Local No. 3, I.B.E.W.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 29, 1980

252 N.L.R.B. 539 (N.L.R.B. 1980)

LOCAL NO. 3. I.B.E.W'.
Local No. 3, International Brotherhood of Electrical
Workers, AFL-CIO and Nixdorf Computer
Corporation. Case 2-CB-7907
September 29, 1980
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN FANNING ANt)D MEMBERS
JENKINS AND PENEI.LO
On June 30, 1980, Administrative Law Judge
Howard Edelman issued the attached Decision in
this proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent filed ex-
ceptions and a supporting brief, and the Charging
Party filed an answering brief in opposition to Re-
spondent'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 au-
thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the record and the at-
tached Decision in light of the exceptions and brief
and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings,'
and conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge
and to adopt his recommended Order, as modified
herein. 2
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Re-
lations Board adopts as its Order the recommended
Order of the Administrative Law Judge, as modi-
fied below, and hereby orders that the Respondent,
Local No. 3, International Brotherhood of Electri-
cal Workers, AFL-CIO, its officers, agents, and
Respondent has excepted to certain credthilitN findings made by the
Administrative Lawv Judge It is the Board's estahlished polic, nlt to
overrule an adminislratlie law judge', resolufiols with respect to credi-
bility unless Ilte clear preponderance of all of the relevant eidence con-
vinces us that the resolution, are incorrect Stuandurd Dr) all Prodult.
Inc., 91 NLRB 544 (1951), enfd. 188 F2d 362 (d Cir 1951) We halc
carefully examined the record and find no bahsis fr reversing his findings
In reaching this conclusion, e have carefully considered Respondent's
argument that the Adilnilmratisc Law Judge committed reversible error
h) taking judicial not ice of the credihilit findings of an adminlstral e
law judge in a companion case While it is generlly. inappropriate fr arl
administrative law judge to rely on credibility findings made i another
case. we note that the Administrative Law Jdge here did not predicate
his credibility resolutions on the credibility fndings in he compaiitlion
case, but rather based his resolution on the demeanor of the uuItinse,,s
and the record as a whole
In his Decision, the Administrative I.au. Judge noted that Respond-
ent's attorney. Normaln Rothfeld. had characterizied the Company's p,s-
tion regarding modification of the certified unit as "ulconscionable " rWe
are unable to locate this statenmetr in the record Acciirdingly, e hereby
correct the Decilsion in this regard
In his recommended ()rder. te Admiistlratis I lau Judge failed to
direct Respotndent Io ceise ad desist front egaginig n al): like or relati-
ed conduct, and failed to include the language "and embody an) under-
standing reached in a signed agreertieni" in that section of he Order di-
recting Respondenl ti bargain, upon request, with Nxdorf Conmputr
Corporation We shall nilodify his recommnilded ()rder It) include thlese
prou isiorns
252 NLRB No. 82
representatives, shall take the action set forth in the
said recommended Order, as so modified:
1. Insert the following as paragraph l(b):
"(b) In any like or related manner engaging in
conduct in derogation of its duty to bargain in
good faith."
2. Substitute the following for paragraph 2(a):
"(a) Upon request bargain collectively with Nix-
dorf Computer Corporation concerning wages,
hours, and working conditions in the appropriate
unit, and embody any understanding in a signed
agreement."
3. Substitute the attached notice for that of the
Administrative Law Judge.
APPENDIX
NOTICi To MEMBERS
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAI. LABOR REI.AIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE Wll.t NOI refuse to bargain with Nix-
dorf Computer Corporation, with respect to
the Board-certified unit described below, by
adamantly insisting upon changes in the certi-
fied unit with respect to job classification and
geographical coverage. The certified unit for
which we are the statutory exclusive collec-
tive-bargaining representative is:
All associate field engineers, field engineers
I & 1, senior field engineers, and dispatch-
ers, employed by Nixdorf at 40 West 57th
Street, New York, New York; 225 West
34th Street, New York, New York; and
3003 New Hyde Park Road, New Hyde
Park, New York, excluding guards, all other
employees and all supervisors as defined by
the Act.
Wi: wII1 NOT in any like or related manner
engage in conduct in derogation of our duty to
bargain in good faith.
Wi. wi.l., upon request, bargain with Nix-
dorf Computer Corporation concerning wages,
hours, and other terms and conditions of em-
ployment of the employees in the appropriate
collective-bargaining unit described above. and
embody any understanding reached in a signed
agreement.
LOCAlI No. 3, INTERNA'IIONAI.
BROTHERHOOD OF EItECTRICAI.
WORKERS, AFL-CIO
5319
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
HOWARD EDELMAN, Administrative Law Judge: This
was heard in New York, New York, on February 19,
1980. Pursuant to charges filed in Case 2-CB-7907 by
Nixdorf Computer Corporation herein called Nixdorf or
the Company, the Regional Director for Region 2, on
August 22, 1979, issued a complaint and notice of hear-
ing. The complaint alleged that Local Union No. 3, In-
ternational Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-
CIO, herein called Respondent, violated Section 8(b)(3)
of the Act. The complaint in substance alleges that
during collective-bargaining negotiations between Nix-
dorf and Respondent, Respondent has at all times de-
manded as a condition of consummating any collective-
bargaining agreement that Nixdorf include in such col-
lective-bargaining agreement a recognition clause which
includes classifications of employees specifically excluded
in a Board-certified unit.
Briefs have been received from all parties and have
been duly considered.
Upon the entire record, including my observation of
the demeanor of the witnesses, I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. JURISDICTION
Nixdorf, a Massachusetts corporation, is engaged in
the manufacture, sale, and leasing of computer equipment
and related products. At all times material herein Nix-
dorf has maintained its principal office in Burlington,
Massachusetts, as well as offices and places of business at
one Penn Plaza, New York, New York, 40 West 50th
Street, New York, New York, and 3003 New Hyde Park
Road, New Hyde Park, New York. During the past
year, Nixdorf in the course of its operations purchased
and received, at its New York facilities, goods and mate-
rials valued in excess of $50,000 directly from points out-
side the State of New York. Respondent admits, and I
find that Nixdorf is an employer within the meaning of
Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.
Respondent also admits and I find that it is and has
been at all times material herein a labor organization
within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
11. THE AILEGEI) UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
In June 1978, a National Labor Relations Board elec-
tion was conducted by the Board in connection with cer-
tain employees employed by Nixdorf. Thereafter, on
July 11, 1978, Respondent was certified as the exclusive
collective-bargaining representative of the unit of em-
ployees set forth below:
All associate field engineers, field engineers I &
11, senior field engineers, and dispatchers, employed
by the Employer at 40 West 57th Street, New
York, New York, 225 West 34th Street, New York,
New York, and 3003 New Hyde Park Road, New
Hyde Park, New York, excluding guards, all other
employees, and all supervisors as defined by the
Act.
At the time the certification issued, Nixdorf employed
approximately 26 employees in the unit described above.
At the same time, Nixdorf also employed several em-
ployees in the classifications "district and regional spe-
cialists." Nixdorf additionally had a classification "dis-
trict field engineer." However, no employees were em-
ployed at the time of the hearing or at the time bargain-
ing took place in this classification.
Collective-bargaining negotiations between the parties
commenced on August 22, 1978. These negotiations con-
tinued periodically, approximately one negotiation ses-
sion every 3 weeks, from August 22, 1978, through Janu-
ary 1980. There were approximately 15 collective-bar-
gaining sessions in all. The collective-bargaining sessions
conducted from August 22, 1978, through October 1979
were conducted under the supervision of the Federal
Mediation and Conciliation Service and bargaining ses-
sions took place at their offices at the World Trade
Center. In or about October 1979, the mediator informed
the parties that he would no longer be in attendance.
However, parties continued to use their facilities at the
Trade Center for bargaining. The chief negotiator for
Nixdorf was its attorney, Paul Lyons. Also present for
Nixdorf at these negotiations was attorney Steve Hengen
and various other company officials. Respondent's nego-
tiating team was headed by John Crowley, business rep-
resentative. Also present for Respondent during these ne-
gotiations was a negotiating committee consisting of var-
ious unit employees employed by Nixdorf who were
members of Respondent.
At the initial bargaining session on August 22, Crow-
ley presented Respondent's proposals to the Company in
the form of a draft contract. There was no discussion
concerning the specific proposals set forth in this con-
tract during this session. However, it was agreed that ne-
gotiations would generally take place by a discussion of
the draft proposals set forth in Respondent's proposed
contract in chronological order. Following a discussion
of Respondent's proposals, Nixdorrs proposals would be
discussed similarly in chronological order.
Article I, section 11, of Respondent's proposals pro-
vided as follows:
All field engineers, dispatchers, district specialists
and regional specialists employed by the company
in or out of the employer's New York Metropolitan
Area and Long Island offices and/or performing
service modification or installation work in the geo-
graphic area covered by this agreement on products
sold, installed, or maintained by Nixdorf Computer
Corporation and any products now and hereafter
developed. The New York Metropolitan Area in-
cludes the five (5) boroughs, Long Island and the
counties of Westchester, Putnam, Rockland, Dut-
chess, Ulster, and Orange and the county of Fair-
field in Connecticut.'
At the hearing, the General Counsel moved to amend par 9(a) of the
complaint to include the demand by Respondent that as a condition of
consummating a collective-bargaining agreement the employer Nixdorf
agree that the unit covered by such agreement must include all locations
in or out of the employer's New York Metropolitan Area and Long
Continued
540
IO()CAL NO. 3, IB.E.W.
The second bargaining session was held on September
22, at the Sheraton Inn at LaGuardia Airport, New York
City. During the course of this session, Company Repre-
sentative Lyons objected to the inclusion by Respondent
in its unit proposal of the job classifications "regional
specialist, district specialists, and district field engineers."
Lyons told Respondent's representatives that these three
classifications were not included in the Board-certified
unit and therefore should not be included in Respond-
ent's proposed bargaining unit. Crowley responded that
district and regional specialists were performing bargain-
ing unit work. Lyons restated Nixdorfs position. Ac-
cording to the testimony of Barry Blanchard, who was
present at the negotiation and employed at the time by
Nixdorf as the director of industrial relations, Crowley
stated, "In that case no contract will be signed." Crow-
ley denies this statement. For reasons set forth below I
credit Blanchard. 2 Lyons pointed out that this area was
the subject of permissive bargaining and that he would
not discuss it. According to Blanchard, Lyons also told
Crowley that Respondent's unit demand covered a geo-
graphic area outside the scope of the certification. Crow-
ley responded that for purposes of this agreement the
counties set forth in Respondent's proposed unit would
be included.3
The next bargaining session where Respondent's unit
demand was discussed took place in June 1979. This
meeting and all other negotiation sessions discussed
herein took place at the offices at the Federal Mediation
and Conciliation Service in New York. During the meet-
ing and in connection with a discussion of a section of
Respondent's demands relative to job descriptions, Com-
pany Representative Lyons asked if the term job descrip-
tion as used in Article 21 of Respondent's demands re-
Island offices including the five boroughs, Long Island, the counties of
Westchester, Putnam, Rckland. Dutchess. Ulster. and Orange in New
York and the county of Fairfield in Connecticut The General Counsel
contends that to the extent the geographical location set forth in Re-
spondent's demands exceeds the geographic location set forth in the certi-
fication Respondent has insisted upon the inclusion in any collective-bar-
gaining agreement executed by the parties of a nonmandator) condition.
2 Blanchard impressed me as a truthful and frthright witness His an-
swers during direct-examination and cross-examination were responsive
Moreover. Blanchard at the lime of his testimony was no longer em-
ployed by Nixdorf His testimony therefore was more that of a neutral
and impartial witness I find Crowley's denial of the statement attributed
to him by Blanchard to be inconsistent with the position that he took
throughout negotiations In this connection, Crowley testified that the
very reason Respondent included the additional classifications in its pro-
posed bargaining unit was based on its contention that the employees in
these classifications were performing bargaining unit work. Moreover.
during the entire course of negotiations Crowley testified that he in-
formed Lyons at various negotiations that the purpose of Respondent's
unit demand was to protect the work of the bargaining unit. In this
regard he informed Lyons that district and regional specialists were
doing unit work In view of this testimony by Crowley Blanchard's testi-
mony that Crowley stated that he would not sign a contract unless the
Union's proposed unit was included is logical and consistent with the po-
sition assumed by Crowley throughout the negotiations. Moreover, I take
judicial notice of a recent decision issued by Administrative Law Judge
Steven B. Fish, in connection with the same dispute wherein he conclud-
ed that Crowley was not a credible witness. Local Union No. 3. Interna-
rional Brotherhood of Electrical Worker. AFL-CIO (Nixdorf Computer
Corporation. JD-(NY)-18 80
I At the time of the hearing the Company had no facilities in West-
chester. Rockland. Putnam. Orange, Dutchess, and Ulster counties in
New York or in Fairfield county in Connecticut
ferred to the certified unit or the unit as demanded by
Respondent. The Federal mediator who was present at
this negotiation stated that the certified unit should be
discussed. Lyons stated that he could live with the certi-
fied unit. Crowley stated he could not. At this meeting,
or the following meeting in July 1979, Crowley again
contended that district and regional specialists were per-
forming unit work. No further discussion took place in
connection with Respondent's demand concerning the
bargaining unit at this bargaining session.
The next bargaining session was held in July 1979.
During this session a discussion took place concerning a
section in Respondent's demands relative to district and
regional specialists. Crowley stated that senior field engi-
neers should be able to be promoted into a district or re-
gional specialists category and if necessary return to a
field engineer classification. Lyons asked how this relat-
ed to seniority provisions for those who left the unit and
later returned. Crowley stated he considered the district
and regional specialists positions to be in the unit. Lyons
asked Crowley if he would sign a contract without these
classifications in the unit. Crowley stated he could not
envision that happening.
The next bargaining session where the unit issue was
discussed, took place in October 1979. During this dis-
cussion, Lyons stated that for further negotiations he
considered the unit to be that encompassed by the certifi-
cation. Crowley responded that he considered the unit to
be that reflected in Respondent's contract proposals.
There was no further discussion during the course of this
session concerning the bargaining unit.
The next meeting at which the bargaining unit was
discussed took place in January 1980. Present for Re-
spondent in addition to Crowley was Respondent's attor-
ney Norman Rothfeld. During the course of this session
Lyons stated the company proposals related to those
classifications covered by the certified unit. Rothfeld re-
plied that the company position as to the unit was
unconscionable.
Since the January 1980 meeting, no further negotia-
tions have taken place.
On January 15, 1979, Respondent commenced an eco-
nomic strike against Nixdorf. Approximately 13 or 14
unit employees, of the 26 bargaining unit members went
out on strike. As of the date of this hearing, this econom-
ic strike was still in progress. During the course of this
strike, Respondent hired replacements to perform unit
work. To date, 30 to 31 employees are presently em-
ployed by Respondent within the classifications set forth
in the certified unit.
Since the certification issued, two field engineers have
been promoted to the disputed specialists categories.
Analysis and Conclusion
The Board has continually held that the modification
of a Board-certified unit is not a mandatory subject of
bargaining and that the insistence by a party in the face
of a continuing rejection upon modification of a Board-
certified unit as a condition of consummating a collec-
tive-bargaining agreement constitutes refusal to bargain
in good faith. Newport News Ship Building, 236 NLRB
541
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS H()OARD
1637, 1643 (1978); Newspaper Printing Corporation, 232
NLRB 291 (1977); National Fresh Fruit & Vegetable
Company and Quality Banana Co., Inc., 227 NLRB 2014
(1977); International Longshoremen's Association, 118
NLRB 1481 (1957).
The evidence establishes that throughout the collec-
tive-bargaining negotiations between the parties herein,
Respondent continually insisted, in the face of the Com-
pany's continuing rejection, that any collective-bargain-
ing agreement negotiated must contain a recognition
clause which included the classifications of district and
regional specialists. There is no dispute that such classifi-
cations were excluded from the certified unit herein.
That Respondent insisted such classifications must be in-
cluded in any agreement negotiated herein is established
by the following. At the initial bargaining session on
August 22, Respondent's written proposals set forth a
unit broader in both the included classifications and in
the geographical coverage in the certified unit. At the
second bargaining session on September 22, Crowley in
response to the Company's objection to the inclusion of
the additional specialist classifications informed Lyons,
the company negotiator, that unless the Company agreed
to the inclusion of the district and regional specialists, no
contract will be signed. During this meeting Lyons also
objected to the inclusion, to the extent it varied from the
certification, of the broad geographic coverage of Re-
spondent's recognition clause. Crowley's response to this
objection was that, for purposes of this agreement, the
counties set forth in Respondent's proposed unit would
be included. I find that the context of these negotiations,
all further discussions concerning Respondent's proposed
recognition clause, included by implication the geograph-
ical variation set forth in Respondent's initial demands.
In the June 1979 negotiation, during a discussion of the
recognition clause, Lyons stated that he could live with
the certified unit. Crowley responded he could not. In
the July 1979 negotiation, during a discussion of the bar-
gaining unit, Crowley stated he considered the district
and regional specialists to be within the unit. When
Lyons asked Crowley whether he would sign a contract
without these classifications in the unit, Crowley said he
could not envision that happening. During the October
1979 negotiation, Lyons stated that for further negotia-
tions he considered the unit to be that encompassed by
the certification. Crowley responded that he considered
the unit to be that reflected in Respondent's contract
proposals. Finally, during the last negotiation held in
January 1980, Lyons stated that the company proposals
related to those classifications covered by the certified
unit. Respondent's attorney Rothfeld replied that the
Company position as to the unit was unconscionable.
Moreover, Crowley, during the course of his testimony
admitted that Respondent, throughout the negotiations,
repeatedly demanded that the union recognition clause
include district and regional specialists and that the Com-
pany repeatedly took the position that his demand was
en illegal demand to which they would not agree. On
the basis of these essentially undisputed facts, I conclude
that at all times during the course of negotiations, Re-
spondent insisted that any contract negotiated must con-
tain Respondent's unit proposal. To insist upon such
variation from the certified unit in the face of the Com-
pany's repeated objections constitutes refusal to bargain
by Respondent in violation of Section 8(b)(3) of the Act.
Respondent's contention that no impasse was reached
because of the number of unresolved issues is really not
germane to the issue before me. The real thrust of the
authorities cited herein is that the insistence of a non-
mandatory subject of bargaining, as a condition to the
execution of a collective-bargaining agreement in the
face of repeated rejection by the other party, is in itself
in violation, whatever the state of negotiations as to
other proposals may be. As set forth in National Fresh
Fruit. supra, the fact that there may have been other un-
resolved issues extant at the close of bargaining, in addi-
tion to the unit issue does not exculpate Respondent
from liability. "It is sufficient if the clerks unit placement
was one of the unresolved points facing the parties
which prevented agreement, the law is clear that an im-
passe may result from one or a number of unresolved dif-
ferences of position." Thus, Respondent's argument that
an impasse could not have taken place because of the
number of unresolved issues still on the bargaining table
is without merit.
Respondent additionally contends that it was not seek-
ing to expand upon the certified unit, but rather seeking
by its demand to include district and regional specialists
because they were performing unit work. In support of
this contention Crowley testified that on the day of the
election he observed a district specialist working along-
side a field engineer apparently performing the same
work. Crowley additionally testified that between the
date of the election and the first collective-bargaining ne-
gotiation, on August 22, several unnamed unit employees
informed him that district and regional specialists were
performing unit work. However, at no time during the
hearing did Respondent introduce evidence to establish
just what unit work was allegedly being performed by
these district and regional specialists. Respondent's con-
tention in this regard is therefore unsupported by any
competent evidence. However, assuming Respondent's
contention to be true, nevertheless it would appear that
Respondent is confusing eligibility within the certified
unit with unit composition.
It is one thing for Respondent to argue that specific in-
dividuals employed in classifications not within the certi-
fied unit but allegedly performing unit work be included
within the certified unit, but quite another to insist that
the classification to which these individuals belong be
added to the unit. The demand for inclusion of additional
classifications as a condition to the execution of a collec-
tive-bargaining agreement, as opposed to a demand for
inclusion of those specific individuals allegedly perform-
ing unit work, constitutes a demand for an expanded
unit. Such demand, involving a nonmandatory subject of
bargaining in the face of continuing company rejection
constitutes a refusal to bargain in violation of the Act.
Accordingly, I conclude that Respondent throughout
the course of collective-bargaining negotiations insisted
that any collective-bargaining agreement consummated
must include a union recognition clause which was
broader than the certified unit in the job classification in-
542
LOCAL NO. 3. 1.IH.E.W
eluded and geographical area covered. I further con-
clude that the insistence of such clause by Respondent in
the face of repeated rejection by the Company consti-
tutes an unlawful refusal to bargain in violation of Sec-
tion 8(b)(3) of the Act.
CONCI.USIONS OF LAW
1. Nixdorf is an employer engaged in commerce within
the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. Respondent is a labor organization within the mean-
ing of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. Respondent is the exclusive collective-bargaining
representative of all associate field engineers, field engi-
neers I and II, senior field engineers, dispatchers, em-
ployed by Nixdorf at 40 West 57th Street, New York,
New York, 225 West 34th Street, New York, New York,
and 3003 New Hyde Park Road, New Hyde Park, New
York, excluding guards, all other employees and supervi-
sors as defined in the Act.
4. By demanding, as a condition of consummating a
collective-bargaining agreement that Nixdorf agree that
the unit covered by such agreement must include job
classifications and geographical coverage not encom-
passed within the Board-certified unit, Respondent has
violated Section 8(b)(3) of the Act.
5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor
practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Sec-
tion 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has committed certain
unfair labor practices, I shall recommend that it be or-
dered to cease and desist therefrom and take certain af-
firmative action deemed necessary to effectuate the poli-
cies of the Act.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and
conclusions of law and upon the entire record in this
proceeding, I hereby issue the following recommended:
ORDER 4
The Respondent, Local Union No. 3, International
Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, its offi-
cers, agents, and representatives, shall:
4 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the
Rules and Regulations of he National Labor Relations Board, the find-
ings, conclusions, and recommended Order herein shall, as provided n
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.
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Refusing to bargain with Nixdorf Computer Corpo-
ration, herein called Nixdorf, with respect to the Board-
certified unit described below, by adamantly insisting
upon changes in the certified unit with respect to job
classifications and geographical coverage.
The certified unit for which Respondent is the statu-
tory exclusive collective-bargaining representative is:
All associate field engineers, field engineers I &
11, senior field engineers, and dispatchers, employed
by the Employer at 40 West 57th Street, New
York, New York, 225 West 34th Street, New York,
New York, and 3003 New Hyde Park Road, New
Hyde Park, New York, excluding guards, all other
employees, and all supervisors as defined by the
Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which is nec-
essary to effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Bargain with Nixdorf concerning wages, hours, and
other terms and conditions of employment of the em-
ployees in the appropriate collective-bargaining unit de-
scribed above.
(b) Post at Respondent's offices and meeting halls, and
all places where notices to members are customarily
posted, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix
A." 5 Copies of said notice on forms provided by the Re-
gional Director for Region 2, after being duly signed by
Respondent's representatives, shall be posted by it imme-
diately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by Re-
spondent for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicu-
ous places, including all places where notices to members
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.
(c) Sign and mail sufficient copies of said notice to the
aforesaid Regional Director for forwarding to Nixdorf
for information and, if they are willing, for posting by
them in all locations where notices to employees are cus-
tomarily posted.
(d) Notify the Regional Director for Region 2, in writ-
ing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what
steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
5 In the event that this Order is enforced by a Judgment of a United
States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by
Order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursu-
ant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an
Order of the National Labor Relations Board."
543