188 N.L.R.B. 68 (N.L.R.B. 1971)

Holiday Inn

National Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsJan 25, 1971

188 N.L.R.B. 68 (N.L.R.B. 1971)

68 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Marin Chatmar , Inc., d/b/a Holiday Inn and Profes- sional & Clerical Employees Division of Freight Checkers, Clerical Employees & Helpers, Local No. 856, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America and Bartenders and Culinary Workers Union, Local No. 126, Hotel and Restaurant Employees and Bar- tenders International Union , AFL-CIO, Party to the Contract . Cases 20-CA-5714 and 20-CA-5758 January 25, 1971 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS BROWN AND JENKINS On September 21, 1970, Trial Examiner Maurice Alexandre issued his Decision in the above-entitled consolidated proceeding, finding that Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Decision. Thereafter, Respondent filed exceptions and support- ing brief to the Decision. General Counsel filed a brief in answer to Respondent's exceptions. 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 powers in connection with these cases to a three-member pan- el. The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no preju- dicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial Examiner's Decision, the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record in these cases, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner, except as modified hereafter. Undisputed testimony establishes that employee Oberfranc asked her supervisor, Deal, on May 26, 1969, before the hotel was opened, whether she should join "the union" immediately. Deal replied that Re- spondent had not yet signed a union contract, but that when one was signed, Oberfranc would have 30 days in which to join. The Trial Examiner found the supervisor's statement to constitute unlawful assist- ance to Local No. 126, in view of his prior findings, which we adopt, that Local No. 126 was not a majori- ty union and that its union-security contract executed by Respondent was therefore unlawful. Supervisor Deal's statement does not, in our view, constitute a violation of Section 8(a)(2) and (1). Deal's remark, made in response to a question by Oberfranc, is no more than a prediction that in the event ai con- tract was signed, a union-security clause would proba- bly be included in the collective-bargaining agree- ment and that such a clause would allow affected employees 30 days after signature within which to join the union. Deal made no threats for failure to join a union prior to that time; indeed, she did not even mention the consequences of failure to join the union after the normal 30-day grace period. Moreover, we can find nothing in the incident that demonstrates a preference by Respondent for one union over an- other; the parties to the conversation simply referred to "the union." Accordingly, we shall dismiss that portion of the consolidated complaint alleging that Deal's statement constituted unlawful assistance to Local No. 126 in violation of Section 8(a)(2) and (1) of the Act. ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Rela- tions Board adopts as its Order the Recommended Order of the Trial Examiner as herein modified and hereby orders that Respondent, Marin Chatmar, Inc., d/b/a Holiday Inn, San Rafael, California, its offi- cers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's Recommend- ed Order as modified below:' 1. In footnote 21 of the Trial Examiner's Decision, substitute "20" for "10" days. 2. Substitute the attached appendix for the Trial Examiner's appendix. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the consolidated com- plaint hereby be, and it hereby is, dismissed insofar as it alleges violations of the Act not found herein. 1 In view of the numerous violations of the Act found herein, we deem it unnecessary to modify the Order and Appendix to conform to our failure to find one 8(aX2) and (1) incident. APPENDIX NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government WE WILL NOT unlawfully interrogate our em- ployees, instruct them to join or pay dues to Bar- tenders and Culinary Workers Union, Local 126, Hotel and Restaurant Employees and Bartenders International Union, AFL-CIO, solicit employ- ees to become members of that Union, threaten to discharge employees if they do not join that Union, threaten to withhold pay raises or other benefits if our employees should unionize, or im- 188 NLRB No. 8 HOLIDAY INN ply that we will give them increases in wages or other benefits if they do not unionize. WE WILL NOT enforce or give effect to our col- lective-bargaining agreement of June 1, 1969, with Local No 1-26 and WE WILL withdraw and withhold recognition from said Union as the collective-bargaining representative of our em- ployees, unless and until the Board shall certify the said Union as such representative. WE WILL make whole all those employees who were coerced into becoming members of Local No. 126 after the execution of the collective-bar- gaining agreement of June 1, 1969, for moneys paid by them or deducted from their earnings for initiation fees, dues, assessments, or other obliga- tions of membershi in Local No. 126, with inter- est at the rate of 6ppercent per annum. WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of any of their rights guaranteed by Sec- tion 7 of the Act. MARIN CHATMAR, INC., d/b/a HOLIDAY INN (Employer) Dated By (Representative) (Title) This is an official notice and must not be defaced by anyone. 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 compli- ance with its provisions may be directed to the Board's Office, 13050 Federal Building, Box 36047, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, Calif. 941 02, Telephone 415-556-3197. TRIAL EXAMINER 'S DECISION MAURICE ALEXANDRE , Trial Examiner: This case was heard in San Francisco , California, on May 12 and 13, 1970, upon a consolidated complaint issued against Respondent on January 30, 1970,' alleging that Respondent had violated Section 8(a)(1), (2), and (3)of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended . In its answer, Respondent denied the commission of the unfair labor practices alleged . The basic issues presented are (1) whether or not Respondent entered into a collective-bargaining agreement containing a union- security provision with Local No. 126 at a time when that Union did not represent an uncoerced majority of Respondent's employees covered by such agreement; (2) whether or not Respondent engaged in other acts of unlaw- ful assistance ; and (3) whether or not Respondent engaged in unlawful interference , restraint, or coercion. i Based on initial charges filed on August 8 and September 26, 1%9, and on amended charges filed on January 27, 1970, all filed by Teamsters Local 856. 69 Upon the entire record, my observation of the witnesses, and the briefs filed by the parties , I make the following: FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 2 1. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES Preliminary Statement This case includes two series of incidents affecting the employees of Respondent, a California corporation en- gaged in the operation of a motel and restaurant in San Rafael, California. The earlier incidents, which took place in May, June, and July 1969,3 involved assistance to Local No. 126 in its attempt to become the bargaining representa- tive of one group of Respondent 's employees . The later events, which occurred in September , involved opposition to unionization of another group of its employees. A. Assistance 1. Sometime prior to May 29, Respondent began hiring employees in anticipation of the opening of its motel and restaurant. The official opening took place on May 29. On June 1, it executed a collective- bargaining agreement with Local No. 126 covering its restaurant , housing, janitorial, and certain other employees. Among other thin s, that agreement contained a union-security provision.4 TTie Gen- eral Counsel contends that, on the latter date, Local No. 126 did not represent a majority of the unit of employees cov- ered by the agreement , and hence that execution thereof violated Section 8(axl), (2), and (3) of the Act. Respondent and Local No. 126 insist that the latter did represent a majority. The parties are in agreement respecting the inclusion of 46 individuals in the bargaining units They also agree that two individuals, Rotchy and Darnell, should not be includ- ed in the unit. Although not entirely clear, the General Counsel's position appears to be that Lee should not be included. Thus, his brief contends (p. 10) that there were 51 employees in the unit-the 46 referred to above, plus 5 additional employees: Granucci, Douglas, Maxfield, Lew- is, and Oberfranc.7 Respondent and Local No. 126 agree that Lee should not be included in the unit. Local No. 126 does not dispute that the said five additional individuals were in the unit,8 but Respondent does . Based on the uncontradicted and cred- ited testimony of Oliveira, Oberfranc, and Lewis, and the parties' stipulation as to the testimony which would have 2 No issue of commerce is involved . The complaint alleged , the answer admits, and the parties stipulated to facts which , I find , establish that Re- spondent is an employer engaged in commerce and in operations which affect commerce within the meaning of the Act. I further find that Local No. 126 and Teamsters Local No. 856 , the Charging Party herein, are both labor organizations within the meaning of the Act. All dates referred to hereafter relate to 1969 unless otherwise stated. 4 The parties stipulated that the agreement consisted of a memorandum agreement plus the contract signed in 1%5. 5 Aguirre, Rush, Langley, Adams, Bottim, Golterman , Wight, Holton, Price, Fletcher , Hatch , Hudson, Karagens , Radar, Bresee , Cepeda , Davis, Topance, Hess, Johnson, Bauman , Corda, Stratford, Gates , Oliveira, White, Lyons, Booker , Satterfield, Boyden, Garza , Niles, Graham, Chambers, Jan- sen, Meager , Tassone, Mecham, Louie, Brodnax, Oczkus , Thompson , Greco, Imen , Cancilla, and Benz. 6 Also referred to by the General Counsel as Maxwell. 7 Also referred to by Local No. 126 as Overfront. s Local No. 856 erroneously attributes to the General Counsel a contention that Oliveira should be added to the 51 claimed unit employees . She was included in the parties' stipulation (see fn . 5, .supra) and, therefore, in the 51 claimed by the General Counsel. 70 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD been ggiiven by Granucci if called as a witness, I find that Douglas, Oberfranc, Maxfield, Lewis, and Granucci were employees of Respondent on June 1, and should be includ- ed in the bargaining unit. Respondent's sole defense is that none of its records were produced which would corroborate the abovementioned testimony. Such testimony is sufficient without corroboration. I find that there were at least 51 employees in the unit on June 1. The parties are also in agreement that 22 of the said 51 employees were members in good standing of Local No. 126 on June 1,9 and apparently agree that 17 others were not members of Local No. 126.10 The parties further agree that 3 of said 51 employees, Douglas, Maxfield, and Granucci, were not members in good standing of Local No. 126 on June 1, and the uncontradicted testimony of 2 others, Ober- franc and Lewis, shows that they have never been members of or otherwise designated that Union. The General Counsel contends that five others, Holton, Adams, Imeri, Aguirre, and Radar, should not be regarded as having designated Local No. 126 as their bargaining representative because, as the parties stipulated, they had been suspended from membership in that Local prior to obtaining employment with Respondent, and had not been reinstated prior to June 1. 11 Respondent does not appear to oppose that contention which is not discussed in its brief. According to Respondent "the primary issue before the Trial Examiner, as far as Respondent is concerned, which relates to the 8(a)(2) allegation, is the question of who should properly be on the June 1 list of employees" (Resp. brief p. 7), i.e. the unit issue discussed above. However, Local No. 126 insists that the suspended members should be counted in determining its majority. Its position is that the signing of membership application cards by the five em- t ogees created a presumption that they desired to authorize ocal No. 126 to represent them for collective-bargaining purposes; that the presumption is one of continuing author ity which must be rebutted by the General Counsel and that the presumption is not rebutted by the record, inasmuch as the General Counsel failed to call the five employees to elicit testimony showing that they had revoked the authority delegated to Local No. 126 by their application cards, and failed to submit any documentary evidence establishing such revocation.'2 9 Tassone , Rush, Langley, Garza, Bottini, Golterman , Wight, Booker, Price , Fletcher, Niles, Hudson, Karagens, Chambers , Graham , Menger, Mecham, Louie , Thompson , Stratford, Corda, and Satterfield 10 Hatch , Bresee , Cepeda, Davis , Topance , Hess, Johnson , Bauman, Gates, White , Lyons, Boyden , Jansen , Brodnax, Oczkus, Cancilla , and Benz 11 The parties stipulated that the five employees signed applications for membership, last paid dues to Local No 126, and were suspended from membership on the following dates. ame Signed Appli- cation Card Last Paid Dues uspended Bolton 5-19-54 6-9-65 9-16-58 Adams 8-13-59 7-13-67 11-16-67 Imeri 11-9-62 5-8-69 4-15-69 Aguirre 8-9-63 8-3 -64 11-12-64 Radar 1-1-66 1-1-66 May, 1966 12 At the hearing, Local No 126 was permitted to adduce evidence pur- In Barney Wilkerson Construction Company, 145 NLRB 704, the Board refused to infer support of a union by a member who had failed to pay dues for more than a year, had been suspended from membership, and had not paid dues thereafter. Here, four of the suspended members had failed to pay dues to Local No. 126 for periods far greater than that involved in Wilkerson.13 Absent evidence that de- spite their suspensions and continued failure to pay dues, the four were nevertheless supporters of Local No. 126 as of June 1, I find the record insufficient to establish that that Union was their bargaining representative on that date.14 Analysis thus far shows that, as of June 1, only 22 of the 51 employees in the bargaining unit supported Local No. 126, i.e., less than a majority The parties, however, are in dispute as to whether two additional individuals, Munson and Martinez, should be included in the unit; 15 as to wheth- er one of the said 51 unit employees, Greco, should be regarded as having designated Local No. 126 as her bar- gaining representative;16 and, as noted, as to whether Imeri should similarly be regarded. I find it unncessary to resolve these disputes since the record would not establish that Local No. 126 represented a majority even if these disputes were resolved in favor of Respondent.'? In sum, I find that Local No. 126 did not represent a majority of the employees covered by the collective-bar- gaining agreement on June 1, when it was executed by Re- spondent and Local No. 126, and hence that, by executing the agreement, Respondent unlawfully assisted Local No. 126 and interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employ- ees in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (2) of the Act. And since the unlawful agreement contained a union-security provision, Respondent also engaged in unlawful discrimina- tion within the meaning of Section 8(a)(3). Barney Wilker- son Construction Company, supra. 2. The General Counsel contends that the following addi- tional conduct by Respondent violated Section 8(a)1) and (2)• a. It is undisputed that, when employee Oberfranc asked Supervisor Deal on the Monday before the motel was opened, i.e. on May 26, whether she should join "the union" immediately, Deal replied that Respondent has not yet signed a union contract, but that, when it was signed, Ober- franc would have 30 days in which to join. Respondent's brief makes no mention of this incident. Since Local No. 126 was not a majority union and the union-security con- tract executed by Respondent was unlawful, Deal's state- ment constituted assistance to Local No. 126 in violation of Section 8(a)(2) and (1). porting to show that, although the rights of suspended members are extreme- ly limited under the provisions of its constitution and bylaws, it has not always enforced such provisions . Local No 126 apparently does not rely on such evidence since it does not refer thereto in its brief. 13 With respect to the fifth suspended member, Imen, see fn . 17, infra 14 I find the dues payment in 1965 by Holton, i e 4 years prior to June 1, 1969, was insufficient to create an inference that she was a supporter of Local No 126 on the latter date. 15 Respondent contends that both should be included ; Local No. 126 argues only for the inclusion of Munson ; and the General Counsel opposes both , contending that they were not on the payroll on June 1. 16 Respondent 's brief does not discuss Greco However, Local No. 126 contends that Greco, who had transferred membership to that Union from a sister local on July 23, should be treated as part of the majority of Local No 126 in view of the language of her original membership application card. That card authorized the sister local to represent Greco "through any of its affiliated locals." 17 Assuming that Munson and Martinez should be in the unit, it would consist of 53 employees The parties stipulated that they were members in good standing of Local No. 126 on June 1. Assuming that Greco and Imen should be similarly regarded , Local No 126 would have represented only 26 out of 53 employees HOLIDAY INN b. It is undisputed that at a meeting which she called on May 28, i.e.,a few days before the agreement with Local No. 126 was signed, Supervisor Perdue informed the maids un- der her supervision that she knew there would be a union, and askedi them whether any was a member of a union. Absent evidence that an employer explained to his employ- ees that he has a legitimate purpose in his inquiries and that he assured them that there would be no reprisals, interroga- tion concerning their union affiliation has an unlawfully coercive effect. Respondent does not and cannot contend that such explanation and assurance were given. Its sole defense in its bnef is that there "was no other evidence of 8(a)(1) conduct regarding this unit of employees which was alleged to have taken place prior to the execution of the subject contract" (Resp. brief p. 6). The defense is without merit. Accordingly, I find that Perdue's interrogation violat- ed Section 8(a)(11). c. 1 t is undisputed that, on or about June 3, Supervisor Fugihara told Employee Josephine Holton that he had been informed by a representative of Local No. 126 that she was in arrears in her dues, and instructed her to see what she could do about catching up with her dues. Respondent's brief (p. 6) recites these facts but makes no claim that Fugihara's instruction was lawful. I find that it was not, since it constituted assistance to an unlawfully recognized union and coercive interference with Holton's statutory rights, thereby violating Section 8(a)(2) and (1). d. It is undisputed that during July Supervisor Pellegnni informed the employees that there would be a meeting on Respondent's premises that morning and instructed them to attend; that Pellegrini, Supervisor -Perdue, representatives of Local No. 126, and about 12 employees were present at the meeting; that one of the union representatives told the employees that, because Respondent had signed a contract with Local No. 126, the employees were required to join Local No. 126 by August if they wished to avoid discharge by Respondent; that he further told them that they should obtain Local No. 126 membership application, which he would leave with Pellegrini; and that shortly thereafter two employees obtained such applications from Pellegrini, who told them to complete them and return the cards to her. Respondent's defenses are that the pressure to join Local No. 126 was exerted solely by that Union; that, although supervisors passed out the applications, they did not at- tempt to procure their execution; and that employees who have 'not joined are still employed by Respondent. This defense is without merit. Since the union-security agreement was illegal, any threat of discharge by Respondent for fail- ure to join Local No. 126 was unlawful even though not carried out. And, since Respondent's agent instructed the employees to attend the meeting and did not disavow the threat of discharge made by Local No. 126, the threat is chargeable to Respondent. Moreover, contrary to Respondent's contention, its agent did solicit membership applications on behalf of Local No. 126. Accordingly, I find that Respondent's conduct violated Section 8(a)(1) and (2) of the Act. e. It is undisputed that in July or August Manager Immel told employees that Respondent had signed a contract with Local No. 126 and that they had to join that Union. Respo adent's bnef does not refer to this incident. I find that Immel 's statement amounted to an unlawful threat to dis- charge an employee who failed to join an illegally recogniz- ed union. Such threat constituted interference, restraint, and coercion as well as assistance violative of Section 8(a)(1) and (2) of the Act. 71 B. Opposition to Unionization On August 20, Local No. 126 filed a petition for certifica- tion as bargaining representative of Respondent's front desk clerks . On September 10, Local No. 126 and Local No. 856 signed a stipulation for a consent election . The Regional Director approved the stipulation and scheduled an election for October 1. On September 23, Respondent called a meet- ing of its front desk clerks , at which time the subject of unionization was discussed . On September 26, one of the unfair labor practice charges herein was filed; and, on the same day, the election was postponed. It is undisputed that at the meeting Respondent 's repre- sentatives stated to the clerks that Respondent had given a ment increase to a gardener ; that there was an "informal feeling" at the motel, but that, if the employees unionized, Respondent could not give them raises directly, and would be compelled to deal with a union representative and their salaries would be "locked in"; and that, without a union, they would receive "equal or better salaries and benefits," on which Respondent was working but which could not be legally discussed in detail. Respondent contends that these statements were lawful because they contained no threat of reprisals, and because Respondent expressed no preference for one of the compet- ing unions . I disagree. Respondent in effect warned the clerks that unionization stood in the way of merit and other wage increases, and at the same time dangled before them the possibility of in- creased wage and other benefits if they rejected unioniza- tion . Such conduct constituted a tactical device which was designed , and which operated , to interfere with the clerks' freedom of choice in the scheduled election. The clerks were not likely to miss the implication that Respondent "was the source of benefits , which could be withheld or granted as it chose , and that its choice could be influenced" by the clerks' decision respecting unionization . American Technical Ma- chinery Corporation, 173 NLRB No. 210 . By such conduct, Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1). II THE REMEDY I shall recommend that Respondent cease and desist from its unfair labor practice and it take certain affirmative ac- tion necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act. Among other things, I shall recommend that Respondent withdraw and withhold all recognition from Local No. 126 unless and until said labor organization shall have been certified by the Board as the collective -bargaining representative of Respondent's employees, and that it cease and desist from giving any force and effect to the collective-bargaining agreement executed on June 1 , 1969. However, nothing herein shall be construed as requiring Respondent to vary or abandon any existing term or condition of employ- ment .18 Finally, I shall recommend that Respondent make reimbursement of dues and fees to those ofpits employees who were coerced into joining Local No. 126 because of the ille&al union-security agreement . 19 In accordance with the decision in Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716, and Quality Coal Corporation, et al., 139 NLRB 492, I shall recommend inclusion of an allowance for interest on such 18 Duralite Co, Inc, 132 NLRB 425 19 Joseph Ball Sanitation Service, Inc, 177 NLRB No 77 72 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD reimbursement, the interest to be computed in the manner set forth in Seafarers International Union, et al., 138 NLRB 1142. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. By unlawfully assisting Local No. 126 and by engaging in unlawful discrimination , as found herein , Respondent committed unfair labor practices violative of Section 8(a)(1), (2), and (3) of the Act. 2. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its em- ployees as found herein , Respondent engaged in unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8(axl) of the Act. 3. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce within the meaning of the Act. RECOMMENDED ORDER Respondent, its officers , agents, successors , and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Recognizing or contracting with Local No. 126, or any successor thereto, as the exclusive representative of its em- ployees, for the purpose of collective bargaining, unless and until the said labor organization shall have been certified by the Board as such representative. (b) Giving any effect to, performing, or in any way en- forcing its collective-bargaining agreement of June 1, 1969, or any modifications, extension, or renewals thereof, or any other contract, agreement , arrangement, or understanding entered into with Local No. 126, or any successor, relating to grievances , labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, or other conditions of employment, unless and until the said labor organization shall have been certi- fied by the Board as the exclusive representative of its em- ployees; provided, however, that nothing herein shall require Respondent to vary or abandon any wage, hour, seniority, or other substantive feature of this contract, or to prejudice the assertion by employees of any rights they may have thereunder. (c) Unlawfully interrogating employees, instructing them to join Local No. 126 or to pay their arrears in dues owed to that labor organization, soliciting employees to become members of Local No. 126, threatening to discharge em- ployees who do not join Local No. 126, threatening to with- hold wage increases or other benefits from its employees if they should unionize , and implying that it will give increases in wages or other benefits to its employees if they do not unionize. (d) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of their rights under Section 7 of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action: (a) Withdraw and withhold all recognition from Local No. 126 , or any successor thereto , as the exclusive represent- ative of its employees, for the purposes of collective bargain- ing, unless and until the said labor organization shall have been certified by the Board as such representative. (b) Reimburse all of its employees who were coerced into becoming members of Local No . 126 subsequent to the execution of the collective-bargaining agreement of June 1, 1969, for moneys paid by them or deducted from their earnings for initiation fees , dues, assessments , or other ob- ligations of membership in Local No . 126, in the manner set forth in the section herein entitled "The Remedy." (c) Post at its place of business in San Rafael, California copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix. (Board's appendix substituted for Trial Examiner's appen- dix.) Copies of said notice , on forms provided by the Re- gional Director for Region 20, shall , after being duly signed by an authorized representative of the Respondent , be post- ed by the Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places , including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced , or covered by any other material. (d) Notify the Regional Director for Region 20, in writ- ing, within 20 days from the date of the receipt of this Decision, what steps it has taken to comply herewith.21 20 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 , recommendations, 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 Rela- tions 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." 21 In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board, this provision shall be modified to read : "Notify the Regional Director for Re- gion 20, in writing , within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps it has taken to comply herewith."