McGlothlin, Inc.Download PDFNational Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsFeb 19, 1976222 N.L.R.B. 972 (N.L.R.B. 1976) Copy Citation 972 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD McGlothlin, Inc. and Kenneth Paul Simpkins . Case APPENDIX 5-CA-7330 February 19, 1976 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN MURPHY AND MEMBERS FANNING AND JENKINS On October 10, 1975, Administrative Law Judge John M. Dyer issued the attached Decision in this proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent filed excep- tions 1 and a supporting brief. The General Counsel filed an answering brief to Respondent's exceptions. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na- tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its 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 briefs and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings, and conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge and to adopt his recommended Order, as modified herein. 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 modified below and hereby orders that the Respondent, Mc- Glothlin, Inc., Tazewell, Virginia, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the said recommended Order, as so modified. 1. In paragraph 1(b) substitute "other" for "like or related." 2. Substitute the following for paragraph 2(a). "(a) Offer Kenneth Paul Simpkins and Berney Tignor reinstatement to their former positions or, if those positions no longer exist, to substantially equiv- alent ones, without prejudice to their seniority or other rights and privileges." 3. Substitute the attached notice for that of the Administrative Law Judge. i Respondent excepted to the Administrative Law Judge's rendering his Decision without any brief being served on Respondent's counsel and, in its brief, argues "that there should be either a new trial or an opportunity for counsel for Respondent to review the brief filed by General Counsel with the Law Judge." The General Counsel's brief was served on Respondent but, inadvertently, not on its counsel. However, a copy of the General Counsel's brief to the Administrative Law Judge was attached to the Gener- al Counsel's answering brief to Respondent's exceptions which was served on Respondent's counsel Thus, Respondent's counsel has obtained the op- portunity it requested to review the General Counsel's brief to the Adminis- trative Law Judge Moreover, there has been no claim or showing of preju- dice from the failure to serve Respondent's counsel earlier Accordingly, no further action with respect to this exception is warranted NOTICE To EMPLOYEES POSTED BY ORDER OF THE / NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government After a hearing in which the Company, Kenneth Paul Simpkins, and the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board participated and offered evi- dence, the National Labor Relations Board found that we violated the law and ordered us to post this notice and we intend to carry out the order of the Board and abide by the following: WE WILL offer Kenneth Paul Simpkins and Berney Tignor full reinstatement to their former positions or, if those positions no longer exist, to substantially equivalent ones, without prejudice to their seniority or other rights and privileges, and make them whole for any losses they suf- fered because of our discrimination. WE WILL NOT discharge, lay off, or refuse to hire or rehire any employee in order to try to discourage our employees from being or becom- ing members of a union. WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of their rights to self-organization, to form labor organizations, to join or assist a union, to bargain collectively with representa- tives of their own choosing, or to engage in con- certed activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any or all such activities. All our employees are free to become or remain union members. MCGLOTHLIN, INC. DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE JOHN M. DYER , Administrative Law Judge : Kenneth Paul Simpkins filed a charge on June 9, 1975,! which was amended on June 30 , and alleged that McGlothlin, Inc., herein called Respondent or the Company, had violated Section 8 (a)(1) and (3) of the Act by discharging Simpkins and others. The Regional Director of Region 5, issued a complaint and notice of hearing on July 11, alleging that on January 3 Respondent had discriminatorily discharged Simpkins i Unless otherwise specifically stated all events herein occurred during 1975 222 NLRB No. 162 McGLOTHLIN, INC. 973 and Berney Tignor because of their protected concerted union activity. Respondent's July 15 answer admitted the commerce and jurisdictional allegations and that James McGlothlin was the president of Respondent and Ershell Vance was a dispatcher foreman at the material times but denied that it had discriminatorily discharged Simpkins and Tignor or violated the Act. Respondent stated that they were terminated because of their "substandard driving records resulting in excessive insurance, repair and other costs to Respondent." The principal question is whether Respondent dis- charged Simpkins and Tignor because it felt that they were involved in union organization at its plant or whether they were discharged for the reasons Respondent gives. The evi- dence is convincing that Respondent discharged Simpkins and Tignor because it felt they were working to bring a union into Respondent's plant. Respondent's evidence was self-contradictory on several important points and Mc- Glothlin and Vance did not impress me as credible witness- es. I have therefore concluded that Respondent violated the Act and will make appropriate recommendations to remedy the violations. All parties were afforded full opportunity to appear, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to argue orally at the hearing which was held on August 1, in Tazewell, Virginia. General Counsel and the Respondent have filed briefs which have been carefully considered. On the entire record in this case including my evaluation of the reliability of the witnesses based on the evidence received and my observation of their demeanor and the nature and manner in which the responses were made, I make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT Respondent is a Virginia corporation engaged in the dis- tribution of mine rock dust, predried traction sand, and rock bolts from its facilities located near Pounding Mill, Virginia. During the past year Respondent sold and shipped directly to points outside the State of Virginia products valued in excess of $50,000. Respondent admits and I find that it is engaged in com- merce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act. II. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Background and Undisputed Facts Respondent has two locations with offices; one near Pounding Mill where there is a store and a second some miles away at Sword's Creek where the truck dispatcher's office is located. The two offices maintain communications by two-way radio or phone. The truck dispatcher at that time was admitted Supervisor Ershell Vance. Mrs. Carol Miller, a bookkeeper, worked in that office under Vance and prepared mileage rates etc. The Company has some 40 to 50 drivers who haul rock dust, sand, and rock bolts to various locations in South Carolina, North Carolina, Virginia, West Virginia, and Kentucky. According to Simpkins and Tignor they worked between 70 and 100 hours a week and received $2.60 and $2.65 an hour, respectively, but did not receive overtime. Simpkins testified that during December 1974 he and some other employees discussed, the possibility of organiz- ing a union and arranged a meeting to be held at a local restaurant, known as the Mickey Mouse Restaurant, on Sunday, January 5. The drivers were invited by word of mouth to attend the meeting at which a field representative of a union was to appear and discuss union organization. Tignor testified that he did not hear about the meeting until Thursday, January 2, when a fellow driver told him about the coming Sunday meeting at the Mickey Mouse Restaurant. Respondent's liability insurance for its trucks had been on an assigned risk basis in the State of Virginia for a period ranging between 9 and 15 years according to the estimates of various witnesses. Its insurance policies were placed through the General Insurance Company in Blue- field, West Virginia, whose president, Hopper Lazenby, ac- knowledged that General Insurance Company received some $80,000 to $90,000 in premiums from Respondent yearly. B. The Discharges Mrs. Carol Miller worked for Respondent from Decem- ber 1974 until April 1975 when she quit. She testified that on Friday, January 3, dispatcher Vance came into her of- fice and told her that James McGlothlin, president of Re- spondent, had called him. Vance asked if she had heard any of the men talking about forming a union at the restau- rant near her house, that McGlothlin had said that some of the men were trying to form a union. Mrs. Miller said she had not and Vance said that, "we can't have that. This company can't be run that way." After making a delivery Simpkins returned to the dispatcher's office around noontime and overheard Vance telling Some mechanics or drivers that some of the drivers were starting a union and if he found out who it was he would fire them. Simpkins was dispatched for another trip and when he returned that evening was told by Vance that he was going to lay off Tignor and him because of insur- ance problems with their driving records. Simpkins went to the other building to bookkeeper Carol Miller's office and told her that he probably would not be seeing her anymore. When she asked why, he said they were discharging him probably over the union. Miller said that was what it was, because she had heard from Vance about the union and that Vance had been mad all day because of what the driv- ers were planning to do. Tignor testified that when he came in on Friday evening, Vance told him he was being discharged because the insur- ance company had grounded ,hum because of his driving record. Tignor asked Vance if .it was because of the union meeting and Vance replied it was because of his driving record. Mrs. Miller testified that later the same evening Vance told her that they had to lay off two of the men. When she asked who, he replied that it was Tignor and Simpkins and 974 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD said it was for insurance reasons. On the following day, January 4, Tignor returned to the plant and spent most of the day there , speaking to Mc- Glothlin and Vance on several occasions . On one occasion McGlothlin said that the insurance company had ground- ed Tignor and he could not work any more until McGloth- lin got it straightened out and that would take about 2 weeks. In speaking to Vance that day, Tignor asked if the layoff was on account of the meeting or why he was being laid off. Vance said that he did not - know anything about a meeting until the day before . Tignor asked Vance who told him about the meeting and Vance replied it was McGloth- lin. Later McGlothlin returned and Tignor asked if anybody had told him that Tignor was in on some kind of a meeting. McGlothlin said no . Tignor told him that they would wait and see but if anybody had told McGlothlin it was him (Tignor) that he had told a lie. At that McGlothlin went out to the shop door and spoke to Vance and according to Tignor, both Vance and McGlothlin turned somewhat red. On Monday , January 6, both Simpkins and Tignor re- turned to the plant to get their "cutoff" (layoff) slips. Simp- kins asked McGlothlin for a cutoff slip . McGlothlin said he had heard that there was a drivers ' meeting to be held at the restaurant on Sunday and asked if he had gone. Simp- kins said he did not go since he saw little use to it after McGlothlin fired him . McGlothlin asked how many driv- ers showed up on Sunday and Simpkins said he did not know because everybody got scared after McGlothlin fired Tignor and him , - that just about everybody "chickened out." Then McGlothlin asked how many of the drivers were involved in the union and Simpkins replied that if he knew he would not tell him because he did not want to get the guys fired. Tignor testified that on Monday morning he told Mc- Glothlin that if McGlothlin had not called Vance about the meeting that Vance must have called and told him. McGlothlin admitted that three or four men had told him that Tignor was in on the union meeting but would not tell Tignor who they were. McGlothlin said he did not know what to put on the cutoff slip and would just put down that they had quit. Both Tignor and Simpkins objected saying that McGloth- lin should put on the cutoff slips what he had told them, that they were being discharged because they could not be covered by the insurance company. McGlothlin agreed and had the secretary type up the slips, which gave as the reason: "Insurance Co. refused to cover driver because of driving record." Both slips were signed by James E. Mc- Glothhn. Approximately a week later , Steve Vance an employee of Respondent and the son of Ershell Vance, in Carol Miller's presence , told his father "Daddy , Ronny Sharpp says that Tignor didn't have anything to do with this union thing." Several weeks later Vance told Carol Miller that the company had "found out pretty well for sure " that Tignor and Simpkins were the ones who tried to start the union. McGlothlin denied asking Simpkins or Tignor about a union meeting or how many showed up or if Simpkins at- tended and stated that he knew nothing of a meeting. Fur- ther McGlothlin denied Tignor 's testimony about admit- ting that three or four drivers had told him Tignor was a part of the union organization and said that the first he heard of this meeting was after the discharges . He said that Tignor came to his office and said he was an innocent party - and that he (McGlothlin) replied, "Well, I don't know. I've heard nothing to that effect . I don' t know any- thing about it. I've heard nothing on it." While saying this was the first he heard of the meeting McGlothlin professed ignorance of what Tignor was innocent and went on to state (somewhat contradictorily) that he first heard about the union when the Company received the charge in this case. In regard to Carol Miller 's testimony , McGlothlin stated that he had not made a telephone call in her presence to Vance about the union or a meeting . This is a denial of something to which she did not testify. Vance testified that he did not have any conversation on January 3, with Mrs. Miller regarding the proposed drivers' meeting. He denied having a conversation regarding union activity with McGlothlin in her presence . Again this is a denial of something to which Mrs. Miller did not testify. Vance did testify that he did not know about plans for the drivers to organize and said that McGlothlin had not called him and told him about a rumor of union activity. Vance said that he did not tell Simpkins that the Company could not operate with a union . After denying ever having a discussion with Simpkins about the union , Vance said that at one point Simpkins told him that the Company needed a union and he had replied that he did not have anything to do with it. Vance denied that his son had said to him in Mrs. Miller's presence that Simpkins did not have anything to do with the union . Again this was not what Mrs. Miller had testified to. Her testimony concerned Tig- nor. C. Respondent's Defense At the beginning of the hearing James McGlothlin testi- fied that Simpkins and Tignor were discharged because the insurance company would no longer cover them as drivers. He said that the insurance company had objections to sev- eral other employees who had left or no longer were drivers by the time he discharged those two men. In an affidavit given to the Board McGlothlin stated : "All of my insur- ance is carried through General Insurance Corp. of :Blue- field , West Va. Every July 19 our policies are renewed. At that time all drivers driving records are checked by the company. In November 1974 I was notified by our agent (General Ins .) that they could no longer cover us if certain of our drivers continued to be employed. (Tignor and Simpkins were two of the ones named in a letter sent to me). Therefore I had to let Tignor and Simpkins go-al- though I tried to negotiate with the insurance Co. so that I could keep them. Finally , however on January 3, 1975, I had to terminate both Simpkins and Tignor." McGlothlin affirmed that the affidavit was true . He further testified that he had letters to the effect that the insurance company would no longer cover Respondent because the personal driving records of some of his drivers were at a point that the risk was too great. McGLOTHLIN, INC. 975 McGlothlin acknowledged that Tignor was one of the oldest men on the job, having been with the Company some 11 years and Simpkins had -been with the Company on a couple of occasions since 1964 and had a total of 2 or 3 years' service with Respondent. He said he fought to keep Tignor on the job and told Tignor on a couple of occasions that they were still trying to get him reinstated. He said he felt that Tignor was an asset to the Company and that is why he fought to -get him reinstated. Both Tignor and Simpkins testified that one driver who had a bad driving record had been transferred into the shop and when they were told they were being terminated they sought to be transferred there because they knew there were openings in the shop but they were not offered that opportunity. McGlothlin testified that he felt the only way to solve the problem and keep their insurance, which they had to have since the State required it, was to cut off Tignor and Simpkins. Hopper Lazenby testified that the assigned risk insur- ance for liability is assigned by -the State of Virginia's As- signed Risk Board. An application for insurance is received from a customer and presented to that Board which then assigns an insurance company to cover that person or com- pany for a period of 3 years. The insurance cannot be can- celed by the company except for nonpayment of premi- ums. After that 3-year contract period is up and if no one is willing to take the individual or company on a regular basis then another application is taken and presented to the Board and some other insurance company is selected by the Board to provide the coverage. Lazenby testified that Respondent had been on an assigned risk basis for some 15 years. McGlothlin said Respondent had been on assigned risk only about 9 years. Lazenby testified that for years McGlothlin has been trying to get off the assigned risk basis and that the premi- ums have escalated until in July 1974, at the initial contact the insurer said the premium was going to be 294 percent of the regular premium. He sought to get some other com- pany interested in taking Respondent on a regular basis but had received a letter from that company, stating they were not interested. On January 8 the insurance carrier (Transport Insurance Company) wrote Lazenby noting that the company had a large debit and asking him to call to the attention of Respondent that some of its drivers had, what the insurance carrier called, substandard driving rec- ords. Tignor and Simpkins were two of the six men named. This letter from Dallas, Texas, was not received by Lazen- by until Friday, January 10, or Saturday, January 11. Laz- enby said he sent a copy of this- letter to McGlothlin. At the earliest McGlothlin would not have received this letter until January 13, some 10 days after he fired Tignor and Simpkins . This was the only letter in which they were cited as having substandard driving records but there is no threat of policy cancellation in this letter. Both Tignor and Simpkins testified they had not been convicted of any driving infraction within the past-2 years with Tignor not having any accidents during that time and Simpkins testifying that the two accidents he had were not chargeable to him. During part of his examination Mr. Lazenby agreed that on his periodic visits with Respondent that he discussed with McGlothlin the driving records of individual drivers. In contradiction of this testimony General Counsel pro- duced an affidavit from Mr. Lazenby in which he stated: "I visit McGlothlin occasionally, but do not discuss with Mr. McGlothlin any of his employees' driving records. I have never advised him to discharge anyone because of their driving records." Respondent has no training programs for its drivers and the drivers-knew of no safety meetings being held with the exception of one meeting some 10 years ago which Tignor remembered. Vance testified that he talked to some of the men about safety and driving more carefully and -how it might benefit them, since if the insurance came down they could give them more money. In summing up on the insurance, McGlothlin stated that an insurance binder had been received in July for the year 1974-75, but with the end of the 3-year contract ap- proaching they started to look at the problem to see if they could get off assigned risk. McGlothlin admitted he did not have any particular reason to want to stay with his current insurance carrier and as long as they had a reputable insur- ance carrier that was all that was needed. He did want to see the amount of the premiums reduced and hoped they could do something which could get them off assigned risk and reduce their insurance premiums. In regard to getting Tignor "reinstated," McGlothlin tes- tified that the insurance company had told them a year previously that some of these men who were driving for him were bad risks and that to solve the problem of the large insurance premiums they were going to have to get rid of several of the drivers. He testified that Respondent had letters from the insurance company stating that they would not carry Respondent as long as they had those drivers. Asked which letters they were, McGlothlin re- ferred to the ones which had been introduced into evidence by Respondent. None of the letters received in evidence contain any such statements. Finally, in contradiction of his previous testimony and his affidavit, McGlothlin said he did not discharge Tignor and Simpkins because Respondent would lose its insurance but because they would still be on- assigned risk and the amounts of the insurance premiums were very heavy. D. Analysis and Conclusions General Counsel's evidence makes a very strong prima facie case that Respondent learned of an attempt to orga- nize its employees, heard that two of its men were part of the group organizing the union meeting and discharged them. The testimony of Carol Miller, Simpkins, and Tignor makes it absolutely clear that Respondent felt that Tignor and Simpkins were a part of the union effort and dis- charged them to foreclose this effort and stifle any organiz- ing activities. Respondent's defense starts with the flat assertion that its liability insurance would be cancelled if it kept Simp- kins and Tignor in its employ and that it had been told this by the insurance company before Respondent fired them. Further McGlothlin stated he tried to have Tignor reinstat- ed because he was a valuable man, but was unsuccessful in getting the insurance company to agree on the reinstate- ment. 976 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD The asserted claim that letters to Respondent confirm this testimony is false. The insurance agent who gave some contradictory testimony did agree that he never advised Respondent to fire any of its employees. The letter from the insurance carrier terming Simpkins and Tignor as hav- ing substandard driving records was not received by Re- spondent until some 10 days after the discharge and even then it does not urge -their discharge. There was no refusal by an insurance carrier to insure Respondent because un- der the assigned risk plan in the State of Virginia, the car- der cannot cancel the insurance for the 3-year period. There was no "reinstatement" to be sought, since this was a discharge by Respondent, not something initiated by the insurance agent or the carrier. McGlothlin' s statements about reinstatement are patently false. Similarly, there was no urgency for any insurance rea- sons to discharge Simpkins and Tignor at this point (Janu- ary 3) since the insurance contract ran from July 19 to July 19 and the premiums would have been established on the loss rate prior to that time. The premium rate on an assigned risk is based on the loss ratio and the loss experience of the prior year and what Respondent's insurance debit was. The driving records of Respondent's drivers may enter into this at some point, but where and how was never established by Respondent. There is no evidence to establish that the insurance premi- ums would have been reduced if Respondent got rid of its "substandard" drivers. The losses experienced by the msur- ance company may have come from other drivers. In any event Respondent's defense was self-contradic- tory and in several places absolutely false. McGlothlin's contradictory statements and claims dem- onstrate that his denial of knowledge of union activity or of making statements attributed to him cannot be credited. Further some of the denials elicited from McGlothlin and Vance did not meet the testimony given against them and are valueless. Respondent's action in discharging Simpkins and Tignor was based on its suspicion that they were engaged in set- ting up a union meeting for Respondent's drivers and was not based on any insurance problems. I conclude and find that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act by its discharge of Tignor and Simpkins. I have not made any findings of individual 8(a)(1) find- ings regarding interrogation, etc., since they were not al- leged. III. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of Respondent set forth in section II, above, have been found to constitute unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act and, oc- curring in connection with Respondent's business opera- tions as described in section I, above, have a close, mti- mate, 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 of commerce. IV. THE REMEDY Having found that Respondent discriminatorily termi- nated Kenneth Paul Simpkins and Berney Tignor on Janu- ary 3, 1975, I recommend that Respondent offer them im- mediate and full reinstatement to their former positions, without prejudice to any seniority or rights and privileges they may enjoy. Respondent shall make them whole for any loss of pay they may have suffered by reason of the discrimination against them, by payment to them of a sum equal to that which each would have received as wages from the date of their discharges until they are fully rein- stated, less any net interim earnings. Backpay is to be com- puted on a quarterly basis in the manner established by the Board in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289 (1950), with interest at the rate of 6 percent per annum to be com- puted in the manner set forth in Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716 (1962). I further recommend that Re- spondent, upon request, make available to the Board, pay- roll and other records to facilitate checking the amounts of backpay and any other rights due Kenneth Paul Simpkins and Berney Tignor. On the basis of the foregoing findings and the entire record, I make the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. McGlothlin, Inc., is an employer engaged in com- merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 2. By discriminatorily discharging Kenneth Paul Simp- kins and Berney Tignor on January 3, 1975, and not there- after reinstating them to their positions because of their actual and suspected union sympathies and activities Re- spondent engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor prac- tices affecting commerce within the meaning of Sections 8(a)(3) and (1) and 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 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: ORDER2 Respondent McGlothlin, Inc., Tazewell, Virginia, its of- ficers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Discharging and refusing to reinstate employees in order to' discourage employees from being or becoming union members or supporting the union. (b) In any like or related manner interfering with, re- straining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of their rights to self-organization, to form labor organizations, to loin or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively with representatives of their own choosing, and to engage 2 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. McGLOTHLIN, INC. 977 in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargain- ing or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any or all such activities. 2. Take the following affirmative action which is neces- sary to effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Offer to Kenneth Paul Simpkins and Berney Tignor reinstatement in accordance with the recommendations set forth in the section of this Decision entitled "The Reme- dy " (b) Make Kenneth Paul Simpkins and Berney Tignor whole for any loss they may have suffered by reason of Respondent's discrimination against them in accordance with the recommendations set forth in the section of this Decision entitled "The Remedy." (c) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the Board or its agents, for examination and copying, all rec- ords and reports, social security payment records, time- cards, personnel records and reports, and all other records necessary to analyze the amount of backpay and the rights and privileges due Kenneth Paul Simpkins and Berney Tig- nor as set forth in the section of this Decision entitled "The Remedy." (d) Post at its Pounding Mill and Sword's Creek, Virgin- ia, locations copies of the attached notice marked "Appen- dix." 3 Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 5, after being duly signed by Respondent's authorized representative, shall be posted by Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in con- spicuous places, including all places where notices to em- ployees 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. (e) Notify the Regional Director for Region 5, in writ- ing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith. 3In the event that the Board's Order is enforced by a Judgment of a United States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by Order of the National Labor 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." Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation