Newark Star Ledger

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 29, 1977

232 N.L.R.B. 581 (N.L.R.B. 1977)

NEWARK STAR LEDGER
The Newark Morning Ledger Co. d/b/a Newark Star
Ledger and William Candito and Martin Walsh
and Newark Newspaper Printing Pressmen's
Union, Number 8, International Graphics and
Communications Union, AFL-CIO, Party to the
Contract. Cases 22-CA-7234 and 22-CA-7466
September 29, 1977
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN FANNING AND MEMBERS
JENKINS AND PENELLO
On July 13, 1977, Administrative Law Judge
Lowell Goerlich issued the attached Decision in this
proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent filed exceptions
and a supporting brief, and the General Counsel filed
with the Board its brief to the Administrative Law
Judge, in lieu of a reply brief to Respondent's
exceptions.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the record and the
attached Decision in light of the exceptions and
briefs and has decided to affirm the rulings, find-
ings,' and conclusions of the Administrative Law
Judge, to modify his remedy, 2 and to adopt his
recommended Order.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board adopts as its Order the recommend-
ed Order of the Administrative Law Judge and
hereby orders that the Respondent, The Newark
Morning Ledger Co. d/b/a Newark Star Ledger,
Newark, New Jersey, its officers, agents, successors,
and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the said
recommended Order, except that the attached notice
is substituted for that of the Administrative Law
Judge.
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
credibility unless the clear preponderance of all of the relevant evidence
convinces us that the resolutions are incorrect. Standard Dry Wall Products,
Inc.. 91 NLRB 544 (1950). enfd. 188 F.2d 362 (C.A. 3. 1951). we have
carefully examined the record and find no basis for reversing his findings.
2 In accordance with our decision in Florida Steel Corporation, 231
NLRB 651 (1977), we shall apply the current 7-percent rate for periods prior
to August 25. 1977. in which the "adjusted prime interest rate" as used by
the Internal Revenue Service in calculating interest on tax payments was at
least 7 percent.
232 NLRB No. 95
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT unlawfully refuse to put to work
individuals who have lawfully applied for employ-
ment because of their lawful participation in the
Washington Post strike or their participation in
any other activities protected by Section 7 of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere
with, restrain, or coerce any employees in the
exercise of the rights guaranteed them by Section
7 of the Act to engage in self-organization, to
bargain collectively through a representative of
their own choosing, to act together for collective
bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or
to refrain from any and all these things.
WE WILL offer William Candito and Martin
Walsh the jobs they would have filled had we not
refused to employ them or, if their jobs no longer
exist, substantially equivalent jobs, in conformity
with our contract with Local 8.
WE WILL pay them the backpay they lost
because we refused to hire them, with interest.
THE NEWARK MORNING
LEDGER CO. D/B/A
NEWARK STAR LEDGER
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
LOWELL GOERLICH, Administrative Law Judge: Case 22-
CA-7234 was consolidated with Case 22-CA-7466 on
March 23, 1977, pursuant to Section 10(b) of the National
Labor Relations Act, as amended, herein referred to as the
Act, and Section 102.15 of the Board's Rules and
Regulations. On the same date an amended complaint and
a notice of hearing were issued. The charge filed by
William Candito in Case 22-CA-7234 on October 12, 1976,
was served on The Newark Morning Ledger Co. d/b/a
Newark Star Ledger, Respondent herein, by registered mail
on the same date. The charge filed by Martin Walsh in
Case 22-CA-7466 on February 9, 1977, was served on
Respondent by registered mail on the same date. The
amended complaint charged that pursuant to a current
contract Newark Newspaper Printing Pressmen's Union,
Number 8, International Graphics and Communications
Union, AFL-CIO, herein referred to as Local 8, submitted
the names of William Candito and Martin Walsh for
employment and Respondent refused and continues to
refuse to hire them because of their membership in and
their protected activities on behalf of International Graph-
ics and Communications Union Local 6, AFL-CIO, herein
581
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
referred to as Local 6, in violation of Section 8(a)( 1) and (3)
of the Act.
Respondent filed a timely answer denying that it had
engaged in any of the unfair labor practices alleged in the
amended complaint. Respondent admitted that on or
about May 1, 1976, Local 8 submitted Candito's name as
an applicant for employment and that his name was
rejected. Respondent denied that Walsh's name had been
submitted for employment.
The case came on for hearing at Newark, New Jersey, on
April 28, 1977. Each party was afforded a full opportunity
to be heard, to call, examine, and cross-examine witnesses,
to argue orally on the record, to submit proposed findings
of fact and conclusions, and to file briefs. All briefs have
been carefully considered.
FINDINGS OF FACT,' CONCLUSIONS, AND REASONS
THEREFOR
I. THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT
Respondent is, and has been at all times material herein,
a corporation duly organized under, and existing by virtue
of, the laws of the State of New Jersey.
At all times material herein Respondent has maintained
its principal office and plant at Star Ledger Plaza, Newark.
New Jersey, herein called the Newark plant, and is now,
and at all times material herein has been, continuously
engaged at said plant in the publishing, printing, and
distributing of the Star Ledger, a daily newspaper.
Respondent's Newark plant is its only facility involved in
this proceeding.
In the course and conduct of Respondent's publishing
operations at all times material herein, Respondent
subscribed to various interstate news services, including,
inter alia, syndicated columns by Jack Anderson, William
Buckley, Jr., and Ann Landers; advertised various nation-
ally sold products, including, inter alia, Firestone Tires,
Seagrams Whiskey, and Marlboro cigarettes; and received
gross revenue from its publishing operations in excess of
$200,000.
Respondent is, and has been at all times material herein,
an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
Local 8 and Local 6 are, and have been at all times
material herein, labor organizations within the meaning of
Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
The Newark Morning Ledger Co. and Newark Newspa-
per Printing Pressmen's Union, Number 8, International
Graphics and Communications Union, AFL-CIO, are
The facts found herein are based on the record as a whole and the
observation of the witnesses. The credibility resolutions herein have been
derived from a review of the entire testimonial and exhibits, with due regard
for the logic of probability, the demeanor of the witnesses, and the teachings
of N. L R.B. v. Walton Manufacturing Company & Loganville Pants Co., 369
U.S. 404. 408 (1962). As to those witnesses testifying in contradiction to the
findings herein, their testimony has been discredited, either as having been
in conflict with the testimony of credible witnesses or because it was in and
parties to a collective-bargaining agreement covering the
Ledger's pressroom employees. By virtue of the contract's
markup agreement, the Ledger guarantees a certain
number of individuals five shifts of work each week. The
individuals are known as situation holders. In the event the
contract's manning requirements exceed the number of
shifts guaranteed under the markup or additional pressmen
are needed because a situation holder is absent due to
illness, holidays, or vacation, substitutes may be accepted
for I day's hire to fulfill the Company's obligations under
the manning provisions. Section 3(c) of the contract
provides the foreman with the express right to accept or
reject any applicant referred by the Union for I day's hire
as a substitute. If requested, the Ledger must provide the
Union with a written reason for the rejection of an
applicant.
Pursuant to section 3 and the markup provisions of the
contract the procedure followed for the hiring of applicants
for employment as substitutes is for the foreman to advise
the union chairman the evening before what the manning
requirements for the next day's shift will be. The chairman
then submits a worksheet which contains the names of
those pressmen who are assigned to work, both guaranteed
situation holders and substitutes. If an applicant for
employment as a substitute is rejected, the foreman crosses
his name off the list.
The Ledger's policy, prior to October 1975, for hiring a
substitute referred by the Union who had never worked for
it was to make an inquiry as to his prior work experience to
see if the applicant was competent and, if possible, his
previous employer would be contacted for a reference
check. Substitutes who had previously worked for the
Ledger were evaluated by consideration of their prior work
record.
After October i, 1975, Respondent promulgated a policy
in respect to employee applicants who had worked at the
Washington Post 2 which was expressed as follows by Mark
Newhouse, 3 assistant to the general manager: "[Alnyone
from the Washington Post had to have a reference check
made before a decision either to hire or not hire was
made." This policy was formulated "a month after the
strike started [at the Washington Post]. Probably October
or November, '75." Respondent "wanted to be very sure
[it] did not hire any people that participated" in the events
which surrounded the strike such as "sabotage," "vio-
lence," and "assaults." Newhouse related that Respondent
had in the past been subjected to sabotage, slowdowns, and
assaults on its foremen in the pressroom, which situation
had been "stabilized" and the pressroom converted to a
"relatively efficient and peaceful operation.... we were
very anxious that this cycle of violence and sabotage not be
repeated in Newark and we wanted to get a reference check
on anyone that came from Washington to be very sure that
we weren't reinfecting our pressroom with this kind of
of itself incredible and unworthy of belief. All testimony has been reviewed
and weighed in the light of the entire record. No testimony has been
pretermitted.
2 The Washington Post is a daily and Sunday newspaper published in
Washington, D.C.
3 Upon the request of the Respondent the record is corrected to reflect
Newhouse's correct given name as "Mark."
582
NEWARK STAR LEDGER
troublemaker." Newhouse testified that foremen were told
before they hired anyone from the Washington Post that
they "should send his name up to the office so that we
could give the Washington Post a call and check on his
work record." 4
At the time the events herein occurred, Jack Powers
occupied the position as pressroom foreman. He was not
called to testify, nor was his absence explained. William
Fitzgerald, Jr., who at the time had been acting and
assistant foreman, testified that Production Director Dale
Douglas informed Powers and him that if any name of an
individual who had worked at the Washington Post was
submitted by the chairman the name would be rejected
"until their name was sent up to the production office to be
checked out. .... there was some people that might have
been involved in sabotage and we wanted to check them
out first."
According to Newhouse, he did not learn that Candito
and Walsh had been refused employment until after their
unfair labor practice charges, respectively, were filed with
the Board. Upon inquiry of Powers at that time, Powers
reported that he did not hire Candito "because he quit his
job without notice." As to Walsh, Newhouse testified, "At
first he [Powers] couldn't remember and then he told me
that it was because he left without notice and also got
benefits because he left without notice .... "5 Walsh had
received no extra benefits.
Both Candito and Walsh had been situation holders.
Candito was the chapel chairman. In early November
1973, Candito notified James O'Reilly. the vice chairman,
that he would have to take over as chairman "because he
was going to Washington for a couple of weeks to try
working there in the Post." Candito informed O'Reilly that
Walsh was accompanying him. Around Thanksgiving
"towards the end of November, '73."6 Candito told
O'Reilly that he would "definitely be staying in Washing-
ton," and that Walsh was staying too. When O'Reilly was
about to pass on this information to Powers, Powers
inquired of O'Reilly concerning the status of Candito and
Walsh. O'Reilly thought that he ought to doublecheck; he
called Candito's wife and informed her that Candito
should call Powers. The next morning Powers informed
O'Reilly that Candito and Walsh were "staying in
Washington, they are not coming back, and he was going
to carry them a couple more weeks to see if they liked it." I
4 Newhouse was not sure that Foreman Jack Powers. who had refused
employment to Candito and Walsh, had received the word.
I In its bnef Respondent relies on these same reasons: "Their rejections
were due to pnor misconduct in failing to provide advance notice of
intended termination of employment pursuant to the Ledger's shop practice
which misled Respondent into giving them unearned benefits."
6 Respondent's attendance record for Candito reveals that the last days
worked by Candito were two shifts during the week of December 5. 1973.
Prior to that he had worked five shifts dunng the week ending November 21.
1973. At the time he worked for Respondent, in December. he had already
taken employment with the Washington Post.
I Both employees had been on vacation when they left. At the time they
left they had obtained traveling cards from Local 8. They proceeded to
Washington. D.C.. to ascertain whether they wished to work at the
Washington Post.
I On the same subject, Chairman Tuske credibly testified: "We brought
the sheet in and as the men were checking in. Bob and I were in the office
watching Jack Powers and the assistant foreman checking the men off as
Sometime in December 1973, Candito telephoned Pow-
ers and told him that he and Walsh were going to stay in
Local 6 and work permanently at the Washington Post.
While at the Washington Post both Candito and Walsh
engaged in the strike. Each returned to Newark and sought
work as hereinafter detailed.
On a Friday in November 1975, after his name had been
cleared by Local 8, Candito's name was written on the
markup list by Vice Chairman Robert Rudolph for the
Saturday night shift. (Candito would have been a substi-
tute.) Thereafter, according to practice, Rudolph and
Chairman William Tuske went into the office to make "any
changes [on the list] if anybody tripped up" and had to be
replaced with another substitute. Powers informed the
union representatives that Candito "couldn't work there"
because "he worked in Washington and that Mr. New-
house told Mr. Powers that there would be nobody from
Washington working at the Ledger." 8 Candito was not
employed. About a week later Powers told Rudolph that
"because of all the violence that happened down there he
said he did not want any people like that working in [the]
pressroom."9 Later when Rudolph revealed to Powers that
he was going to the Labor Board to give a statement
regarding Candito, Powers commented, "[lit is not just the
fact he came from Washington, it's that he owes us for
uniforms and he didn't like the way he left and that he was
carrying benefits or something to that effect while he
wasn't working there." 10
In May 1976, Candito contacted James Scofield, presi-
dent of Local 8, and asked him whether it would be
permissible to work Saturday mornings at the Ledger.
Scofield advised Candito to call Jack Mason and have him
book him for Saturdays. Candito telephoned Mason and
related his conversation with Scofield. Mason replied that
he "would have to talk to the foreman, Mr. Powers." After
receiving a report from Mason, Candito telephoned Powers
and asked him what he meant that he (Candito) "would
have to go to the Supreme Court." Powers replied that
"that is as far as the Company would go to ... keep [him ]
out of the Star Ledger." Candito was not hired. The
Respondent "admits on or about May 1, 1976 Local 8
submitted Candito's name to Respondent as an applicant."
(Respondent's answer.) 1
In the second week in November 1976, on a Tuesday
night (November 9, 1976), Rudolph advised Powers that
Walsh was available for work. Powers responded, "[N]o.
they were checking in and as he came across Bill Candito's name he says Bill
Candito cannot work here . . and he says no men from Washington can
work in this pressroom so then I turned around again and says whose orders
were those and he says they came upstairs from Mr. Newhouse."
9 The foregoing evidence is admissible under the holding in Local Lodge
No. 1424, International Association of Machinists, AFL-CIO, et al. /Bran
Manufacturing CompanyJ v. N.LR.B., 362 U.S. 41 1, 416 (1960). as "earlier
events" which were "utilized to shed light on the true character of matters
occurring within the limitations period."
'0 It is obvious that Powers' elaboration on Respondent's reasons for the
rejection of Candito as an employee, after the unfair labor practice charges
were being investigated, was an afterthought sounding in pretext.
" Mason did not testify. The General Counsel excused his absence
because "Mason declined to cooperate in the course of the investigation."
Even though I have drawn an adverse inference from Mason's absence, I
credit Candito's version in view of the record as a whole, Candito's
demeanor, Respondent's admissions, and the fact that I have found Candito
to be a credible witness in other matters.
583
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
he owed him money for uniforms and he didn't like the
way he left. He felt he should have given more notice about
leaving." Later Powers mentioned that Walsh did not turn
in his earphones (ear muffs).12 At the time Walsh left he
did not owe for uniforms nor had he retained any ear
muffs. In fact, Walsh was informed in 1974 by a payroll
clerk that his vacation pay would not be released unless he
returned the uniforms or paid for them. This was the first
time Walsh had been informed of this requirement. Walsh
paid for the uniforms in the amount of $20.13 Although
Respondent claimed that there was an understanding that
employees were to return their uniforms if their employ-
ment terminated, there was no published specific rule on
the subject. The credible evidence does not support a
finding that such a rule was in effect. Indeed, Newhouse
was not sure that such alleged "understanding" had been
communicated to the employees.
When Walsh left Respondent's employment he followed
the general practice 4 of giving notice to the chapel
chairman. His last day worked was November 21, 1973, at
which time he took his accrued vacation and left with
Candito to work at the Washington Post.
While both Candito and Walsh engaged in the strike at
the Washington Post, the credible record does not disclose
that either of them participated in any violence or other
unlawful activities or that Respondent possessed any
knowledge that they did participate. Their attempt to
return to the Star Ledger occurred while the strike at the
Washington Post was still in progress.
The refusal of Respondent to give work to Candito in
November 1975, and on May 1, 1976, was keyed to
Respondent's policy of scrutinizing carefully any applicant
for a job who had worked at the Washington Post during
the strike. Powers implemented this policy in respect to
Candito by rejecting him for employment, ipso facto,
without confirming whether he had been guilty of any
strike activities which were unprotected and would have
justified a refusal to hire. The policy as adopted and
enforced by Powers contemplated the denial of employ-
ment if the applicant participated in the Washington Post
strike regardless of the nature of the participation. This
stance was unlawful because an individual may not be
barred from employment because he engages or has
engaged in concerted activities protected under Section 7
of the Act. Phelps Dodge Corporation v. N.LR.B., 313 U.S.
177 (1941). Cf. Unga Painting Corporation, 229 NLRB 567
(1977), where the Board held that an employer violated
Section 8(a)(3) when it refused to hire an individual,
commenting "We don't hire no union members." Thus,
Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3) and (I) of the Act by
refusing to put Candito to work on May 1, 1976, and
thereafter, although Candito was qualified to do such work.
Any other reasons advanced by Respondent for its
refusal to put Candito to work were pure pretexts tailored
12 In judging the pretextual nature of these reasons it is significant to
note that they were advanced after Candito's unfair labor practice charge
had been served on Respondent, on October 12. 1976, and may have been
an accommodation of position. No doubt Powers had "wised up."
:l The payment was made by a check dated April 12, 1974.
14 Newhouse testified that notice of termination may be given directly to
a supervisor or through a union representative.
11 Tuske testified credibly that when an employee would leave Powers
as defenses in this proceeding. The real reason Candito was
not put to work was that, as a member of Local 6, he
participated in the Washington Post strike.
As to Walsh his case falls within the same pattern. The
reasons given for the refusal to hire him, i.e., he owed for
uniforms, he did not turn in his ear muffs, and he should
have given more notice about leaving are false. The facts
show that he paid for his uniforms, he had no ear muffs,
and he followed the usual practice of giving notice of his
termination. In fact Powers was ingratiating; he extended
the time in which he kept Walsh and Candito on the
payroll. 15 His antagonism toward Candito and Walsh first
surfaced when they applied for jobs after they had
participated in the Washington Post strike. The fact that
the reasons given were false warrants an inference that
some other reason was being concealed. N.LR.B. v. Joseph
Antell, Inc., 358 F.2d 880, 883 (C.A. 1, 1966). Here the
reason which protrudes like a sore finger is Walsh's
participation in Local 6's strike at the Washington Post.
Power's disposition to consider such factor in the refusal to
hire Candito gives substance to the same conclusion in
regard to Walsh. As in the case of Candito, I am convinced
and find that the "real reason" 16 for Respondent's refusal
to put Walsh, who was otherwise qualified, to work was
that, as a member of Local 6, he participated in the
Washington Post strike. Hence, by its refusal to put Walsh
to work on or about November 9, 1976, and thereafter, the
Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Unions are labor organizations within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
2. Respondent is engaged in commerce within the
meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act and it will
effectuate the purposes of the Act for jurisdiction to be
exercised herein.
3. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing em-
ployees in the exercise of rights guaranteed by Section 7 of
the Act, Respondent engaged in unfair labor practices
within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
4. By unlawfully refusing to put William Candito to
work on May 1, 1976, and Martin Walsh on or about
November 9, 1976, and thereafter, Respondent engaged in
unfair labor practices within the meaning of 8(aX3) and (I)
of the Act.
5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor
practices affecting commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
THE REMEDY
It having been found that Respondent has engaged in
certain unfair labor practices, it is recommended that it
cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative
"would tell that man if you do not like where you are going, I will give you a
90 day leave of absence so you can return and hold onto everything,
hospitalization, Blue Cross, and all that." It is clear that Powers had
extended the same benefits to Candito and Walsh. Respondent's protest in
this respect is not only tardy but sounds in pretext.
16 See N.L RB. v. Brown, John, et al., d/b/a Brown Food Stores, et al., 380
U.S. 278 (1965).
584
NEWARK STAR LEDGER
action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. It
having been found that Respondent refused to put William
Candito and Martin Walsh to work on May 1, 1976, and
on or about November 9, 1976, respectively, in violation of
Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act, it is recommended that
Respondent offer each immediate employment to the
positions which they would have filled on the dates of the
refusals to hire or, if such positions no longer exist, to
substantially equivalent positions and restore to them any
benefits they may have lost and make them whole for any
loss of earnings they may have suffered, by reason of
Respondent's wrongful acts herein detailed, by payments
to them of sums of money equal to the amounts they would
have earned from the dates of the refusals to hire to the
date of the offers of employment, less net earnings during
such period, to be computed on a quarterly basis in the
manner established by the Board in F. W. Woolworth
Company, 90 NLRB 289 (1950), and including interest at
the rate of 6 percent per annum in the manner set forth in
Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716 (1962).'7
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact,
conclusions of law, and the entire record in this proceed-
ing, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, I hereby issue
the following recommended:
ORDER '8
The Respondent, The Newark Morning Ledger Co.
d/b/a Newark Star Ledger, Newark, New Jersey, its
officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
I. Cease and desist from:
(a) Violating Section 8(aX)1) and (3) of the Act by
refusing to put to work individuals who have lawfully
applied for employment because of their lawful participa-
tion in the Washington Post strike or their participation in
any other activities protected by Section 7 of the Act.
17 The employment and backpay rights of Candito and Walsh will be
subject to the applicable contracts, or contract, between Local 8 and
Respondent. It is intended by this remedy that the status quo ante be
established as nearly as possible.
is 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
(b) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or
coercing any employees in the exercise of the rights
guaranteed them by Section 7 of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, to engage in self-organization,
to bargain collectively through a representative of their
own choosing, to act together for collective bargaining or
other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any and
all of these things.
2. Take the following affirmative action which will
effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Offer William Candito and Martin Walsh employ-
ment and reimburse them for backpay in accordance with
the recommendations set forth in the section of this
Decision entitled "The Remedy" and comply fully with the
remedy.
(b) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the
Board or its agents, for examination and copying, all
payroll records, social security payment records, timecards,
personnel records and reports, and all other records
necessary to analyze the amount of backpay due under the
terms of this recommended Order.
(c) Post at its Newark plant at Newark, New Jersey,
copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix." 9
Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional
Director for Region 22, after being duly signed by
Respondent's representative, shall be posted by it immedi-
ately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it 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.
(d) Notify the Regional Director for Region 22, in
writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what
steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
its findings, conclusions, and Orders, and all objections thereto shall be
deemed waived for all purposes.
19 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 Pursuant to a
Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the
National Labor Relations Board."
585