Miller Brewing Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 5, 1971

193 N.L.R.B. 528 (N.L.R.B. 1971)

528 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Miller Brewing Company and Chauffeurs , Teamsters
and Helpers Local Union No . 981, affiliated with
International Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauf-
feurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America.
Case 16-CA-3959
October 5, 1971
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS
FANNING AND JENKINS
On June 17, 1971, Trial Examiner William W.
Kapell issued his Decision in the above-entitled
proceeding, finding that the Respondent had engaged
in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices
and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom
and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the
attached Trial Examiner's Decision. Thereafter,
Respondent filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's
Decision with supporting briefs, and General Counsel
filed an answering brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
powers in connection with this case to a three-member
panel.
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial
Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no
prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are
hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial
Examiner's Decision, the exceptions and briefs, and
the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the
findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the
Trial Examiner, except as modified herein.
The Trial Examiner found, and we agree, that
Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by
threatening to discharge the powerhouse crew if any
attempts were made to bring in another union.
We do not agree, however, that Respondent
violated Section 8(a)(2) by continuing to deduct union
membership dues from the wages of nine employees
for 6 months after receipt of their checkoff revocation
requests.
In the summer of 1969, certain employees signed
checkoff authorization cards in anticipation of the
election of the Brewery Workers Union as their
bargaining representative. The cards provided that
the authorizations be irrevocable for a period of 1 year
from the date appearing on the cards or until the
termination of the collective-bargaining agreement,
whichever occurred sooner. Some of the cards were
dated, but those signed by the nine employees here
involved were not dated. In December 1969 the
election took place and Brewery Workers was
thereafter certified by the Board. Respondent and
Brewery Workers subsequently executed a collective-
bargaining agreement retroactive to October 1969, for
a term ending October 1, 1972. The contract, like the
cards, provided that checkoff authorizations would be
irrevocable for a period of 1 year from the date
thereof or until the termination date of the contract,
whichever occurred sooner. In February 1970, the
Respondent began checking off dues on behalf of the
Brewery Workers pursuant to the authorization cards,
which it received in January 1970. In the summer of
1970, Respondent received letters requesting that the
checkoff authorizations be revoked; some from
employees whose original authorization cards had
been dated, and nine from employees whose cards
had not been dated. Respondent immediately hon-
ored the revocation requests of the former group, but
refused to honor those of the latter group. Respondent
continued to deduct dues from the wages of the nine
until February 1971, 1 year from the date the
checkoffs were instituted, when, pursuant to new
revocations received, it discontinued the deductions.
We agree with the Trial Examiner that the nine
authorization cards were ambiguous, as they were
irrevocable for a year "from the date hereof" but
contained no dates. We also agree that the contract
was of little assistance, as it presupposed that such
cards would bear dates from which their irrevocable
period would run. We disagree with his finding that
Respondent's construction of the cards and the
agreement either unduly extended the irrevocability
period or in any other manner violated Section 8(a)(1)
or 8(a)(2) of the Act.
Instead, we find that Respondent acted reasonably
and in good faith in construing the cards and the
contract and in treating the period of irrevocability of
the undated cards as being as of the date Respondent
received such cards. The Board has held that it will
not effectuate the policies of the Act for the Board to
impose upon the parties its interpretation of the
meaning of ambiguous contract checkoff provisions
as implemented by employees' authorization cards
where, as here, a respondent acted reasonably and in
good faith.i
Accordingly, we shall dismiss this allegation of the
complaint.
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 Trial Examiner as modified below and
hereby orders that the Respondent, Miller Brewing
i Morton Salt Company, 119 NLRB 1402
193 NLRB No. 88
MILLER BREWING COMPANY 529
Company, Fort Worth, Texas, its officers, agents,
successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth
in the Trial Examiner's recommended Order as so
modified:
1. Delete paragraphs 1(b) and 2(a).
2. Substitute the attached notice for the Trial
Examiner's notice.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint herein
be, and it hereby is, dismissed insofar as it alleges
violations of the Act other than as found herein.
APPENDIX
N07 iCE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
The National Labor Relations Board having found,
after a trial, that we violated Federal law by
threatening to discharge employees if they attempted
to bring in another union:
WE WILL NOT threaten to discharge or replace
our employees if they attempt to bring in another
union.
WE WILL NOI in any like or related manner
interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the
exercise of rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of
the Act.
MILLER BREWING
COMPANY
(Employer)
Dated By
( Representative) (Title)
This is an official notice and must not be defaced by
anyone.
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive
days from the date of posting and must not be altered,
defaced, or covered by any other material.
Any questions concerning this notice or compliance
with its provisions may be directed to the Board's
Office, Room 8A24, Federal Office Building, 819
Taylor Street, Fort Worth, Texas 76102, Telephone
817-334-2921.
proceeding under Section 10 (b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended , herein called the Act, was
heard in Fort Worth, Texas, on February 16 and 17, 1971,
with all parties participating pursuant to due notice upon a
consolidated complaint 2 issued by the General Counsel on
November 10 The consolidated complaint, as amended,
insofar as pertinent herein , alleges in substance that in
violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (2) of the Act , Miller
Brewing Company ( 1) on about February 18 threatened to
discharge an employee for engaging in union or concerted
activities , (2) on about March 12 threatened employees they
would be discharged if they affiliated with another union to
represent its powerhouse employees , and (3) on about July
15 rendered unlawful support to the International Union of
Brewery, Flour, Cereal, Softdrink and Distillery Workers of
America, AFL-CIO, hereafter called Brewery Workers, by
refusing to honor or give effect to the attempts by certain
named employees to revoke their dues -deduction authori-
zations on behalf of the Brewery Workers. Respondent in
its duly filed answers denied engaging in the alleged unfair
labor practices.
All parties were represented and were afforded an
opportunity to adduce evidence , to examine and cross-
examine witnesses , and to file briefs . Briefs were received
from the General Counsel , the Charging Union, and
Respondent and have been carefully considered. On the
entire record in the case , and from my observation of the
witnesses , I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. COMMERCE
Respondent, a corporation duly organized under and
existing by virtue of the laws of the State of Wisconsin,
maintains an office and place of business at 701 S. Freeway,
Fort Worth, Texas, where it has been engaged in the
business of manufacturing and selling malt beverages,
including beer and related products. During the past 12
months, Respondent, in the course and conduct of its
business operations at the aforesaid plant, purchased
products and materials valued in excess of $50,000 from
sources located outside the State of Texas and shipped such
products and materials directly to its Fort Worth plant and
during the same period sold and shipped directly to
customers located outside the State of Texas products
valued in excess of $50,000. Respondent admits, and I find,
that at all times material herein it has been an employer
engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6)
and (7) of the Act.
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE'
WILLIAM W. KAPELL, Trial Examiner: This matter, a
i On November 10, 1970 , the Acting Regional Director for Region 16
issued an Order and a Consolidated Complaint consolidating Case
16-CB-578 , involving the International Union of United Brewery, Flour,
Cereal, Softdrink and Distillery Workers of America , AFL-CIO, and
William Kamp , an individual , with the above -entitled case Thereafter, on
February 10, 1971, and prior to the within hearing , the Regional Director
issued an Order severing Case 16-CB-578 from the above -entitled case
iI. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
Respondent admits, and I find, that at all times material
herein Teamsters and Brewery Workers have been labor
organizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
Accordingly, only the CA case is involved herein
2 Based upon an original and a first amended charge filed by
Chauffeurs, Teamsters and Helpers Local Union No 981, affiliated with
International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and
Helpers of America, hereafter referred to as Teamsters, on Apnl 28 and
April 30, 1970, respectively. All dates hereafter refer to the year 1970 unless
otherwise noted
530 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The Alleged 8(a)(1) Violations
In support of the contentions that the Company on or
about February 18 threatened to discharge an employee for
engaging in union or protected concerted activities, the
General Counsel adduced the following: Richard Ham-
mond, an employee in the Company's bottle shop, testified
that he attended a meeting at the plant on about February
18 with Arthur Nabors, the shop steward for Brewery
Workers, and Vernon Tapogna, the assistant plant manager
and brewmaster. The meeting was held to discuss a
grievance filed by employee Mike Lacrone concerning the
performance of certain work by supervisors on Sunday
rather than by hourly paid employees, thereby depriving
the latter of Sunday double time hourly pay. The work
involved "attemperation" of beer tanks (the regulation of
the temperature of the beer by the manipulation of certain
valves), which was done during the week by hourly paid
employees. Hammond, who was unfamiliar with the nature
of the work, requested, that Tapogna take them to the
fermentation cellar where he described the nature of the
work and claimed the operation was a complicated one.
When Nabors argued that inasmuch as the hourly paid
employees did the work during the week they were qualified
to do it on Sundays, Tapogna retorted "If you don't quit
bothering me, you can be replaced." 3
Tapogna testified on behalf of the Company that on the
day prior to the above-related meeting he met with Lacrone
and suggested that supervisors be permitted to do the work
on Sunday if it took less than half an hour, but Lacrone
refused to go along with his suggestion. The next day he
met and discussed the matter with Nabors and Hammond,
who also opposed having supervisors perform the disputed
work to which he replied that they could automate the
operation. Tapogna testified further that on February 21 he
and John Harrington, the Company's manager of industrial
relations, met with Hammond and Nabors on the third step
of the grievance concerning the Sunday work, but that
nothing was said about Nabors being replaced.
With respect to the alleged incident involving the threat
on or about March 12 to replace or discharge the
powerhouse employees if they sought affiliation with
another union, Hammond testified that on or about that
date he participated in a conversation with Ril Shuler, the
plant maintenance supervisor and assistant plant manager,
and Eugene Kucker, a powerhouse operator and a Brewery
Workers shop steward, pertaining to a grievance to rebut a
written reprimand given Kucker; that in discussing the
grievance, Shuler repeatedly said that he didn't care what
their bargaining contract stated because he was going to
follow the company rules, while he (Hammond) insisted the
matter was controlled solely by their contract and he was
not concerned with the company rules; that Shuler replied,
"We realize that your tired of it. We know that you'd like to
get another union in here, the Operating Engineers, in the
powerhouse; and if you do or if you try we'll get a whole
new crew." Kucker corroborated Hammond's testimony to
the extent that Shuler stated he had heard rumors that they
were trying to change unions, and if they did or tried to he
would get rid of the whole powerhouse crew and get a new
crew.
Shuler testified that he held a first step grievance meeting
with Kucker and Hammond on March 6 at which they
discussed getting two 10-minute coffeebreaks, a lunchbreak
of half an hour off the job, and permitting union stewards
to talk about union business with union members during
working time; that at no time did they discuss the
Operating Engineers; that he never said he knew the
Operating Engineers were trying to organize the power-
house crew, and if they did they would let them all go; and
that he met again with Hammond on the grievance but
nothing was said about the Operating Engineers or
discharging the powerhouse crew.
B. Conclusions as to the 8(a)(1) Violations
Based on the straightforward testimony of Hammond,
corroborated by Nabors, I find that Tapogna told Nabors
he could be replaced if he did not stop bothering him.
Nabors, however, did not react as if his job were seriously
threatened, he simply laughed in response at the prospect.
Nor was the alleged threat repeated in subsequent meetings
of the parties. At most it was an isolated remark made
during a lengthy grievance meeting in an attempt to resolve
a dispute concerning Sunday work which was not taken
seriously by the party to whom it was directed. Further-
more, the undisputed evidence shows that Hammond did
most of the talking, with Nabors participating to a very
minor extent, thereby tending to refute any claim that
Nabors was bothering or irritating Tapogna. In fact,
Nabors, corroborated by Tapogna, denied that he bothered
Tapogna. Accordingly, I conclude that Tapogna's remark
was not only not provoked, but was neither coercive nor
threatening within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the
Act.
The alleged threat by Shuler to replace the powerhouse
crew if any attempts were made to bring in another union
(the Operating Engineers) is based upon the contradicted
testimony of Hammond and Kucker. Shuler not only
denied making the threat but claimed he was wholly
unaware that the Operating Engineers were even trying to
organize the powerhouse crew. He asserted that the
grievance discussion pertained to coffee and lunch breaks
and the right of the shop steward to discuss union business
with members during working time . Yet, the record
discloses that members of Brewery Workers were disaffect-
ing, that on April 8 the Teamsters advised the Company
that as of April 4 the employees in the certified unit had
voted overwhelmingly to disaffect from the Brewery
Workers and to affiliate with the Teamsters, and that the
Teamsters later that month filed a petition to amend the
certification of Brewery Workers by changing the name of
the certified union to Teamsters. In all probability the
Company became vaguely aware prior to April that another
union was organizing its employees, but had no precise
details. Hammond' s assertion that Shuler referred to
3 Nabors, who corroborated the testimony of Hammond, stated on
cross-examination that he laughed when told he could be replaced
MILLER BREWING COMPANY 531
rumors about another union coming into the plant appears
highly plausible under the circumstances. Moreover, I find
the testimony of Hammond and Kucker more definite and
certain than that of Shuler, and more credible in the context
of what was happening in the plant. I, therefore, conclude
that Shuler made the alleged threat in an attempt to
preserve the union status quo. The threat definitely was
coercive and interfered with the statutory rights of the
employees, in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
C. The Alleged 8(a)(2) Violations
The complaint, as amended, alleges that the Company
rendered unlawful support to Brewery Workers on about
July 15 in violation of Section 8(a)(2) of the Act by refusing
to honor and implement the attempts of 12 named
employees 4 to revoke their dues-deduction deduction
authorizations on behalf of Brewery Workers. Pursuant to
the General Counsel's unopposed motion, the complaint
was amended by withdrawing the names of Tennis
Cornum, Dennis Bacher, and Coy L. Gamble from the list
of the 12 above-named employees. It was also stipulated
that if the nine remaining employees were called to testify
they would state that they signed their authorizations for
deduction of dues as follows: Hunter, Kamp, and Sanders
on July 26, 1969; Dyer and White on August 11, 1969;
Berry on July 12, 1969; Gray on July 25, 1969; McCoy on
August 24, 1969; and Rodriguez on September 3, 1969.
Although the aforesaid authorizations provided space for
inserting the date, they were not filled in.
John T. Harrington, industrial relations manager for the
Company, testified that the bargaining contract with
Brewery Workers was executed on December 17, 1969,
retroactive to October 1, 1969, for a term ending on
October 1, 1972,5 that prior to June 23 he treated undated
dues-deduction authorizations the same as dated ones in
implementing their revocations, that the undated and dated
authorizations were received by the Company about mid-
January 1970 and checkoffs pursuant thereto began in
February, that he would have honored the revocations of
the undated authorizations received thereafter if the
Brewery Workers had not objected, and that in compliance
with the request of the Brewery Workers he took the
position that the undated authorizations could not be
revoked prior to February 1971.
Beginning in June and continuing through August, the
Company received a revocation from each of the above-
named employees of their dues-deduction authorizations .6
In correspondence between the Company and the Brewery
Workers, the latter claimed that the revocations of the
undated authorizations failed to comply with the contract
(article 1 , section 1.5), and, therefore, should not be
Consisting of Frank 0 Rodriguez, Thurman A Berry, Michael D
Dyer, Robert N Gray, Eugene Hunter, William A Kamp, Clarence
McCoy, Bobby D Sanders, Frank H White, Tennis D Cornum, Dennis
R Bacher , and Coy L Gamble
5 The contract provided in article I, section 15 for dues deduction in
pertinent part as follows
Signed authorization shall be on a form provided for that purpose
and shall be irrevocable for a period of one ( 1) year from the date
thereof or until the termination date of this agreement , whichever
occurs sooner Unless an employee desiring to revoke his authorization
for the deduction of dues serves written notice of such revocation on
honored. Yielding to the request of the Brewery Workers,
which took the position that the undated authorizations
became effective when placed in the possession of the
Company, and that revocations should be honored 1 year
from the date of the first checkoff, the Company replied to
each employee's revocation as follows:
We have received your request for Revocation of
Authorization for Deduction of Union Dues. Your
signed authorization for deduction of union dues which
we have in our possession, however is undated.
Because of this the Union has requested us to continue
your dues deduction pursuant to the contract until one
year has expired from the time of the first checkoff.
Since the checkoff began on February 2, 1970, if you
wish to revoke your authorization you will be required
to send us another revocation prior to that date in
accordance with Article 1, Section 1.5 of the current
contract.
The Company continued to deduct dues until February
1971, when it honored new revocations received in
compliance with its demand.
D. Conclusions as to the 8(a)(2) Violations
The authorizations in conjunction with and as related to
the collective-bargaining contract must be considered a
three-party agreement covering the Brewery Workers, the
Respondent, and each authorization signatory. Pursuant
thereto, and insofar as pertinent herein, dues deductions
were irrevocable for a period of 1 year. The failure of the
employees to have recorded specifically the dates when that
year began raises a question as to whether those dates may
be established by construing or interpreting the authoriza-
tions in the light of parol evidence reflecting the dates when
the authorizations were, in fact, signed. The law is well
settled that parol evidence is inadmissable to vary, alter, or
contradict a writing which is complete and unambiguous,
where no fraud, accident, or mistake is claimed. Patently,
the authorizations in issue were rendered ambiguous
because no dates were inserted. In these circumstances, an
interpretation based on parol evidence which cures the
agreement of its ambiguity and renders its performance
possible will be preferred to one which makes it void or its
performance impossible or meaningless. Thus, the issue
herein involves a dispute over the interpretation of a
contract rather than one involving an interpretation and
application of the Act. I conclude that the uncontradicted
evidence indicating the date when each employee signed his
undated authorization may be used to construe those
authorizations with respect to the starting date of the
irrevocable period. I find that such construction would also
be consistent with the policies and purposes of the Act. The
the Company and the Union not less than ten (10) days nor more than
twenty (20) days before the anniversary of such authonzation or the
termination date of this agreement , such authorization shall become
irrevocable and binding until the next such anniversary date or
termination date, whichever occurs sooner, subject to further renewal
for like period unless revoked in the manner above provided
6 Most of the revocations did not comply with the 20- and 10-day time
requirements set forth in the contract However, the Company raised no
objection on that point in considering the timeliness of the revocations in
that respect, and it, therefore , is not regarded as an issue herein
532 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Respondent, in effect, also construed the undated authori-
zations by starting the irrevocable period of 1 year on the
date it began deducting dues. It, thereby, actually extended
the irrevocable period to about 1-1/2 years from the date
when the authorizations were signed. This was done in
compliance with the request of the Brewery Workers, and
not only runs counter to the irrevocability limitation of the
Act but also marks a departure from the Company's past
practice in treating undated authorizations the same as
dated ones. I, therefore, find that Respondent's failure to
honor the revocations in issue herein interfered with,
restrained, and coerced its employees in violation of
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act and rendered unlawful assistance
and support to the Brewery Workers in violation of Section
8(a)(2).
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
UPON COMMERCE
THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has engaged in unfair
labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) and
(2) of the Act, I shall recommend that it cease and desist
therefrom and take certain affirmative action designed to
effectuate the policies of the Act. Having found that
Respondent unlawfully continued to deduct union mem-
bership dues from the wages of its employees and paid said
dues to Brewery Workers, I find that a reimbursement
order is necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act.
Accordingly, I shall recommend that Respondent reim-
burse the employees involved herein for the dues deducted
from their wages during the period following the receipt of
their revocations, with interest at the rate of 6 percent per
annum.
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: 7
The activities of Respondent set forth in Section III,
above, occurring in connection with Respondent's opera-
tions 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 of
commerce.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire
record I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. At all times material herein, Respondent has been
engaged in commerce as an employer within the meaning of
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. At all times material herein, Brewery Workers and
Teamsters have been labor organizations within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act
3. By threatening to discharge the powerhouse crew if
any attempts were made to bring in another union,
Respondent coerced the employees and interfered with
their statutory rights within the meaning of and in violation
of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
4. By continuing to deduct union membership dues
from the wages of employees following the receipt of
revocation of their checkoff authorizations, Respondent
promoted Brewery Workers by rendering it unlawful
assistance and support and interfered with the employees'
Section 7 rights in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (2) of the
Act.
5. Except as found above, Respondent has not engaged
in any other unfair labor practice alleged in the complaint.
7 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Section 102 46 of
the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the
findings, conclusions , and recommended Order herein shall, as provided in
Section 102 48 of the Rules and Regulations , be adopted by the Board and
become its findings , conclusions , and Order, and all objections thereto
ORDER
Respondent, Miller Brewing Company, its officers,
agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Threatening to discharge employees if they made any
attempts to bring in another union.
(b) Continuing to deduct union membership dues
pursuant to checkoff authorizations of employees after said
employees had revoked their said authorizations.
(c) In any like or related manner interfering with,
restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of rights
guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action designed to
effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Reimburse Frank O. Rodriguez, Thurman A. Berry,
Michael D. Dyer, Robert N. Gray, Eugene Hunter, William
A. Kamp, Clarence McCoy, Bobby D. Sanders, and Frank
H. White for the union membership dues deducted from
their wages for the period following the receipt of the
revocations of their dues-deduction authorizations.
(b) Post at its plant in Fort Worth, Texas, copies of the
attached notice marked "Appendix."8 Copies of said
notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for
Region 16, after being duly signed by its representative,
shall be posted by Respondent immediately upon receipt
thereof, and be maintained by Respondent for 60
consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, includ-
ing 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.
shall be deemed waived for all purposes
B In the event that the Board's Order is enforced by a Judgment of a
United States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by
Order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall be changed to read
"Posted pursuant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals
enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board "
MILLER BREWING COMPANY 533
(c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 16, in IT IS ALSO ORDERED that the complaint be dismissed
wnting, within 20 days from the date of the receipt of this insofar as it alleges violations of the Act not specifically
Decision, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply found.
herewith.9
"Notify the Regional Director for Region 16, in writing , within 20 days
9 In the event that this recommended Order is adopted by the Board from the date of this Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to
after exceptions have been filed, this provision shall be modified to read comply herewith"