Overseas Motors, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 11, 1982

260 N.L.R.B. 810 (N.L.R.B. 1982)

DECISIONS ()F NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Overseas Motors, Inc. and Miroijub Mitkovski.
Cases 7-CA-18251, 7-CA-18355, and 7-CA-
18477
March 11, 1982
DECISION AND ORDER
BYi MEMBERS FANNING, JENKINS, AND
ZIMMERMAN
On October 20, 1981, Administrative Law Judge
Lowell Goerlich issued the attached Decision in
this proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent and the
General Counsel filed exceptions and supporting
briefs.
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, find-
ings,' and conclusions2 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 modi-
fied below, and hereby orders that the Respondent,
Overseas Motors, Inc., Livonia, Michigan, its offi-
cers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the
action set forth in the said recommended Order, as
so modified:
i Respondent has excepted ito certain credihilii findings nmade by the
Administrative I a\r Judge It is the Board's eslabhlshed policy not to
overrule an administrative las judge's resolutilons v ith respect to credi-
hility unless the clear preponderanice of all of the relevanlt evidenice conl-
· inces us that the reolutitoins are il correct Slriuncird i)r IW'all Prldlrdciit,
Inc.. 91 NLRBH 544 (1950), cnld 11) 2f d 128 F2 d 2 ir (151) '4 c ha:le
carefully exanined the record and find no hasis for reversing his firndinig
We also Fiud totally .ilhoul merit Responrdenr ' allegatioiils of bias andl
prejudice on the part of the Administratlie l, a.s Judge, nor doi we per-
ceive anlly evidenlce that the \dminislratlie I.ass Jadge prejudcged tlhe
case, made prejudicial rulings. or dcriinsl-; lted a hias against Responldeii
in his analysis or discussoll io' the cvsidcllce 'ce further findl Ih;l Re
spondent wsas aaccrdred a falir hearinlg in all respects
I Contrary to Rcsplidcnlt's conltellioni, ce finld ith I hird C ltcll s de
cision in Ih-Cruji Clothing C admitned that Mlko ., ki s:aid he "as going tlo the l ahbor
Boa rd
Demro, r ik' affida ii to the Board includes the statement: I recall
that he tas fIiring him rell'
A' iued hirrin I)rnro,sk! sill refer It Santllil D)cmr, sksy unless
ottiher , SC lilotd
Re' pnlllltl had x orkllig rulves hich wv ere r otllmlltted Iii rillng In
Junie Il eniiltied. "C'harter iofl l i ." I nder the ht Ia .s, on Is ahsencIes
Ofr o.se 2 dlay, etrt' requlred to hasc a "alid e. plallnatiln In "mrllilg
)One of ie h.nellis, cited in the bhia', sa, D)ass Oiff Ill be grinled
, heII asked s 1iih 1io pil! No cliplse, c ta.d. er he'll asked Ih, fturnir ll a
it ril l "rt'ccpl I tildtr clrcullllltct.nc Inilll i to l iikr - kli ca.'C
811
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
come to the office at 1:15 p.m. to "talk with her some
more, and to file the charges."
After the above conversation with Demrovsky, Mit-
kovski went to work on his job. At or around 10:45
Demrovsky approached Mitkovski and gave him the sus-
pension above noted. When Mitkovski inquired as to
why he was given the suspension, Demrovsky said,
"Well, you came in late and you didn't have no written
receipt, no written receipt where you have been."
Demrovsky's affidavit to the Board reveals, "I decided
to issue the suspension to Mitkovski on September 15,
1980, because he told me he was going to the Labor
Board. I felt that by telling me this he was trying to test
me to see what I would do. I felt it was necessary to
crack down then. "5
Second: On October 6, 1980, Mitkovski was again sus-
pended, this time for 3 days. Citing punch-in times of
8:19, 8:46, and 10:59 for Friday (October 3), Saturday
(October 4), and Monday (October 6), respectively, the
suspension read, "No improvement in starting time there-
fore third warning must be issued, which is also the last
one." 6 (G.C. Exh. 6.)
On October 6, 1980, Mitkovski arrived at work at or
about 8:15 a.m. Mitkovski asked Demrovsky whether he
could be excused until 10 o'clock since he had an ap-
pointment with his lawyer. Demrovsky answered, "If
you don't have enough work you can go." Mitkovski re-
turned around 10:15. Demrovsky called him to his desk
and asked him where he had been. Mitkovski replied, "I
went to see my lawyer." Demrovsky entered in a book
the date, "ten ten, went to see lawyer." Around 10:50
Demrovsky asked Mitkovski whether he had punched in.
Mitkovski had forgotten and then punched in. He re-
turned to his job. At 12:30 p.m. Demrovsky received a
telephone call from Patrick Labadie from the Board's
Detroit office. Demrovsky was informed that the Nation-
al Labor Relations Board had decided to issue a com-
plaint in respect to Mitkovski's charge.
Thereafter Demrovsky brought Mitkovski the suspen-
sion letter above mentioned. After Mitkovski read the
suspension letter he reminded Demrovsky that he had
asked for the time off and otherwise would not have left.
Later in the day Mitkovski wanted to discuss the matter
with Demrovsky. Demrovsky commented, "I am fed up
of your threats and the only way I can listen what you
talk is with the representative or the NLRB or the
lawyer and I am not going to personally talk with you."
Third: On October 23, 1980, Mitkovski was dis-
charged. On October 21, 1980, the investigator for the
National Labor Relations Board visited Demrovsky.
After the investigator left Demrovsky went to the place
where Mitkovski was working and said, "You know,
Mire, I think it is better for you if you look for another
job." Mitkovski asked why and said that he did not
intend to quit. Demrovsky replied, "You might not but
you might be fired tonight or tomorrow. We will see."
5 Of this statement Demrovsks testiied, "It is the truth a;rld it still
exists. However, there should he a division made"
s Mitkovski had been late ,on the average of tvo or three time, a svcek
during his entire tenure of enlplosnment He had recei ved one 'u ritten dis-
ciplinary warning for tardiness on May 2(), 19( Mitkoskl ki colltinlled lo
he late after NMas 20) with(Lut written vsarnlng until Septerlher 15 I 80()
On October 23, 1980, Mitkovski was called to the sales-
room in the presence of Samuel and Andy Demrovsky.
Thus Mitkovski describes what occurred:
A. When I went there he explained to me that I
had my first warning letter; that I had my second
warning letter and I had my third warning letter, so
he also blamed me that I falsified Mr. Terry Gon-
terman's timeclock from I believe it was October 4
on that Saturday when he punched along with me.
We both punched at eight forty-six. I don't know
why. Why should I falsify some timeclock to eight
o'clock when it doesn't help my case? It just ruins
it . ..
He claimed that I falsified that. He had already
my check prepared and he also told me that he has
got a letter from the insurance company that they
are threatening that I would have put them on high
risk policy because of me having suspended driving
license. Then he said the company already had lost
a suit and they were on a high risk policy at the
moment when I was dismissed....
I tried to ask, first of all I tried to tell him that
the first letter of May 20th is outdated because of
by-laws of the company says it takes three let-
ters. . .. 7
Mitkovski asked for a letter of dismissal which was re-
fused by Demrovsky.
The problem with insurance apparently arose because
Mitkovski held a suspended driver's license.
The renewal date of Respondent's insurance policy
with Citizens Insurance Company was November 9,
1980. Sometime prior to that time the insurance agency,
Kapnick and Company, Inc., requested data on Respond-
ent's employees who would be covered by the insurance.
The purpose of this inquiry was to ascertain if any of Re-
spondent's employees were high risks.
Demrovsky had known for over a year that Mitkovs-
ki's driver's license had been suspended.' On this point
Demrovsky testified:
Back to the driver's license situation. I knew he
had driver's license suspended. I knew every bit of
it and I had pushed him to get it reinstated. I was
hiding in '79. Mr. Spain does not have a check on
him because I purposely was trying to save Mr.
Mitkovski's job by saying, look, you must have
your driver's license because the insurance is going
to cancel me. These were numerous warnings. Not
only for the time but for the driving record and of
course the misconduct with the customers. They
were given not only to him but a couple other em-
()in Ma 20. q190, NMitko, ski had recev ed a armiing letter in respect
it his -" 4s5 rris al Mitkor ski testilied that he ',as told that this letter
sy tild llit ,ourilt oiti lrd diSlissil sinCe iI %as dated prior to the isuance
f Ih t e rititct "Chairlir itf 11N ;l t," I)cmro, sky denied Nlitkoi , klis esti-
ilkois ski's drlcr', licen se had been suspended in Octo l ber 7. 1979.
and DI)C lhe r i). q,7 liir failiire to ippealr il court tr -energs rpeed"
i,iola;tiilll At the llil f the hel rilg lhereinr he had cleared ulp the viola-
ilnlls tand ecld a .alid lit,,sc
812
()\'VIRSF AS NI()I()RS, INC
ployees their records were had but he had no driv-
er's license.,
Demrovsk, also testified, "I didn't w ant to fire that
man [Mitkovski]. so he doesn't lose his job. I was--well,
I was doing everything in my power not to has e him
terminated."
In regard to the insurance co(mpany 's request to fur-
nish names of employees. IDemro sky testified:
Now this letter is in September, the early part of
September. which is Hwell beforc the \ational Labhor
Relations Board ever got into thc act oJ filing these
suits.
They had requested and w'ere furnished names,
addresses as stated, and, therefore, were not fur-
nished immediately because I was trying to see how I
could go around. how I could go around by not reveal-
ing the record of our employees, especiully .Miro Mit-
kovski. I couldn 't help it.
There was a second request letter that come in
which we did not answer the first one. Voluntarily
I didn't answer it. I wanted to save the man's job.
Therefore, we did answer the second one and they
found out there is a license that is in suspension
with a couple of warrants out for arrest in Westland
and Livonia. [Emphasis supplied.]
After the "National Labor Relations Board . . . got
into the Act" Demrovsky submitted the names and re-
ceived a communication thereafter dated September 23,
1980, from Donald E. Spain. vice president in charge of
sales of Kapnick and Company, Inc. Spain commented
on the "bad" employees and asked "what we can do
about the real bad ones." (G.C. Exh. 8.) Comments were
made about three employees: Concerning Mitkovski:
"FAC means he failed to appear in Court. Otherwise he
ignores the law" and "Should not drive Co. cars"; Vuli-
cevia: "should not drive company cars"; Schueltz: "This
guy also ignores the law. Twice he failed to appear in
court."
About the first or middle of October Spain conversed
with Demrovsky. While Spain was not wholly clear as
to the scope of the conversation he testified that he "in-
dicated" to Demrovsky that "having an employee with
an expired driver's license created a very serious prob-
lem for us, and to continue on with that kind of an em-
ployee driving a company vehicle would probably result
in termination of insurance, at least with this carrier."
According to Spain, Demrovsky asked him to "write this
letter simply to validate with the employee that [his]
statement to them is in fact true." On October 21. 1980,
Spain addressed a letter to Demrovsky as requested,
citing Mitkovski's failure to "meet the underwriting
standards set by your insurance carrier." (G.C. Exh. 7.)
Upon receipt of the letter Demrovsky immediately fired
Mitkovski,
On November 3, 1980, Demrovsky advised Kapnick
and Company, Inc., by letter, that Mitkovski had been
discharged on October 23, 1980.
' Spain was the insurance agent
Demrovsky testified that prior to October 23, 1980, he
had never mentioned to Mitkovski "the possibility of dis-
charge." Mitkovski's driving record was never submitted
to the insurance carrier to ascertain whether it would
coxer him (Spain represented the agency), nor did Re-
spondent request that Mitkovski's name be submitted to
the carrier for an opinion. At the time of Mitkovski's dis-
charge Respondent's insurance was effective and would
not have expired until November 9, 1980. Moreover, the
insurance could not have been canceled except upon 10
days' notice. Mitkovski, prior to his discharge, was not
given the opportunity to reinstate his driver's license.
In respect to unacceptable driving records Spain stated
the policy thus:
We simply explain to the clients that a person
with a driving record that is unacceptable will not
be able to drive company cars. If the job compels
that they do then some action has to be taken. This
is entirely up to the employer.
During the hearing Demrovsky cited several other
reasons which were considered by Respondent in dis-
charging Mitkovski. These reasons generally involved al-
leged misconduct which had been overlooked by Re-
spondent prior to Mitkovski's contact with the Board
and which had not been initially cited as reasons for dis-
charge. l
In his affidavit Demrovsky described his discharge of
Mitkovski as follows:
I said we had a larger problem, that we could not
get insurance on him to cover his driving to and
from work and his driving of company and custom-
er's cars. I showed the letter from Donald Spain.
He read the letter. He did not say anything. I told
him he was discharged immediately. That he should
pick up his toolbox and leave. He said so that's it
huh? And I said, yes, that was it. Mitkovski then
locked his toolbox and left. That was all that was
said. I did not mention that Mitkovski had changed
Terry Gonterman's timecard. [G.C. Exh. II11.]
Demrovsky's affidavit further reveals: "My policy is
that I will keep an employee who has a bad driving
record as long as he has a license that is in effect."
Demrovsky further testified that Mitkovski was a good
auto mechanic.
Fourth: The General Counsel has established through
credible evidence and by the admission of Demrovsky
("I decided to issue the suspension to Mitkovski on Sep-
tember 15, 1980, because he told me he was going to the
Labor Board") that Mitkovski was suspended on Sep-
tember 15, 1980, because he expressed the intention of
complaining to the National Labor Relations Board. The
suspension of Mitkovski "because he made known a deci-
sion to seek Board assistance" interfered with the rights
guaranteed under Section 8(a)(4) of the Act and was in
" Demrovsky. at the hearing. asserted as additional reasons for dis-
chairge horsepla. , use of Ihe telephone. an expired mechanic's license,
and "fondling of female customers" No written warnings were e.er
glxcil fir ais of this alleged mis-conduct
813
DLECISIO(NS ()F NATI()NAI. LABO)R RELAII()NS B()ARD
violation of Section 8(a)(4) of the Act. Hoover Design
Corporation, 167 NLRB 461, 462 (1967); Mitsubishi Air-
craft International, Inc., 212 NLRB 856, 866 (1974).
Moreover, for the same reason Respondent violated
Section 8(a)(4) when it threatened Mitkovski that he
would not "get any jobs to make enough living so [he]
would fire [himself]" if he filed a complaint with the
Board and when Respondent required Mitkovski to pres-
ent a receipt of his contact with the Board's offices.
These actions of Respondent placed an unlawful restraint
on Mitkovski whereas the Act demands that there be
free access to its protection. To hold otherwise would
afford the employer a means by which it could frustrate
the Act and render Section 8(a)(4), as here, ineffective
under certain circumstances. This the Act forbids. Addi-
tionally, the General Counsel has established that Mit-
kovski was suspended again on October 6, 1980, almost
immediately after Respondent had been notified that the
Board was issuing a complaint on Mitkovski's charge
even though a cause for the suspension had been tardi-
ness for which Mitkovski had been excused. (Mitkovski
had been excused to see his lawyer.) It is obvious that
Respondent was prompted by Mitkovski's charge filed
with the Board when it suspended him. Thereby Re-
spondent violated Section 8(a)(4) of the Act. "
In respect to Mitkovski's discharge, the General Coun-
sel's prima facie case disclosed that (1) Respondent
threatened that if Mitkovski complained to the Labor
Board he would not receive any desirable working as-
signments; (2) Respondent suspended Mitkovski on Sep-
tember 15 and October 6, 1980, because he had filed
charges with the Board; (3) Mitkovski was considered a
good auto mechanic; and (4) Mitkovski was discharged
shortly after the investigator from the Board visited Re-
spondent, after which visit Respondent remarked to Mit-
kovski that it was "better" for him to "look for another
job" and that he "might not but [he] might be fired to-
night." Thus a prima facie case has been established that
Mitkovski was discharged because he filed charges with
the Board. Cf. Wright Line, a Division of Wright Line.
Inc., 251 NLRB 1083 (1981).
Respondent seeks to rebut the prima facie case by of-
fering evidence that Mitkovski was discharged, since to
have continued him on its payroll would have caused its
insurance carrier to have refused to renew its insurance,
because Mitkovski's driver's license was suspended. That
this reason was pretextual is borne out by these facts:
Prior to Mitkovski's filing charges with the Board, Re-
spondent knew of Mitkovski's driving record and con-
cealed it from the insurance company in order to retain
Mitkovski on its payroll. In fact Respondent did not re-
spond to the insurance agency's first request for its em-
" The General Counsel has cited Alleluia Cushion Co.. Inc. 221 N.RB
999 (1975), to support the claim that Mitkovski was engaged in concerted
activities and thus Respondent's misconduct violated Sec 8(a)(l) of the
Act. This case is not apposite. Alleluia Cushion Co. Inc.. involved alleged
violations of occupational safety rhich, although raised by an individual
only, were found by the Board to encompass the swell-heing of fellow
employees Unlike the discriminatee in the Alleluia Cushion case Milkovs-
ki's complaint was svholly personal. It involved the denial of a wage in-
crease which concerned Mitkovski only The complaint did not encom-
pass the working conditions of an) other employees Hence there "was no
concerted activity and no siolation of Sec 8(a)(1) of the Act
ployees' names in order that the agency could check
them for driver risk so that those employees who were
potential risks, including Mitkovski, could be protected
on its payroll. It was only after the Board matter sur-
faced that Respondent abandoned its concealment and
furnished the insurance agency the information it sought.
Although the insurance carrier had not evaluated Mit-
kovski as a risk, Respondent discharged him neverthe-
less.
Finally, at the time of Mitkovski's discharge Respond-
ent's insurance was in effect and would not have expired
until November 9, 1980. Thus, there was no need for Re-
spondent's precipitous discharge action. In this respect
this case is not unlike the case of Golden Beverage of San
Antonio, Inc., 256 NLRB 469 (1981), in which the Board
found wrongful discharges when the "Respondent has
failed to advance a cogent explanation indicating a non-
discriminating motive for the discharges of these three
employees, which occurred prior to their actual exclu-
sion from insurance coverage." The respondent had dis-
charged them because its insurance carrier had indicated
that it would exclude them from coverage. As in the
Golden Beverage case Respondent in the instant case had
"used alleged problems involving insurance coverage to
mask its real reasons." Clearly Respondent discharged
Mitkovski in retaliation for his protected activity of con-
tacting the National Labor Relations Board and filing a
charge with it; Respondent thereby violated Section
8(a)(4) of the Act.
CONCL USIONS OF LAW
1. Respondent is engaged in commerce within the
meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act and it will
effectuate the policies of the Act for jurisdiction to be
exercised herein.
2. By unlawfully threatening Mirolijub Mitkovski that
he would not "get any jobs to make enough living so
[he] would fire [himself]" if he filed a complaint with the
National Labor Relations Board, and by requiring Mit-
kovski to present a receipt of his contact with the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board, Respondent violated
Section 8(a)(4) of the Act.
3. By unlawfully suspending Mitkovski for 2 days on
September 15, 1980, and for 3 days on October 6, 1980,
Respondent engaged in unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 8(a)(4) of the Act.
4. By unlawfully discharging Mitkovski on October
23, 1980, Respondent has engaged in unfair labor prac-
tices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(4) 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
action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. It
having been found that Respondent unlawfully dis-
charged Miroljub Mitkovski on October 23, 1980, in vio-
lation of Section 8(a)(4) of the Act, it is recommended, in
814
O\'ERSI AS M()T()RS, IN(_
accordance with Board policy, that Respondent offer
said employee immediate and full reinstatement to his
former position or, if such position no longer exists, to
substantially equivalent employment, without prejudice
to his seniority or other rights and privileges previously
enjoyed, dismissing. if necessary, any employee hired on
or since October 23, 1980, to fill any of said position i"
and make him whole for any loss of earnings he may
have suffered by reason of Respondent's acts herein de-
tailed by payment to him of a sum of money equal to the
amount he would have earned from the date of his un-
lawful discharge to the date of an offer of reinstatement,
less net earnings during such period, with interest there-
on, to be computed on a quarterly basis in the amount
and manner established by the Board in F W. Wool/worth
Company. 90 NLRB 289 (1950). and Florida Steel Corpo-
ration, 231 NLRB 651 (1977). 1'3
It is further recommended that Miroljub Mitkovski be
reimbursed for any loss of pay by reason of his unlawful
suspensions, with interest, in accordance wvith the
Board's usual policy, and that his suspensions be ex-
punged from his personnel record.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, con-
clusions of law, and the entire record in this proceeding,
and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act. I hereby issue
the following recommended:
ORDER 14
The Respondent, Overseas Motors, Inc. Livonia,
Michigan, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns,
shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Unlawfully interfering with employees' 8(a)(4)
rights.
(b) Unlawfully suspending or discharging employees
for filing charges with the National Labor Relations
Board or for giving testimony under the National Labor
12 Respondent is not precluded. in subsequent compliance proceedings.
from contending that, after a good-failh exploration of Mltkoski's insura-
bility, he is actually uninsurable with ani carrier, and that its backpay
liability should be commensurably reduced See (oI/d,n Beverage o/ San
Antonio. Inc. supra See also itchl & Son,. Inc.. 227 NLRB 194(. 195(0.
1951 11977)
" See, generally. ,tis Plumbing & Ieaoing Co, 138 Nl.RB 716 (19h2)
4 In the event no exceptions are filed as prov ided hby Sec 102 46 of
the Rules and Regulations (of the National Labor Relations Board, the
findings, conclusions, and recommended Order herein shall, as pro, lded
in Sec 102 48 of the Rules and Regulations, be adopted bs the Board and
become its findindings, conclusions, and Order, and all objection, thereto
shall be deemed walised fir all purposes
Relations Act. as amended, in violation of Section 8(a)(4)
of the Act.
(c) In any like or related manner interfering with. re-
straining, or coercing employees in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act
2 Take the follow'ing affirmative action which w ill ef-
fectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Offer Miroljub Mitkovski immediate and full rein-
statement to his former position or, if such position no
longer exists, to a substantially equavalent position, wxith-
out prejudice to his seniority or other rights and privi-
leges previously enjoyed, discharging, if necessary, any
employee hired to replace him, and make him whole for
any loss of pay he may hasve suffered by reason of Re-
spondent's unlawful discharge of him in accordance with
the recommendations set forth in the section of this De-
cision entitled "The Remedy."
(b) Make whole Miroljub Mitkovski, with interest, for
any loss of pay he may have suffered by reason of his
unlawful suspensions on September 15 and October 6,
1980, and expunge said suspensions from his personnel
record.
(c) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the
Board or its agents, for examination and copying, all
payroll records, social security payment records, time-
cards, personnel records and reports, and all other re-
cords necessary to analyze the amount of backpay due
under the terms of this Order.
(d) Post at its Livonia, Michigan, establishment copies
of the attached notice marked "Appendix." s Copies of
said notice. on forms provided by the Regional Director
for Region 7, after being duly signed by Respondent's
representative. shall be posted by Respondent immediate-
ly upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60
consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, in-
cluding all places where notices to employees are cus-
tomarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Re-
spondent to insure that said notices are not altered, de-
faced, or covered by any, other material.
(e) 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.
IT IS FURTHFR RECOMMENDI)I) that the complaint be
dismissed insofar as it alleges violations of the Act other
than those found in this Decision.
'' In the event that this Order is enforced by a Judgment of a United
States Court of Appeals, the s ords in the notice reading "Posted by
()rder of the National .abor Relations Hoard" shall read "Posted Pursu-
ant to a Judgment of the Uniled States Court of Appeals Enforcing an
Order of the National Labor Relalions Board "