district operations manager, Roger Allen.
It is clear from the testimony, from the Respondent's an-
swer, and from the statements of the parties that Mrs. Grim-
me's position is supervisory within the meaning of the Act
and she is the first step or at the first level for management
in handling grievances. Respondent may not have dealt with
her at this first level on many occasions but her position
includes supervisory responsibility. In the manner of process-
ing grievances a first-level supervisor would be present also
at a second-level grievance meeting if the grievance had come
through her or possibly concerned her.
The Union had designated stewards who were the first level
or step for grievance matters. The second level for the Union
was the Union's vice president, Mary Jo Thieler, and her
traffic representatives and the third level was the local union
president, William Stevenson, or the chief steward, Roy
Schultise.
During the pertinent period the parties were governed by
a contract which ran from January 16, 1967, to July 16, 1971,
and provided a grievance and negotiation procedure in article
16 and for arbitration in article 17. The contract appears to
have no prohibitions against strikes and does contain a "zip-
per" clause.
Union President Stevenson testified that a number of griev-
ances had accumulated from December 1970 and January
1971 and that he was first made aware of them at a January
21 meeting of the Union's executive board. He stated that
from then until February 3 he sought details on the griev-
ances and how far they had progressed.
Union Vice President Mary Jo Thieler testified that she
handles 90 percent of the grievances in the traffic department
and that she met with the Company's operations manager,
Miss Leon, on January 7 and told her that grievances were
being filed on Group Chief Operator Charlotte Grimme.
These grievances were not filed until the morning of January
21 and it was later that day that Union President Stevenson
was made aware of them . During the ensuing 1 or 2 weeks
Miss Leon promised to get back to Mary Jo Thieler but had
not contacted her in regard to the grievances at this second
step in the grievance procedure when the overseas depart-
ment walked out on February 3.
At approximately 10 a.m., on February 3, the operators in
the overseas department (some 300) walked out and de-
manded a meeting with the Union. Union President Ste-
venson arranged a meeting during which the employees were
allowed to express their feelings. As a result some 13 griev-
ances were formulated. According to Stevenson, these griev-
ances covered a number of subjects which had been covered
by the previous grievances but were not in the same format
as those which Mary Jo Thieler filed on January 21. A meet-
ing was arranged with District Operations Manager Allen for
3 p.m., that same day.
At this meeting the Union brought up a number of griev-
ances, including insufficient seating for operators, problems
with the scheduling of operators for work with heavy sched-
uling for weekends, their working conditions, a lack of accu-
rate clocks, problems about restroom facilities, problems con-
cerning promotion from the ranks to supervisory status, the
dress code, claims that the employees were being made to
take medical examinations for insufficient reasons, and a lack
of medical facilities on the premises. The particular grievance
of importance in this case is that a claim was made that
Group Chief Operator Charlotte Grimme harassed and was
discourteous to employees particularly when employees had
problems with absenteeism or were late. Union President
Stevenson said it had to be stopped and the employees would
be more inclined to return to work if Mrs. Grimme was not
in the area. The Union requested that she be removed from
her position as group chief operator in the operating center.
The Company stated it would not remove Mrs. Grimme
from her position and asked the Union to have its people
come back to work and submit the problems to the normal
grievance procedures. The Union stated it would take the
Company's proposal to its executive board for consideration.
During this 4-hour meeting one of the grievance items was
resolved. Some discussion took place with regard to the vari-
ous items and proposals and counterproposals were made by
the parties, but no complete offer on all the items was made.
The Company proposed that the grievances be subject to a
time grievance procedure in order to expedite the matter. No
final answers were achieved.
A second meeting of the Union and Company was held the
following day, February 4, and the grievances were again
discussed with the Union stating that Charlotte Grimme was
at the heart of the problem and that the employees felt that
her removal from her position in the operating' center would
enable them to go back to work. The Union proposed im-
mediate arbitration of the harassment charges, and the Com-
pany counterproposed a speedup of the grievance procedure.
Other proposals were made regarding expediting the matter
but they were conditioned by the Company on the employees'
returning to work.
On February 5 the Union contacted the Company and said
that the executive board had turned down the Company's
proposals . A strike vote was approved by the members by a
2 to 1 margin and, picket lines were established and leaflets
handed out by the pickets.'
Another meeting was held on February 5 to allow the
Union to clarify its position . According to the Company, the
Union stated that the employees would return to work condi-
tioned upon the removal of Group Chief Operator Grimme
from the work location pending settlement of the current
grievances against her. The Union emphasized it was not
asking for her dismissal but wanted her' removed until the
grievances regarding her were resolved. The Company re-
sponded that it was unable to remove her from a supervisory
The leaflets read as follows
Communications Workers of America
Local 2550 Pittsburgh, Pa
For Our Operators We Want
Seats at the switchboard
Clean sanitary lavatories & restrooms
Prompt accurate payment of earned wages
No more harassment of operators
An end to unnecessary medical examination by Company doctor
Competent group chief operators
Removal of incompetent, discourteous unreasonable management
Promotions from the ranks with recognition of seniority
An end of discriminatory dress regulations
Accurate clocks.
We Need These Things Now!
Promises Won't Dot
We appreciate your Understanding And Support
Thank you.
Executive Board-Local 2550
COMMUNICATIONS WORKERS OF AMERICA , LOCAL NO. 2550 947
position based merely on charges by the Union and suggested
that the Union get its people back to work and submit the
harassment charges through normal grievance procedures.
Union President Stevenson testified that the Union made
it clear at all of its meetings with the Company that it wanted
the Company to control Charlotte Grimme so that harass-
ment would be stopped and it felt that until management gave
such assurance it was not justified in recommending that the
employees return to work. Stevenson emphasized that they
were merely asking for Grimme to be assigned to some other
location rather than continue working the operations room
with the overseas operators.
At the fourth meeting held February 7, the Company
stated it saw no way it could remove a supervisor from a line
position based only on charges and urged the Union get the
people back to work and follow the normal grievance proce-
dures. It informed the Union that it had been advised that
striking for the purpose of removing or displacing a super-
visor could be an unfair labor practice. The Union stated that
it was not engaged in any unfair labor practice and did not
so intend but that the purpose of the strike was to secure
settlement of unsettled grievances.
A fifth meeting was held at which the Union said it would
return to work and withdraw its request for removal of the
group chief operator if the Company would agree to place
two union stewards as observers in the operating center so
that peace and tranquility would be assured. According to the
Company, this would have necessitated placing 6 to 12 stew-
ards on the payroll and not having them perform any duties
other than act as observers in the operating room. The Com-
pany refused this offer.
A brief meeting was held on February 9 and the seventh
meeting was held in the afternoon of February 10. At this
latter meeting the parties restated their positions and the
Company offered to begin any new harassment charges or
grievances initiated after the employees returned to work at
the third grievance step so they could be expedited. The
Union rejected this offer stating that 50 percent of the prob-
lem was still centered around removal of Group Chief Opera-
tor Grimme.
Another meeting was held in the evening of February 10
and all the various proposals were examined by the parties
with the Union stating it would submit the various proposals
to its executive board.
The strike was settled later that evening with agreement by
the parties that there would be immediate continuous
negotiations on harassment charges and Mrs. Grimme was
not to be removed from her job. Other changes were made,
including a new supervisory setup at the traffic manager level,
with Miss Leon being in charge of only one of the three
operating centers with Mrs. Grimme under her. Another
person was placed in charge of two of the overseas operating
centers (a third center was created) at the second level of
supervision. The employees returned to work the following
day.
The Union felt it had achieved a partial settlement of the
matters in that a new person with whom it felt there was some
rapport had been placed over two-thirds of the operating
rooms and some machinery for proper control of the situation
had been established. The Company maintained there had
been no real change in the situation as far as supervision of
Mrs. Grimme was concerned.
General Counsel and the Charging Party contend that the
Union's request regarding Mrs. Grimme was for her demo-
tion or discharge from her supervisory position and that this
request later changed to a request for her removal or transfer
from the overseas operations. Part of this contention is based
on statements made by Union President Stevenson in his
taped telephone messages which acted as reports to the mem-
bership. For instance, in the second report to the membership
following the union meeting with management on February
3, Stevenson said that the primary obstacle to reaching agree-
ment was refusal by the Company to eliminate the group
chief operator (Grimme) who had caused 90 percent of the
harassment problem and that the Union had proposed im-
mediate return to the job if the Company would remove this
source of irritation pending final determination of a grievance
seeking her permanent removal . In a recording made late in
the evening of February 6 Stevenson reported to the em-
ployees on the grievances which were outstanding and stated
that as to the harassments , medical exams , and disrespect
that one specific group chief operator caused the greatest
percentage of trouble. He further stated that management
wouldn't control her even after repeated requests by the
Union and while the Company wanted an immediate return
to work by the employees with submission of all items to
grievance procedure, the Union was taking the position that
the Company should assign the offending group chief opera-
tor away from the work area before the Union would return
to the job and submit unresolved issues to the grievance
procedure.
On February 10 Stevenson reported to the members that
the parties had reached agreement for immediate return to
work on February 11, based on the Company providing seats
for all operators at all times ; immediate adjustment of wage
errors; refund of all tardiness docking for the last 3 months;
discontinuance of dress regulations; providing accurate
clocks; establishment of a joint committee on sanitation; im-
mediate and continuous grievance negotiations on harass-
ment grievances with agreement to a third-step meeting if
necessary; prompt grievance negotiations on all unresolved
items; initiation of grievances at the second step where
harassment is charged; and the creation of a second traffic
manager's position with supervision over operating units two
and three.
B. Analysis and Resolution
It would seem clear that the Union did not seek the dis-
charge of Charlotte Grimme but rather her removal from the
overseas operating centers as a group chief operator. In effect
the Union was asking the Company not to allow her to con-
tinue acting as a supervisor in the overseas operations depart-
ment but rather to assign her to some other position or some
other department and was seeking this removal through the
grievance proceedings and, pending resolution of the griev-
ance proceeding, her temporary removal to prevent what it
termed any further problems. Thus we come to the point of
whether a strike which has as one of its objectives the perma-
nent or temporary removal of a supervisor from a supervisory
position in a unit is protected activity in that it is designed by
the Union to ameliorate some conditions of employment un-
der which its members work, or whether so acting restrains
and/or coerces the employer in its selection of its representa-
tive for the purpose of adjustment of grievances, in violation
of the Act.
The cases cited by Respondent' deal with situations where
employees without an established bargaining relationship
strike an employer either in support of, or in protest to, a
supervisor seeking his retention or removal. In those situa-
tions there has to be a clear relationship between their inter-
ests or activities and their action and such action must be
' N.L.R.B. v. Phoenix Mutual Life Insurance Company, 167 F.2d 983
(C.A. 7); Dobbs Houses, Inc., 135 NLRB 885; Ace Handle Corporation, 100
NLRB 1279; Fontaine Converting Works, Inc., 77 NLRB 1386.
948 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR , RELATIONS BOARD
moderate and reasonably related to the problem. The Board
and some courts held in these cases that Section 7 of the Act
protected these strikers where their action was moderate and
reasonably related to the problem.
But in the present instancewe have an established bargain-
ing relationship with detailed procedures, including final and
binding arbitration for handling problems of this nature,
while in the cited cases self-help by withholding work ap-
peared to be the only method available to the unrepresented
employees to seek a change in the prevailing condition. We
do not have the problem of whether the strikers here are
protected by Section 7 of the Act, since no action has been
taken against them and there are no charges before me alleg-
ing violation of the strikers' Section 7 rights.
The sole problem here is whether this strike violated Sec-
tion 8(b)(1)(B) and interfered with management's rights.
The cases cited by General Counsel and the Charging
Party deal essentially with indirect coercion on a company by
pressure exerted on a supervisor in an effort to make the
supervisor agree with the union's interpretation of matters
and make the supervisor an ineffective or less effective man-
agement agent.
It seems clear that something which is violative of the Act
in an indirect manner must certainly violate the Act if the
coercion or pressure is direct.
Section 8(b)(1)(B) makes it an unfair labor practice for a
union or its agents to restrain or coerce "an employer in the
selection of his representatives for the purposes of collective
bargaining or the adjustment of grievances." The parties
agree that Group Chief Operator Grimme is an employer
representative who may adjust grievances. It brooks no dis-
cussion that the strike as a direct economic coercion of the
Employer had as an object having the Employer remove this
representative from her capacity. Thus the action here clearly
fits the literal wording of the statute.
Indeed the principal sponsor of the legislation, Senator
Taft, and others made it clear that action such as the Union
indulged in here was strictly forbidden by this section of the
Act.
In, the Senate Report No. 105 on S. 1126 in explaining
Section 8(b)(1)(B), it was stated:
. also, this subsection would not permit a union to
dictate who shall represent an employer in the settlement
of employee grievances, or to compel the removal of a
personnel director or supervisor who has been delegated
the function of settling grievances.
In the Congressional Record of April 23, 1947, page 3953,
Senator Taft in explaining this section said " . . . employees
can not say to their employer, `We do not like Mr. X, We will
not meet Mr. X. You have to send us Mr. Y.' That has been
done. It would prevent their saying to the employer, `You
have to fire Foreman Jones. We do not like Foreman Jones,
and therefore you have to fire him, or we will not go to
work.' '
On April 28, 1947, Senator Ellender (p. 4266 in the Con-
gressional Record) spoke in support of the legislation as fol-
lows:
I shall now deal briefly with strikes invading the preroga-
tives of management.... The bill, in subsection 8(b)(1)
on page 14, makes it an unfair labor practice for a union
to attempt to coerce an employer either in the selection
of his bargaining representative or in the selection of a
personnel director or foreman or other supervisory offi-
cials. Senators who heard me discuss the issue early in
the afternoon will recall that quite a few unions forced
employers to change foremen. They have been taking it
upon themselves to say that management should not
appoint any representative who is too strict with the
membership of the Union. This amendment seeks to
describe a remedy in order to prevent such interferences.
Despite the literal wording of the `statute, Respondent
maintains it was engaging in a protected concerted activity of
striking to protest an attempt to change some working condi-
tions, stating that such action is protected by Section 7 of the
Act and that, accordingly, such action cannot violate another
section of -the Act.
There would be some question under the cases cited by the
Charging Party as to whether a strike in this situation is
lawful given the contract's final and binding arbitration under
the grievance procedures. But assuming arguendo that the
strike action is protected by Section 7 of the Act, there are
still limits to protected strike activity. It is certainly protected
activity for employees to picket an employer to force the
employer to recognize and bargain with a union. But this
right is circumscribed by Section 8(b)(7) and its subpara-
graphs. Where a union picketed in excess of 30 days without
filing a petition for recognition, that union could be found
guilty of violating the Act when a charge is filed.
The situation here seems parallel. Where an object of the
strike is forbidden by the Act such as the removal of Mrs.
Grimme from a supervisory position, then the strike action
having that as one of its objects violated the Act.
Even if we were to apply the 8(a)(3) tests of whether the
action engaged in by the employees is moderate and reasona-
bly related to the problem, the Union would still be found
wanting here. In this case there is a complete grievance proce-
dure, including binding and final arbitration. The grievances
which gave rise to the strike had been filed less than 2 weeks,
according to Union Vice President Thieler (who filed them),
and were,being considered at the second step when the walk-
out occurred and took the union officials by, surprise. It could
hardly be contended, that a strike shutting down the overseas
operations and idling hundreds of employees is a moderate
and reasonable action to force the transfer of one- supervisor
when the grievance and arbitration -procedures were being
used and no new grievances had been filed.
In summary I find that the Union violated Section
8(b)(1)(B) of the Act by engaging in a strike where one of the
objects of the strike was the temporary or permanent removal
of a supervisor as a supervisor over a unit of employees.
III THE EFFECTS OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
UPON COMMERCE
The violation of Section 8(b)(1)(B) of the Act by the Union
as found in section II, above, occurring' in connection with the
Charging Party's business operations described in section I,
above, have a close,' intimate, 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.
IV THE REMEDY
Having found that the Union, herein violated Section
8(b)(1)(B) of the Act by, engaging in a strike where one of the
objects of the strike was the removal of a supervisor as a
supervisor from a unit of employees, I shall recommend that
Respondent Union cease and desist from restraining or coerc-
ing the Charging Party in the selection of its representatives
for the purposes of collective bargaining or the adjustment of
grievances, and post an appropriate notice informing all
members and employees that Respondent will not engage in
such violative conduct.
On the basis of the foregoing facts and the entire record I
make the following:
COMMUNICATIONS WORKERS OF AMERICA, LOCAL NO. 2550 949
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. American Telephone and Telegraph Company, Long
Lines Department, is an employer engaged in commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. Respondent Union is a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. Respondent Union, by engaging in a strike where an
object of that strike was the removal of a supervisor as a
supervisor over a unit of employees, thereby engaged in unfair
labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of
Sections 8(b)(1)(B) and 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law, and
the entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act,
I hereby issue the following recommended
ORDER
Respondent, Communications Workers of America, Local
No. 2550, AFL-CIO, its officers, agents, and representatives,
shall:
1. Cease and desist from authorizing, ratifying, or approv-
ing a strike by its members'where an object of such a strike
is the removal of a supervisor as a supervisor over a unit of
employees.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to effec-
tuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Post at its offices and meeting halls, copies of the at-
tached notice marked "Appendix."5 Copies of said notice, on
forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 6, after
being duly signed by Respondent's authorized representative,
shall be posted by Respondent Union immediately upon re-
ceipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days
thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where
notices to members are customarily posted. Reasonable steps
shall be taken by Respondent to insure that said notice is not
altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(b) Promptly after receipt of unsigned copy of said notice
from the Regional Director of Region 6, return to him copy
signed by an authorized representative of Respondent Union
for posting at American Telephone and Telegraph Company,
' In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Section 102.46 of
the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the
findings, conclusions, and recommended Order herein shall, as provided in
Section 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.
' 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 be changed to read
"Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals
Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board."
Long Lines Department, if said Charging Party is willing to
post said notice, at all places where notices to the Company's
employees are customarily posted. Proper steps should be
taken that said notice if and when posted is not altered,
defaced, or covered by any other material.
(c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 6, in writing,
within 20 days from the date of the receipt of this Decision,
what steps the Respondent Union has taken to comply here-
with.'
' In the event that this recommended Order is adopted by the Board after
exceptions have been filed, this provision shall be modified to read: "Notify
the Regional Director for Region 6, in writing , within 20 days from the date
of this Order, what steps the Respondent Union has taken to comply here-
with."
APPENDIX
NOTICE To MEMBERS
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
After a trial in which Respondent Union, the Company and
the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board
participated and offered evidence, the National Labor Rela-
tions Board has found that we violated the law and has or-
dered us to post this notice and we intend to carry out the
order of the Board and abide by the following:
WE WILL NOT authorize, ratify, approve , engage in,
or ask our members to engage in a strike, where an object
of the strike is the replacement or removal of a super-
visor as a supervisor from a unit of employees.
COMMUNICATIONS
WORKERS OF
AMERICA, LOCAL
No. 2550,
AFL-CIO
(Labor Organization)
Dated By
(Representative) (Title)
This is an official notice and must not be defaced by any-
one.
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days
from the date of posting and must not be altered, defaced, or
covered by any other material.
Any questions concerning this notice or compliance with
its provisions may be directed to the Board's Office, 1536
Federal Building , 1000 Liberty Avenue, Pittsburgh, Pennsyl-
vania 15222, Telephone 412-644-2977.