J. H. Block & Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 15, 1980

247 N.L.R.B. 262 (N.L.R.B. 1980)

DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
J. H. Block & Co., Inc. and International Ladies'
Garment Workers' Union, AFL-CIO. Cases 10-
CA-13632, 10-CA-13873, 10-CA-13955, and 10-
RC-1 1440
January 15, 1980
DECISION, ORDER, AND DIRECTION OF
SECOND ELECTION
BY MEMBERS JENKINS, PENELLO, AND
TRUESDALE
On August 8, 1979, Administrative Law Judge
Thomas D. Johnston issued the attached Decision in
this proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent filed excep-
tions and a supporting brief, the General Counsel filed
cross-exceptions and a supporting brief, and Respon-
dent filed a brief in answer to the General Counsel's
cross-exceptions.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the record and the
attached Decision in light of the exceptions and briefs
and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings,' and
conclusions' of the Administrative Law Judge, as
modified herein, and to adopt his recommended
Order, as also modified herein.
On or about April 5, 1978, Respondent posted a
"Notice to Employees" on its bulletin board. The
notice advised the employees, inter alia, that:
If anyone is caused trouble in the plant, or put
under pressure to join the union, you should let
the Company know, and we will see that it is
stopped.
The Administrative Law Judge found, under the
circumstances of this case, that the wording in the
notice as set out above did not violate Section 8(a)(1)
of the Act. We disagree.
Respondent posted the notice, as set out in full in
section III,B, of the Administrative Law Judge's
I Respondent has excepted to certain credibility findings made by the
Administrative Law Judge. It is the Board's established policy not to overrule
an administrative law judge's resolutions with respect to credibility unless the
clear preponderance of all of the relevant evidence convinces us that the
resolutions are incorrect. Standard Dry Wall Products, Inc.. 91 NLRB 544
(1950), enfd. 188 F.2d 362 (3d Cir. 1951). We have carefully examined the
record and find no basis for reversing his findings.
The Administrative Law Judge's Decision contains several inadvertent
errors which, while not affecting our decision in this case, nevertheless
warrant noting herein: () In sec. Ill, B, of the Decision, the word "pursue" in
par. 3 of Respondent's "Notice to Employees" is a typographical error in the
preparation of the Decision, documentary evidence in the record establishes
that this word should be "pressure"; (2) in secs. ll, D, G, and H of his
Decision, the Administrative Law Judge states that Respondent's president,
Block, revoked employee Locklear's written warning and made a speech to
employees on July 15. whereas the record establishes that these events
247 NLRB No. 41
Decision, shortly after the start of the Union's open
organizational campaign. Respondent contends, and
the Administrative Law Judge found, that Respon-
dent's instruction that employees should report to
Respondent instances in which employees were "put
under pressure to join the union" was justified on the
bases of two reports it had received from employees
just prior to the posting of the notice. Specifically,
employee McPherson told her supervisors that a
member of the Union's organizing committee had
twice threatened to whip her after McPherson had
protested to the committee member that the latter
should not solicit signatures on authorization cards
during working hours. Employee Hindman told her
supervisor about a rumor that employees would be
fired if they signed authorization cards and joined the
Union, and that employees would be fired by Respon-
dent if they voted for the Union, and would be fired by
the Union if they voted against it.
Manifestly, neither of these reports involved in-
stances wherein employees were "put under pressure
to join the union." In any event, and no matter how
Respondent may have interpreted these reports, the
broadly worded above-quoted passage from Respon-
dent's "Notice to Employees" has the potential dual
effect of encouraging employees to report to Respon-
dent the identity of union card solicitors who in any
way approach employees in a manner subjectively
offensive to the solicited employees, and of corres-
pondingly discouraging card solicitors in their protect-
ed organizational activities. For these reasons, the
Board has consistently found such broadly worded
instructions to employees to be unlawful.' Under the
similar circumstances of the instant case, we find the
instruction in question here to be similarly unlawful,
and we therefore conclude that Respondent has
violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by instructing its
employees to report to it instances wherein employees
are put under pressure to join the Union.'
occurred on July 13; and (3) in sec. III, E, of his Decision, the Administrative
Law Judge states that employee Ploof acknowledged that President Block
stated in his speech that employees could call and talk to him, whereas the
record establishes that this testimonial' acknowledgment was made by
employee Moody, rather than employee Ploof.
' There were no exceptions filed with respect to the Administrative Law
Judge's dismissal of the allegation of unlawful surveillance of union activity.
J. P Stevens Co.. Inc., 245 NLRB 198 (1979); L'Eggs Products.
Incorporated. 236 NLRB 354 (1978); Sunnyland Packing Company, 227
NLRB 590, 594-595 (1976); Lutheran Hospital of Milwaukee. Incorporated,
224 NLRB 176, 178 (1976); Poloron Products ofMississippi. Inc.. 217 NLRB
704, 707 (1975); Bank of St. Louis 191 NLRB 669, 673 (1971).
' Member Jenkins would also find that par. 4 of Respondent's notice
unlawfully restricts the employees' rights to engage in "union" organizational
activities
262
J. H. BLOCK & CO., INC.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board adopts as its Order the recommended
Order of the Administrative Law Judge, as modified
below, and hereby orders that the Respondent, J. H.
Block & Co., Inc., Dallas, Georgia, its officers, agents,
successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth
in the said recommended Order, as so modified:
i. Insert the following as paragraph (h) and
reletter the subsequent paragraphs accordingly:
"(h) Notifying employees, in posted notices or
otherwise, that they should inform Respondent if they
are put under pressure to join the Union, or otherwise
inviting and encouraging employees to report to
Respondent the identity of union card solicitors."
2. Substitute the attached notice for that of the
Administrative Law Judge.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the election conduct-
ed in Case 10-RC-11440 on July 21, 1978, be, and it
hereby is, set aside, and that a new election be
conducted as directed below.
[Direction of Second Election and Excelsior foot-
note omitted from publication.]
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT interrogate our employees about
whether they attend union meetings.
WE WILL NOT threaten our employees that
they will lose their vacations if the union election
is held before their vactions.
WE WILL NOT threaten our employees that if
the Union comes in they will lose their vacations
or vacation pay.
WE WILL NOT threaten our employees by
implying they will be discharged for engaging in
union activities.
WE WILL NOT threaten our employees with
losing their Christmas bonuses if they select the
Union to represent them.
WE WILL NOT time the revocation of written
warnings given to our employees for the purpose
of causing employees to reject the Union as their
collective-bargaining representative.
WE WILL NOT solicit and promise to resolve
our employees' complaints for the purpose of
causing them to reject the Union as their collec-
tive-bargaining representative.
WE WILL NOT notify our employees, in posted
notices or otherwise, that they should inform us if
they are put under pressure to join a union, and
WE WILL NOT otherwise invite or encourage our
employees to report to us the identify of union
card solicitors.
WE WILL NOT discourage membership in
International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union,
AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization, by
transferring production work, or in any other
manner, discriminating against employees in re-
gard to hire or tenure of employment or any
other term or condition of employment.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner
interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees
in the exercise of their rights to self-organization,
to form, join, or assist any labor organization, to
bargain collectively through representatives of
their own choosing, to engage in concerted
activities for the purpose of collective bargaining
or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain
from any or all such activities.
WE WILL make whole Debra Harrell, Betty
Atkins, Doris Glass, Doris Long, and Theresa
Thomason for any loss of earnings and compensa-
tion they may have suffered by reason of our
discrimination against them, with interest.
J. H. BLOCK & CO., INC.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
THOMAS D. JOHNSTON, Administrative Law Judge: These
consolidated cases were heard in Atlanta, Georgia, on
January 29-31 and February I and 2, 1979, pursuant to
amended charges filed by the International Ladies' Garment
Workers' Union, AFL-CIO (herein the Union) in Case 10-
CA-13632 on June 5, 1978,' and in Case 10-CA-13873 on
August 30,' and a charge filed by the Union in Case 10-CA-
13955 on August 30, and, complaints issued in Case 10-CA-
13632 on June 9, in Case 10-CA-13873 on September 1, and
in Case 10-CA-13955 on October 5, which complaint was
amended on October 12.
These complaints, as amended at the hearing, allege that
J. H. Block & Co., Inc. (herein Respondent), violated
Section 8(a)(l) of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended (herein the Act), by engaging in surveillance of its
employees' union activities; interrogating its employees
concerning both their other employees' union membership,
activities, and desires; threatened its employees with dis-
charge if they joined or engaged in union activities or
selected the Union as their collective-bargaining representa-
All dates referred to are in 1978 unless otherwise stated.
The onginal charges in Cases IO-CA-13632 and 10-CA-IJ873 were filed
on May I and August 4. respectively.
263
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
tive; threatened its employees with loss of benefits if they
selected the Union as their collective-bargaining representa-
tive; solicited its employees to report on the union activity of
other employees; threatened its employees with loss of
vacation if the Union had not reached an election agreement
with Respondent; solicited grievances from its employees
concerning their jobs and working conditions and promised
to resolve those grievances; removed a written warning from
an employee's file and announced to its employees it had
discharged the plant manager and production manager, all
for the purpose of causing its employees to reject the Union
as their collective-bargaining representative; and violated
Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act by transferring production
work away from employees in the knit section because of
their union membership and activities.
Respondent in its answers filed on June 19, September 14,
and October 16, as amended at the hearing, denies having
violated the Act.
The issues involved are whether Respondent violated
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by unlawfully engaging in
surveillance, interrogations, threats, solicitations concerning
its employees' union memberships and activities by remov-
ing a warning from an employee's file and announcing the
discharge of two of its managers; and whether it violated
Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act by discriminatorily
transferring production work from the knit section employ-
ees because of their union membership and activities. An
additional issue is whether the objections to the conduct of
the election, discussed infra, have merit to warrant setting
aside the election results.
The Regional Director for Region 10, by order, consoli-
dated for hearing with the issues involved in the amended
complaints, the resolution of certain objections filed by the
Union concerning the election held in Case 10-RC-11440
which the Union lost. That election was conducted on July
21' pursuant to a Stipulation for Certification Upon Consent
Election approved on June 28, based on a petition filed by
the Union on June 2.
These objections, in pertinent part, 5 are as follows:
2. Since on or about June 2, the above Employer, by
its President, Mr. Joe Block, and its Supervisors and
Agents, solicited employee grievances and promised to
remedy same for the purposes of discouraging Union
activity.
3. On or about July 14, the Employer terminated its
Production Manager, Ken Holt, and its Plant Manager,
Bob Wilson, and appointed a new Manager, Virginia
Evans, thereby promising to remedy employee griev-
ances without a Union in the plant.
Allegations alleging that Respondent violated Sec. 8(a)(5) and (1) of the
Act by refusing to bargain with the Union were withdrawn by the General
Counsel after the evidence failed to establish that the Union represented a
majority of Respondent's employees in the appropriate unit.
' The Regional Director's Order, dated September 13, reflects that out of
approximately 120 eligible voters, 45 cast valid votes for and 69 cast valid
votes against the Union, with I challenged ballot.
Prior to the hearing the Regional Director approved the Union's request
to withdraw Objections I and 4.
5. Since on or about June 2, the Employer, by its
Supervisors and Agents, threatened the loss of benefits
in the event that the Union won the election.
6. Since on or about June 2, the Employer engaged in
other acts of misconduct which destroyed the condi-
tions necessary for a free and fair election.
Upon the entire record in these cases and from my
observations of the witnesses, and after due consideration of
the briefs filed by the General Counsel and Respondent, I
hereby make the following:'
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
1. THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT
Respondent, a Georgia corporation, has an office and
place of business located at Dallas, Georgia, which is the
only plant involved in this proceeding, where it is engaged in
the manufacture of apparel. During the calendar year 1977,
a representative period, Respondent sold and shipped
finished products, valued in excess of $50,000, from its
Dallas plant directly to customers located outside the State
of Georgia.
Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce within
the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union, AFL-
CIO, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section
2(5) of the Act.
II1. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Background
Respondent operates a plant located at Dallas, Georgia,
where it is engaged in manufacturing apparel. It employs
between 120 and 138 production and maintenance employ-
ees. Included among its official and supervisory personnel at
the plant were Joseph Block, who is the owner and
president, Head Supervisor Ammie Hicks, Supervisor Don-
na Johnson, Supervisor Ruth Hagans, former Production
Manager Kenneth Holt, and former Plant Manager Bob
Wilson.'
The Union began an organizing campaign among Respon-
dent's employees about the latter part of March. This
included holding union meetings, soliciting employees to
sign authorization cards, and distributing union literature to
employees outside Respondent's plant.
On April 5 and 7, the Union sent telegrams to Respondent
informing it of the names of the Union's organizing
committee.' The undisputed testimony of John Montgom-
'The Charging Party did not submit a brief.
' Unless otherwise indicated the findings are based on the pleadings,
admissions, stipulations, and undisputed evidence contained in the record,
which I credit.
'These individuals are all supervisors under the Act.
Their names were Kenda Morgan, Judy Ploof, Melba B&wman, Phyllis
Locklear, Deborah Spain, Betty Moody, Betty Atkins, Kathy Hall, Charlotte
264
J. H. BLOCK & CO., INC.
ery, who is the Union's educational director, also establishes
that, on May 31, he and Milford Allen, who is a union
organizer, went to the plant and informed Production
Manager Holt' ° that a majority of employees had signed
cards and requested representation, which Holt refused.
Following a petition filed by the Union on June 2, an
election was held on July 21, which the Union lost and
resulted in its filing objections to the election.
These proceedings arose out of conduct occurring during
the organizational campaign and the election.
B. Unlawful Threats and Alleged Solicitations
The General Counsel presented several employees, who
testified concerning threats made by Respondent's supervi-
sory personnel.
Debra Harrell testified that about a week before the
employees' vacation period, which occurred during the week
of July 4, a notice was presented on the bulletin board
announcing the forthcoming election to be conducted by the
Board. That same day, Supervisor Hagans told Harrell that
she was glad the election had been planned for after their
vacation because if it had not been they would have lost their
vacation and everything after that would have to be
negotiated.
Although Supervisor Hagans denied making such state-
ment, I credit Harrell rather than Hagans and find that
about the last week in June, Supervisor Hagans threatened
Harrell that the employees would have lost their vacation if
the union election was held before their vacation. Apart
from my observation of the witnesses in discrediting Hagans,
her testimony on other issues discussed infra does not appear
plausible.
Theresa Watts and Pearl Watts both testified they
overheard Supervisor Johnson make threats to other em-
ployees. About the middle of April, Theresa Watts heard
Johnson tell Earlene Hayes, if the union came in they would
not get their vacation. Pearl Watts hear Johnson tell Nell
Carnes and Mary Mitchell if the union came in they would
lose their vacation pay and have to start all over. While
Watts first placed this conversation during the last part of
April, she subsequently acknowledged it could have oc-
curred before or after the July vacation."
Supervisor Johnson denied making such statements.'"
Although she stated Carnes probably asked her what would
happen to vacation pay if the union got in, she denied
remembering specifically what was said.
Both Theresa Watts and Pearl Watts impressed me as
being more credible than Johnson, whom I discredit, I credit
Theresa Watts and Pearl Watts and find that, about the
middle of April and between the last of April and the
election held on July 21, Supervisor Johnson threatened
employees if the union came in they would lose their
vacation or vacation pay.
Betty Moody stated that on April 14, following a union
meeting held the previous day, she heard Production
Priest, Becky Dunaway, Kathy Harrell, Johnnie Gantt, Julia Watts, Connie
Fields, Theresa Watts, Pearl Watts, Edith Watts, Carol Hardy, Mary Hays,
Arlene Woodell, and Mary Ann Sweet.
'I Holt did not testifiy.
"The statement itself indicates the conversation occurred prior to the
election.
Manager Holt tell Gale Clemmons, who worked next to her,
that he had heard some of the girls went to a meeting last
night. When Clemmons replied that they had and asked
Holt whether they could get rid of another employee. Janice
Tilley, Holt said they could not do anything, but he sure
could. Judy Ploof, another employee who worked nearby,
also testified she heard Holt tell Clemmons they could not
get rid of anybody, but he sure could.
Production Manager Holt, as noted supra, did not testify.
While Clemmons, called as a witness by Respondent, denied
that Holt made any statement about getting rid of anybody,
she acknowledged under cross-examination that Holt had
stated to her in the presence of Moody and Ploof that he had
heard some of the girls had gone to a union meeting the
previous night. According to Clemmons, prior to going to
that union meeting, she and other employees, including
Janice Tilley," had asked Holt about going to the meeting
and the day after the meeting they informed him who had
attended. She also stated they asked Holt whether Tilley,
who was not a supervisor, could get in trouble for attending
the meeting since the Union's representative, Milford Allen,
had mentioned at the meeting they did not tolerate supervi-
sors there and Tilley denied that she was a supervisor.
Based on the credible testimony of Moody, corroborated
in part by Ploof and Clemmons and undenied by Production
Manager Holt, I find that on April 14, in the presence of
other employees, Production Manager Holt interrogated
Gale Clemmons about whether employees had attended a
union meeting and impliedly threatened her that employees
could be discharged for engaging in union activities. To the
extent Clemmons' other testimony is inconsistent with this
finding, I discredit it. Besides my observations of the
witnesses, her testimony was contradictory.
Connie Fields testified that about April 5, upon asking
Production Manager Holt why the company did not want a
union, he responded that the Union would take their
Christmas bonus.' According to Fields, another employee
Annie Mitchell, who did not testify, was also present.
Based on Field's undenied testimony, I find that, about
April 5, Production Manager Holt threatened employees
that they would lose their Christmas bonuses if they selected
the Union to represent them.
Several employees also testified about a notice which was
posted on Respondent's bulletin board. Debra Harrell stated
that, about April 5, she observed the notice and copied it
down as follows:
Notice to Employees
Since the subject of unions has come up, some of you
have been asking questions about the following matters.
We are stating the Company's position on these subjects
as clearly as we can for everybody alike.
i. We are definitely opposed to the Ladies' Garment
Workers' union coming into this plant because we
sincerely believe you are better off without a union at
" The employees to whom the statements were made did not testify.
"Tilley did not testify.
"Although Fields further testified that Holt gave as an additional reason
that the Union would get a percentage of their holiday pay, this was not
alleged to be unlawful.
265
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
our plant, and that you always will be better off without
a union here.
2. Those who might join or belong to the union are
not going to get any advantages or any preferred
treatment of any sort over those who do not join or
belong to the Union.
3. If anyone is caused trouble in the plant, or put
under pursue to join the union, you should let the
Company know, and we will see that it is stopped.
4. No person will be allowed to carry on union
organizing activities in the plant during his working
time. Anybody who does so and thereby interferes with
his own work or the work of others will be subject to
discipline up to and including discharge.
Both Julia Watts and Connie Fields saw the notice posted
which they read. While they recalled certain items that
appeared on the notice they were unable to state specifically
what all appeared on it.
Head Supervisor Hicks acknowledged that Respondent
posted a notice on the bulletin board about April 8.
However, neither she nor any other representatives of
Respondent testified concerning the wording of the notice or
refuted Harrell's undenied testimony, which I credit, about
what appeared on it.
Hicks explained this notice was posted after employees
had complained about threats they had received or heard.
Maxie McPherson informed her that a member of the
Union's organizing committee, Charlotte Priest, accompa-
nied by two other members, Phyllis Locklear and Kenda
Morgan," had threatened to whip her after she had
protested to Priest that they should not give out union
authorization cards during work. Linda Hindman ques-
tioned her about a rumor she heard concerning whether the
Union could fire her if she voted against the Union or if the
Company could fire her if she voted for the Union.'6 Both
McPherson and Hindman corroborated Hick's testimony.
C. Alleged Surveillance
Two employees, Phyllis Locklear and Debra Harrell,
testified that during periods when Union Representatives
John Montgomery and Milford Allen were standing beside
the road outside the plant handing out union leaflets to
employees in automobiles as they left the plant parking lot in
the afternoon after work they observed supervisory person-
nel watching them. Locklear stated on five to nine occasions,
beginning within a week of April 2, she saw Plant Manager
Wilson,'7 Production Manager Holt, and sometimes Supervi-
sor Johnson standing inside the plant by the glass doors
watching the employees leaving while the leaflets were
distributed. Sometimes she saw Holt and Wilson go outside
the glass doors. While Locklear said that Holt, Wilson, and
Johnson laughed, joked and pointed, she related no specific
incidents. Locklear further stated she had not noticed them
standing there watching employees before union leaflets
" Priest did not testify and neither Locklear nor Morgan denied the
incident.
'* Although another employee, Esther Dodd. also stated she had heard this
rumor, she denied having reported it to any supervisors.
" Plant Manager Wilson did not testify.
started being handed out, but did not deny they could have
been there.
Debra Harrell stated that on one occasion, which she
placed prior to March 27 when she signed her union
authorization card, she saw Production Manager Holt
standing inside the plant by the glass door looking out while
Montgomery was giving out union leaflets. On another
occasion in June or the first part of July, as she was leaving
the plant and was being given some union literature, she saw
Holt talking to Montgomery and Allen where Montgomery
was passing out the literature. However, she did not know
what they were talking about.
Although Harrell stated one day she saw Head Supervisor
Hicks and Supervisor Johnson standing inside the plant
while employees were leaving, it was not established whether
leaflets were being distributed at that time. While Betty
Atkins also testified she had observed Montgomery and
Allen handing out the leaflets from about the latter part of
March through June, she denied seeing Holt and Johnson
standing at the glass doors.
Kenda Morgan" stated she also saw Production Manager
Holt and Supervisor Johnson standing in the doorway a few
times when Montgomery and Allen were handing out
leaflets and denied having noticed them there when leaflets
were not being distributed. However, she acknowledged she
had not paid attention to this prior to the union organizing
campaign and admitted having given an affidavit to a Board
agent, stating she had not noticed Holt or anyone else
standing in the door when they left work anymore since the
union campaign began than before the campaign started.
The Union's educational director, Montgomery, who
stated that they began distributing leaflets at the plant on
March 27, testified that on April 25 or 26, he took pictures
of Union Organizer Allen giving out union leaflets to
employees in automobiles as they left the plant. These
pictures, as identified by Montgomery and Phyllis Locklear
as well as by Head Supervisor Hicks and Supervisor
Johnson, show Production Manager Holt and Supervisor
Johnson standing inside the plant by the glass doors and
Supervisor Johnson also standing outside the glass doors
looking in the direction of Allen giving leaflets to employees
in automobiles as they were leaving the plant.' Johnson
admitted that on that occasion she was looking at Allen
handing a leaflet to an employee in an automobile. Mont-
gomery further testified that on April 13, and about April
25, while he and Allen were distributing union leaflets to
employees as they left the plant, Production Superintendent
Holt came out to where they were and told Allen he was
standing on company property. On the first occasion, Holt
went and stood in front of the glass doors of the plant after
shaking hands with Allen and speaking to him for several
minutes.
Supervisor Johnson acknowledged that, beginning in late
March, she had observed union leaflets being distributed to
employees through the glass doors of the plant.
" Morgan who had testified earlier for the General Counsel on other
matters was called as a witness by Respondent regarding the surveillance
issue.
" Montgomery estimated Holt and Johnson were about 35 to 40 feet from
Allen.
266
1. H. BLOCK & CO., INC.
According to Johnson, whose testimony was corroborated
by Head Supervisor Hicks, each day between 3:3020 and 4
p.m., Plant Manager Wilson, Production Manager Holt,
Head Supervisor Hicks, Supervisor Hagans, and herself
would wait in the area of the glass doors to obtain the daily
production figures from Betty Bonds."' Bonds prepared these
figures and her desk was located by this entrance. This had
been their practice even prior to the start of the union
organizing campaign. Both Head Supervisor Hicks and
Supervisor Johnson stated that, on occasions, while standing
at the glass doors they saw Production Manager Holt go out
and talk to the union representatives, who were distributing
leaflets.
Johnson denied that Holt kept records about employees
who talk to the Union's representatives or that Holt, Hicks,
or she laughed or pointed at employees while leaflets were
being passed out.
D. Revoking Locklear's Written Warning
Phyllis Locklear was given a written warning by Plant
Manager Wilson after she had requested permission of
Supervisor Johnson to be off work on June 15 and 16 in
order to have a long weekend with her husband. The written
warning 2 as described by Locklear, Respondent's executive
vice president, Frank Bussey, and President Block was to the
effect that Locklear had already been off work too much and
she would be discharged if she took those 2 days off work.
On July 15, prior to a meeting that President Block held
with the employees later that day, Locklear was called into
the office where President Block and Executive Vice
President Bussey were present. Block showed her a copy of
this written warning which had previously been given to her,
asked her to read it, and when she finished he tore it up and
threw it in the trash can. Block told her there were going to
be some changes made' and that was not the way they
operated. He also informed her it was against policy.2'
While Locklear stated that Block, upon tearing up the
warning, also asked her if she got the picture, Block testified
that he did not think he asked her such question and Bussey
denied Block did.
Locklear, whose testimony was corroborated by Bussey
and undenied by Block, further testified that Block told her
she could go ahead and take a couple of days off with her
husband if she wanted to.
Although Block denied having any knowledge about how
Locklear felt about the Union, her name was included on the
list of the Union's organizing committee sent to Respondent
on April 5.
According to both Block and Bussey, Bussey had obtained
the written warning from Production Manager Holt while
Holt was cleaning out his desk following his discharge
The production employees get off work at 3:30 p.m.
' Head Supervisor Hicks said that an additional reason for standing there
was to watch the automobiles leaving, since a lot of times there were
automobile accidents.
" The written warning was not offered as evidence.
: Block contends this statement had reference to the meeting he held later
that day with the employees.
:' According to Block it had always been company policy to regard a
working wife as a secondary job and. if her husband wanted her to take off
work with him. she was not penalized. While Block contended this had
occurred many times, he was unable to name any specific occasions.
earlier that morning. Bussey then gave he written warning
to Block.
E. President Block ' Speech
On July 13, during work, President Block made a speech
to all the employees at a meeting which was also attended by
Executive Vice President Bussey, Head Supervisor Hicks,
Supervisor Hagans, Supervisor Johnson, and Virginia Evans.
The General Counsel presented five witnesses, Phyllis
Locklear, Debra Harrell, Betty Atkins, Betty Moody, and
Judy Ploof, who testified about what was said during the
speech, while Respondent relied on the testimony of Presi-
dent Block and Executive Vice President Bussey.
Various subjects were mentioned in the speech. Block
informed them that Plant Manager Wilson and Production
Manager Holt, who both had been discharged earlier that
day, had been terminated. Harrell and Moody stated that
one of the reasons Block gave for terminating them was
because he had gotten complaints about them.:' Harrell said
other reasons included bad management and people being
unhappy with them. Plool and Moody testified that Block
indicated one reason was because he learned that Holt and
Wilson had been mistreating them. ' Ploof and Atkins also
stated that Block indicated as a reason he had found out
Wilson and Holt had cut the employees' rates.2'
Block, whose testimony was corroborated by Bussey,
stated that the reason he gave them for terminating Holt and
Wilson was inadequate production. Harrell also acknowl-
edged that Block had mentioned something about produc-
tion going down at the plant. Block denied any knowledge
about any rates being cut and when an employee questioned
him about it at the meeting he informed her he would
look into it.
While Atkins stated that Block said he did not know Holt
had told them if they called Block and complained about
anything they would be fired," Block testified he did not
hear anything about this until after the speech when he was
questioned about it.
Moody testified that Block informed them that Virginia
Evans, who had previously gone into business for herself,
was going to be there for a few weeks to get things
straightened out. Bussey corroborated Moody's testimony
on this point; however, Block stated that he said Evans
would be there to straighten out production.
While Locklear testified that Block mentioned something
about unhappy people not getting out any work, both Block
and Bussey denied it, but did state that Block mentioned he
hoped or wanted it to be a happy place to work. Although
Locklear also stated that Block said there were going to be
some changes in the Company, Ploof denied remembering
any such statements.
:' There was no evidence employees had made complaints about Holt or
Wilson.
': No evidence was proffered to show Wilson and Holt had mistreated
employees.
No evidence was proffered to show what, if any rates, Wilson and Holt
had cut.
!' No evidence was proffered to show Holt had made such threats to
employees
267
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Bussey's version was that Block only said some changes
had been made.
Ploof testified that Block informed them that if they had
any problems they could go to Hicks, Evans, o him and
they would help them with their problems. While under
cross-examination Bussey also acknowledged that he be-
lieved Block made such a statement. Block denied it. His
version was that he informed them that, as in the past, his
policy29 was that his door was open and if anybody wanted
to talk to him he would be happy to speak to them and that
they could also call him. Ploof acknowledged Block had said
they could call and talk to him if they wanted to.
Atkins testified Block said he did not think they needed a
union and that since their present management was gone he
thought things would be better. However, under cross-
examination, she further stated Block said it would be better
with or without a union and it was up to the employees
whether or not they wanted a union. Neither Locklear,
Ploof, nor Harrell remembered any statements about the
Union while Moody, under cross-examination, stated Block
said something about he could work with the Union if the
employees wanted a union.
Block, whose testimony was corroborated by Bussey,
stated that he informed them that what he had to discuss
was not a union matter because they could determine for
themselves whether they wanted a union or not in the plant
and it was their decision as to whether they voted for the
Union. Block denied mentioning things would be corrected
with or without the Union.
F. The Discriminatory Transfer of Work
Debra Harrell, who worked as a front and back employee
under Supervisor Hagans, credibly testified that, the week
after the election, Supervisor Hagans patted her on the
bottom and remarked she could hit them all now. Hagans
then said she felt she had been fair to everybody throughout
the campaign and the only mean thing she did was the day
she pushed their work back to the joiners. While Supervisor
Hagans denied the incident occurred or such statements
were made, I discredited her denials for reasons previously
given. However, she did acknowledge that sometime in
May ° she took production work, which was ready to be
performed by the front and back employees, and gave it to
the joiners. She estimated it took a little over a day for the
joiners to perform the work during which time the front and
back employees were assigned to do some other type work."
Harrell also stated that about the end of May or the first
of June, she observed the joiners performing the work of the
front and back employees for one or two days, while the
front and back employees were assigned other jobs.
The front and back employees joined the fronts and backs
of pants by sewing them together while the joiners closed the
side seams and inseams of pants.
The front and back employees affected by this transfer of
their production work were Debra Harrell, Betty Atkins,
Doris Glass, Doris Long, and Theresa Thomason. The
" According to Block it had always been his policy to have an open door.
' Head Supervisor Hicks placed this incident about the middle of May.
" The evidence did not establish specifically what other work the front and
back employees were assigned on that occasion.
'' Both Harrell and Atkins testified they wore the union insignia.
names of both Harrell and Atkins were on the list of
members of the Union's organizing committee sent to
Respondent on April 5 and Hagans acknowledged all of
these front and back employees wore smocks, badges, or T-
shirts containing the Union's insignia."
According to Supervisor Hagans the joiners assigned this
work were Margaret Dunaway, Mary Barber, Tiny Shaw,
Paulette Ruff, Theresa White, Mary Ray, and Wanda."
Among this group, Hagans stated she had observed Duna-
way and Shaw wearing the union insignia prior to transfer-
ring work. Head Supervisor Hicks also identified Theresa
White as wearing a union insignia."
Betty Atkins also acknowledged a lot of the joiners,
including Dunaway, wore union insignias.
Both Supervisor Hagans and Head Supervisor Hicks
testified that Hagans transferred the work at Hicks' instruc-
tion. Their reason, which admittedly was never given to the
front and back employees, was that they wanted to find out
who was responsible for bundles which contained fronts and
backs that were not the same size and some of which had
already joined. Hicks stated Plant Manager Wilson had
already cleared of blame the layout table, from which work
was then sent to the front and back employees.
According to both Hicks and Hagans, after changing the
work it did not happen again. Hagans also stated that it was
never determined who was responsible.
G. Analysis and Conclusions
The General Counsel contends, contrary to Respondent's
denials, that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(l) and (3) of
the Act by engaging in unlawful surveillance, interrogations,
threats, solicitations, by removing a written warning from an
employee's file and announcing the discharge of two of the
managers; and discriminatorily transferring production
work from its front and back employees.
Section 8(a)(l) of the Act prohibits an employer from
interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees in the
exercise of their rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
Section 8(a)(3) of the Act provides in pertinent part. "It
shall be an unfair labor practice for an employer . . . by
discrimination in regard to hire or tenure of employment or
any term or condition of employment to encourage or
discourage membership in any labor organization .... "
The findings, supra, establish that about the last week in
June, Supervisor Hagans threatened Debra Harrell that the
employees would have lost their vacation if the union
election was held before their vacation. About the middle of
April and between the last of April and the election held on
July 21, Supervisor Johnson threatened employees that if the
union came in they would lose their vacation or vacation
pay. On April 14, Production Manager Holt interrogated
Gale Clemmons in the presence of other employees about
whether employees had attended a union meeting and
impliedly threatened her that employees could be discharged
for engaging in union activities. About April 5, Production
Manager Holt threatened employees they would lose their
" The record does not establish Wanda's last name.
" While Hicks also testified that in May 1978. there were two other joiners,
Dorothy Wilson and Grace Jackson, who wore union insignia, it was not
established that they were among those joiners assigned this work.
268
1. H. BLOCK & CO., INC.
Christmas bonuses if they selected the Union to represent
them.
The test applied in determining whether a violation of
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act has occurred is "whether the
employer engaged in conduct which, it may reasonably be
said, tends to interfere with the free exercise of employee
rights under the Act." Electrical Fittings Corporation, a
Subsidiary of l-T-E Imperial Corporation, 216 NLRB 1076
(1975). Applying this test, I find that Respondent, by
engaging in these acts of interrogation and threats just
enumerated, has interfered with, restrained, and coerced its
employees in the exercise of their rights guaranteed in
Section 7 of the Act and has thereby violated Section 8(a)(1)
of the Act.
The General Counsel contends that in the notice Respon-
dent posted about April 5, discussed infra, it unlawfully
solicited employees to report on the union activities of other
employees and threatened employees with discharge if they
selected the Union as their collective-bargaining representa-
tive.
The wording of the notice, as herein found, does not
support this contention. Rather, only those incidents where
employees were either caused trouble in the plant or put
under pressure to join the Union were asked to be reported
so it could be stopped. Insofar as the notice threatened
discharge, this was limited to employees who carried on
union organizing activities in the plant during their working
time, interfering with their own work or the work of others,
and not for selecting the Union as their collective-bargaining
representative as alleged. Further, the notice was posted only
after employees had reported to Respondent threats they
had received or heard including threats relating to employ-
ees signing union authorization cards.
Under these circumstances, I do not find either the notice
itself or the posting of the notice to be unlawful.
With respect to the alleged surveillance, the evidence,
supra, based on the undisputed testimony of Phyllis Lock-
lear, Debra Harrell, Kenda Morgan, and Educational
Director Montgomery and the admissions by Supervisor
Johnson and Head Supervisor Hicks establish that on
various occasions Respondent's supervisory personnel, in-
cluding Plant Manager Wilson, Production Manager Holt,
Head Supervisor Hicks, and Supervisor Johnson, stood in
the area of the glass doors of the plant and watched the
Union Representative Montgomery and Allen distribute
union leaflets to employees in automobiles as they left the
plant parking lot after work. On several such occasions,
Production Manager Holt went out to where Montgomery
and Allen were distributing the leaflets and spoke to Allen
about being on company property.
Where union representatives and employees choose to
engage in their union activities at the employer's premises,
they have no cause to complain that management observes
them. Chemtronics, Inc., 236 NLRB 178 (1978); and Milco,
Inc., et al, 159 NLRB 812, 814 (1966), enfd. 388 F.2d 133
(2d Cir. 1968).
Here, the distribution of these union leaflets was conduct-
ed in full public view at the entrance to the plant parking lot
and only approximately 35 to 40 feet from the glass doors of
the plant itself and could be readily observed by anyone in
the area including supervisory personnel. Under these
circumstances, I find that Respondent did not engage in
unlawful surveillance as alleged.
Insofar as revoking Phyllis Locklear's written warning is
concerned, the findings supra establish that this occurred
less than a week prior to the election and such action was
taken on Respondent's own initiative without any request by
Locklear who was a known union adherent. If, as Respon-
dent now contends, the warning was revoked because it has
been issued in violation of company policy, no plausible
explanation including President Block's, which I do not find
persuasive, was given for waiting approximately a month
after the incident occurred and less than a week before the
election before taking such action. Certainly Respondent,
which issued the warning, was aware of its existence. Rather,
I am persuaded and find that the timing of revoking
Locklear's written warning" on July 15, less than a week
before the union election, was for the purpose of causing
employees to reject the Union as their collective-bargaining
representative, thereby violating Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
Both the testimony of udy Ploof and Executive Vice
President Bussey, set forth supra. establish contrary to the
denials of President Block, which I discredit, that Block in
his July 15 speech to the employees informed them if they
had any problems they could go to Head Supervisor Hicks,
Virginia Evans, or himself and they would help them with
their problems.
An employer by instituting for the first time a practice of
soliciting employee complaints to coincide with a union
organizing campaign improperly interferes with the employ-
ees' freedom of choice, thereby violating Section 8(a)(1) of
the Act. Shulman 's Inc. of Norfolk, 208 NLRB 772 (1974),
enforcement denied on other grounds 519 F.2d 498 (4th Cir.
1975); and Ring Metals Company, 198 NLRB 1020 (1972).
Since the evidence establishes that this solicitation of
employees by President Block in his speech to bring their
complaints to certain supervisory personnel, coupled with
promises or help, was first initiated during the union
organizing campaign and less han a week before the
election, I find that President Block in his speech to the
employees solicited and promised to resolve employees'
complaints for the purpose of causing its employees to reject
the Union as their collective-bargaining representative. Even
assuming Block previously had an open door policy, based
upon his own description of that policy and absent, as here,
any showing such policy had been communicated to the
employees, it would not detract from this finding of a
violation.
The General Counsel further contends that President
Block's announcement in the July 15 speech that Plant
Manager Wilson and Production Manager Holt had been
discharged was also unlawful in that it was for the purpose
of causing the employees to reject the Union as their
collective-bargaining representative. However, since the
evidence establishes that both Wilson and Holt had been
discharged earlier that same day, which would certainly be a
matter of interest for the employees to know because of their
positions at the plant, and absent as here any evidence to
" The revocation of the written warning itself is not found to be unlawful.
269
DECISIONS )F NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS B()ARD
show how their discharges would tend to benefit the
employees especially when there was no evidence to show
they had actually mistreated employees, I find the announce-
ment of their discharges was not unlawful.
The remaining issue to be resolved is whether production
work was transferred from the front and back employees to
the joiners for discriminatory reasons under the Act.
The evidence supra establishes that, about the middle or
latter part of May, production work, which took a little over
a day to perform, was taken away from front and back
employees Debra Harrell, Betty Atkins, Doris Glass, Doris
Long, and Theresa Thomason and assigned to joiners who
performed it. These five employees, two of whom, Atkins
and Harrell, served on the union organizing committee, were
all active in the Union, with Respondent's knowledge.
While Respondent, as its defense contends, reassigned this
work to establish who was responsible for bundles contain-
ing fronts and backs that were not the same size and some of
which had already been joined, such contention is contrary
to the evidence. For instance, if, as Respondent asserts, the
layout table which supplies the work to the front and back
employees had already been absolved of any blame for the
defective work then obviously the front and back employees
would have been responsible since their job is to join the
fronts and backs of pants by sewing them together. Yet,
admittedly this matter was never discussed with them.
Rather, the credited testimony establishes that, shortly after
the election was held, Supervisor Hagans indicated to Debra
Harrell the reason this work was transferred was because of
the union activity of the front and back employees.
Under these circumstances, including the union activities
of Harrell, Atkins, Glass, Long, and Thomason, of which
Respondent had knowledge, Respondent's union animus as
established by the other unlawful conduct herein found,
Supervisor Hagans' admission implying the work was
transferred because of their union activities, and having
rejected the Respondent's defense, I am persuaded and find
that about the middle or latter part of May Respondent
discriminatorily transferred a little over a day's production
work from Debra Harrell, Betty Atkins, Doris Glass, Doris
Long, and Theresa Thomason because of their union
activities, thereby violating Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the
Act. The fact that several of the joiners to whom this work
was transferred were also active in the Union and their
activities known to Respondent does not preclude finding
this violation.
H. The Objections to the Election
The following conduct, herein found to be unlawful, falls
within the scope of the Union's Objections 2, 5, and 6'" and
occurred within the objectional period." About the last week
in June Supervisor Hagans threatened Debra Harrell that
the employees would lose their vacation if the union election
was held before their vacation; the timing of revoking Phyllis
Locklear's written warning on July 15, 1978, less than a
week before the union election was for the purpose of
causing employees to reject the Union as their collective-
bargaining representative; and on July 15, President Block,
" Based upon the findings supra. I find no merit to the Union's Objection 3.
" The objectional period extends from the filing of the representation
petition on June 2, 1978, to the election held on July 21, 1978.
in a speech to the employees, solicited and promised to
resolve employees' complaints for the purpose of causing the
employees to reject the Union as their collective-bargaining
representative.
This conduct was sufficient to have interfered with the
election and to warrant setting the election aside.
IV. THI EECI 01 O THE UNFAIR I.ABOR PRACTICFS
UPON COMMERCE
The activities of Respondent set forth in section I11,
above, found to constitute unfair labor practices occurring in
connection with its operation 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 thereof.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
i. J. H. Block & Co., Inc., is an employer engaged in
commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the
Act.
2. International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union, AFL-
CIO, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section
2(5) of the Act.
3. By threatening an employee that employees would have
lost their vacation if the union election had been held before
their vacation; by threatening employees that if he union
came in they would lose their vacation or vacation pay; by
interrogating an employee about whether employees had
attended a union meeting; by impliedly threatening an
employee that employees could be discharged for engaging
in union activities; by threatening employees they would lose
their Christmas bonuses if they selected the union to
represent them; by timing the revocation of an employee's
written warning less than a week before the election for the
purpose of causing employees to reject the Union as their
collective-bargaining representative; and by soliciting and
promising to resolve employees' complaints for the purpose
of causing the employees to reject the Union as their
collective-bargaining representative, Respondent has inter-
fered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the
exercise of their rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act
and has engaged in unfair labor practices in violation of
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
4. By discriminatorily transferring, about the middle or
latter part of May 1978, a little over a day's production work
from Debra Harrell, Betty Atkins, Doris Glass, Doris Long,
and Theresa Thomason because of their union activities,
Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices in viola-
tion of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act.
5. The Union's Objections 2, 5, and 6, set forth supra, have
been sustained by the evidence and Respondent has thereby
interfered with and illegally affected the results of the
election held on July 21, 1978.
6. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
270
J H. BLOCK & CO.. INC.
THI REMFI)Y
Having found that Respondent has engaged in certain
unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1)
and (3) of the Act, I shall recommend that it cease and desist
therefrom and take certain affirmative action to effectuate
the policies of the Act. Accordingly, Respondent shall be
ordered to make whole Debra Harrell, Betty Atkins, Doris
Glass, Doris Long, and Theresa Thomason for any loss of
earnings and compensation they may have suffered as the
result of the discrimination against them in their employ-
ment herein found by discriminatorily transferring a little
over a day's production work from them about the middle or
latter part of May 1978, along with the payment of interest
computed in accordance with the formula set forth in
Florida Steel Corporation. 231 NLRB 651 (1977).'" The
General Counsel's requested remedy that the rate of interest
be increased to 9 percent per annum is rejected. See Neely's
Car Clinic, 242 NLRB 335, fn. 1 (1979).
Further, having found that the Union's Objections 2, 5,
and 6 were sustained by the evidence, I shall recommend
that the election held on July 21, 1978, be set aside and that
Case IO-RC-I 1440 be remanded to the Regional Director
for Region 10 for the purpose of conducting a new election.
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"
The Respondent, J. H. Block & Co., Inc., Dallas, Georgia,
its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
I. Cease and desist from:
(a) Interrogating employees about whether employees
attended union meetings.
(b) Threatening employees that they will lose their
vacations if the union election is held before their vacations.
(c) Threatening employees that if the Union comes in they
will lose their vacations or vacation pay.
(d) Impliedly threatening employees with discharge for
engaging in union activities.
(e) Threatening employees with losing their Christmas
bonuses if they select the Union to represent them.
(f) Timing the revocation of employees written warnings
for the purpose of causing employees to reject the Union as
their collective-bargaining representative.
" See. generally. Isis Plumbing & Heating Co.. 138 NLRB 716 (1962).
" In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the
Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the findings.
conclusions, and recommended Order herein shall, as provided in Sec. 102.48
of the Rules and Regulations, be adopted by the Board and become its
findings, conclusions, and Order, and all objections thereto shall be deemed
waived for all purposes.
(g) Soliciting and promising to resolve employees' com-
plaints for the purpose of causing the employees to reject the
Union as their collective-bargaining representative.
(h) Discouraging membership in International Ladies'
Garment Workers' Union. AFL-CIO, or any other labor
organization, by transferring production work, or in allny
other manner discriminating against employees in regard to
hire or tenure of employment or any other term or condition
of employment.
(i) In any like or related manner interfering with.
restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed them in Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to
effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Make whole Debra Harrell, Betty Atkins, Doris Glass.
Doris Long, and Theresa Thomason for any loss of earnings
and compensation they may have suffered by reason of the
discrimination against them with interest in the manner set
forth in that section of this Decision entitled "The Remedy."
(b) Preserve and. upon request, make available to the
Board or its agents, for examination and copying, all payroll
records, social security pa! ment records, timecards, person-
nel records and reports, and all other records necessary to
analyze and determine the amount of backpay due under the
terms of this Order.
(c) P'ost at its I)allas, Georgia, facility copies of the
attached notice marked "Appendix. " " Copies of said notice,
on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 10,
after being duly signed by Respondent's authorized repre-
sentatives, shall be posted 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 Respondent to insure that said notices are not
altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(d) Notify the Regional Director for Region 10, in writing,
within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps
Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
IT IS FURTHIR ORI)ER.I) that these amended complaints
be, and hereby are, dismissed insofar as they allege unfair
labor practices not specifically found herein.
IT IS URi'HIR ORI)EREI) that the election held in Case
10-RC-11440 be, and it hereby is, set aside and the case is
remanded to the Regional Director for Region 10 for the
purpose of conducting a new election in the appropriate unit
at such time as he deems the circumstances permit the free
choice of a bargaining representative.
' In the event that this Order is enforced by a Judgment of a United States
Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by Order of the
National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursuant to a Judgment
of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National
Labor Reltations Board.
271