Mr. Steak, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 26, 1983

267 N.L.R.B. 553 (N.L.R.B. 1983)

MR. STEAK, INC.
Mr. Steak, Inc. and Linda Manville. Case 7-CA-
20056
26 August 1983
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS JENKINS, ZIMMERMAN, AND
HUNTER
On 17 January 1983 Administrative Law Judge
Michael O. Miller issued the attached Decision in
this proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent filed ex-
ceptions and a supporting brief.
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
We agree with the Administrative Law Judge's
findings that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1)
by discharging employee Linda Manville because
she complained about working conditions and incit-
ed other employees to complain following Re-
spondent's discharge of Restaurant Manager Kathy
Manville. In reaching this conclusion, we note that,
following Respondent's termination of Kathy and
its subsequent appointment of a new manager, em-
ployees began experiencing difficulties in schedul-
ing and staffing. There also was dissatisfaction over
the elimination of cigarette breaks and free meals,
and over a new requirement that waitresses obtain
permission to use the washroom. Employees dis-
cussed these problems at their breaktimes. About a
month after Kathy's termination, Linda and em-
ployee Maureen Manville attempted to phone Re-
spondent's president, Jackson. When they were
unable to reach Jackson immediately, they left mes-
sages for him. Later that day, Jackson returned the
calls and reached Maureen who complained to him
about scheduling, staffing, and Kathy's termination.
Later that same day, the restaurant's new manager,
I Respondent has excepted to certain credibility findings made by the
Administrative Law Judge. It is the Board's established policy not to
overrule an administrative law judge's resolutions with respect to credi-
bility unless the clear preponderance of all of the relevant evidence con-
vinces us that the resolutions are incorrect. Standard Dry Wall Products,
91 NLRB 544 (1950), enfd. 188 F.2d 362 (3d Cir. 1951). We have careful-
ly examined the record and find no basis for reversing his findings.
' The Administrative Law Judge inadvertently failed to include in the
expunction provision of his recommended Order a requirement that Re-
spondent notify Linda Manville in writing that it has expunged from its
files any reference to her discharge and that evidence of the unlawful dis-
charge will not be used as a basis for future personnel action against her.
We shall modify the recommended Order accordingly. See Sterling
Sugars, 261 NLRB 472 (1982).
267 NLRB No. 94
Naumovski, learned of these phone calls and called
Linda into his office. Inter alia, Linda told him that
she had tried to call Jackson to complain about
Kathy's termination and working conditions. The
following day, Naumovski terminated Linda for
disrespect toward management and for inciting
Maureen to have the same attitude. In these cir-
cumstances, as further elaborated on by the Admin-
istrative Law Judge, we agree that Linda's partici-
pation in the concerted protest over the perceived
deterioration of working conditions was protected
concerted activity and that Respondent terminated
Linda because of her participation in this protected
activity. We also agree that Respondent failed to
establish that it would have terminated Linda even
in the absence of her protected concerted activities.
Wright Line, 251 NLRB 1083 (1980). In these cir-
cumstances, we find it unnecessary to pass on the
Administrative Law Judge's further findings that
employee complaints about the termination of Res-
taurant Manager Kathy Manville were part of the
protected concerted protest about working condi-
tions and that employees had a legitimate concern
with Kathy's identity and continued presence.3
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,
Mr. Steak, Inc., Riverview, Michigan, its officers,
agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action
set forth in the said recommended Order, as so
modified:
1. Substitute the following for paragraph l(b):
"(b) In any like or related manner interfering
with, restraining, or coercing employees in the ex-
ercise of the rights guaranteed them by Section 7
of the Act."
2. Substitute the following for paragraph 2(b):
"(b) Expunge from its files any reference to the
discharge of Linda Manville and notify her in writ-
ing that this has been done and that evidence of
her unlawful discharge will not be used as a basis
for future personnel actions against her."
3. Substitute the attached notice for that of the
Administrative Law Judge.
3 Member Hunter disavows the Administrative Law Judge's finding
that employee complaints over the termination of the restaurant manager
constitute protected concerted activity. However, he agrees that Re-
spondent terminated Linda Manville because of her participation in the
concerted protest over the perceived detenoration in working conditions
and thus violated Sec. 8(a)(1) of the Act.
553
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
After a hearing at which all sides had an opportu-
nity to present evidence and state their positions,
the National Labor Relations Board found that we
have violated the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended, and has ordered us to post this notice.
The Act gives employees the following rights:
To engage in self-organization
To form, join, or assist any union
To bargain collectively through represent-
atives of their own choice
To engage in activities together for the
purpose of collective bargaining or other
mutual aid or protection
To refrain from the exercise of any or all
such activities.
Accordingly, we give employees these assurances:
WE WILL NOT discharge employees because
they engage in protected concerted activities.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner
interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in
the exercise of the rights guaranteed them by
Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act.
WE WILL offer Linda Manville immediate
and full reinstatement to her former job or, if
that job no longer exists, to a substantially
equivalent position, without prejudice to her
seniority or other rights and privileges, and
WE WILL make her whole for any loss of earn-
ings she may have suffered as a result of our
discrimination against her, with interest.
WE WILL expunge from our files any refer-
ence to the discharge of Linda Manville and
WE WILL notify her in writing that this has
been done and that evidence of the unlawful
discharge will not be used as a basis for future
personnel action against her.
MR. STEAK, INC.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
MICHAEL O. MILLER, Administrative Law Judge: This
case was heard in Detroit, Michigan, based on an unfair
labor practice charge filed by Linda Manville, an indi-
vidual, on November 24, 1981, and a complaint issued by
the Regional Director for Region 7 of the National
Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board, on Janu-
ary 12, 1982. The complaint alleges that Mr. Steak, Inc.,
herein called Respondent, violated Section 8(a)(1) of the
National Labor Relations Act, herein called the Act, by
discharging Linda Manville because she engaged in the
protected concerted activity of protesting working con-
ditions. Respondent's timely filed answer denies the com-
mission of any unfair labor practices.
All parties were afforded full opportunity to appear, to
examine and to cross-examine witnesses, and to argue
orally. The General Counsel and Respondent have filed
briefs which have been carefully considered.
Upon the entire record, including my observation of
the witnesses and their demeanor, I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
i. RESPONDENT'S BUSINESS-PRELIMINARY
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Respondent is a Colorado corporation engaged in the
operation of restaurants and the retail sale of food and
beverages. Its Riverview, Michigan, restaurant is the
only facility involved herein. Jurisdiction is not in dis-
pute. The complaint alleges, Respondent admits, and I
find and conclude that it is an employer engaged in com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of
the Act.
II. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE
A. The Facts
Respondent's work force at the Riverview Restaurant
during the period covering these events included at least
five members of the Manville family. Kathy Manville
was the restaurant's manager; she had hired several of
her sisters or sisters-in-law. Among these were Linda
Manville, the alleged discriminatee, Marianne Buza,
Maureen Manville, and Amy Manville.' As manager,
Kathy was responsible for the waitresses and hostesses
and set their weekly schedules. Kathy, it appears, was
well liked and respected by most of the dining room em-
ployees.
Notwithstanding her apparent popularity, Kathy's em-
ployment by Respondent ended on October 25, 1981,2
under circumstances which, though not fully described
in this record, appear to have been less than entirely vol-
untary or amicable. On October 26, Douglas McKinnon,
the district manager, held a meeting of the employees
wherein he told them of Kathy's termination. On that
same day, Amy circulated a letter, addressed to Richard
Jackson, Respondent's president, wherein it was claimed
that Kathy, allegedly "the finest, most loyal and support-
ive manager your corporation could have ever had," was
forced, by the harassment of the district manager, to
quit. Approximately 36 employees signed that letter and
it was sent to Jackson in Denver, Colorado.
As indicated by the substantial support given Amy's
letter to Jackson, the employees were upset over Kathy's
departure. As described in general terms by John Claro,
Respondent's galley supervisor, the employees' fondness
t For ease of reference, the various members of the Manville family
will be referred to herein by their first names.
2 All dates hereinafter are 1981 unless otherwise specified.
554
MR. STEAK, INC.
for Kathy turned to a dislike of Respondent after her de-
parture and her termination became a subject of daily
discussion among the employees. Particularly upset, as
might be expected, were Kathy's sisters; both Linda and
Maureen Manville were observed, in particular, to react
emotionally to this change in circumstances.
In addition to participating in the discussions with her
fellow employees, Linda testified that she discussed
Kathy's termination with Associate Manager Jean
Hogan3 and Tom Naumovski, the manager who was
brought in to replace Kathy in early November.4
When Kathy had been responsible for the staffing and
weekly scheduling of the waitresses and hostesses, these
functions had apparently been performed to the employ-
ees' satisfaction. However, Hogan encountered problems
on assuming these responsibilities. One employee de-
scribed her as sometimes forgetful. Employees were
scheduled to work more or less hours than they wanted
or at hours when they were not available. Linda testified
that she mentioned the scheduling problem to Nau-
movski, who referred her to Hogan. Linda then alleged-
ly complained to Hogan. Other than recalling that she
had complained about an alleged new rule prohibiting
employees from switching their days off however, she
gave no specifics concerning her discussions with Hogan
and could not recall Hogan's responses to her com-
plaints. Maureen and Ann Sherman both testified that
they had discussions with Hogan about problems with
their own schedules. According to Sherman, when such
problems were pointed out to Hogan they were rectified.
There were, according to Linda and certain other wit-
nesses proffered by the General Counsel, other changes
made following Kathy's termination. A reduction in
staffing (at least as perceived by some employees), an
elimination of cigarette breaks and free meals, and a re-
quirement that the waitresses secure management's per-
mission prior to using the washroom were some of the
alleged changes. The problems engendered by such
changes were discussed among the employees at the
table where they took their breaks. There is no evidence
that management participated in any of these discussions,
overheard them, or interfered with them in any way.
Linda testified, only in general terms, that she discussed
working conditions with Naumovski; she gave no specif-
ics of any such conversations.
On November 20, Linda, together with her sister Mar-
ianne and her sister-in-law Maureen, decided to call
Jackson to discuss Kathy's termination and, according to
Linda, also to discuss "working conditions." Jackson was
not in when Linda called and she left her name. Maureen
did the same. Jackson returned their telephone calls at or
about 1 or 2 p.m. on that same day. He asked to speak
with either one of them, and spoke with Maureen. Maur-
een testified that she had initiated the call because:
I The complaint does not allege Hogan to be either a supervisor or
agent; however, it is clear from her authority to schedule the working
hours of the waitresses and hostesses that she was a supervisor within the
meaning of Sec. 2(11) of the Act.
I Linda gave no specifics as to the dates of contents of these conversa-
tions. Naumovski's description of one such conversation, occurring on or
about November 20, is described infra.
We wanted some straight answers. We want to
know also if he was aware what was going on in
the restaurant . . . about the conditions in the res-
taurant as far as the scheduling, and also I guess to
straighten out my sister's character, what had been
said by Mr. McKinnon.
She described their conversation as follows:
I asked him if he was aware what was happening at
the Riverview restaurant and if he had heard any of
the things that were being said [about] Kathy as far
as drinking and what had been said at the meeting
by Mr. McKinnon about the books, which was in-
quiring about stealing. I also asked him if he knew
of the uproar at the restaurant, how unhappy every-
body was about Kathy being fired, and that we felt
that we deserved some answers for it. I told him
about the scheduling.... That everybody was
very dissatisfied with the changes, with the days
off. Some people needed them for school and they
had to be switched around and double shifts. ... I
remembers saying about the staff being short ....
Sunday we worked with six girls and we needed
eight.
Jackson told Maureen that he would talk with the em-
ployees when he was next in Detroit, in about 3 weeks.5
When Linda reported for work on November 20, at or
about 4:10 p.m., Naumovski called her into his office. He
asked what she thought of Mr. Steak as a company and
as a restaurant and whether she respected him. Linda re-
plied that she respected the company as her place of em-
ployment but had a hard time respecting its policies. She
said that she understood that Naumovski was in a diffi-
cult position, having come in at a difficult time, and fur-
ther said that he would have to earn her respect. She
also told Naumovski of her attempt to call Jackson in
order to make a plea "about Kathy's resignation and
working conditions." She claimed to have said something
to Naumovski about "working conditions" but could not
remember any details.
As Naumovski remembered this conversation, he had
called Linda into his office because her attitude toward
the customers reflected that she was having a problem;
he wanted to find out what that problem was. She then
told him about Kathy's termination and, in response,
Naumovski told her that what had happened to Kathy
was not his business, that his concern was whether Linda
could do the job he required. He allegedly told her to
follow proper procedures and the policies he had set and
to show him respect. Naumovski corroborated Linda's
testimony concerning her reference to the call to Jack-
son.
In a pretrial affidavit given to Respondent's attorneys,
Naumovski had stated that his conversation with Linda
Manville grew "out of Maureen Manville's telephone
conference earlier that day with Richard Jackson." Upon
being shown this affidavit, he first admitted and then
s Maureen's testimony is uncontradicted. No weight can be given to
Respondent's reference, on brief, to an alleged affidavit of Jackson which
was neither received nor offered in evidence.
555
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
denied, as he had earlier in his testimony, that this inter-
view resulted from the telephone calls. While both the
affidavit and his testimony are somewhat ambiguous, I
must conclude, from the timing of his conference with
Linda Manville and his subsequent reference to Linda as
"inciting" Maureen, as discussed infra, that whatever am-
biguity exists must be resolved against Respondent. I find
that Naumovski called Linda Manville into his office be-
cause of her role in the telephone calls to, and Maureen's
conversation with, Richard Jackson.
Their meeting ended, according to Naumovski, when
Linda Manville walked out "halfway through [the] con-
versation," stating that she had to take care of business.
Linda denied walking out of that meeting. Subsequently,
Naumovski asked Linda to stay and talk with him after
the restaurant closed that evening; she told him that she
was unable to do so and left.
On the following afternoon, Saturday, November 21,
Claro told Maureen that Linda and Naumovski had con-
versed on Friday, that Naumovski did not appreciate
what Linda had said, and that Naumovski was going to
talk to her again when she came that night. When Linda
came in, Claro told her that Naumovski was very upset
and was going to fire her. Linda confronted Naumovski
in the kitchen, questioning whether she was to be dis-
charged, and was again taken into the office. Naumovski
told her that her attitude was poor and that she was ter-
minated. She was requested to sign an already prepared
notification of discharge and did so. That notice states, as
the reason for termination:
Total lack of respect towards MGMT. & Company
policies; inciting fellow emps. to same attitude.
Both the quantity and quality of her work were rated
good, but Naumovski had rated her as "not acceptable"
in the categories of job interest, work habits, coopera-
tion, and attitude.
Naumovski's versions of the events precipitating the
November 21 discharge and his version of the discharge
interview, to the extent that they contradict Linda's,
cannot be credited. Thus, although it is clear from both
the fact that Naumovski had already written out Linda's
discharge notice before he spoke to her on November 21,
and from Claro's statements to Linda and Maureen, that
Naumovski had determined to discharge Linda before
their November 21 conversation, Naumovski initially
denied that he had formed the intent to discharge her
when their conversation began. He also testified initially
that she made a derogatory remark about Respondent
before he discharged her. The evidence clearly estab-
lishes that the remark, if made it at all, came as a re-
sponse to the discharge. Naumovski testified that he
spoke to Linda at this time about her alleged failure to
follow his policies regarding the use of sizzler plates and
foil-wrapped baked potatoes; it is clear that this problem
arose only in the first couple of days after he came to
Riverview and it was at that time that he spoke to her
about it. In this respect, I note that Naumovski's affidavit
omits any reference to the sizzler plate and baked potato
matters as having been mentioned on November 21. 1
note, also, that it was only when he was responding to
questions by the Administrative Law Judge, after exten-
sive direct and cross-examination, that Naumovski
claimed that it was a complaint from a customer about
Linda's service, allegedly related to him by Claro and
then repeated by the customer, that precipitated the dis-
charge. I find it difficult to believe that so significant an
event would, if true, have been omitted from direct ex-
amination. Moreover, Claro, while testifying about
Linda's alleged deficiencies, made no mention of this al-
leged complaint and Naumovski's testimony about her al-
leged failure to properly serve the restaurant's clientele is
inconsistent with his appraisal of the quality of her work
as "good."6
Naumovski testified that the "inciting" to which the
discharge notice referred was Linda's "inciting" of the
other employees on her shift to bad attitudes similar to
her own. However, the only employee he could name as
having been "incited" by her was Maureen. Maureen
was the other employee involved in the calls to Jackson
and the one to whom Jackson actually spoke.
Linda Manville had never previously been disciplined
for breaches of conduct or poor attitude.
B. Analysis and Conclusions
The General Counsel, relying solely on the events of
November 20 and 21, contends that Linda Manville was
discharged for having engaged in protected concerted
activities. I believe this contention is supported by a pre-
ponderance of the record evidence.
The uncontradicted testimony establishes that Linda
and Maureen Manville jointly placed calls to Richard
Jackson on November 20. When he returned those calls,
Jackson asked to speak to either of them and was con-
nected with Maureen. In her conversation, Maureen
brought employee complaints about staffing and schedul-
ing, unquestionably "working conditions," 7 which had
been the subject of concerted employee discussions for
nearly a month, to his attention. Additionally, she voiced
concerns, expressed by virtually all of the employees,
over Kathy's termination. Kathy had been a popular
manager, related to several of the witnesses, and unques-
tionably some of the unhappiness engendered by her ter-
mination stemmed from these factors. Additionally, how-
ever, it appears that in exercising her managerial respon-
6 Naumovski testified that the bad attitude to which he referred in the
discharge notice was Linda Manville's alleged failure to properly serve
the customers. His description of Linda's work attitude is, to a certain
extent, corroborated by the testimony of two employees and one supervi-
sor. Thus, waitress Ann Sherman observed that, while everyone was
upset about Kathy's termination, Linda and Maureen both had frequent
emotional outbursts in the period following that termination. To her, it
appeared that there were changes in Linda's behavior and attitude; she
noticed that Linda did not like the new management. Similarly, William
Movinski, a cook, reported that Linda's attitude toward the Company de-
teriorated after her sister's termination. He saw her slamming plates and
other equipment around loudly, observed her arguing with Jean Hogan
on several occasions, and heard her say "Mr. Steak sucks" in the break
area. Others, he admitted, had also been heard to make derogatory com-
ments about the Company; it was not that unusual. Galley Supervisor
Claro also testified to having observed similar conduct and attitudes on
Linda's part.
I Hawthorne Mazda, 251 NLRB 313 (1980), enfd. 108 LRRM 2344 (9th
Cir. 1981); Misericordia Hospirtal Medical Center, 246 NLRB 351 (1979),
enfd. 623 F.2d 808 (2d Cir. 1980)
556
MR. STEAK, INC.
sibility over staffing and scheduling, Kathy had been able
to accommodate the needs and desires of those she su-
pervised for work during certain hours and days or time
off at other times. After she left, the employees encoun-
tered difficulties in scheduling and staffing, perhaps as a
result of the inexperience or different interests of her re-
placements. Kathy thus had a direct impact upon the job
interests of the employees; they were legitimately con-
cerned with her identity and continued presence and
they had a protected right to protest her termination. 8
Several facts help establish that it was this exercise of
the statutory right to concertedly protest matters affect-
ing working conditions which caused Naumovski to call
Linda in and discharge her. First, of course, are his ad-
missions and my finding that the telephone calls prompt-
ed him to speak to Linda. This conclusion follows, also,
from the timing. Naumovski's first conversation with
Linda occurred only a few hours after Jackson returned
the Manvilles' calls. Additionally, there is Naumovski's
reference to Linda inciting" other employees and his
ability to point to any employee except Maureen, the
person to whom Jackson spoke, as having been "incit-
ed." Finally, I note the vague, shifting, and often contra-
dictory testimony of Naumovski concerning his observa-
tions of Linda's behavior, his conversations with her, and
his reasons for terminating her. Such testimony tends to
support my conclusion that the real motivation was her
protected concerted activity.
Respondent has adduced evidence tending to show
that, at least after her sister's termination, Linda Manville
had become less than an entirely desirable employee. Her
attitude, as demonstrated by a lack of cheerfulness and
expressions of unhappiness, including perhaps rough han-
dling of dishes and other equipment, the forceful opening
or closing of doors, and some derogatory remarks about
her employer, would not, I believe, have resulted in her
discharge absent the protected concerted activity. Others
had engaged in similar behavior without discipline or
discharge. Moreover, the derogatory remarks attributed
to her were not made in the presence of customers and
there is no evidence that Naumovski either heard or was
told about such remarks until after her discharge.
Accordingly, I must conclude that the General Coun-
sel has established, by a preponderance of record evi-
dence, that Respondent discharged Linda Manville be-
cause of her protected concerted activities, in violation
of Section 8(a)(l) of the Act.
CONCL.USIONS OF LAW
i. By discharging Linda Manville because she engaged
in protected concerted activities, Respondent has violat-
ed Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
I See Fibracan Corp., 259 NLRB 161 (1981), involving the termination
of a popular supervisor who had demonstrated particular concern for the
employees' safety and had aided them in achieving top productivity. See
also S. L. Industries, 252 NLRB 1058 (1980), and Puerto Rico Food Prod-
ucts, 242 NLRB 899 (1979), where employee protests over the termina-
tion of supervisors who had direct impact on their job interests (including
representation of their interests to management and advising them on
their statutory riqhts) were held protected.
2. The aforesaid unfair labor practice affects commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the
Act.
THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has engaged in an
unfair labor practice, I shall recommend that it cease and
desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action de-
signed to effectuate the policies of the Act. As I have
found that Respondent discriminatorily discharged Linda
Manville because she engaged in protected concerted ac-
tivities, I shall recommend that Respondent be required
to offer her immediate and full reinstatement to her
former or a substantially equivalent position without
prejudice to her seniority or other rights and privileges
and to make her whole for any loss of pay or other earn-
ings she may have suffered as a result of the discrimina-
tion against her. Any backpay found to be due shall be
computed in accordance with the formula set forth in F
W. Woolworth Co., 90 NLRB 289 (1950), and Florida
Steel Corp., 231 NLRB 651 (1977). 9 Additionally, I shall
recommend that Respondent be required to rescind and
expunge from its personnel files and other records any
references to the November 21, 1981, discharge of Linda
Manville.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of
law, and the entire record in this proceeding, and pursu-
ant to Section 10(c) of the Act, I hereby issue the fol-
lowing recommended:
ORDER l 0
The Respondent, Mr. Steak, Inc., Riverview, Michi-
gan, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Discharging employees because they engage in pro-
tected concerted activities.
(b) In any like or related manner interfering with em-
ployees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them
under Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which is nec-
essary to effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Offer Linda Manville immediate and full reinstate-
ment to her former job or, if that is not possible, to a
substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to her
seniority or other rights and privileges, and make her
whole for any loss of earnings she may have suffered by
reason of the discrimination against her, in the manner
set forth in the section of this Decision entitled "The
Remedy."
(b) Expunge from its personnel files or other records
all references to the November 21, 1981, discharge of
Linda Manville.
(c) Post at its Riverview, Michigan, facility copies of
the attached notice marked "Appendix."'' Copies of said
9 See, generally, Isis Plumbing Co., 138 NLRB 716 (1962).
'0 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided in 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.
557
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
notice on forms provided by the Regional Director for
Region 7, after being duly signed by Respondent's repre-
sentative, shall be posted by Respondent immediately
upon receipt thereof, in conspicuous places, including all
I 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."
places where notices to employees are customarily
posted, and shall be maintained for a period of 60 con-
secutive days thereafter. Reasonable steps shall be taken
by Respondent to ensure that said notices are not altered,
defaced, or covered by any other material.
(d) Notify the Regional Director for Region 7, in writ-
ing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what
steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
558