R & R Theatre Company,

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 26, 1978

238 N.L.R.B. 352 (N.L.R.B. 1978)

DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
R & R Theatre Company, Inc. and International Alli-
ance of Theatrical Stage Employees & Moving Pic-
ture Machine Operators of the United States &
Canada, AFL-CIO, and Local 199. Case 7-CA-
14435
September 26, 1978
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN FANNING AND MEMBERS PENELLO
AND MURPHY
On July 5, 1978, Administrative Law Judge Phil W.
Saunders issued the attached Decision in this pro-
ceeding. Thereafter, Respondent filed exceptions 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
conclusions2 of the Administrative Law Judge and to
adopt his recommended Order.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Rela-
tions Board adopts as its Order the recommended Or-
der of the Administrative Law Judge and hereby or-
ders that the Respondent, R & R Theatre Company,
Inc., Warren, Michigan, its officers, agents, succes-
sors, 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.
I Respondent has excepted to certain credibility findings made by the Ad-
ministrative 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 adopting the Administrative Law Judge's conclusions, we are relying
on his finding that Nicholas was applying for a nonsupervisory position and
would have been hired but for his union affiliation. We do not adopt the
Adrmnistrative Law Judge's dicta that an applicant for a supervisory posi-
tion from outside an employer's work force would be protected under the
Act. See Mapes Hotel, Inc., 230 NLRB 61, fn. 2 (1977).
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 the opportunity to
give evidence, the National Labor Relations Board has
found that we violated the National Labor Relations Act
and has ordered us to post this notice.
WE WILL NOT refuse to hire, or otherwise discrimi-
nate against employees because of their union activi-
ties.
WE WILL NOT discourage membership in the Union,
or any other labor organization, by discriminating
against employees in regard to their hire and tenure of
employment or any terms and conditions of employ-
ment.
WE WILl. NOT in any other manner interfere with,
restrain, or coerce our employees' exercise of the rights
guaranteed by Section 7 of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, as amended.
WE WILL offer Gus Nicholas immediate employ-
ment to a position at which he would have been em-
ployed had he not been discriminated against, or, if
such position no longer exists, to a substantially equiv-
alent position, without prejudice to seniority and other
rights, and make him whole for any loss of pay plus
interest.
R & R THEATRE COMPANY, INC.
DECISION
STATEMENI OF TIHE CASE
PHIL W. SAUNDERS, Administrative Law Judge: Based
on a charge filed on September 27, 1977, by International
Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees & Moving Picture
Machine Operators of United States and Canada, AFL-
CIO, and Local 199, herein called the Union or Charging
Party, a complaint was issued on November 10, 1977,
against R & R Theatre Company, Inc., herein called the
Respondent or Company, alleging violations of Section
8(a)(l) and (3) of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended. Respondent filed an answer to the complaint, de-
nying it had engaged in the alleged matter. The Respondent
and the General Counsel filed briefs.
Upon the entire record in the case, and from my observa-
tion of the witnesses and their demeanor,' I make the fol-
lowing:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY
Respondent is a corporation organized and existing un-
der the laws of Michigan, and at all times material herein
has maintained its principal office and place of business in
Warren, Michigan. Respondent's theatre located in Roches-
' The facts found herein are based on the record as a whole upon my
observation of the witnesses. The credibility resolutions herein have been de-
rivedfrom a review of the entire testimonial record and exhibits with due regard
for the logic of probability, the demeanor of the witnesses, and the teaching of
N.L.R.B. v. Walton Manufacturing Company & Loganville Pants Co., 369
U.S. 404 (1962). As to those witnesses testifying in contradiction of the find-
ings herein, their testimony has been discredited either as having been in
conflict with the testimony of credible witnesses or because it was in and of
itself incredible and unworthy of belief. All testimony has been reviewed and
weighed in the light of the entire record
238 NLRB No. 46
352
R & R THEATRE CO.
ter, Michigan, known as the Hills Theatre, is the only facil-
ity involved in this proceeding.
During the fiscal year ending December 31, 1976, which
period is representative of its operations during all times
material hereto, Respondent, in the course and conduct of
its business operations, purchased, leased, and caused to be
transported and delivered at its Metropolitan Detroit area
places of business motion pictures and other goods and ma-
terials valued in excess of $300,000, of which goods and
materials valued in excess of $275,000 were transported and
delivered to its places of business in Detroit, Michigan, di-
rectly from points located outside the State of Michigan.
During the same period its gross revenues from all sources
combined were in excess of $500,000.
Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce within
the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.
11. THeL LABOR ORGANIZA'I()N INV()IOVEI)
The Union is a labor organization within the meaning of
Section 2(5) of the Act.
111. FHE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
It is alleged in the complaint that on or about June 29,
1977, and June 30, 1977, the Company refused to hire Gus
Nicholas to operate the motion picture projector at its Hills
Theatre. It is further alleged that the Respondent engaged
in such conduct because of Nicholas' status as a union pro-
jectionist and his union activities, desire, and beliefs and to
avoid a contractual relationship with the Charging Party.'
The Respondent is engaged in the exhibition of motion
pictures in the Detroit metropolitan area and operates six
theaters as leased facilities, including the Hills Theatre, in
Rochester, Michigan-the one involved in this proceeding.
Robert Putansu is the Respondent's secretary and general
manager, and Ron Demers is the Respondent's president.
The Respondent leases the Hills Theatre from Alvin Gur-
sin. Gursin owns the building, the motion picture equip-
ment, and the theater name, but has no other connection
with the Respondent other than being its landlord.
Until on or about June 28, 1977, the Hills Theatre was
being leased to and operated by the Rochester Hills Theatre
Corporation, herein called the Corporation, and at that
time was managed by Pat McNeil. In addition to managing
the facility, McNeil also operated the theater's projection
equipment an average of five nights per week, and during
the remaining two evenings the projection booth was run by
part-time employee Gus Nicholas. Both McNeil and
Nicholas are members of the Union, and McNeil and the
Corporation, as aforestated, had previously granted the
Union recognition as the bargaining agent for its "projec-
tionist" employees.
McNeil testified that the decision to cease operations by
the Corporation at the Hills Theatre was made sometime in
May 1977, and he notified Gursin, the landlord, that they
would be vacating the theater as of June 30. McNeil also
2 There was a complaint filed by the Union against the Company now
pending before the Michigan Employment Relations Commission alleging a
refusal to bargain and other related matters, but no such issues are involved
in this proceeding.
offered to help Gursin find new tenants and suggested trade
magazines where Gursin might advertise. Gursin then con-
tacted the Respondent about taking over the Hills Theatre,
and the Respondent signed a lease with Gursin and agreed
to begin operating the theatre in July.
Shortly before the transition was scheduled to occur, the
Respondent's principals, Putansu and Demers, made sev-
eral visits to the Hills Theatre. It appears that Putansu and
Demers had learned that McNeil planned to discontinue
operations at the theater 2 days before the end of his ten-
ancy, on Tuesday, June 28, but the Respondent was anx-
ious to avoid the appearance of a complete shutdown and
as a result asked McNeil's permission to show films the last
2 days of his tenancy, and McNeil then agreed to turn over
the keys by Wednesday, June 29. McNeil and Putansu also
discussed the status and capabilities of the employees who
had been working for McNeil with a view toward hiring
some of them when the Respondent took over, and in such
connection they discussed McNeil's relief projectionist, Gus
Nicholas. McNeil testified that Putansu expressed no oppo-
sition to taking Nicholas on as the theater's full-time projec-
tionist, as McNeil had no desire to continue working, but
then insisted that Nicholas bring a copy of McNeil's collec-
tive-bargaining agreement with him to the projection
booth.'
The Respondent began operating the theater on Wednes-
das, June 29. Putansu testified that it is the Respondent's
practice to have one of the owners, either himself or De-
mers, operate new theaters for the first couple of weeks to
get a "feel" for the location and customers, but that man-
agement of the theatre is then turned over to a "manager-
projectionist" whose duties include running the projection
equipment. Putansu also testified that at the time Respon-
dent took over the Hills Theatre they were already consid-
ering Derek Carter for the job of manager-projectionist as
Carter had earlier expressed an interest in managing a the-
ater as a supervisor, but at the time in question was working
elsewhere and would not be available for several weeks.
Thus, Putansu stated, on the day they moved into the Hills
Theatre, the Respondent was uncertain exactly how the
theatre would ultimately be managed.
About 6:30 on the evening of June 29, 1977, Nicholas
appeared at the Hills Theatre, as he had been instructed by
his Union's business agent, William Gagnon, to report for
work that night as the projectionist. Nicholas then intro-
duced himself to Putansu, informing him that he was the
projectionist from the Union and reporting for work, and
handed Putansu the contract between the Corporation and
the Union, as aforestated. Putansu then "leafed through"
the contract a couple of times and after so doing informed
Nicholas that he wanted to look over the contract further
and also wanted to contact the Union to see if they could
"come up with something," and in the meantime he (Patan-
su) would be the projectionist. The next morning Nicholas
reported these events and developments to Business Agent
Gagnon, and Gagnon told him to go back again to the
theater that evening.
As instructed, Nicholas appeared at the theater on
Thursday, June 30, and on this evening Respondent's other
I Putansu testified that McNeil only suggested that Nicholas was available
to help "break in" the booth, but that he declined the offer
353
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
principal, Ron Demers, was present to manage the theater
and run the projector. On this occasion, Nicholas informed
Demers that he "had come to work." and he testified that
Demers then informed him that there was no reason for
him to do so, as they had decided to go "nonunion."
Demers denies making any such statement. His testi-
mony indicates that his conversation with Nicholas was
quite similar to the one Putansu had the previous evening--
that Nicholas appeared and announced he was there to run
the projection equipment, but was informed that he (De-
mers) would be running the projection equipment himself,
and that he then also asked him to leave an employment
application, as Putansu had likewise requested the evening
before, but Nicholas merely retrieved a stool he had left
and left the theater.
It appears that at all times since July 1. 1977, the Re-
spondent's projection room has been run on a weekly basis
either by an owner-operator, by a manager, or by one em-
ployee. It further appears that the Respondent hired several
of the interested nonunion employees who had worked pre-
viously for McNeil, but failed and refused to offer employ-
ment to Nicholas, the only one wanting to work who was
represented by the Union and covered under the terms of a
union contract.
Counsel for the Respondent argues that the record in this
case establishes that the job sought by Nicholas was a su-
pervisory position, and inasmuch as the Act does not pro-
tect supervisory employees, the Board may not claim that
Nicholas is entitled to protection from a discriminatory re-
fusal to hire. Counsel further maintains that this record also
shows that the projectionist's duties at the Hills Theatre are
now (and were at the time of Respondent's takeover) the
responsibility of the theater manager, who is manifestly a
supervisor, and that Nicholas wanted to run the projection
equipment and succeed to the full-time status of the the-
ater's prior manager. Pat McNeil.
As pointed out, in Bell Aircr/fi ( orporation, 101 NLRB
132 (1952), enfd. 206 F.2d 235, 236 237 (C.A. 2). the Board
held that where an employee was not promoted to a super-
visory position because of' reasons related to his union
membership, such conduct was violative of the Act, and in
its decision enforcing the order of' the Board, the court of
appeals addressed itself to the supervisory issue as follows:
It has been argued by the union that Finch was not
within the protection of the Act while he was being
considered for promotion. Under Section 2(3) of the
Act "employee" as defined does not include foremen
or other supervisory personnel; and, it is urged, the
denial of a supervisory position is for that reason not
within the protection of the Act. But, even if we as-
sume, arguendo, that an applicant for a supervisory po-
sition who was not already an employee of this par-
ticular employer would not have been a protected
employee under the Act, it does not follow that Finch
was similarly not protected. At the time the discrimi-
nation took place he was clearly a protected employee,
and his prospects for promotion were among the con-
ditions of his employment. The act protected him so
long as he held a nonsupervisory position, and it is
immaterial that the protection thereby afforded was
calculated to enable him to obtain a position in which
he would no longer be protected.
Moreover, it is noted in the instant record that there is
only testimony showing that it was Respondent's "past
practice" to operate their theaters under a manager-projec-
tionist arrangement, a supervisory position, but there is
lacking any specific and reliable evidence in this record
showing that any such supervisory arrangement or position
would be given to Nicholas at the recently acquired Hills
Theatre. The only assurance given Nicholas was that Pu-
tansu would look over the contract with the Corporation
and then get in touch with the Union, but there were no
verbal statements or indications to Nicholas whatsoever
that he would be placed in a supervisory position by the
Respondent as a manager-projectionist even though he
might be a full-time employee. In fact, Putansu admitted
that the Respondent was "uncertain" as to how the theatre
would be managed. In view of this, Nicholas stood virtually
in the same position as an employee applicant looking for a
job, and, of course, an employer cannot base its refusal to
hire an applicant because of antiunion feelings or consider-
ations. At the time the discrimination took place, Nicholas
was clearly under a protected status even though he might
possibly later obtain a position in which the protection
would no longer apply.4 Furthermore, even assuming, argu-
endo, that Nicholas was to act as a manager-projectionist,
the refusal to hire him at the Hills Theatre, under the par-
ticular circumstances of this case, would have the effect of
coercing and restraining both him and other employees
(who were nonunion) into refraining from union activities
in order to better their job opportunities.'
Counsel for the Respondent'also argues that even if the
supervisory nature of the "projectionist's" job is over-
looked, the General Counsel has still failed to prove its alle-
gation for the reason that Nicholas never actually applied
fbr employment and that while Nicholas denies he was in-
vited to submit an application by Putansu and Demers, it is
obvious that the witnesses for the General Counsel are in-
sisting that such an application was "unnecessary" and that
Nicholas need not and would not have filed one, in any'
case.'
See Me' er Super Markets,. Inc., 142 Nl RB 513, 517. In. 8 (1963).
See Loxal Union Vo'. 725 o the United Association of Journeymen and
.Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industin (Power Regulator Co.),
225 NL.RB 138 (1976). relating to a refusal by a union in the construction
industry to refer an employee to the job of foreman, and the decision by the
Board that the refusal to refer had a sufficient impact on Sec 7 rights to
warrant the finding of a violation.
6 In these respects Nicholas stated the following:
(A]n exhibitor that owns a theater does not negotiate with an individual.
that being the projectionist. They do not do that The exhibitor contacts
the Union and the Union sends the man on the jobs.
When an exhibitor, a man ,owns a theatre and wants to have a projec-
tionist, he deals with the Union. the business agent. That is what that
man [the business agent] gets paid for doing. supplying the theatre with
a projectionists. The projectionist has nothing to do with it whatsoever
Business Agent (iagnon testified that under their procedure an employer
initiates contacts with the Union and requests a referral. Putansu testified he
neser requested a referral. specifically indicated to McNeil that he would not
be needing a referral, and that he received no communication from the
tinion about the job. G;agnon. although stating he attempted to contact the
Company by phone. admits he never was able to do so. and the Union sent
no letters or telegrams.
354
R & R THEATRE CO.
Counsel for the Respondent further maintains that even
though the contract signed by McNeil and the Union con-
tained a hiring-hall provision such an arrangement only
binds the parties to that agreement, and it in no way con-
trols the hiring practices of employers not a party to the
contract.
In summary, the Respondent maintains that when con-
sidered as a whole, the evidence shows only that Nicholas
reported for work at the Hills Theatre on two evenings.
refused to complete an employment application, and as a
consequence was never hired by the Respondent and that
his membership in the Union had nothing to do with it. I
conclude and find that the Respondent refused to hire
Nicholas because of his membership in the Union.
As pointed out, in the conversation McNeil had with Pu-
tansu about the continued employment of Nicholas, Putan-
su told him that while there would be no problems, Nicho-
las would not be allowed in the projectionist booth unless
he had a copN of the union contract. Accordingly, McNeil
took his copy of the contract to the union hall, where it was
given to Nicholas. Nicholas then took it with him when he
reported for work on the evening of June 29. but instead of
putting Nicholas to work, Putansu told him he would not
be needed that evening. as he. Putansu. wanted to look over
the contract. and on the following evening Ron Demers
told Nicholas that there was no reason to come back as
they had decided to go "nonunion." as aforestated.
It is also clear from this record that for a period after
taking over the theater, there was considerable turmoil be-
cause Respondent was unable to obtain the immediate ser-
vice of Derek Carter-yet no offer of even temporary em-
ployment was made to Nicholas, and I am in agreement
with the General Counsel that no employment was offered
because Nicholas was represented by the Union, and the
contract in question established wages and other benefits
for projectionists which were more than Respondent was
willing to pay.
It is argued by the Respondent that they were not bound
by the contract of the prior operator of the theater and that
if they were unable to get together with Nicholas on a wage
scale acceptable to both, they were then justified in not
hiring him. However, the General Counsel points out that
when Putansu asked for a copy of the contract. he was then
able to ascertain that the wage and other benefits provided
therein were greater than the Respondent would pay, and,
therefore, he made no effort to determine whether or not
Nicholas was willing to work at a lower level of compensa-
tion. Further. the Respondent also made no effort to deter-
mine whether or not the Union would be willing to negoti-
ate a new contract with more acceptable terms. The
Respondent denies that union considerations played any
part in its decision not to hire Nicholas; yet, as argued by
the General Counsel, Putansu asked that Nicholas bring
with him a copy of the contract, and in so doing Respon-
dent must have wanted to know what its obligations would
be if it assumed the contract. or at least what wages and
other benefits Nicholas would receive as a union projection-
ist and might expect even in a nonunion theater.
There is some suggestion by Putansu that it was only
"curiosity" which led him to ask that the Union contract be
brought in. However. in cross-examination, he testified that
he did look at the contract and saw the pay scale, but
"didn't pay close attention enough to memorize it." As
pointed out, it is much more believable that Putansu did
want to read the contract and did so and, having found that
the Union scale for Nicholas was too high, decided then to
go "nonunion." I am in agreement that this determination
by the Respondent was tantamount to a decision not to
offer Nicholas the job in question because of his union
membership, and this is clearly a violation of the Act.
As set forth earlier herein, there is testimony in this rec-
ord that both Putansu and Demers offered Nicholas the
opportunity to submit an application for employment. Pu-
tansu testified initially that he informed McNeil he would
not need Nicholas. but then later ventured that his offer of
an application form to Nicholas was "for something on the
record, more or less." Finally, Putansu testified that the
reason he did not hire Nicholas was the fact that Nicholas
did not submit an application, and this showed a lack of
initiative. Putansu then admitted, having been a union pro-
jectionist himself, that he knew a union projectionist was
not required to fill out an application when he goes to a
new theater. As further indicated, Demers also com-
pounded the inconsistency of Respondent's case by testify-
ing that they intended to hire "whoever was going to fill out
an application." Demers further testified that he and Putan-
su intended to go over all applications they had for the
manager-projectionist job and would hire whoever they felt
would be best in that position, but his testimony that they
had not made up their minds at the time in question
whether they would hire a union or nonunion projectionist
is inconsistent with Putansu's testimony to the effect that he
had informed McNeil that they would not need Nicholas.
Nicholas. on the other hand, credibly testified that neither
Putansu nor Demers asked him to fill out an application. As
pointed out, an extremely revealing indication of the in-
credibility of Putansu and Demers is the latter's contention
that they were in the process of taking applications and
then the admission on cross-examination that the only ap-
plications they had were "those of themselves." but even
"these applications" were not in writing.
In the final analysis, the Respondent was willing to rely
on the recommendations of McNeil with respect to the
qualifications of most of all the employees who had worked
in the Hills Theatre before the change in ownership, but the
substantial difference between Nicholas and the others was
the existence of the contract which established the wage
and other benefits which Nicholas enjoyed. It is clear that
the motivating reason for not hiring Nicholas was because
of his membership and being represented by the Union:
therefore, Respondent violated Section 8(a)l 1) and (3) of
the Act.
Till- REMEI)Y
Having found that Respondent has engaged in certain
unfair labor practices. I shall recommend that it cease and
desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action de-
signed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
It having been found that the Respondent discriminator-
ily tailed and refused to hire Gus Nicholas. I shall recom-
mend that the Respondent offer immediate employment to
a substantially equivalent position to that at which he
would have been hired had he not been discriminated
355
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
against, without prejudice to seniority or other rights and
privileges, and make him whole for any loss of earnings he
may have suffered by reason of the discrimination against
him by payment to him of a sum of money equal to that
which he would normally have earned from the date of
refusal to hire, less net earnings, during said period. All
backpay provided herein shall be computed with interest on
a quarterly basis, in the manner described by the Board in
F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289 (1950), and with
interest thereon computed in the manner and amount pre-
scribed in Florida Steel Corporation, 231 NLRB 651 (1977).'
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. The Union is a labor organization within the meaning
of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. By engaging in conduct described in section III,
above, Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair
labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) and
(3) of the Act.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of
law and the entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of
the Act, I hereby issue the following recommended:
ORDER8
The Respondent, R & R Theatre Company. Inc., its offi-
cers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
I. Cease and desist from:
(a) Refusing to hire or otherwise discriminating against
employees because of their union activities.
(b) Discouraging membership in the Union, or any other
7 See, generally, Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716 (1962).
B 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. 102.46
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.
labor organization of its employees, by discriminating
against them in regard to their hire and tenure of employ-
ment or any terms and conditions of employment.
(c) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or
coercing employees in the exercise of their rights under Sec-
tion 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the under-
signed finds will effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Offer Gus Nicholas immediate employment to a posi-
tion at which he would have been employed had he not
been discriminated against, or, if such position no longer
exists, to substantially equivalent position, without preju-
dice to seniority or other rights, and make him whole for
any loss of pay due to the violation against him in accord-
ance with the manner set forth in The Remedy.
(b) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the
Board or its agents, for examination and copying, all pay-
roll records, social security payment records, timecards,
personnel records and reports, and all other records neces-
sary to analyze the amount of backpay due under the terms
of this Decision.
(c) Post at its place of business and Hills Theatre copies
of the attached notice marked "Appendix." 9 Copies of said
notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Re-
gion 7, shall, after being duly signed by Respondent's repre-
sentative, be posted by it immediately upon receipt thereof
and be maintained for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in
conspicuous places, including 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 7, in writ-
ing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps
have been taken to comply herewith.
9 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."
356