Delta Data Systems Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 30, 1986

279 N.L.R.B. 1284 (N.L.R.B. 1986)

1284 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Delta Data Systems Corp . and Food Drivers, Help-
ers and Warehousemen Employees , Philadelphia
and Vicinity, and Camden and Vicinity; New
Jersey-Local 500, a/w International Brother-
hood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs, Warehousemen
and Helpers of America . Cases 4-CA-13041
and 4-RC-15054
30 May 1986
DECISION, ORDER, AND DIRECTION
OF SECOND ELECTION
MEMBERS DENNIS, JOHANSEN , AND STEPHENS
On 15 August 1983 Administrative Law Judge
George Norman issued the attached decision. The
Respondent filed exceptions' and a supporting
brief, and the General Counsel filed an answering
brief.
The National Labor Relations Board has delegat-
ed its authority in this proceeding to a three-
member panel.
The Board has considered the decision and the
record in light of the exceptions and briefs and has
decided to affirm the judge's rulings, findings,2 and
conclusions3 and to adopt the recommended Order
as modified below.
In adopting the judge's finding that the Respond-
ent, for discriminatory reasons, selected certain em-
ployees for discharge in violation of Section
8(a)(3), we agree with the judge's conclusion re-
garding the Respondent's knowledge of the union
activities of the four alleged discriminatees. In so
i The Respondent has requested oral argument The request is denied
as the record , exceptions , and briefs adequately present the issues and the
positions of the parties
The Respondent excepts to the judge's finding that Virginia Brand-
wood attended four or five union meetings, including one that the judge
found occurred on 25 April 1982 Although this date was stated in the
General Counsel's brief, there is no evidence in the record that there was
an organizational meeting that occurred on this date The correct date is
15 April 1982
The Respondent has further excepted to some of the judge's credibility
findings The Board's established policy is not to overrule an administra-
tive 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 re-
versing the findings Although the judge did not, in all cases, give as ex-
plicitly detailed credibility resolutions as he could have given , we do not
view this as a sufficient basis for rejecting the resolutions
2 In adopting the judge 's findings regarding the Respondent 's threat to
conduct time and motion studies, we rely solely on the testimony of Vir-
ginia Brandwood
Concerning allowing the complaint to be amended at trial to allege an
unlawful grant of benefits, Sec 102 17 of the Board 's Rules and Regula-
tions provides that an amendment to a complaint may be granted by an
administrative law judge "upon such terms as may be deemed just " We
conclude, based on the totality of circumstances, that the amendment was
properly permitted by the judge
a In light of our finding that James was discriminatorily discharged for
union activities , we find it unnecessary to pass on the finding that she
was also discharged for concerted complaints about working conditions,
since the remedy would be merely cumulative The Order will be modi-
fied accordingly and a new notice to employees issued
doing, we need not rely on the small plant doc-
trine. Rather, we find substantial circumstantial and
direct evidence of knowledge by certain supervi-
sors establishing that the Respondent was aware of
the employees' union activities.
The four employees' union activities were for the
most part open and extensive. Employees James
and Brandwood told their respective supervisors
that they thought the employees needed a union.
James handed out authorization cards to more than
20 employees in front of the glass cafeteria win-
dows, in the ladies' room, and on the shop floor.
For her part, Brandwood gave signed authorization
cards to James in the parking lot and at her work-
bench. Employee Peak informed her former super-
visor, Ellis, that the employees needed a union.
Though Ellis was not a supervisor at the time of
the statement, Supervisor Helen Hogan, who pre-
pared the evaluation that led to Peak's discharge,
testified she relied heavily on Ellis' opinion because
she had insufficient knowledge to rate Peak and
other cable department employees. Further, Peak
openly supported the Union, signed her authoriza-
tion card at her workbench, and encouraged sever-
al others to sign cards. Finally, employee Martin-
dell placed union literature in the ladies' room, dis-
tributed authorization cards in the cafeteria and at
her work station, and told a coworker, John
Brower, that she thought the employees needed a
union. Later, believing Brower had disclosed her
comment to the Respondent, Martindell testified
she asked Brower why he had gone "to personnel
with what I had told you." Brower replied, "that
don't hurt nothing Floss," impliedly confirming
Martindell's belief management had been notified
of her prounion remark.
Based on the foregoing, we find that the Re-
spondent had knowledge of the union activities of
James, Brandwood, Peak, and Martindell.4 Ac-
cordingly, we adopt the judge's finding that the se-
lection for discharge of the four employees because
of their union activities violated Section 8(a)(3) and
(1) of the Act.
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board adopts the
recommended Order of the administrative law
judge as modified below and orders that the Re-
spondent, Delta Data Systems Corp., Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania, its officers, agents, successors, and
4 In reaching this conclusion , we do not rely on the judge's statement
that Supervisor Ambush knew that the discriminatees engaged in union
activities based on rumors from his bosses The record indicates that this
information was obtained after the unfair labor practice charges were
filed
279 NLRB No. 169
DELTA DATA SYSTEMS 1285
assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Order
as modified.
1. Delete paragraph 1(f) and reletter the remain-
ing paragraph accordingly.
2. Substitute the attached notice for that of the
administrative law judge.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the election con-
ducted in Case 4-RC-15054 is set aside.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Case 4-RC-15054
is remanded to the Regional Director for Region 4
for the purpose of conducting a second election at
such time as the Regional Director deems appro-
priate.
[Direction of Second Election omitted from pub-
lication.]
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
The National Labor Relations Board has found
that we violated the National Labor Relations Act
and has ordered us to post and abide by this notice.
WE WILL NOT grant benefits to employees
during the critical preelection campaign to discour-
age support for the Union.
WE WILL NOT threaten our employees that time-
motion studies will be conducted and slow-working
employees terminated if our employees select the
Union as their collective-bargaining representative.
WE WILL NOT solicit employees to engage in
surveillance of other employees' union activities.
WE WILL NOT discriminatorily select employees
for termination based on their union activities.
WE WILL offer Rosemary James, Virginia Brand-
wood, Florence Martindell, and Margaret Peak im-
mediate and full reinstatement to their former jobs
or, if those jobs no longer exist, to substantially
equivalent positions, without prejudice to their se-
niority or any other rights or privileges previously
enjoyed and WE WILL make them whole for any
loss of earnings and other benefits resulting from
their discharge, less any net interim earnings, plus
interest.
WE WILL notify each of them, that we have re-
moved from our files any reference to their dis-
charge and that the discharge will not be used
against them in any way.
DELTA DATA SYSTEMS CORP.
Barbara C Joseph, Esq., for the General Counsel.
Laurance E. Baccini, Esq. (Schnader, Harrison, Segal &
Lewis), of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, for the Respond-
ent.
William T Josem, Esq. (Markowitz & Richman), of Phila-
delphia, Pennsylvania, for the Charging Party.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
GEORGE NORMAN, Administrative Law Judge. The
trial in these cases was conducted before me in Philadel-
phia, Pennsylvania, on April 11, 12, 13, and 14, 1983.
On June 25, 1982, Food Drivers, Helpers and Ware-
housemen Employees, Philadelphia and Vicinity, and
Camden and Vicinity; New Jersey-Local 500, a/w
International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen and Helpers of America (the Union) filed
a charge in Case 4-CA-13041 against Delta Data Sys-
tems Corp. (Respondent) and objections to an election
held on June 18, 1982, in Case 4-RC-15054.
A complaint based on the charge issued on August 31,
1982, alleging that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of
the Act by threatening to conduct time motion studies of
employees, threatening to terminate employees, and
threatening to close Respondent's facilities if its employ-
ees selected the Union as their collective-bargaining rep-
resentative. The complaint also alleges that Respondent
violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act by laying off
and refusing to recall Florence Martindell, Virginia
Brandwood, Rosemary James, and Margaret Peak be-
cause they joined, supported, or assisted the Union.
Respondent filed its answer to complaint on Septem-
ber 7, 1982, admitting the facts and conclusion that it
was in commerce, that the Union was a labor organiza-
tion within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act, and
that Helen Hogan and Tom Jackson were supervisors
and agents of Respondent within the meaning of Section
2(11) and (13) of the Act, respectively, but denying all
other allegations of the complaint. i At the hearing, the
complaint was amended to allege further that John Sor-
milich, traffic and warehousing supervisor, a supervisor
and agent of Respondent within the meaning of Section
2(11) and (13) of the Act, solicited an employee to
engage in surveillance of Respondent's employees' union
activities about May 3, 1982, and that Respondent laid
off Rosemary James about May 14, 1982, and refused to
recall her because she concertedly complained to Re-
spondent regarding the working conditions of Respond-
ent's employees. The complaint was further amended at
trial to allege that during the critical preelection cam-
paign of April and May 1982, Respondent granted bene-
fits to its employees to discourage support for the Union.
' On November 18, 1982 , the Board issued a decision and order on
objections in Case 4-RC-15054 concluding that issues raised by certain of
the Union's objections should be resolved in a consolidated hearing with
Case 4-CA-13041 An order consolidating cases and scheduled consoli-
dated hearing issued on December 13, 1982
1286 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Issues
1. Did Respondent grant benefits to employees during
the critical preelection campaign to discourage support
for the Union?
2. Did Respondent threaten its employees that time-
motion studies would be conducted and slow -working
employees terminated if Respondent 's employees selected
the Union as their collective-bargaining representative?
3. Did Respondent threaten to close its facilities if the
employees selected the Union as their collective -bargain-
ing representative?
4. Did Respondent solicit an employee to engage in
surveillance of Respondent 's employees ' union activities?
5. Did Respondent discriminatorily select Rosemary
James , Virginia Brandwood , Florence Martindell, and
Margaret Peak for termination based on their union ac-
tivities?
6. Did Respondent select Rosemary James for termina-
tion for the additional reason she concertedly com-
plained to Respondent about working conditions of Re-
spondent 's employees?
The parties were afforded full opportunity to be heard,
to call , examine, and cross -examine witnesses , and to in-
troduce relevant evidence. Posthearing briefs have been
received from the General Counsel , Respondent , and the
Charging Party.
On the entire record and based on my observation of
the witnesses and consideration of the briefs , I make the
following
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. JURISDICTION
The Respondent is a Pennsylvania corporation with a
facility in Trevose , Pennsylvania , where it is engaged in
the design , manufacture , service , and sale of computer
systems . During the past year, Respondent , in the course
and conduct of its business operations , derived gross rev-
enues in excess of $1 million and during the same period
sold and shipped products , goods , and materials valued
in excess of $50,000 directly to points located outside the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania . Respondent admits, and
I find , that it is and has been at all times material herein
an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning
of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Respondent admits, and I find, that the Union is a
labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of
the Act.
III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The Organizational Campaign
Employee Rosemary James contacted the Union at the
beginning of March 1982 and a meeting was arranged for
March 23 , 1982, at the Holiday Inn in Trevose , Pennsyl-
vania. James asked several of Respondent's employees if
they wanted to attend the meeting and among those at-
tending the first meeting was employee Virginia Brand-
wood . On March 24 , 1982, the Union sent a letter to
Robert Smallacombe , president of Respondent , by certi-
fied mail , informing him the Union was in the process of
organizing Respondent 's production employees. Re-
spondent acknowledged receipt of that letter.
At the March 23 , 1982 meeting , James and Brandwood
received union authorization cards and literature. They
went back to their fellow employees and an informal or-
ganizing committee was established consisting of Rose-
mary James, Virginia Brandwood , Florence Martindell,
and Margaret Peak . From the beginning of the organiz-
ing drive in late March 1982 until their terminations
about May 14 , 1982, James , Brandwood , Martindell, and
Peak engaged in activity in support of the Union.
As already indicated , James contacted the Union and
set up the March 23 , 1982 meeting . She obtained litera-
ture and authorization cards from the Union to distribute
to her fellow employees ; signed an authorization card for
the Union on March 26 , 1982; attended all of the five
union meetings held at the Holiday Inn in Trevose,
Pennsylvania, including meetings on March 23 and April
7 and 15 , 1982; placed union literature in the ladies'
room ; gave out the union authorization cards to approxi-
mately 20 employees in almost every department of Re-
spondent 's facility; and gave out cards on the shop floor,
in the ladies' room , and, at lunchtime , in the cafeteria,
which is used by all of Respondent 's employees includ-
ing supervisors and managers . Many of the cards were
signed and returned to her on the shop floor and she re-
turned them to the Union ; and gave out authorization
cards to employees in Respondent 's parking lot in the
morning before work for about 1 week ; and openly dis-
cussed the Union with her fellow employees in the cafe-
teria , at her work station , on the shop floor, and in the
parking lot.
Virginia Brandwood went to the March 23, 1982 meet-
ing; obtained union literature and authorization cards;
signed an authorization card for the Union on March 30,
1982; gave out cards to her fellow employees on Re-
spondent 's shop floor , in the cafeteria , and in the parking
lot; received signed cards on the shop floor and returned
them to Rosemary James; placed union literature in the
ladies ' room , which was also used by Respondent's su-
pervisors ; discussed the Union with her fellow employ-
ees and attempted to convince them that the Union was
a good idea ; attended about four or five union meetings,
including both the April 7 and April 25, 1982 meetings.
Florence Martindell became aware of the organizing
drive in March 1982. She discussed the matter with
Rosemary James and Virginia Brandwood and obtained
literature and an authorization card from Charles T.
Kale, vice president and business agent of the Union. She
signed the authorization card on March 29, 1982, and
mailed it back to the Union . She went to four of the five
union meetings held at the Holiday Inn in Trevose,
Pennsylvania ; put union literature in the ladies ' room and
replenished the supply from time to time . She gave au-
thorization cards to fellow employees and freely dis-
cussed the Union with them in the cafeteria , at her work-
bench, in her automobile, and on the shop floor.
Margaret Peak became aware of the organizing drive
at the end of March or the beginning of April 1982. She
DELTA DATA SYSTEMS
signed an authorization card on April 7, 1982; gave sev-
eral authorization cards to fellow employees in the plant;
received signed authorization cards at her workbench,
gave the signed cards back to Rosemary James at James'
workbench; discussed the Union with fellow employees
in the plant, at her work station, and in Respondent's
cafeteria, and attended union meetings on April 7 and 15,
1982
B Respondent's Awareness of the Union Organization
Drive and the Identities of the Leading Union
Adherents
As previously stated, the Union sent a letter to Re-
spondent's president, Robert Smallacombe, informing
him that it intended to organize Respondent's employees.
Respondent's supervisor John Sormilich testified that he
first found out about the Union in the middle of March
1982 and that he had conversations with members of
management about the union organizing drive. Supervi-
sor Charles Ambush testified that when he asked Helen
Hogan and Tom Jackson, the supervisors under him, in
early April 1982, to prepare the ratings which would
eventually be used to terminate employees, he told them
not to consider the fact that the Company was going
through a union organizing campaign . Ambush stated
further that it was common knowledge in early April
1982 that the Union was attempting to organize Re-
spondent and that Smallacombe had informed the entire
Company of this fact in the meeting of all employees.
Supervisor Ambush further testified that he knew that
the four alleged discriminatees, Brandwood, James, Mar-
tindell, and Peak, engaged in union activities based on
rumors from his bosses. Virginia Brandwood told her su-
pervisor, Helen Hogan, that she thought Respondent's
employees needed the Union to protect them. Hogan en-
gaged in numerous discussions with Brandwood about
the disavantages of a union while commuting in Brand-
wood's car to and from work and at work. Supervisor
Hogan testified that the only conversation she had with
employees concerning the Union was that they should
attend union meetings . She later testified that the only
conversation she had with Virginia Brandwood was
about a union Hogan belonged to. Brandwood described
this conversation concerning the Union that Hogan had
belonged to. She testified that Hogan told her she had
been in the Electrical Workers Union at Philco, but she
did not think the employees of Delta needed a union, "it
was too small a company and it would put them out of
business "2
Margaret Peak told her group leader, Lucille Ellis,
who, with Supervisor Helen Hogan, effectively recom-
mended Peak's termination a few months prior to the or-
ganization drive, that Respondent's employees needed a
union.3
2 Supervisor Helen Hogan testified in a guarded , cautious manner She
was not candid nor did she testify freely and openly Brandwood, on the
other hand, testified in an open and free manner, responding unhesitat-
ingly to the questions to her by all examiners I therefore credit Brand-
wood where conflicts of testimony occur between the two witnesses
3 Group leader Lucille Ellis was not called by Respondent to testify
1287
Florence Martindell told a fellow employee (Brower)
about a very low raise received by employee Sadie Polk
as evidence that Respondent's employees needed a union.
A short time later, her words were, in substance, repeat-
ed by Respondent's president, Smallacombe, at a meeting
of all employees. Brower later admitted to Martindell
that he told Respondent of their discussion involving
Sadie Polk 4
Employee Kimberly Rogers testified, under subpoena
by the General Counsel, that she heard her supervisor,
John Sormilich, tell employee Paul Cedar, about April
15, 1982, the day of the union meeting , that they had to
go see Smallacombe, Respondent's president, because
Cedar was being requested to go to the union meeting
and give Smallacombe a list of employees who attend-
ed.5 Cedar attended the union meeting that night carry-
ing a clipboard. He left soon after the meeting ended. He
had previously attended another union meeting on April
7, 1982. Unlike the April 7 meeting, on that occasion he
stayed over and asked the union representatives several
questions. James, Brandwood, Martindell, and Peak were
present at the April 15, 1982 union meeting.
About the middle of April 1982, Virginia Brandwood
gave several signed authorization cards to Rosemary
James in Respondent's parking lot. The exchange took
place in the front of Brandwood's automobile on the pas-
senger's side. Brandwood said , "[H]ere are the cards" as
she handed them to James. The front passenger window
of Brandwood's car was partly open and in the passen-
ger's seat was Brandwood's supervisor, Helen Hogan.
Although Hogan did not specifically refer to the earlier
transfer of union cards on the ride home that day, she
did bring up the subject of the Union.
C. Respondent's Union Animus
Robert Smallacombe, Respondent's president and
chairman of the board, held two meetings of all Delta
employees, supervisors, and managers in April 1982. At
the first meeting he told Delta employees that he was
notified by the Union that it was organizing Delta's em-
ployees; that he was surprised and disappointed that the
employees needed an outsider to represent them; that he
would do everything in his power to keep the Union out;
and that he had a lot of money invested in Respondent
and could take it out and leave if he wanted to.
Supervisor Hogan initiated several conversations with
employee Virginia Brandwood concerning the disadvan-
tages of unionization at Respondent's facility. On the day
that Brandwood and James exchanged cards, Hogan was
sitting in the front seat of Respondent's car. Hogan told
Brandwood that it was not a good idea to have a union
in the plant and that they did not really do that much for
the employees She further stated that all the Union
wanted was dues and that "we probably couldn't afford
to have a union in there." Hogan also predicted adverse
4 Neither President Smallacombe nor Brower was called by Respond-
ent to testify That Smallacombe used language similar to Brandwood's
concerning the low raise received by employee Polk was corroborated
by witnesses of both the General Counsel and Respondent
5 That evidence was adduced by the General Counsel to support the
allegation concerning surveillance
1288 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
consequences if Delta employees were to become orga-
nized by the Union . "I don 't know what they want that
building for, they probably wouldn ' t be able to keep the
one that they have if the Union gets in there, maybe this
(the production area) will be a skating rink one of these
days." Hogan also expressed the view that she did not
think the employees needed the Union at Delta and that
the Company was too small and that a union would put
it out of business . Hogan also stated to Brandwood
alone , and also in the presence of other employees, that
it would not bother her if the Union came in ; all she
would have to do is sit at her desk and there would be
somebody in to do a timestudy of the jobs . She also
stated that if the employees did not qualify or could not
get enough "boards out" or did not come up to standard,
they would be out . Savillia Polk testified that she had a
conversation with Hogan in her office concerning time
motion studies in April 1982, at which time Hogan told
Polk that Hogan would not have to work out on the
floor anymore , that timestudy people would be brought
in, "and people that were slow or didn ' t meet their ap-
proval would go-would have to leave ." Polk was con-
sidered by Hogan to be a slow worker.
John Sormilich stated that he was against the Union
and he thought that the Company was also against the
Union . Supervisor Tom Jackson denied that he told
Rosemary James the Company could not afford union
wages and would probably move rather than pay those
wages . He said he told employees , "I don 't think the
Union in a small company like that would be in their
best interest."
D. Respondent Selects Employees for Termination
There is no dispute that the mass termination was justi-
fied by economic necessities. On May 15 , 1982, Respond-
ent notified 27 of its bargaining unit employees that they
were being laid off with no expectation of recall by Re-
spondent . Though the termination of the employees was
economically motivated , no reasons were given to the
employees selected why they had been selected for ter-
mination . When inquiry was made of Respondent by
Brandwood , James , Peak, and Martindell, at the time of
termination about why they had been selected , no expla-
nation was given them . Martmdell called Respondent's
personnel department after the termination and asked
why she had been terminated ; and that she had done
every job in the plant , including working in the board,
cables , and mechanical assembly . Martindell told Re-
spondent that there ought to be a job that she could be
placed in . She was told there was nothing that could be
done about it.
As for past practices of Respondent concerning eco-
nomic layoffs and terminations , the evidence reveals that
the selection of employees for layoffs in the past had
always been based on seniority . However, in the May
1982 termination , according to Respondent 's former di-
rector of manufacturing , John Brillante , seniority was
only considered if everything else was equal. Brillante
testified that Respondent "had to keep the best people to
do the job , people who could move to different posi-
tions, who were cooperative . . . and had a technical
knowledge of those positions."
As for the factors used by the supervisors in evaluat-
ing employees , Supervisor Charles Ambush testified that
he told Helen Hogan and Tom Jackson "to consider ab-
solutely nothing , not to worry about the rumors of a
layoff that were going on at the time . . . I also told
them not to consider the fact that the company was
being organized at the time . I said , forget the Union."
Supervisor Jackson testified that Ambush asked him to
evaluate the employees in the subassembly department in
either April or May because there might be a layoff.
Ambush told Jackson to rate employees numerically on
absenteeism , lateness , and productivity . Jackson's criteria
were "whether they were a good worker; whether they
liked to walk around , or blow smoke . . . and how they
got along with the other people."
Supervisor Helen Hogan testified only generally that
her written and numerical ratings on employees in the
cable and printed circuit department were based on pro-
ductivity , lateness , absence , and ability to do their jobs.
E. The Selection of Alleged Discriminatees for
Termination
1. Rosemary James
Rosemary James worked from March 16, 1981, to
May 14 , 1982. She worked on the cables and mechanical
assembly department and was promoted from a "C" as-
sembler to a "B" assembler in 1 year . She received a 9-
percent raise after a probationary period , and then an 8-
percent raise when she went from a "C" to a "B" assem-
bler for a total of a 17-percent increase . Her evaluation
concerning the quality and quantity of her work was de-
scribed as better than "above average."
When needed , James would help the individuals in the
mechanical assembly department . She received compli-
ments frequently from her former supervisor , Klemo-
vich , on the high quality and speed of her work as well
as her willingness to work overtime.
James had more seniority in the mechanical assembly
department than at least four women who were either
loaned or transferred to the department just a few
months prior to layoffs . They were Diane DeEgdio,
Vimala Hirpara , Maebelle Paschall, and Marit Sutton. It
was the company policy for experienced employees to
train new employees . None of the four was selected for
the May 14 termination.
2. Virginia Brandwood
Virginia Brandwood was employed by Respondent
from June 1974 until May 14 , 1982. She worked in the
printed circuit department as an "A " assembler. She
started as a builder , then went into the touchup area. She
also had experience in repairs. She instructed other em-
ployees in how to perform jobs in the printed circuit de-
partment and, if the group leader in the area did not
know how to do a certain job, Brandwood was asked by
Helen Hogan, her supervisor , to instruct employees on
how to do the job. Supervisor Hogan asked Brandwood
to "volunteer" for numerous jobs throughout the printed
circuit department ; Brandwood never refused.
DELTA DATA SYSTEMS
Brandwood also filled in for both her group leader,
Anna Campbell, and her supervisor, Helen Hogan, on
several occasions. She received regular raises throughout
her employment with Respondent. Her last raise of 9
percent was given to her by Supervisor Hogan At that
time, the quality of her work was considered excellent
and the quantity above average.
3. Margaret Peak
Margaret Peak was employed by Respondent from
March 1979 to May 14, 1982 . She worked mostly in the
cable department , and had also done some work in the
printing circuit area and in subassembly . At the time she
was terminated she was a "B" assembler . Her last two
raises were 8 percent in March 1982 and 10 percent in
March 1981 Her March 1982 review reveals that the
quality of her work was excellent and her quantity, de-
pendability , and awareness , above average . She was a
"B" assembler in the cable department at the time of the
termination . Two "C" assemblers, Doris Townsend and
Julie Volosch, were retained.
4. Florence Martindell
Florence Martindell was employed by Respondent
from 1974 until May 14, 1982. At first she worked in the
cable department, then moved to the printing circuit de-
partment. In 1979, she was promoted to group leader in
the printed circuit board area and remained as a group
leader under Helen Hogan from 1979 until 1981. In 1981,
she applied for the position of group leader in the cable
department and received it. She was group leader in the
cable department until June or July 1981. Her supervisor
at the time, Lucille Ellis, decided to leave her superviso-
ry position and go back to the group leader position. Be-
cause of Ellis' decision to step down, Martindell was
bumped down from the group leader job to senior repair
person, a position created for her by the supervisor of
the cable department at the time, Bob Zawacki. Group
leader position became available later in the printed cir-
cuit department, but Martindell chose not to apply for it
because she had not been given any extra compensation
as a group leader and she did not enjoy working as a
group leader under Supervisor Helen Hogan.
As group leader in the printed circuit (board) depart-
ment, Martindell was responsible for showing employees
how to build and prepare boards, obtaining materials and
blueprints for the employees in the department; checking
the work of employees; taking the boards into the draft-
ing area if something went wrong ; marking up the
boards; and taking over for Helen Hogan when Hogan
was out or on night work
As group leader in the cable department, Martindell
made sure that employees under her got their work out
and obtained the materials they needed; cut wire;
changed machines to put different pins in for the wires;
cut cables, and instructed the employees on how to read
the prints for the connectors and the wires.
As senior person in the cable department, Martindell
repaired cables and sets . Her last raise was 8 percent in
November 1981. At that time her quality, quantity, and
dependability and awareness were all above average. She
1289
was one of the most senior persons in the cable depart-
ment at the time of her May 14, 1982 termination and
had never received a verbal or written warning in 9
years with Respondent
F. Respondent's Position Concerning the Termination
of the Alleged Discriminatees
Although Respondent did not inform the alleged dis-
criminatees of why they were selected for termination,
its position at the hearing was that the decisions were
based on objective numerical and written evaluations of
employees prepared by Respondent's supervisors. Re-
spondent's defense consisted of two sets of documents it
produced at the hearing, the testimony of its supervisors
in connection with the documents, and the reasons stated
in the documents for the selection of the alleged discri-
minatees. In response to a subpoena from the General
Counsel, Respondent produced typed numerical and
written evaluations for Respondent's employees in the
mechanical assembly, printed circuit board, and cable de-
partments. Those documents were produced on the first
day of the trial, April 11, 1983
On April 13, 1983, after the General Counsel rested
her case, counsel for Respondent interrupted her cross-
examination of Supervisor Tom Jackson and gave her
copies of handwritten evaluation documents identified by
Supervisors Jackson and Hogan as the "precursors" of
the typed documents previously produced pursuant to
the subpoena. No "originals" of the handwritten docu-
ments were produced at the hearing, only copies
Respondent's explanation for the delayed production
of the second set of documents was given by Charles
Ambush, Respondent's director of test operators. He tes-
tified that Respondent's attorney, Baccini, told him that
Lucille Ellis told Baccini that she had nothing to do with
the ratings. To the contrary, Ambush told Baccini that
he had a list of Ellis' handwriting. Attorney Baccini said
he wanted to see the list, thus explaining the delay in
producing the handwritten documents
There were numerous discrepancies between the typed
documents produced on the first day of the trial and the
handwritten ones produced after the General Counsel
rested. For example, concerning the written narrative for
Rosemary James, the earlier document contains the
words "difficult to work with, attitude problems," but
the documents produced later contain no such statement.
Another example of the discrepancies, for the printed
circuit board area, Rose Anne Farley is rated "2" on the
handwritten and "5" on the typed document; Maebelle
Paschall is rated "5" on the handwritten and "8" on the
typed documents. Veronica Williams is rated "1" on the
handwritten but "5" on the typed documents. On the
narrative portion of these documents concerning Virginia
Brandwood, the typed document contains the word
"marginal ." That word does not appear on the handwrit-
ten document. On the handwritten documents produced
after the General Counsel rested, there are four individ-
uals rated "5" including Virginia Brandwood. According
to Respondent's former director of manufacturing, John
Brillante , among equally competent individuals, seniority
would be used to determine who would be retained.
1290 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Brandwood , who had more seniority than any of the
other "5 's," should not have been selected for termina-
tion.
In reviewing the ratings for the cable department, it is
noted that Henrietta Evers shows a rating of "6" on the
handwritten documents and a "5" on the typed docu-
ments; Margaret Peak goes from a rating of "6" on the
handwritten document to a rating of "5" on the typed
document ; Kathlyn Stazack goes from a rating of "7" on
the handwritten to a rating of "5" on the typed docu-
ment ; Doris Townsend goes from a "8" on the handwrit-
ten to a "7-8" on the typed document ; Lisa Bootenhauf
goes from a "1" on the handwritten to a "1-2" on the
typed document ; and Julie Volausch goes from a "9" on
the handwritten to a "8-9" on the typed document. The
numerical ratings on the handwritten documents for the
cable department have been changed for a majority of
individuals . As for the narrative portions of the docu-
ments , on the third page of one of the documents, Flor-
ence Martindell 's name appears near the top of the page
but there is a blank below her name.
Respondent 's witnesses gave contradictory testimony
on how the handwritten documents became the typed
documents . None explained with any consistency how
the changes occurred in the documents , nor did anyone
identify who was responsible for making the changes.
Supervisor Jackson testified that he wrote the narrative
of one of the handwritten documents about a week
before he did the numerical ratings, but the narrative
portion states the reason the employee received the nu-
merical rating. Jackson stated that Ambush told him to
use an "A" for absenteeism and a "L" for lateness but
Ambush denied giving Jackson any instructions on how
to evaluate employees . After submitting his numerical
evaluation to Ambush , Jackson testified that he was
called into John Brillante 's office along with Ambush
and was told to pick five employees for termination. All
his recommendations were followed but an additional
employee , Gravitz , was added to the list . Ambush testi-
fied that after he received the handwritten evaluations,
he made no changes in the documents . He said he put a
line through the names of the employees who were se-
lected for termination and said that the handwritten eval-
uation rated Margaret Peak a "6" and that he did not
change the rating . He said he did not know how her
rating became a "5" on the typed written document. He
admitted that he had seen the typed evaluations which
were given to him by John Bnllante, but he could not
explain any discrepancies between the documents. He
denied changing Theresa Brady 's rating from a "5" to a
"10."
Brillante testified that when he found discrepancies be-
tween the narrative portion of the handwritten docu-
ments and the numerical ratings, he called Ambush in
and discussed the discrepancies with him, and Ambush
went back to the supervisors or group leaders that made
the adjustments . However , Ambush denied making any
adjustments on the documents. Brillante testified that
Ambush kept calling in the supervisors and asking them
if the right people had been selected . Hogan denied that
level of involvement in the decision-making process.
Brillante further testified that he told Ambush to
review Peak 's "6" rating with her supervisor , and that
Ambush came back with a "5" rating . When told of the
inconsistencies on this matter , Brillante could not explain
it satisfactorily.
In addition to numerous other discrepancies in the
documents and conflicts in the testimony of the Re-
spondent 's witnesses concerning the documents, Hogan
testified that she recommended five employees for termi-
nation but an additional two were let go. The additional
two were supposedly Virginia Brandwood and Florence
Martindell.
G. The Alleged Selection of Rosemary James for
Termination for the Additional Reason that She
Concertedly Complained to Respondent About
Working Conditions of Respondent 's Employees
Rosemary James complained , along with several of her
fellow women employees in the mechanical assembly de-
partment , about having to do a job called " linearities."
The employees complained that the job was dangerous;
that it belonged to the test department; and that the units
were too heavy for them to carry. They complained
about the job to their supervisors, Tom Jackson , and Re-
spondent 's director of test operations, Charles Ambush.
James then complained in a letter on behalf of herself
and the women employees in her department to Re-
spondent's president , thus going over the head of Super-
visor Jackson.
James was chosen for termination on May 15, 1982.
Supervisor Tom Jackson gave as a reason "she does not
want to perform the jobs , she does not want to do . Diffi-
cult to work with , attitude problem." The evidence
shows that the only job that James was reluctant to per-
form was the "linearities " job. I therefore conclude that
the only job that Jackson could have been referring to in
the evaluation of James , which led to her termination,
was the "linearities" job. A further conclusion is inescap-
able that Rosemary James was selected for termination
not only for her union activities but also because she per-
sisted in her complaints (attitude problem) on behalf of
her fellow employees about the "linearities" job. In ter-
minating Rosemary James for concertedly complaining
about working conditions , Respondent violated Section
8(a)(1) of the Act. Zurn Industries , 255 NLRB 632
(1981).
H. The Alleged Granting of New Benefits to its
Employees During the Critical Preelection Campaign
George Mansfield, vice president of administration for
Respondent, testified about a document entitled Summa-
ry of Policy Adjustments which was produced by Re-
spondent in a response to a subpoena from the General
Counsel and placed in the record . Mansfield testified that
he was familiar with all the policies, and that the deci-
sion by Respondent to put these changes into effect was
made in April or May 1982.
Mansfield , Smallacombe, Mary Ann Kaufman, Re-
spondent's personnel manager, and John Brillante , direc-
tor of manufacturing since April 1, 1982, promulgated
these policy adjustments : Item 1: "No punching in or out
DELTA DATA SYSTEMS
at lunch time" was discussed by the officials named
above beginning in late March or early April 1982. Item
2: "6-month performance reviews for people receiving
under $5 an hour." Mansfield testified that the policy
had been made verbally in 1981 and was to be effective
April 1, 1981. He further stated that the policy was
never put in writing and supervisors were unaware of it;
and that it had not been implemented by the personnel
department. A decision to implement the policy was
made around May 10, 1982. Item 3: "Lateness policy."
The decision to change the then- existing policy of dock-
ing employees a quarter of an hour for being 1 minute
late to giving them a 6-minute grace period or longer
was made around May 10, 1982. Item 4: "Absentee
policy." Mansfield testified that although Respondent
had been discussing changes in this area, no decision had
been made to implement the new policy until around
May 10, 1982. Item 5: "Right to appeal." Mansfield testi-
fied that although employees could "appeal" by placing
a letter in the suggestion box, which would get forward-
ed to Mansfield for handling, no committee existed to
handle grievances concerning adverse disciplinary ac-
tions. The decision to set up an "appeals committee" was
made about the same time as the other policies, about
May 10, 1982. Those policy changes were communicated
to all employees by way of a posted notice and at several
meetings called by Respondent's president in April
1982.6
In addition to the many inconsistencies and discrepan-
cies of Respondent' s witnesses ' testimony and in the eval-
uation documents produced by Respondent, there are
other matters concerning which Respondent' s witnesses
testified incredibly. For example, Tom Jackson testified
that he knew nothing of the Union until May 1982, after
he had completed the written and numerical evaluations
of employees under him. (That is not true.) Not only did
Jackson have prior conversations with employees con-
cerning the Union, but Ambush testified that everybody
in the Company knew about the organizing drive before
the evaluations were made. Tom Jackson was a witness
who did not come up with a direct answer on cross-ex-
amination . Respondent witness, Paul Cedar, was a nerv-
ous witness and his memory was selective. Concerning
his testimony about the conversation with Union Repre-
sentative Charles T. Kale after the April 7, 1982 union
meeting , I credit Kale, who was forthright and consistent
while testifying. Cedar was just the opposite.
Another of Respondent's -supervisors, Helen Hogan,
apparently was attempting to absolve herself of any re-
sponsibility for selecting Brandwood, Peak, and Martin-
dell for termination. She attempted to shift the responsi-
bility for their selection for termination to Ellis and her
superiors. Her testimony was inconsistent with her prior
affidavit given to a Board agent.
I. Discussion
As previously stated, Respondent made several
changes concerning its employees' terms and conditions
6 As previously stated, Respondent was notified of the Union's organi-
zational drive in late March 1982, and the election in Case 4-RC-15054
took place on June 18, 1982
1291
of employment in April or May 1982, during the critical
preelection campaign. Those changes were summarized
in a document entitled "Summary of Policy Adjust-
ments." Witnesses for both the General Counsel and Re-
spondent testified that the changes were communicated
to the employees by Respondent's president at meetings
in April 1982. Respondent's former vice president of ad-
ministration , Mansfield, testified that discussions of items
1 and 3 began around the same time the items were made
effective during the preelection period. With respect to
items 2 and 4, Mansfield testified that although there had
been some prior discussions concerning them, nothing
had been done to implement them until the time they
were made effective in May 1982. As for item 5, al-
though employees were allowed to submit suggestions,
complaints , or compliments in a suggestion box, Manfield
testified that no "appeals committee" was in place to
handle employees grievances concerning adverse discipli-
nary actions. In fact, no "appeals committee" had ever
been discussed or implemented until May 1982.
Respondent did not make the changes prior to the
preelection campaign nor were any of the changes which
were previously discussed followed up and implemented
by any sequential chain of events. The testimony is con-
vincing that whatever was discussed back in 1981 was
neither put in writing nor scheduled to be implemented
at any specified future date It was revived only because
the union organization drive began. In addition, the ben-
efits were announced to employees during the meeting
called by Respondent's president wherein he informed
employees of his union animus . I therefore find that by
granting the benefits to employees described in Respond-
ent's "Summary of Policy Adjustments" during the criti-
cal preelection period Respondent violated Section
8(a)(1) of the Act. Arrow Elastic Corp., 230 NLRB 110
(1977); Electrical Fittings Corp., 216 NLRB 1076 (1975).
The evidence is clear that Respondent threatened its
employees that time-motion studies would be conducted
and slow-working employees terminated if Respondent's
employees selected the Union as their collective-bargain-
ing representative based on the statement made by Su-
pervisor Helen Hogan to employee Savillia Polk in
Hogan's office in April 1982, as previously discussed.
Polk was considered a slow worker by Hogan and
Hogan told Polk that if the Union came in, "the Union
would bring in timestudy people and people that were
slow or didn't meet their approval would go-would
have to leave." In corroboration and in further support
of that allegation of the complaint was the testimony of
Virginia Brandwood who testified that Hogan told her
both privately and in the presence of other employees, in
April 1982, that if the Union came in , "there would be
somebody in to time study the jobs. If we didn't qualify
or couldn't get enough boards out . . if we didn't come
up to standards, we would be out."
Hogan's statements to Polk and Brandwood, above,
were not carefully phrased predictions based on objec-
tive fact of consequences beyond Responent's control.
Such conduct violates Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. NLRB
v. Gissel Packing Co., 395 U.S. 575 (1969).
1292 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The General Counsel has also proven by a preponder-
ance of the evidence that Respondent threatened to close
its facilities if the employees selected the Union as their
collective-bargaining representative . In April 1982, Rose-
mary James asked her supervisor, Tom Jackson, how he
felt about the Union. Jackson told her, in effect, that the
Company could not afford union wages right now and
that Respondent would probably move rather than pay
union wages . During that conversation James had in-
formed Jackson that she was for the Union. The fact that
James and Jackson had been on friendly terms does not
make Jackson 's statement any less a threat within the
meaning of Section 8 (a)(1) of the Act . The statement at
the very least had a tendency to interfere with the free
exercise of James' rights under Section 7 of the Act, and
is therefore a violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
Seneca Foods Corp., 244 NLRB 558 (1979); International
Paper Co., 228 NLRB 1137 (1977); Seal Trucking, 237
NLRB 1091 (1978).
I also find that Sormilich 's solicitation of surveillance
by employee Paul Cedar was coercive and imposes an
unlawful restraint on the rights of employees to engage
in Section 7 activities in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of
the Act. Anchorage Times Publishing Co., 237 NLRB 544
(1978); Harris-Teeter Supermarkets, 231 NLRB 1058
(1977); Elder-Beerman Stores Corp., 173 NLRB 566
(1968), enfd. 415 F.2d 1375 (6th Cir. 1969).
I find also that Respondent discriminatorily selected
Rosemary James, Virginia Brandwood , Florence Martin-
dell, and Margaret Peak for termination based on their
union activities in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of
the Act. Respondent was informed of the organization
drive by the Union at its inception. Respondent called
meetings of its employees and discussed the union orga-
nizing drive and revealed its animus towards the Union.
Furthermore , the union activities of the four alleged dis-
criminatees were , for the most part , open and extensive.
I am therefore convinced that Respondent had knowl-
edge of the union activities of James, Brandwood, Mar-
tindell, and Peak. The fact that the layoffs may have
been economically justified is no defense if the selection
of certain employees is based on their union activities.
Jimmy Dean Meat Co., 227 NLRB 1012 (1977). In addi-
tion, the knowledge of those employees' union activities
may be inferred from the record as a whole including
circumstantial evidence as well as indirect knowledge.
The small-plant doctrine applies in this case. Wiese Plow
Welding Co., 123 NLRB 616 (1959); Florida Cities Water
Co., 247 NLRB 755 (1980); Syracuse Dy-Dee Diaper Serv-
ice, 251 NLRB 963 (1980).
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
UPON COMMERCE
The activities of Respondent set forth in section III,
above, occurring in connection with the operations de-
scribed 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 dis-
putes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free
flow of commerce. They are unfair labor practices
within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) and Section 2(6)
and (7) of the Act.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1 Respondent is an employer within the meaning of
Section 2(2) of the Act and is engaged in commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2 The Union is a labor organization within the mean-
ing of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. Respondent has interfered with , restrained , and co-
erced its employees in the exercise of their rights guaran-
teed by Section 7 of the Act and committed unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the
Act by:
(a) Granting benefits to employees during the critical
preelection campaign to discourage support for the
Union.
(b) Threatening its employees that time -motion studies
would be conducted and slow-working employees termi-
nated if Respondent 's employees selected the Union as
their collective-bargaining representative.
(c) Threatening to close its facility if its employees se-
lected the Union as their collective-bargaining represent-
ative.
(d) Soliciting an employee to engage in surveillance of
Respondent 's employees ' union activities.
4. Respondent has discriminated in regard to hire or
tenure or terms and conditions of employment of its em-
ployees, thereby discouraging membership in a labor or-
ganization , and thereby has been engaging in unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of
the Act by:
(a) Discriminatorily selecting Rosemary James, Virgin-
ia Brandwood , Florence Martindell , and Margaret Peak
for termination based on their union activities
(b) Selecting Rosemary James for termination for the
additional reason that she concertedly complained to Re-
spondent about working conditions of Respondent's em-
ployees.
5. Such unfair labor practices affect commerce within
the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent engaged in unfair labor
practices , I shall recommend that it cease and desist
therefrom and take affirmative action to effectuate the
policies of the Act , including posting of appropriate no-
tices. I have found the Respondent committed many vio-
lations of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act and discriminatorily
discharged Rosemary James, Virginia Brandwood, Flor-
ence Martindell , and Margaret Peak because of their
union activities in violation of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of
the Act. I shall therefore recommend that Respondent
make them whole for any loss of pay which they have
suffered as a result of the discrimination practiced against
them , and remove from its records any reference to the
discharge of those employees and notify them in writing
that that has been done and that evidence of this unlaw-
ful conduct will not be used as a basis for future disci-
pline against them . Backpay provided herein with inter-
est thereon is to be computed in the manner prescribed
in F. W Woolworth Co., 90 NLRB 289 (1950), and Flori-
da Steel Corp., 231 NLRB 651 (1977).
DELTA DATA SYSTEMS 1293
As I have found that the Employer engaged in con-
duct violative of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act, and
that such conduct also interfered with the holding of a
fair election, thereby affecting the results of the election
conducted in Case 4-RC-15054, I shall recommend that
the election be set aside and that Case 4-RC-15054 be
severed from Case 4-CA-13041 and remanded to the Re-
gional Director for Region 4 for the purpose of conduct-
ing a new election at an appropriate time to be fixed by
the Regional Director.
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and
on the entire record, I issue the following recommend-
ed7
ORDER
The Respondent, Delta Data Systems Corp., Philadel-
phia, Pennsylvania, its officers, agents, successors, and
assigns, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Granting benefits to employees during the critical
preelection campaign to discourage support for the
Union.
(b) Threatening its employees that time-motion studies
would be conducted and slow-working employees termi-
nated if Respondent's employees selected the Union as
their collective-bargaining representative.
(c) Threatening to close its facility if its employees
select the Union as their collective-bargaining representa-
tive.
(d) Soliciting employees to engage in surveillance of
Respondent's employees's union activities.
(e) Discriminatorily selecting for discharge any em-
ployees based on their union activities.
(f) Selecting for termination any employee because she
concertedly complained to Respondent about working
conditions of Respondent's employees.
(g) In any like or related manner interfering with, re-
straining , or coercing employees in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to
effectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Offer Rosemary James, Virginia Brandwood, Flor-
ence Martindell, and Margaret Peak immediate and full
reinstatement to their former positions or, if such posi-
tions no longer exist, to substantially equivalent jobs,
without prejudice to their seniority or other rights or
privileges and make them whole for any loss of earnings
suffered by their termination in the manner set forth in
the remedy section of the decision.
(b) Remove from its records any reference to the dis-
charge of employees Rosemary James, Virginia Brand-
wood, Florence Martindell, and Margaret Peak and
notify them in writing that this has been done and evi-
dence of this unlawful conduct will not be used as a basis
for future discipline against them.
(c) Preserve and, on request, make available to the
Board or its agents for examination and copying, all pay-
roll records, social security payment records, timecards,
personnel records and reports, and all other records nec-
essary to analyze the amount of backpay due under the
terms of this Order.
(d) Post at its office and place of business in Trevose,
Pennsylvania, copies of the attached notice marked "Ap-
pendix."" 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 immediately upon receipt and
maintained for 60 consecutive days in conspicuous places
including all places where notices to employees are cus-
tomarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the
Respondent to ensure that the notices are not altered, de-
faced, or covered by any other material.
(e) Notify the Regional Director in writing within 20
days from the date of this Order what steps the Re-
spondent has taken to comply.
IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the election be set
aside and that Case 4-RC-15054 be severed from Case
4-CA-13041 and remanded to the Regional Director for
Region 4 for the purpose of conducting a new election at
an appropriate time to be fixed by the Regional Director.
[Direction of Second Election omitted from publica-
tion.]
7 If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec . 102.46 of the Board's 8 If this Order is enforced by a judgment of a United States court of
Rules and Regulations , the findings, conclusions , and recommended appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by Order of the Nation-
Order shall , as provided in Sec 102 48 of the Rules, be adopted by the al Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of
Board and all objections to them shall be deemed waived for all pur- the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National
poses Labor Relations Board "