Schraffts Candy Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 23, 1979

244 N.L.R.B. 581 (N.L.R.B. 1979)

S('HRAFFTS C(ANDY COMPANY
Schraflfs Candy (Company and International Brother-
hood of Firemen and Oilers, IocAal 3, AFL,-CIO and
Local 348. Bakery and Confectionarv Workers
Union. Cases I CA 14415 and I CA 14445
August 23. 1979
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN FANNING AND) MFMBFRS JENKINS
ANt) PE.NiII.O
On April 24, 1979. Administrative Law Judge
Bruce C. Nasdor issued the attached Decision in this
proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent filed exceptions
and a supporting brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(hb) 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.2 and
conclusions3 of the Administrative Law Judge and to
adopt his recommended Order, as modified herein.4
' We agree with this Administrative Law Judge's ruling at the hearing and
his conclusion in his Decision that the General Counsel was not prohibited
under Sec. 10(b) of the Act from amending the complaint at the hearing to
allege that Respondent refused to bargain with Local 348. Baker) and Con-
fectionary Workers Union. since on or about March 2. 1978. by effecting
specified unilateral changes in the terms and conditions of employment of its
employees represented by this Union. Although the second amended charge
was filed on October 18. 1978. and served on Respondent that day, more
than 6 months after March 2, the substance of the amendment related back
to the initial charge filed by Local 348 on May 4. 1978. alleging that Respon-
dent violated Sec. 8(a5) and (I) by instituting a unilateral change in a work
rule and by this. "and other acts, interfered with, restrained, and coerced
employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act."
See N.L.R B. v. Fant Milling Company, 360 U.S. 301 (1959) Moreover. this
proceeding, based in part on the charges filed by Local 348. was consolidated
on June 13, 1978, with the proceeding arising out of the charge filed on April
26, 1978. by International Brotherhood of Firemen and Oilers. Local 3.
AFL CIO, alleging that Respondent also refused to bargain with that labor
organization by making the unilateral changes in its rules. By accepting the
amendment to the complaint the Administrative Law Judge was merely af-
fording the General Counsel the opportunity to litigate all of the allegations
of unilateral changes instituted during the first part of 1978 with respect to
the employees represented by either Union.
The Administrative Law Judge incorrectly stated that Respondent re-
fused to arbitrate Local 3's grievances. Local 3's chief steward. Hardy. testi-
fied that that Union decided to refrain from taking its grievance to arbitra-
tion pending the outcome of the instant proceedings. Respondent's director
of industrial relations and personnel, Brown. on the other hand. admitted
that Respondent refused to arbitrate the issuance of the rule book but indl-
cated that Respondent agreed to arbitrate the arbitrability of the matter.
This additional fact, however, does not affect our decision not to defer this
matter to arbitration which, in any event, has not been specifically requested
by Respondent. Respondent's contentions in this regard assert only that no
violation has occurred because the Unions have not fully utilized the griev-
ance and arbitration procedure. Member Penello would not defer because
Respondent has ni requested deferral, and the issue is not before the Board.
I In his remedy the Administrative Law Judge recommended that Respon-
dent be ordered to rescind the rule book and any and all disciplinary action
taken against employees in the two units. In so doing he inadvertently ailed
to restrict the rescission of discipline to those cases involving discipline
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National abor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Rela-
tions Board adopts as its Order the recommended Or-
der of the Administratipe aw Judge, as modified be-
low, and hereby orders that the Respondent. Schrafflts
Candy Company, Charlestown, Massachusetts, its ot-
ficers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the
action set forth in the said recommended Order, as so
modified:
I. Substitute the tfollowing tor paragraph l(hb:
"(b) In any like or related manner interfering with,
restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of
their rights under Section 7 of the Act."
2. Substitute the attached notice for that of the
Administrative Law Judge.
caused b changes in the rules, as correctly sated in his recommended Order
and notice to employees, which inadvertence we hereby correct
' We find merit in Respondent's exception to the issuance ot .ia ,ialrd order
in this case. The unfair labor practices which we have found were commilled
by Respondent do not indicate that Respondent has a prichltsity t! solate
the Act. or that it has engaged in such egregious or widespread mlisconduct
as to demonstrate a general disregard for the employees' statutory right.
Hirknmott Foods, Inc. 242 NLRB 1357 (1979) Accordingly. Respondent
shall only he ordered to cease and desist from engaging in any "like or
related" misconduct.
APPENDIX
NocTICE To EMI'PI.OYEES
POSIEI) BY ORD)R OF THE
NAIO)NAI. LAB()OR REK.AONS BOARI)
An Agency of the United States Government
WtL NviI. NOT refuse to bargain collectively
with the International Brotherhood of' Firemen
and Oilers, Local 3. AFL-CIO, and ocal 348,
Bakery and Confectionary Workers Union, as
the exclusive representatives of the employees in
the bargaining units described below. The bar-
gaining units are:
All production employees including shipping,
stock receiving, warehouse, elevator operators,
outlet store employees, sub-batch preparation
employees, cleaners, matrons, production line
clerks and working group leaders, exclusive of
all other employees, office clerical employees.
professional employees, guards and all super-
visors as defined in Section 2(11) of the Act.
All mechanical department employees exclu-
sive of all other employees, office clerical em-
ployees, professional employees, guards and
all supervisors as defined in Section 2(11) of
the Act.
WE WILL. NOT institute changes in the wages.
hours, working conditions, and rules of employ-
ees in the aforesaid bargaining units without first
244 NLRB No. 89
I)V:('ISIO)NS ()F NATIONAI I.ABOR R.Al'AIONS BOARI)
consulting with and hargaining with the above-
nanmed labor orga niza tions.
WIE WilL N ) in anly like or related manner
interefer with, restrain, or coerce our employees
in the exercise of' rights guaranteed them in Sec-
tion 7 of the Act.
WI wii., rescind the rule book and any and all
disciplinary action taken against employees who
were effected by any changes in the rules.
WT WIL.i, make whole, with interest, those em-
ployees who may have suffered monetary losses
as a result of the implementation of the work
rules.
Wt wlt,, restore to the employees in the
above-described bargaining units the wages,
hours. working conditions. and rules which pre-
vailed prior to March 2 and mid-May 1978, the
dates that Respondent effected the unilateral
changes at its plant.
Among them, but not limited to, are the fol-
lowing changes:
I. Employees on layoff status for over 2 weeks
are required to submit to physical examinations
from a company doctor as a precondition to re-
turning to work.
2. Employees who report more than I minute
after their normal starting time may not be per-
mitted to punch in or begin work until the next
quarter hour.
3. Employees are required to punch out when-
ever they leave the plant.
4. Employees are required to be in uniform
before punching in.
5. Employees who expect to be late or absent
from work are required to call in at least I hour
prior to their normal starting time.
6. Employees may be required to present
proof of illness or injury before their lateness or
absence will be excused.
7. Chronic absences and/or latenesses
whether or not excused will result in disciplinary
action.
8. Employee absences or latenesses or a com-
bination of the two during a period of 24 con-
secutive calendar months will result in predeter-
mined penalties.
9. The Company will charge each employee a
cost for any item issued to him/or her and lost or
mislaid by him or her.
SCHRAFFTS CANDY COMPANY
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE.
BRUCE C. NASDOR, Administrative Law Judge: This case
was heard in Boston, Massachusetts, on October 23, 1978,
The original charge was filed by Local 3 on April 26. 1978.
On May 4. 1978. I.ocal 348 filed a charge and later
amended it on May 24. 1978. The order consolidating cases.
complaint. and notice of hearing issued on June 13. 1978.
On October 23. 1978. the day of the hearing, counsel for the
General Counsel moved to further amend the complaint
with respect to Local 348. based on a second amended
charge filed by Local 348 on October 18. 1978.1 The motion
was granted. The complaint alleges that Respondent vio-
lated Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of' the National I.abor Rela-
tions Act, as amended (hereinafter called the Act), hb insti-
tuting and implementing a set of work rules governing the
wages, hours, working conditions, and rules of the employ-
ees in the two units represented by the two Irnions without
prior notice to or bargaining with the Unions. In its answer
Respondent denies the allegations.
Upon the entire record in this case, from my observation
of the witnesses and their demeanor. and after due consid-
eration of briefs I make the following:
FINDIN(;S OF FA('I
I. JRISI)I(IION
Respondent is a Delaware coporation. engaged at its
plant in the city of Charlestown, county of Suffolk, Com-
monwealth of Massachusetts, in the manufacture, sale, and
distribution of candy and related products. Respondent an-
nually ships goods and materials from its Massachusetts
location valued in excess of $50,000 directly to points lo-
cated outside the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and an-
nually receives at its Massachusetts location goods and ma-
terials valued in excess of $50,000 directly from points
located outside the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce within
the meaning of Section 2(2). (6). and (7) of the Act.
II. THE L.ABOR ORGANIZATION
International Brotherhood of Firemen and Oilers, Local
3, AFL-CIO (herein called Local 3), and Local 348, Bakery
and Confectionary Workers Union (herein called Local
348), jointly referred to as the Unions, are labor organiza-
tions within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
II. THE APPROPRIATE UNITS AND REPRSENTATIONAI.
STATUS
All production employees including shipping, stock re-
ceiving, warehouse, elevator operators, outlet store employ-
ees. sub-batch preparation employees, cleaners, matrons,
production line clerks, and working group "leaders"': but
excluding of all other employees, office clerical employees,
professional employees, guards, and supervisors as defined
in the Act constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of
collective bargaining.
I All dates are in 1978 unless otherwise indicated.
2 The complaint characterized these individuals as "group headers." At the
hearing a motion was granted to amend the complaint by substituting the
word "leaders" for "headers."
582
SCHRAFFTS CANDY COMPANY
At all times material herein L.ocal 348 has been the repre-
sentative for the purposes of collective bargaining of a ma-
jority of the employees in the unit described above. and by
virtue of Section 9(a) of the Act has been and is now the
exclusive representative of all the employees in the said unit
for the purposes of collective bargaining with respect to
rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other condi-
tions of employment.
All mechanical department employees exclusive of all
other employees, office clerical employees, professional em-
ployees. guards, and supervisors within the meaning of the
Act constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collec-
tive bargaining.
At all times material herein Local 3 has been the repre-
sentative for the purposes of collective bargaining of a ma-
jority of the employees in the unit described above, and by
virtue of Section 9(a) of the Act has been and is now the
exclusive representative of all the employees in said unit for
the purposes of collective bargaining with respect to rates of
pay, wages. hours of employment, and other conditions of
employment.
IV. HIF. AI.I.E(iEI) UNFAIR I.ABOR PRAC('I(''S
A. The Issues
I. Whether Local 348's second amended charge and the
amendment to the complaint on the day of the hearing were
outside Section 10(b) and thus time barred.
2. Whether Respondent unilaterally implemented a set
of work rules which changed, altered, or affected certain
wages, hours, or working conditions of the employees in the
two units referred to supra. in violation of Section 8(a)( I)
and (5) of the Act.
B. The Facts
Respondent has had a collective-bargaining relationship
with Local 348 since approximately 1967 and with Local 3
since at least 1973.3
Whitman S. Brown, Jr., Respondent's director of indus-
trial relations and personnel, testified that on March 13,
1978, Respondent issued a booklet containing company
rules to the employees of both units. Furthermore, the com-
pany rules were issued without consultation with or prior
notice to either of the Unions.
At the time the employees were handed copies of the rule
book they were required to sign a receipt acknowledging
same.
On the day that the booklet was distributed Respondent
notified both Unions of the action it had taken. The chief
steward for Local 3. Stephen M. Hardy, filed grievances
approximately 5 days after he received the booklet. Local
348 issued instructions to its unit employees not to accept
the book and sent Respondent a letter dated March 14,
informing Whitman Brown, Jr., that the Union was op-
posed to the Company's unilateral decision to distribute
I Witness Joseph John Stantz testified that he had a working relationship
with Schrafft's since 1t973. It is conceivable that Respondent and Local 3 had
a collective-bargaining relationship preceding this period.
what it characterized as "new" company: rules and regula-
tions.
Witness Brown admitted that Respondent refused to ar-
bitrate Local 3's grievances. Apparently l.ocal 348 did not
file a grievance because it would have been an act of futil-
ity.
Prior to the issuance of the rule book. according to the
credited testimony of Shantz. a past practice had developed
whereby Respondent ould communicate rules or proce-
dures to the employees orally through the supervisors to the
employees or by posting notices. If the tinions had ques-
tions or objected to a particular directive they vould dis-
cuss the problem with Respondent and file grievances i'
necessary.
Local 348 represents the largest unit o emploees, and
Local 3 represents a considerably smaller number. The evi-
dence reveals that the communication b posting notices
was utilized by Respondent with respect to the cmployees
in the unit represented by Local 3.
The testimony elicited from Hardy reveals, ilter alli, that
the issuance of the work rules made arious substantive
changes and was not merely a change in form b codifica-
tion. Hardy, in detailed specificity. testified credibly with
reference to changes in wages, hours, and working condi-
tions resulting from the implementation of the rule book.
His testimony in this regard relates to paragraphs 12(a) and
13(a) through (i) of the complaint. I will attemipt to briefly
summarize some of his testimony relating to these chanlges,
referring to page 2 of the rule book. rule 6.' According to
Hlardy, this changed the past practice wherein employees
were allowed to leave the building for a 30-minute lunch-
break without punching out unless they intended to spend
longer than 30 minutes for lunch. Referring to page 4 of the
rule book. rule 8, according to Hardy it had been a long-
standing past practice for employees to punch in wearing
their street clothes.
Referring to page 7. group Ill rules-absences and late-
ness, according to the testimony, the requirements for call-
ing in sick or calling in at all changed by virtue of this
group of rules.
The witness testified further with respect to changes in
discipline procedures and the matter of flexibility in the
past.
Another change, according to the testimony. is with re-
spect to the requirement that proof be submitted for short
time illnesses.
Hardy pointed out the past practice of not meting out
discipline in the case of chronic absences.
Hardy testified that with respect to page 8 of the rules,
rule 2, which deals with reporting more than I minute late
after the normal starting time, has been a drastic change in
past practice and, according to him, a bnefit enjoyed for
many years. He contends that in the past employees had 7
minutes to punch in before they would be docked 15 min-
utes. but according to the new rule if an employee is late by
more than I minute he is docked 15 minutes.
I Hardy's testimony relates to changes affecting employees in the unit rep-
resented by Local 3. Frank Pacitto. business agent I;r local 348, adopted
Hardy's testimony as relating to employees in the unit represented hb Local
348 An all-party stipulation was received :is relating to Pacitto adopting
Hardy's testimony.
583
DECISIONS OF NATIONAI. LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
This is intended as merely a sampling as to what the
witness viewed as substantial changes in past practice.
Pacitto testified with respect to changes in physical ex-
amination requirements referred to in paragraph 12(a) of
the complaint. Unrefuted record testimony reveals that Re-
spondent required an employee to take a physical examina-
tion when out sick for any length of time. According to
Pacitto the change occurred some time in mid-May. In the
past, according to him, employees were never required to
take a physical examination after a layoff, and if any ex-
aminations were to take place they took place on company
time. Since May an employee is required, after a 2-week
period of layoff, to take a physical examination on his own
time.
Analysis and Conclusions
I find and conclude that Respondent's contention regard-
ing the charge filed by Local 348. on October 18. 1978. and
the amendment to the complaint which was made at the
hearing as being barred by Section 10(b) of the Act is le-
gally insufficient. It is quite clear that the violations are of a
continuing nature and are reaffirmed on a daily basis. By
the very nature of the case and the violations contained
therein the promulgated rules are expected to be adhered to
by the employees on a day-to-day basis. See International
Longshoremen s Association and New York Shipping Associ-
alion, In(. (Dolphin Forwarding, Inc.), 236 NLRB 525
(1978).
The charge filed by Local 348 and the amendment to the
complaint merely mirror Local 3's charge and that para-
graph of the complaint dealing with the "rule book" allega-
tions reflected in the Local 3 charge. Moreover, the issue
with respect to both locals was completely litigated,. and
there is no indication that Respondent has been prejudiced
in any way, as its defense and the evidence in support
thereof is the same as to each local whether there had been
one charge or two charges.
I therefore conclude that Local 348's second amended
charge and the amendment to the complaint were not
barred by Section 10(b) of the Act.
Brown testified on direct examination that the change of
work rules was discussed during the most recent negotia-
tions which culminated in the existing contracts. Shantz,
who was corroborated by the General Counsel's other wit-
nesses, testified that the subject of work rules was never
discussed during the negotiations. On recross-examination
Brown testified that he did not engaged in negotiations with
either Union with respect to work rules when he was first
employed by Respondent in 1976.
Brown testified that he felt that Respondent had the au-
thority to unilaterally promulgate the work rules, and that
said authority emanated from its broad management-rights
clause.
Record testimony revealed that during the most recent
negotiations for the present contracts Respondent at-
tempted to considerably enlarge its authority under its
management-rights clauses. Respondent's proposed clauses
were rejected by both Local 3 and Local 348.
For a period of several weeks prior to the issuance of the
rule book Respondent embarked on a course of instituting
the changes in past practices which later appeared in the
rule book. On February 23. 1978, Hardy wrote a letter' to
Brown advising him that in an effort to avoid a possible
deluge of grievances in the future and to keep harmon he
was informing Brown as to the changes and the problems
they were causing. Thereafter. Hardy did in fact file griev-
ances.
It is evident to me that Respondent violated Section
8(a)( 1 ) and (5) of the Act by unilaterally implementing and
promulgating the work rules, The evidence is clear that the
parties observed a longstanding sstem and past practice
for the implementation of work rules. Moreover, the record
discloses that in the past. prior to the implementation of the
codified work rules, when the locals were unhappy with a
particular rule they brought it to management's attention,
and there was a give and take in the true spirit of collective
bargaining.
Moreover. I conclude and find that during collective bar-
gaining for the most recent contracts both Unions took an
affirmative position with respect to the language in the
managemnent-rights clause. It is also clear that Respondent
was attempting to enlarge its authority under the manage-
ment-rights clause. Nor is there any evidence that the
Uinion acquiesced in any ay or waived its rights. To the
contrary, both locals protested the issuance of the rule hook
immediately upon learning that such a book was being put
into eflect. The protests were made orally, by letters. and
through grievances filed by Local 3." Ilocal 348 requested
Respondent to allow it to review the book some 2 weeks
prior to its issuance. but this request was denied. It would
have been an act of futility for l.ocal 348 to have filed
grievances in view of the tact that Respondent refused to
arbitrate Local 3's grievances.
I find and conclude that the subject of work rules was
never discussed during the negotiations. and I credit the
General ('ounsel's witnesses on this point. I specifically dis-
credit Brown and his testimony relative to this subject be-
cause of the contradictions in his testimony. Even if dis-
cussed, there is no evidence of any resolution.
Based on the totality of the record evidence I find and
conclude that Respondent unilaterally promulgated and
implemented a set of work rules which changed and altered
longstanding practices affecting wages. hours, and working
conditions in violation of Section 8(a)( I ) and (5) of the Act.
CON('I SIO()NS ()
:
LAV
I. Respondent is an employer within the meaning of Sec-
tion 2(2) of the Act and is engaged in commerce within the
meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. Local 3 and Local 348 are each labor organizations
within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. All production employees including shipping. stock
receiving. warehouse, elevator operators. outlet store em-
ployees. sub-batch preparation employees. cleaners, ma-
trons, production line cerks. and working group leaders:
but exclusive of all other employees, office clerical employ-
Pacitto registered his prolest hb letter daled March 14. 978.
' Local 3's grievances were actuall filed prior ii the issuance of the codi-
lied work rules
584
SCHRAFFTS (ANDY COMPANY
ees. professional employees. guards. and supervisors as de-
fined in Section 2( 1 I) of the Act constitute a unit appropri-
ate for the purposes of' collective bargaining within the
meaning of Section 9(h) of the Act.
4. At all times material herein ocal 348 has been the
representative for the purpose oft' collective bargaining of a
majority of the employees in the unit described in para-
graph 3 above, and by virtue of Section 9(a) of the Act has
been and is no\v the exclusive representative of all the em-
ployees in the said unit for the purpose of collective bar-
gaining with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of em-
ployment, and other conditions of employment.
5. All mechanical department employees exclusive of all
other employees, office clerical employees. professional em-
ployees. guards, and supervisors as defined in Section 2(1 )
of the Act constitute a unit appropriate for the purpose of
collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(bh) of
the Act.
6. At all times material herein Local 3 has been a repre-
sentative for the purpose of collective bargaining of a ma-
jority of the employees in the unit described in the para-
graph above, and by virtue of Section 9(a) of the Act has
been and is now the exclusive representative of all the em-
ployees in the said unit for the purpose of collective bar-
gaining with respect to rates of pay. wages, hours of em-
ployment, and other conditions of employment.
7. Since on or about March 2. by unilaterally changing
the wages. hours, and working conditions of employees in
the aforesaid appropriate units without notice to or prior
baraining with Local 3 and Local 348 concerning said
changes Respondent has violated and is violating Section
8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act.
8. The aforesaid conduct constitutes unfair labor prac-
tices within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
Ttll RMeIl)Y
Having found that Respondent has engaged in unfair la-
bor practics violative of Section 8(a)( I) and (5) of the Act. I
will recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and take
the necessary affirmative action to effectuate the policies of
the Act. I recommend that Respondent be ordered to re-
scind the rule book and any and all disciplinary action
taken against employees in the units represented by the two
locals. I further recommend that Respondent be ordered to
make monetary restitution of any benefits which may have
been lost because of any' unilateral changes made in the
terms and conditions of employment. Any restitution re-
quired herein shall be computed with interest thereon in the
manner prescribed in F W. Woolworth Compoan. 90 NLRB
289 (1950). and Florida Steel Cororporation 231 NLRB 651
(1977).' In addition, I recommend that Respondent be or-
dered to restore the status quo ante and bargain in good
faith with both Unions concerning any changes in wages,
hours, working conditions. or rules. The extent to which
wages, hours, working conditions, and rules have been un-
lawfully changed or denied employees was not fully estab-
lished in the record. Accordingly I recommend that these
'See, generally. Is Plumbing & lteuting C(o. 138 Nt.RB 716 1962).
matters may properly be determined at the compliance
stage of the proceeding.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of' law.
and the entire record, and pursuant to Section IO(c) of the
Act, I issue the following recommended:
ORDER
The Respondent, Schralfits ('and) (ompany. ('harles-
town. Massachusetts, its officers. agents, successors. and as-
signs. shall:
I. Cease and desist from:
(a) Unilaterally changing wages, hours, working condi-
tions, and rules of employees without notice to or prior
bargaining with the Unions representing said employees.
(b) In any other manner interfering with, restraining. or
coercing its employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed
in Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which I find will
effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Restore the status quo ante by rescinding the rule
book and any unilaterally implemented rules and all disci-
plinary action taken against employees as a result of the
implementation of said rules.
(b) Make employees whole for Respondent's unlawful
unilateral action in accordance with the recommendation
set forth in "The Remedy" section herein.
(c) Upon request, bargain collectively with Local 3 and
Local 348 as the exclusive bargaining representatives of the
employees in the appropriate units described supral with
respect to any proposed changes in wages. hours, working
conditions, rules, and any other terms and conditions of
employment.
(d) Preserve and. upon request. make available to the
Board or its agents. for examining and copying. all payroll
records, reports, and all other records necessary to ascertain
and compute the amount. if any. of monetary losses suf-
fered by employees and due under the terms of this Order.
(e) Post at its plant at 529 Main Street. Charlestown.
county of Suffolk. Commonwealth of Massachusetts. copies
of the attached notice marked "Appendix."' Copies of said
notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for Region
I. shall, after being duly signed by an authorized represent-
ative of Respondent. be posted immediately upon receipt
thereof, and maintained by it for 60 consecutive days there-
after, in conspicuous places. including all places where no-
tices to employees are customarily posted. Respondent shall
take reasonable steps to insure that said notices are not
altered. defaced, or covered by any other material.
(f) Notify the Regional Director for Region 1. in writing.
within 20 days from the date of this Order. what steps have
been taken to comply herewith.
I In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the
Rules and Regulations of the National Labsr Relations Board. the findings.
conclusions, and recommended Order herein shall. as provided in Sec. 102.48
ol the Rules and Regulations. be adopted by the Board and become its
findings, conclusions, and Order. and all objections thereto shall he deemed
,aisred for all purposes.
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 Boards
585