Luke's Supermarket, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 16, 1977

228 N.L.R.B. 763 (N.L.R.B. 1977)

LUKE'S SUPERMARKET 763
Luke's Supermarket, Inc. and Amalgamated Meat
Cutters & Butcher Workmen of North America,
AFL-CIO, Local 539. Cases 7-CA-12772 and 7-
RC-13390
March 16, 1977
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS FANNING, PENELLO, AND
WALTHER
On August 31, 1976, Administrative Law Judge
Lowell Goerlich issued the attached Decision in this
proceeding. Thereafter, counsel for the General
Counsel filed exceptions and a supporting brief, and
the Respondent filed a brief in opposition to the
General Counsel's 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 1 of the Administrative Law Judge
and to adopt his recommended Order, as modified
herein.2
We agree with the Administrative Law Judge's
finding that Robert Spicer was a supervisor at the
time of his employment with Respondent. We further
agree with his recommendations that the challenge to
Spicer's ballot be sustained, and that the allegations
in the complaint concerning Spicer be dismissed.
Spicer was hired to be the manager of Respon-
dent's meat department by Donald Bolstetter,
president and owner of Respondent. At that time,
Bolstetter told Spicer that he had the authority to
direct the meat department employees. In this
regard, Spicer would tell the employees to grind and
trim meat, fill the meat trays, and wait on customers.
The employees testified that they generally were
aware of the things that needed to be done because a
daily routine had been established under Spicer's
direction. However, if they needed something to do
or if they had any difficulties in their work, they
would go to Spicer. On occasion, Spicer would ask
the supervisor of the grocery department to help him
out when the meat department was particularly busy,
and this supervisor had been directed by Bolstetter to
comply with Spicer's request.
1 In the absence of exceptions , we adopt proforma the Administrative
Law Judge's findings that Respondent engaged in independent 8(a)(1)
violations.
2 As the Administrative Law Judge inadvertently omitted from his
recommended Order the Board 's traditional language requiring the
Respondent to cease and desist from in any like or related manner
infringing upon employee rights, we shall modi fy his recommended Order
and notice by providing suchlanguage.
228 NLRB No. 91
While the majority of Spicer' s time was spent in
preparing meat for sale and in directing employees,
he had additional responsibilities as well. He and
Bolstetter would determine how much meat the store
would need to purchase for sale, and Spicer would
then place the orders with various meat suppliers. If a
meat supplier not regularly contacted by the store
came into the store seeking an order for meat, he
would discuss the matter with either Spicer or
Bolstetter. Spicer frequently dealt with state meat
inspectors. A portion of Respondent' s business
consists of preparing sides of meat for customers to
freeze at home. Spicer would take these customer
orders and prepare the meat. Spicer would also assist
in setting the prices on meat , particularly when he
was aware that there was a large supply of a certain
item and he determined that a lower than regular
price would help sell the product more quickly.
Spicer also assisted Bolstetter in preparing newspa-
per advertisements.
For the most part, employees would speak with
Bolstetter regarding various personnel-related mat-
ters, such as wage increases , work schedules, and
vacations. Several employees testified that if they
wanted to leave work early they would contact either
Spicer or Bolstetter, whoever was in the store at the
time . One employee testified that if he were sick and
could not come into work he would inform either
Spicer or Bolstetter. On at least one occasion, Spicer
called an employee in to work on his day off.
When Spicer was out with an injury, he was
requested by Bolstetter to "come in and just kind of
point [a] finger in supervising." Bolstetter testified
that he stated to Spicer at this time, "I know you
can't work but you can supervise."
Considering all the circumstances , we are of the
opinion, contrary to our dissenting colleague, that
Spicer did in fact responsibly direct employees in
their work.3 The fact that Spicer did not have
authority in personnel-related matters is, in our
opinion, not critical to a finding that he nonetheless
exercised supervisory authority. It appears that
Respondent's store is not large , and that Bolstetter
takes an active part in its daily management. We do
not think it uncommon in such a situation to find
that he would be the person to whom employees
would go for wage increases, schedule changes, and
vacations. If Spicer were found not to be a supervi-
sor, the meat department employees would, in effect,
be without close daily supervision which, considering
3 Our colleague cites testimony indicating that, during the period of
Bolstetter's illness , the employees looked to Bruce Mackie for supervision.
However, Bolstetter testified that Mackie never had any supervisory
authority at any time. Furthermore, Mackie himself stated that Bolstetter
did not give him any authority during this period.
764 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the complexities of operating a supermarket, and his
involvement in his other retail enterprises, Bolstetter
could not effectively provide.4
Spicer's authority to direct employees, as well as
his involvement in ordering meat, dealing with
salespeople and inspectors, and preparing newspaper
advertisements, convinces us that Spicer was a
supervisor at the time of his employment.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board adopts as its Order the recommend-
ed Order of the Administrative Law Judge as
modified below and hereby orders that the Respon-
dent, Luke's Supermarket, Inc., Sebewaing, Michi-
gan, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall
take the action set forth in said recommended Order,
as so modified:
1. Insert the following as paragraph 1(c):
"(c) 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. Substitute the attached notice for that of the
Administrative Law Judge.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Regional Director
for Region 7 shall issue a revised tally of ballots and
the appropriate certification for the election held in
Case 7-RC-13390.
MEMBER FANNING, concurring in part and dissenting
in part:
I agree with the Administrative Law Judge's
finding that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) by
unlawfully interrogating employees, unlawfully solic-
iting grievances, and unlawfully threatening to sell its
business if the Union won the election. However,
contrary to my colleagues, I would reverse the
Administrative Law Judge and find that Spicer was
an employee, count his ballot, and remand the case
to the Administrative Law Judge to decide the 8(a)(1)
and 8(a)(3) allegations involving Spicer.
The Administrative Law Judge's reasons for
finding Spicer to be the supervisor of the meat
department are not clearly articulated. Certain
incidents are, however, listed by him apparently to
support this finding. These are: Spicer on occasion
granted Eremia permission to leave early, once
reported an employee for theft, once told Hoppe to
get a haircut, once reprimanded Hoppe for tardiness,
once called Burley into work on his day off, ordered
meat, and helped write Respondent's advertisements.
Two employees are quoted as saying that Spicer
We agree with our colleague that the record shows that Bolstetter did
spend quite a bit of time in the meat department , where he assisted in filling
the meat counter , straightening the cooler, and finding work for the
"would run the show" and was the "boss" of the
meat department. Finally, the Administrative Law
Judge emphasizes that Bolstetter, Respondent's
owner, told Spicer, after a month's absence due to an
injury, to come to work during the week of the
election and "just kind of point [his] finger in
supervising."
Employees Farver, Koch, Hoppe, and Burley each
testified that Bolstetter, not Spicer, set the meat
department employees' work schedules, lunch hours,
and vacations and decided whether to permit
employees to leave early. The Administrative Law
Judge ignored this testimony when evaluating Eremi-
a's statement that she occasionally asked Spicer to let
her leave early. Further, her testimony referred to a
period during which her husband was ill. She stated
that when she would ask to leave early because of her
husband's illness she "asked either Bob [Spicer] or
Don [Bolstetter], whichever one was there, and I
never had a problem. They knew the conditions at
home and they would let me go." The testimony of
the other four meat department employees indicates
that Bolstetter would have initially decided whether
to permit Eremia to leave early because of her
husband's illness. After that, as long as her reason for
wanting to leave early was the same, Spicer, by
permitting her to do so, was only following Bolstet-
ter's orders, without exercising independent judg-
ment. As Eremia said, "[t ]hey knew the conditions at
home and they would let me go."
The incidents involving Hoppe and Spicer's report
of stealing were apparently mentioned to show his
authority to discipline employees. The Administra-
tive Law Judge, however, fails to mention that
Bolstetter told Spicer that Hoppe's tardiness was
none of his business, and that Spicer's complaints
about Hoppe's hair and his reports about the thefts
were ignored. Thus, contrary to what the Adminis-
trative Law Judge might have us infer, these
incidents show only that Spicer could not effectively
recommend the discipline of employees.
The testimony that Spicer was the "Boss" of the
meat department, "would run the show," and
Bolstetter's self-serving statement that Spicer would
"point [his] finger in supervising" during the week of
the election were apparently mentioned to show
Spicer could "responsibly direct employees." But the
test is not what the alleged supervisor is called but
whether he actually "responsibly directs employees."
The record does not support a conclusion that Spicer
responsibly directed the meat department employees.
Bolstetter hired Spicer as a meatcutter and so, not
suprisingly, 90 percent of Spicer's time was spent
employees to do However, during the time he spent in the meat department,
he was also involved in preparing newspaper advertisements, determining
how much meat to order, and figuring the store's profit
LUKE'S SUPERMARKET
cutting meat. The remainder of his time was spent
grinding hamburger , making sausage, serving cus-
tomers, ordering meat, and helping write advertise-
ments . While a few employees testified that Spicer
sometimes told them what to do, such purported
instructions, both before and after his injury, were of
a routine nature. Thus, Spicer told employees to
grind hamburger, make sausage, keep the meat trays
filled, and serve customers. These instructions did
not require the exercise of independent judgment,
since any employee could look at a meat tray and
ascertain that there was not enough hamburger to
satisfy a customer's request or see that a customer
was waiting. Moreover, as another meat department
employee testified, "after a while you know what you
are supposed to do, you don't need anybody to tell
you." That this was true is supported by the fact that
nobody was hired to replace Spicer immediately after
his discharge because, according to Eremia, the
employees "all knew what had to be done ...." 5
In conclusion, Spicer did not have the authority to
discipline, assign , or responsibly direct employees.
Nor was evidence introduced to show Spicer had the
authority to, or could effectively recommend that,
the Respondent hire, transfer, suspend, lay off, recall,
promote, discharge, or reward meat department
employees. The Respondent was only able to show a
single instance when Spicer called an employee in to
work during his 6 years as a meatcutter. This one-
shot exercise of supervisory authority, however, does
not establish supervisory status. Clearly, Spicer was
an employee 6 and his ballot should have been
counted. I would also remand the case to the
Administrative Law Judge to make findings, includ-
ing credibility findings, on the allegation that Spicer's
discharge violated Section 8(a)(3), and on the 8(a)(1)
allegations involving Spicer.
5 My colleagues' finding that the meat department would have been
without immediate daily supervision if Spicer were found not to be a
supervisor is incorrect . Bolstetter admitted that he spent "quite a bit" of
time in the meat department, and Spicer testified that from 80 to 85 percent
of the time that he was on duty Bolstetter was also present . Even during the
period of Bolstetter 's absence because of illness, from early September 1975
until mid-November 1975, Spicer was not given supervisory powers. Koch's
testimony indicates that during this 2-1/2-month period the employees
looked to Mackie , Bolstetter's father-in-law , for supervision . It is therefore
clear that the meat department employees were under the immediate daily
supervision of either Bolstetter or Mackie , but not Spicer.
6 See St Louis Bagel Bakers, Inc., 224 NLRB 307 (1976). The fact that
Spicer helped to order meat and write newspaper advertisements and dealt
with salespeople and meat inspectors is irrelevant to the question of his
supervisory status.
APPENDIX
765
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT unlawfully interrogate any of our
employees concerning their union activities or
unlawfully solicit employee grievances in such a
manner as to interfere with their rights guaran-
teed by the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended.
WE WILL NOT unlawfully threaten to sell our
supermarket operation if our employees choose a
union as their bargaining agent.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner
interfere with , restrain, or coerce our employees
in the exercise of their rights guaranteed in
Section 7 of the Act.
LUKE'S SUPERMARKET,
INC.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
LOWELL GOERLICH, Administrative Law Judge: The
charge filed in Case 7-CA-12772 by Amalgamated Meat
Cutters & Butcher Workmen of North America, AFL-
CIO, Local #539, herein referred to as the Union, was
served on Luke's Supermarket , Inc., the Respondent
herein, by registered mail on February 21, 1976. A
complaint and notice of consolidated hearing was issued
on April 7, 1976. On the same date a Report on Challenged
Ballots was issued by the Regional Director for Region 7 in
Case 7-RC-13390, together with an order consolidating
Cases 7-CA-12772 and 7-RC- 13390 for hearing.
On January 14, 1976, an election had been conducted in
Case 7-RC-13390 among the Respondent's employees who
were employed in a meat department unit . The ballots of
employees Robert Spicer and Helen Eremia were chal-
lenged by the Respondent and the Union respectively. The
Respondent claimed Spicer was a supervisor within the
meaning of the Act.
In his Report on Challenged Ballots , the Regional
Director found that the challenges were of sufficient
number to affect the results of the election and, in that the
circumstances surrounding the eligibility of the challenged
voters raised substantial and material factual issues
including credibility resolutions which could best be
resolved after a hearing thereon, the Regional Director
ordered that these matters and those raised in Case 7-CA-
12772 be heard and considered simultaneously by an
Administrative Law Judge.
The complaint in Case 7-CA-12772 charged that the
Respondent had unlawfully discharged Spicer on or about
January 23, 1976, in violation of Section 8(a)(3) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended , herein referred
766 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
to as the Act, and had engaged in certain violations of
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
The Respondent filed a timely answer denying that it
had committed any of the unfair labor practices alleged.
The consolidated case came on for hearing at Bad Axe,
Michigan, on June 30, 1976, and July 1, 1976. Each party
was afforded a full opportunity to be heard, to call,
examine, and cross-examine witnesses, to argue orally on
the record, to submit proposed findings of fact and
conclusions, and to file briefs. No party chose to file a
brief.
FINDINGS OF FACT,' CONCLUSIONS, AND REASONS
THEREFOR
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
Respondent is, and has been at all times material herein,
a corporation duly organized under, and existing by virtue
of, the laws of the State of Michigan.
At all times material herein, Respondent has maintained
its only office and place of business at 8856 Unionville
Road, in the city of Sebewaing, and State of Michigan.
Respondent is, and has been at all times material herein,
engaged in the retail sale of groceries, meats, and related
products.
During the year ending December 31, 1975, which period
is representative of its operations during all times material
hereto, Respondent's gross revenues from the sale of meats,
groceries, and related products exceeded $500,000. During
the same period of time Respondent, in the course and
conduct of its business operations, purchased and caused
to be transported and delivered at its Sebewaing store
natural gas valued in excess of $1,000 from the Consumers
Power Company, 90 percent of which gas was received by
Consumers Power Company at its Michigan plants directly
from points located outside the State of Michigan, and it
purchased in excess of $25,000 worth of groceries from
suppliers which had received the goods sent on to
Respondent from directly outside the State of Michigan.
Respondent is now and has been at all times material
herein an employer engaged in commerce within the
meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The Union is and has been at all times material herein a
labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of
the Act.
III. CASE 7-RC-13390
The Challenged Ballots
The challenge to employee Helen Eremia's ballot was
withdrawn by the Union at the commencement of the
The facts found herein are based on the record as a whole and the
observation of the witnesses . The credibility resolutions herein have been
derived from a review of the entire testimonial record and exhibits, with due
regard for the logic of probability, the demeanor of the witnesses , and the
teachings of N.LR B v Walton Manufacturing Company & Loganville Pants
Co, 369 U S. 404, 408 (1962). As to those witnesses testifying in
contradiction to the findings herein, their testimony has been discredited,
either as having been in conflict with the testimony of credible witnesses or
hearing. The ballot was opened and it was reported by the
Regional Director that Eremia had voted "no." Thus, the
tally stood four votes for the Union and four votes against
it. Hence Robert Spicer's ballot became determinative of
the results of the election.
The Respondent operated a supermarket divided into
grocery produce and meat departments. James Christner,
an admitted supervisor within the meaning of the Act,
headed the grocery department. Spicer, who was assigned
to the meat department, according to the Respondent,
performed duties which rendered him likewise a supervisor
within the meaning of the Act. In support of this claim it
was disclosed that Spicer was hired in October 1969 to
"manage" the meat department. At the time he was told by
Donald Bolstetter, president and owner of the Respondent,
that "he was in charge."
On January 29, 1975, and at other times Spicer was
pictured in a Respondent advertisement carried in the
Huron Daily Tribune, a Bad Axe, Michigan, newspaper, as
a "meat manager." 2 In May 1974 in a Sebewaing,
Michigan, newspaper he was labeled as the "head meat
cutter." In this regard Spicer testified that "at times" he
was "under the impression" that he was the meat manager.
Employer John Farver described Spicer's work: "He would
be the general - let's say foreman like, or he would run the
show. He would help us out. Tell us what to do a little bit.
If we were standing around, he would put us to work."
When employee Helen Eremia was hired Bolstetter told her
that Spicer "would tell [her] what to do and the days to
come in. Eremia referred to Spicer as "boss of the meat
department." Eremia also said that she asked Spicer on
occasion to leave early which he granted. Employee
Howard Hoppe was told several times by Spicer to get a
haircut.
In the summer of 1975 Spicer also "chewed out" Hoppe
for arriving late for work.3 Hoppe complained to Bolstetter
who told him not to let it "bother" him and to "do" his job.
Spicer summoned employee William Burley for work
other than during his normal working hours. Spicer also
reported an employee's thefts. Spicer ordered most of the
meat which the Respondent sold. About 90 percent of his
time Spicer spent cutting the meat. (The meat was
generally purchased as whole carcasses .) In addition he
filled the counter, ground hamburger, and "made a little
sausage now and then." He also participated in the
zomposition of the Respondent' s advertisements.
On December 18, 1975, Spicer injured his hand while at
work and he did not work again until the week of the
election. Although at this time Spicer had not completely
recovered from his injury, Bolstetter had asked him to
"come in and just kind of point [his] finger in supervising"
so that Bolstetter would have "some time to work up
front." Spicer discontinued working at the end of the week.
because it was in and of itself incredible and unworthy of belief. All
testimony has been reviewed and weighed in the light of the entire record.
No testimony has been pretermitted.
2 The advertisement in the Bad Axe newspaper was placed by Spicer.
3 Spicer admitted the incident. When Spicer reported the late arrivals of
Hoppe to Bolstetter, Bolstetter replied, "That's none of your business. I'll
take care of it - I'll take care of him."
LUKE'S SUPERMARKET
At the time of the election 11 persons worked in the meat
department.
The fact that Bolstetter asked Spicer to "point his finger
in supervising" together with the indicia of supervisory
authority detailed above is enough to bring Spicer's
authority within the definition of a supervisor as set out in
Section 2(11) of the Act and it is so found. Thus, it is
recommended that the challenge to Spicer's ballot be
sustained.
IV. CASE 7-CA-12772
The Unfair Labor Practices
Since it has been found that Spicer is a supervisor within
the meaning of the Act, the 8(a)(3) allegations and those
8(a)(1) allegations which concern Spicer must be dismissed.
During the middle of October 1975, employees James
Christner, Judy Koch, Arnie Kunish, Brenda Beers, and
John Farver met at Spicer's house with representatives of
the Union with the idea of organizing the meat department.
Later a meeting was held at James Christner's home for the
purpose of organizing the remaining employees. Immedi-
ately thereafter Bolstetter summoned certain employees
individually to his home where he queried them in regard
to the meetings. Bolstetter had learned of the meetings and
that they concerned the Union from his father-in-law,
Bruce Mackie, who worked at the store.
Employee Farver was asked by Bolstetter whether he had
any "gripes or any problems." Farver replied that he
objected to working on Sunday. Bolstetter informed Farver
that he would have to work on Sundays only until another
employee returned to work. Bolstetter also said that "he
did not figure a third party was needed, that we could
negotiate ourselves."
Bolstetter admitted that he had met with Hoppe, Farver,
Spicer, and Christner and inquired about their complaints.4
Bolstetter testified that he "tried to convey" to the
employees that "if they had a problem....... [he]
would help work it out."
Bolstetter's interrogations and solicitations of grievances
carrying with them the implied promise that the grievances
would be remedied were unlawful since they had a
tendency to coerce employees in the selection of a
bargaining agent and to impress upon employees that there
was no need to choose a union to rectify working
conditions and gain benefits and were in violation of
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. Northwest Engineering Company,
148 NLRB 1136, 1139-40 (1964), and Franklin Parish
Broadcasting, Inc., 222 NLRB 1133 (1976).
On another occasion Bolstetter told Farver that if the
"Union would go through he probably would sell the
store" and run a sports shop.
In the forepart of December, James Christner told
employee Donald Schweim that the store would be sold if
the Union came in. Schweim asked Bolstetter if what he
4 In respect to the subject of insurance Bolstetter testified he told the
employees , "Well, let's talk about it. If you want something else it's no big
deal."
s 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,
767
was told by Schweim was true; Bolstetter responded that
he would sell the store.
About 10 days after the election Schweim talked to
Bolstetter again. Among other things Bolstetter said that
"he would sell the store, perhaps not right away, but
perhaps in a year or so."
Bolstetter admitted that he told Schweim that he would
sell the store if the Union prevailed; ("a chance that I
would sell, or that I would.") Bolstetter testified that he
said the same thing to Farver. These threats to sell the store
were clearly in violation of Section 8(a)(l). Cf. Masdon
Industries, Inc., 212 NLRB 505 (1974); Franks Flower
Express, 219 NLRB 149 (1975).
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Union is a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
2. The Respondent is engaged in commerce within the
meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act and it will
effectuate the purposes of the Act for jurisdiction to be
exercised herein.
3. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing em-
ployees in the exercise of rights guaranteed by Section 7 of
the Act, the Respondent engaged in unfair labor practices
within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor
practices affecting commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
THE REMEDY
It having been found that the Respondent has engaged in
certain unfair labor practices, it is recommended that it
cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative
action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact,
conclusions of law, and the entire record in this proceed-
ing, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, I hereby issue
the following recommended:
ORDERS
The Respondent, Luke's Supermarket, Inc., Sebewaing,
Michigan, its officers, agents, successors , and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Unlawfully interrogating employees concerning
union matters and unlawfully soliciting employee grievanc-
es in such a manner as to interfere with employee rights
guaranteed under the Act.
(b) Unlawfully threatening to sell its supermarket
operation if its employees choose a union as their
bargaining agent.
2. Take the following affirmative action which will
effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Post at its Sebewaing, Michigan, store copies of the
attached notice marked "Appendix."6 Copies of said
notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for
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
6 In the event that the Board's Order is enforced by a Judgment of a
(Continued)
768 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Region 7, after being duly signed by the Respondent's
representative, shall be posted by it 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 7, in writing,
within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps the
Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the complaint be
dismissed insofar as it alleges violations of the Act other
than those found in this Decision.
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 Relations Board."