Sterling Sugars, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 29, 1982

261 N.L.R.B. 472 (N.L.R.B. 1982)

DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Sterling Sugars, Inc. and United Food and Commer-
cial Workers International Union, Local 1422,
AFL-CIO. Case 15-CA-7844
April 29, 1982
DECISION AND ORDER
On November 20, 1981, Administrative Law
Judge William N. Cates issued the attached Deci-
sion in this proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent
filed exceptions and a supporting brief, and the
General Counsel filed a brief in support of the Ad-
ministrative Law Judge's Decision.
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 conclusions of the Administrative Law
Judge and to adopt his recommended Order, as
modified. 2 We shall modify the Administrative
Law Judge's recommended Order by adding the
affirmative requirement that Respondent expunge
from its records any reference to the unlawful dis-
charge of William Brent, Jr., on July 1, 1980. Re-
spondent is also required to provide written notice
of such expunction to William Brent, Jr., and to
inform him that Respondent's unlawful conduct
will not be used as a basis for further personnel ac-
tions concerning him. Although such an expunction
requirement has not typically been included in dis-
charge cases heretofore, it frequently has been in-
cluded in cases where warnings or other forms of
discipline less than discharge have occurred. We
see no purpose in distinguishing between these two
types of cases, for in either situation the individual
affected by any unlawful discipline should be pro-
tected from the subsequent use of files pertaining to
such misconduct. Accordingly, we shall henceforth
routinely include such an affirmative expunction
remedy in all cases of unlawful discipline.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Re-
Respondent has excepted to certain credibility findings made by the
Administrative Law Judge. It is the Board's established policy not to
overrule an administrative law judge's resolutions with respect to credi-
bility unless the clear preponderance of all of the relevant evidence con-
vinces us that the resolutions are incorrect. Standard Dry Wall Products
Inc., 91 NLRB 544 (1950), enfd. 188 F.2d 362 (3d Cir. 1951). We have
carefully examined the record and find no basis for reversing his findings.
' The Administrative Law Judge has recommended a broad cease-and-
desist order. In Hickmott Foods, Inc., 242 NLRB 1357 (1979), we held
that such broad injunctive language is warranted only when a respondent
has been shown to have a proclivity to violate the Act, or has engaged in
such egregious or widespread misconduct as to demonstrate a general
disregard for the employees' fundamental statutory rights. Contrary to
the Administrative Law Judge, we do not find that the instant violations
meet this test. Consequently, we shall modify the Administrative Law
Judge's recommended Order to require Respondent to cease and desist
from violating the Act "in any like or related manner."
261 NLRB No. 71
lations Board adopts as its Order the recommended
Order of the Administrative Law Judge, as modi-
fied below, and hereby orders that the Respondent,
Sterling Sugars, Inc., Franklin, Louisiana, its offi-
cers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the
action set forth in the said recommended Order, as
so modified:
1. Substitute the following for paragraph l(k):
"(k) In any like or related manner interfering
with, restraining, or coercing employees in the ex-
cercise of the rights guaranteed them by Section 7
of the National Labor Relations Act."
2. Insert the following as paragraph 2(b) and re-
letter the subsequent paragraphs accordingly:
"(b) Expunge from its files any reference to the
discharge of William Brent, Jr., on July 1, 1980,
and notify him in writing that this has been done
and that evidence of this unlawful discharge will
not be used as a basis for future personnel actions
against him."
3. Substitute the attached notice for that of the
Administrative Law Judge.
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
After a hearing at which all sides had an opportu-
nity to present evidence and state their positions,
the National Labor Relations Board found that we
have violated the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended, and has ordered us to post this notice.
WE WILL NOT threaten our employees that
selection of United Food and Commercial
Workers International Union, Local 1422,
AFL-CIO, as their bargaining representative
would be futile.
WE WILL NOT threaten our employees with
discharge if they engage in activities on behalf
of the Union.
WE WILL NOT give the impression that se-
lection of the Union as our employees' bar-
gaining representative would be futile.
WE WILL NOT threaten our employees with
reprisals if they engage in activities on behalf
of the Union.
WE WILL NOT create the impression that our
employees' union activities are under surveil-
lance.
WE WILL NOT threaten that the selection of
the Union by our employees would result in or
cause strikes at our company.
472
STERLING SUGARS, INC.
WE WILL NOT interrogate our employees
concerning their union activities and desires.
WE WILL NOT threaten unspecified reprisals
against our employees if they testify against us
at a National Labor Relations Board hearing.
WE WILL NOT threaten to terminate our em-
ployees if they testify against us at a National
Labor Relations Board hearing.
WE WILL NOT falsely accuse an employee of
soliciting employees' signatures on union cards
during worktime on company premises.
WE WILL NOT discharge and thereafter
refuse to reinstate employees because they
joined or engaged in activities on behalf of the
Union.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner
interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in
the exercise of the rights guaranteed them by
Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act.
WE WILL offer to William Brent, Jr., imme-
diate and full reinstatement to his former job
or, if his former job no longer exists, to a sub-
stantially equivalent position of employment
without prejudice to his seniority or other
rights and WE WILL make him whole for any
loss of pay that he may have suffered by
reason of our discrimination against him, with
interest.
WE WILL expunge from our files any refer-
ences to the disciplinary discharge of William
Brent, Jr., on July 1, 1980, and WE WILL
notify him that this has been done and that
evidence of this unlawful discharge will not be
used as a basis for future personnel actions
against him.
STERLING SUGARS, INC.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
WILLIAM N. CATES, Administrative Law Judge: This
matter was heard by me at Franklin, Louisiana, on June
18 and 19, 1981, pursuant to a complaint and notice of
hearing issued on October 14, 1980, by the Acting Re-
gional Director for Region 15 of the National Labor Re-
lations Board (hereinafter the Board) and amendments to
complaint issued on June 4, 1981, by the Regional Direc-
tor for Region 15 of the Board. The complaint and
amendments to complaint were based on a charge in
Case 15-CA-7844 filed on September 2, 1980, by United
Food and Commercial Workers International Union,
Local 1422, AFL-CIO (hereinafter the Union) against
Sterling Sugars, Inc. (hereinafter Respondent). The com-
plaint and amendments thereto alleged that Respondent
violated Section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations
Act (hereinafter the Act), through certain acts of inter-
ference, restraint, and coercion of its employees by its su-
pervisors and agents and further that it violated Section
8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act when, on July 1, 1980, it termi-
nated the employment of William Brent, Jr., and thereaf-
ter failed and refused to reinstate him.
The issues herein were joined by Respondent's an-
swers dated November 26, 1980, and June 5, 1981,
wherein it denied having violated the Act in any manner.
Upon the entire record made in the proceeding, in-
cluding my observation of each witness who testified
herein and after due consideration of briefs filed by
counsel for the General Counsel and counsel for the Re-
spondent, I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. JURISDICTION
At all times material herein, Respondent, a Delaware
corporation, has maintained an office and place of busi-
ness at Franklin, Louisiana, where it is engaged in the
business of grinding sugar. During the year preceding is-
suance of the complaint and notice of hearing herein, Re-
spondent sold and shipped goods and materials valued in
excess of $50,000 directly to facilities located inside the
State of Louisiana which facilities in turn shipped goods
and materials valued in excess of $50,000 directly to
points located outside the State of Louisiana.
It is admitted, and I find, that Respondent is, and has
been at all times material herein, an employer engaged in
commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and
(7) of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
It is admitted, and I find, that United Food and Com-
mercial Workers International Union, Local 1422, AFL-
CIO, is, and has been at all times material herein, a labor
organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the
Act.
III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Background
Respondent is a sugar cane growing and processing
company. It produces sugar cane on agricultural acreage
and processes the cane into raw sugar at its Franklin,
Louisiana, facility. The sugar cane is harvested seasonal-
ly and the busiest season for Respondent, which is re-
ferred to as the sugar grinding season, runs from approxi-
mately October to January of each calendar year.
During the sugar grinding season, Respondent utilizes
transient employees who are housed in dormitory facili-
ties provided by Respondent. The Union herein, under
various of its predecessors names, has attempted in
excess of five union campaigns at Respondent's Franklin,
Louisiana, facility. The most recent such campaign took
place in May and June 1980. It is undisputed that Fred
Y. Clark, Jose Fernandez, and Jose Jorajuria are supervi-
sors of Respondent within the meaning of the Act.
B. The Alleged 8(a)(1) Violations
The General Counsel, in his complaint, alleged at
paragraphs 7(A)(i) through (iv); (B)(i) through (iv); (C)(i)
473
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
through (viii); (D)(i) through (iii); (E); (F); and in para-
graphs (A), (B), and (C) of his amendments to the com-
plaint various acts of interference, restraint, and coercion
on the part of Respondent by its supervisors and agents
in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.'
William Brent, Jr., a 17-year employee of Respondent,
whose employment history will be set forth in greater
detail elsewhere in this Decision, testified regarding three
meetings he attended which were conducted by Re-
spondent at which General Manager and Executive Vice
President Fred Y. Clark spoke, wherein the Union was
discussed.
Brent placed the first of the meetings as having taken
place around May 7, 1980. The meeting was held at the
plant and employees were notified of the meeting by a
notice at the clock where employees clocked in and out
on a daily basis. According to Brent, Clark stated in his
presentation:
Well, we have the same people coming back again
on us .... They don't have sense enough to see
when they're licked. .... They're coming back
again, but it don't do no good. We don't want no
union here.... I'll tell you and I'll tell you again,
we don't want that here .... Ain't that right,
James August.... I don't know who's responsible
for the Union coming here, but we don't want that
here, and I'm not going to tolerate with that ....
We've been doing fairly well here and we don't
need a Union here .... A union is no good. It
goes on strikes. It lays you off and everything. We
don't need that here.... As long as I'm here I'm
going to keep this Union out of here. I'll do every-
thing in my power to keep it out.
Brent testified that Clark had a paper which he would
occasionally glance at in front of him but that he was not
reading from it.
Clark denied delivering any speeches to Respondent's
employees except one speech in June 1980.
I credit Brent's testimony regarding the employee
meeting of early May 1980. After observing Clark tes-
tify, I am persuaded his testimony is unworthy of belief.
Clark was an argumentative and evasive witness. Fur-
ther, I find that Clark intentionally made a misstatement
of fact with respect to the campaign speech that he ac-
knowledged giving. When counsel for the General
Counsel examined Clark in the General Counsel's case in
chief, Clark stated he tried to present both sides of the
union issue fairly and evenly and he disagreed with the
statement that his speech would indicate that he or Re-
spondent "opposed" the Union. However, when required
to produce a copy of the speech (which Clark contended
he read verbatim), under Federal Rule of Evidence 612,
it became obvious that Clark had misstated his and Re-
spondent's position with respect to the Union and in my
'To facilitate an orderly consideration of the various allegations of un-
lawful conduct on the part of Respondent, I have considered all evidence
attested to by each individual witness called by counsel for the General
Counsel in which it was contended their testimony bore directly upon
unlawful conduct attributed to Respondent rather than an attempt to con-
sider each of the 23 separate, but similar and overlapping allegations of
the complaint.
opinion cast a cloud over any believability of Clark. I am
persuaded Clark would testify in any manner that he per-
ceived would benefit his position without regard for the
truth. In summary, I find the testimony of Clark to be
highly suspect and not worthy of belief. 2
I therefore conclude and find that Respondent,
through its supervisor and agent, Clark, in the comments
made by him on May 7 regarding the Union causing lay-
offs, made a threat of discharge in violation of Section
8(a)(1) of the Act, and, further, the comment of Clark
that he was not going to tolerate the Union was not only
coercive and constituted a threat of futility if employees
chose the Union as their representative, but was also an
indication of the degree of animus Respondent harbored
toward the Union and its supporters.
Brent testified that he attended a second meeting of
employees where Clark spoke and he placed the date as
being "the next one should have been around May 28."
Brent testified that Clark again had papers with him that
he looked at and then spoke. Brent described Clark's
presentation in part as follows:
He said . . . "the Union is back again" . . . "Mr.
Shanklin is making a lot of money off of you. And
he should have sense enough to see that they done
lost seven times. They ought to stop coming. They
ought to have sense enough to see that we don't
want the Union here. We don't need no Union here
.... If the Union come here"-let me see-he
said, "If the Union come here, you won't be able to
borrow money no more .... But without the
Union, you can go in the office and get money any
time you want, and I'm going to do everything in
my power to keep this out of here."
Respondent contends that the testimony of Brent is "a
deliberate falsification" and a "glaring fabrication." Re-
spondent in its brief stated: "Brent specifically stated,
and repeatedly reconfirmed that Clark spoke to Respond-
ent's employees as a whole by the 'cement bar' in the
factory at I p.m. on May 28, 1980. He made it clear that
his recollection of the date and time was precise. He left
no possibility of a simple error." Respondent asserts that
Clark was not present at Respondent's facility on May
28, 1980, but rather was at a meeting of the American
Sugar Cane League of the U.S.A., Inc., in attendance at
the Leagues Right of Way Committee. Clark testified he
attended the American Sugar Cane League's meeting on
that date. His testimony was corroborated by Attorney
Paul G. Barron, who for a number of years had served
as the general counsel for the American Sugar Cane
League. I credit Clark's corroborated testimony that he
was not in Franklin, Louisiana, on May 28, 1980. I do
not find this to detract from the credibility of Brent's tes-
timony that Clark made such a speech as is detailed in
part above. The record evidence does not indicate that
2 An additional reason for finding Clark's testimony to be unworthy of
trust is that I was very impressed by the testimony of James August re-
garding two conversations that he had with Clark where Clark spoke
with him about his testifying at the Board's proceeding herein. That testi-
mony will be set forth elsewhere in this Decision. August's testimony, in
that respect, had a real ring of truth about it.
474
STERLING SUGARS, INC.
Brent was absolutely positive as to the date of the speech
being May 28, 1980. Brent indicated the second speech
that he attended was sometime around May 28. Thereaf-
ter the speech was referred to by counsel in examining
the witness as the May 28 speech. I am, therefore, per-
suaded and find that Clark made such comments, as at-
tributed to him by Brent, in a speech to employees on or
about May 28, 1980. I specifically discredit Clark's testi-
mony that he never made any such comments.
I therefore conclude and find that Respondent, by
Clark's comments, created an impression that selection of
the Union as the employees' bargaining representative
would be futile and that reprisals would result. The re-
prisals that Clark threatened were that the employees
would no longer be able to borrow money from Re-
spondent, and further, when considered in the context of
the other unlawful comments, I find Clark's statement
that he would do everything in his power to keep the
Union out was coercive and created the impression that
Respondent would do anything legal or otherwise to
keep the Union out, and as such constituted a violation
of Section 8(aX)(1) of the Act.
Brent testified that he attended a third meeting at Re-
spondent's facility at which Clark spoke. Brent placed
the date of the third meeting as around the middle part
of June 1980. Brent testified Clark again had papers but
was not reading from them. Brent testified that Clark
stated in part:
Well . . . I know a lot of you have signed cards. I
know who going to the meeting and I'm going to
know what was said at the meetings .... If you
have signed a card already, you can stop going to
the meeting .... If you stop going to the meeting,
that will let Mr. Shanklin know that we don't want
a union in here . ... It takes a majority of you to
sign the cards for him to sign a Petition for the
Union to come in. .... We don't need no Union
here. . . . If you go to the Union and I find out-
he will, you know, he would let them go, you
know.
James August testified that he was present at two
meetings that Clark held with Respondent's employees.
One, he believed to have been in May and the other
around June 18, 1980. August indicated he was made
aware of the first meeting by a notice posted on the bul-
letin board at the timeclock. August described the June
meeting in part as follows:
The next meeting the boss man, he was waiting for
us at the clock, and everytime somebody come in,
he'd say sit down, sit down we're having a meet-
ing.... "Fellows, we have a Union, a Union
meeting, and I want to let you all know what's
going on .... You all messing around with the
meatcutting union- . . . . If you all messing
around with the meatcutting Union, then we have
strikes, because the meatcutting Union have strikes,
a lot of strikes, and they'll fine you all so much you
all would have no-you all's family be, you know,
going undone. And if you all want-and if have
to-we have to come in, we'll carry fellows in to
work...." Mr. Clark said that we're not going-
that man with the Union been four or five time. He
said that they didn't win. That many times he's been
here-in here, and they're not going to win this
time. They're not going to win this time, because
I'll try any kind of way in the world to stop it, that
I can to stop it .... He said, "The strike-the
people don't want nothing but your money. They
make you pay a lot of dues. They make you pay
high dues for your Union dues. They'll take your
money, then you don't get no benefit out of it at all.
They'll have you on a strike for three or four
months. The Union don't give you no money. The
Company don't give you no money." Then he hol-
lered. He said, "James" he said, "you hear me?" He
said, "Because I want you to hear me, James." I
told him that, "Mr. Clark, I hear you .... " He
said that we was going around there signing up-
letting people sign cards on the factory. You know,
and he didn't want nobody to sign no card on the
factory.... He said that if he find out who was
signing card that he have to let them go.
James Westley testified he attended two employee
meetings in June 1980 at which Clark spoke on behalf of
Respondent. He testified the meetings were held in the
factory on a block across from the timeclock. Westley
testified with respect to one of the speechs that Clark
stated in part:
This is the way he started off. He said, "I'm going
to inform you men about the Union...." Because
he had worked at different places where they had
Unions. And he was going to let us know what the
Union was all about . ... he began to tell us var-
ious thing about the Union. Said that the Union
would cost us a lot of money for union dues. It
would cost us strikes. It would cause us to lose our
cars, or whatever we had, if it lasts a period of
time.... Well, he asked us if we had signed any
cards, or whoever had signed the cards. And he
also said that if we signed the cards, he would
know who signed the cards .... He said, "This is
you all's decision." But then, he firmly advised us
that what we was going into to be careful of what
we was going into.
Respondent's Executive Vice President and General
Manager Clark testified he only gave one speech. Clark
stated he gave the speech on June 4, 1980. Clark pro-
duced what he testified was a copy of the speech that he
gave after having been required to provide it to counsel
for the General Counsel pursuant to Federal Rule of
Evidence 612. Clark denied ever saying in his speech or
at any other time anything to employees to the effect
that he knew that some of the employees were signing
union cards. Clark testified he never threatened employ-
ees that if they signed union cards they would be dis-
charged. Clark denied threatening employees with any
type of reprisal if they selected the Union as their collec-
tive-bargaining representative.
475
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Respondent called timekeeper Peggy Parker as a wit-
ness. Parker testified she was a unit employee and that
other than the one speech given by Clark in June, she
knew of no other speech being made to employees by
him. Parker stated that during the speech at which she
was present Clark did not solicit any employees not to
engage in activities on behalf of the Union. Parker could
not remember any comments being made regarding any
possible loss of benefits. Parker testified Clark referred to
the fact that in the past there had been strikes and such
from the Union. Parker did not remember any remarks
made by Clark that the Union herein would cause
strikes. Parker testified that Clark said, ". . . advised
us-in his opinion-and he outlined the company's posi-
tion on the Union and advised us not to sign them
[cards]." Parker testified that Clark made no threats
against any employee who signed a card that she knew
of. Parker also testified that Clark made no comments to
the effect that he knew who had signed union cards.
Although employees August, Brent, and Westley were
not specific as to the exact date of the speech given by
Clark in June, I am persuaded that all three were present
at a June 1980 speech given to employees by Clark. I
further find, on the basis of this record, that Clark gave
more than one speech to employees during the year 1980
regarding the Union. I am further persuaded that Clark
did not read his speech verbatim. I credit the testimony
of Brent, August, and Westley with respect to Clark's
June speech and specifically discredit Clark's testimony
to the contrary. I was very impressed with the truthful-
ness of the testimony of employee August. I find the tes-
i;losuiy of August, Brent, and Westley was essentially
mutually corroborative with respect to the June speech
by Clark. I place little, if any, reliance on the testimony
of employee Parker regarding Clark's speech because her
testimony was that she was not aware of certain com-
ments being made or she could not recall the comments
being made by Clark. Parker's testimony was simply too
vague to overcome the convincing testimony of Brent,
August, and Westley.
I conclude and find that the speech given by Clark in
June 1980 based on the credited testimony outlined
above, contained impressions of surveillance; threats of
discharge, threats that selection of the Union would
result in or cause strikes at Respondent, and interroga-
tion all in violation of Section 8(a)(l) of the Act.3
' Although some of the conduct found to be in violation of Sec. 8(a)(l)
of the Act as outlined above may not be as specifically characterized in
the complaint, it was nonetheless fully litigated and I have made findings
thereon. I recommend dismissal of any 8(aXl) allegations that are not
specifically found as set forth in this or other sections of this Decision.
Even assuming arguendo that Respondent, through its agent Clark, had
given the speech verbatim as outlined in G.C. Exh. 4, I note that it con-
tained comments that would have constituted 8(aXI) violations of the
Act, namely:
Once again we understand some of our employees are being asked to
secret meetings, and are being asked to sign union authorization
cards ... the Union doesn't have any big group of people signed up
here now so don't let them try to fool you with any talk about "join-
ing the crowd."
Such comments as those just set forth would constitute an impression
of surveillance of the employees' protected conduct. It is further noted
that if the speech had been given as written that the following portion
James Westley, who had worked for Respondent up
until his termination in March 1981, testified regarding
two individual meetings he had with General Manager
and Executive Vice President Clark at the Respondent's
facility in July 1980. According to Westley, the first of
the two July meetings took place on July 7, at approxi-
mately 9 a.m. when he went into Clark's office to get
supplies and Clark asked him how he had spent his vaca-
tion. Westley, who testified he had taken a vacation in
June, told Clark about his vacation and then Clark in-
quired, ". . . he asked me about the Union. He said he
heard the Union was coming in. He said he was worried
about the Union coming in." At that point Clark told
Westley, who stated he was a minister and was called by
the title "Preacher" at Respondent's facility, that he
could go to hell for lying. Westley told Clark that he
was not lying, that he did not think the Union would
come in. According to Westley, Clark then asked him
about the union sentiments of those Clark thought might
be involved with the Union. Westley told Clark he knew
nothing about the matter.
According to Westley, the next such meeting with
Clark took place on July 26, 1980. Westley stated the
meeting occurred near the entrance to Respondent's fa-
cility where he met up with Clark as Clark was walking
from his home. Clark asked Westley, "Shorty . ..has
you been being good? . . . I heard you're fooling with
bad company." Westley asked Clark what he meant by
bad company and Clark told him, "I hear you're fooling
with the Union again." Clark then told Westley if he was
"lying and fooling around with the Union that I could
lose my job."
Clark testified he had a conversation with James West-
ley in which the subject of "bad company" came up.
Clark testified Westley had been in a fight with William
Brent, Jr., and Brent's brother. According to Clark, Wil-
liam Brent, Jr., had been cut with a knife in the fight.
Clark testified he learned that Westley was still living
very close to the Brent brothers, in fact living in their
yard; and, because he liked Westley and thought he was
a good worker he wanted to persuade Westley to disas-
sociate himself from the Brent brothers, and his comment
to Westley was made in that regard and had nothing to
do with the Union but rather was for Westley's own
safety.
With respect to the July 7 conversation attributed to
Clark by Westley, Clark testified he was not in Franklin,
Louisiana, from July 3 until July 13, 1980. Clark testified
he was in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, that entire time
period with the exception of two side trips, neither of
which brought him back to Franklin, Louisiana. Alyene
B. May corroborated Clark's testimony as to his where-
abouts during the time period. She testified she was sec-
retary-treasurer of the Rambin Corporation and that
would have constituted an unlawful implication that Respondent could
fire those who signed union cards.
There is no way that a union organizer can cause you to lose your
job. We do the hiring here-we do the firing here-and no union is
ever going to change that. You can be sure of one thing-we are
never going to fire any Sterling Sugars employee simply because he
refuses to sign a union card or simply because he refuses to join a
union.
476
STERLING SUGARS, INC.
Clark was at the Rambin Corporation headquarters in
Baton Rouge, Louisiana, where she personally saw and
worked with him from July 7 until July 11, 1980. Her-
bert L. Ramey testified he was the president of Rambin
Corporation and had been for 10 years. Ramey testifeid
that Clark was in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, from July 3
to July 13 and that he personally saw him on a daily
basis during that period of time. Ramey stated that to his
knowledge Clark was not in Franklin, Louisiana, at any
point during that period of time.
I credit Westley's testimony regarding his two meet-
ings with Clark. His testimony was logical and believ-
able. It is undisputed that Westley had been on a vaca-
tion in June and I find it very logical and probable that
Clark asked him about his vacation upon his return to
work. I conclude and find that Clark further engaged
Westley in the conversation regarding his concern and
worry about the Union's attempts to organize the em-
ployees of Respondent. Although the date (July 7, 1980)
placed on the conversation by Westley appears to be a
date on which Clark was not in town, I nevertheless find
that the conversation took place and in all probability
took place in the latter part of June or the first part of
July inasmuch as it followed Westley's having taken his
vacation and came before the July 26 meeting between
Clark and Westley, which meeting Clark acknowledges
took place. I, therefore, find that the question advanced
to Westley by Clark was couched in such terms as to
elicit a response from Westley and, as such, constituted
unlawfully coercive interrogation of Westley in violation
of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
I credit Westley's version of his meeting with Clark on
July 26, 1980, and discredit Clark's contrary testimony.
As stated elsewhere in this Decision I find Clark to be a
witness whose testimony is unworthy of belief. It would
strain believability to credit Clark's testimony that he
was only concerned with the safety of Westley with re-
spect to the July 26 conversation with Westley inasmuch
as he waited from March to July to express his concern.
1, therefore, conclude and find that the "bad company"
comments made by Clark to Westley concerned the
Union and constituted an impression of surveillance as
well as a threat of a loss of employment in violation of
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
Current employee James August testified he visited
General Manager and Executive Vice President Clark's
office on April 16, 1981, to borrow $180 from Clark.
August testified he had a note payment due on his
mobile home and he wanted to borrow money from
Clark to make the payment. August testified he had bor-
rowed money from Respondent, through Clark, in the
past and repayment was deducted from his paycheck.
According to August, Clark told him he could have the
money but then stated he wished to talk to Clark.
August testified Clark told him:
He said, "James," he said, "Brent got me on a law-
suit." He said, "I want to make a settlement with
him, but he wanted a settlement with his job back.
He wanted his job back with his settlement." So, he
asked me, "James, can I hire-I mean, will I hire
him back?" I said, "Mr. Clark," I said, "it's up to
you to hire Brent back, if you want to hire him
back." He told me, he told me, he said, "James," he
said, "you know you and Westley have to go up
there, too." You know, . . . I said, "Mr. Clark," I
said, "I don't even know nothing about it. You
know, going up there." He said, "yeah," he said,
"they got you on for the new record to go up there
.. ." I said, "Mr. Clark," I said, "I don't even
know nothing about it" I said, "Ain't nobody told
me nothing." He said, "Well, yeah, it's supposed to
be June the 8th. It's supposed to been June the 8th.
. ." he said, "Will you ride with me, if we got to
go?" I said, "No, Mr. Clark, I'm not going to ride
with you .... " He said, "If you come to testify
against me for Brent, for Williams, you better
watch yourself, you better watch yourself."
August testified he went to Clark's office on May 8,
1981, to obtain some pads for his truck and Clark called
him into his office and said:
"James, you and Westley are supposed to come
back up here-come up here." I keep telling him,
"No, Mr. Clark, I have no notice or nothing to
come over here." He said, "yeah, it's supposed to
be June the 8th." He kept telling me June the 8th,
and I didn't have nothing was telling me was sup-
posed to come up no June the 8th. So, he told me,
he said, "James," he said, "yeah," he said, "you
better watch yourself close," he said, "because if
you go testify Brent from me," he said, "you watch
yourself because, you know, you're not going to
have no job."
According to August, Clark called him into his office
on May 16, 1981, and said to him:
"James," he said, "[w]hat's going on?" He said,
"You gots fellows signing their cards on the truck
. . . Union cards on the truck. I told him I said,
"Mr. Clark, I don't have nobody signing cards on
the truck." He said, "Don't tell me." He said, "I
know. You got fellows signing cards on the truck."
And I told him that again. I said, "Mr. Clark, I
don't have nobody signing cards on the truck." I
said, "Who told you that?" He wouldn't tell me.
Then, the door was-the door was opened. He
went to the door. He slammed the door. He
slammed the door on me, then, he came back going
up to me . . . He said, "You see I'm mad." He
raised his fists up. He said, "You see I'm mad". . . I
said, "I still don't know what's going on." And he
run up to me again .... "You see I'm mad, you see
I'm mad." I said, "Well, Mr. Clark," I said, "I don't
see what you're getting mad about. I don't have
nobody signing cards on the truck." You know
what I'm talking about. Then, he told me, "I don't
want nobody to be signing the card on the proper-
ty-on no Sterling property." And I didn't have
nobody signing no card on the truck. He had me in-
nocent. You know no card on the truck.
477
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Respondent's General Manager and Executive Vice
President Clark denied having the conversations in April
and May 1981 that August attributes to him. Clark fur-
ther testified that he was not in Franklin, Louisiana, nor
around the plant for most of the day on April 16, 1981.
Clark testified he was at the plant on May 16, 1981, but
was doing preparation for a meeting scheduled for May
18, 1981, which meeting was the annual stockholders
meeting of the corporation and that he did not engage in
any conversation with August on either May 16 or 18,
1981.
Respondent in its brief contends that "August's testi-
mony concerning the alleged April 16 and May 8 con-
versations is nothing less than a poorly contrived attempt
by August to smear Clark's reputation and testimony."
Further Respondent contends that even if August was
confused as to the date of his alleged meeting with Clark
in mid-May 1981 that counsel for the General Counsel
failed to produce any witnesses to the conversation that
was supposed to have been an excited and loud conver-
sation.
I am fully persuaded after observing August testify
that he told the truth with respect to the three meetings
he had with General Manager and Executive Vice Presi-
dent Clark. August's testimony had a clear ring of be-
lievability about it, and inasmuch as I find Clark's testi-
mony unworthy of belief for the reasons set forth earlier
in this Decision, I credit August's testimony that the
three meetings took place as testified to by him. I dis-
credit Clark's denials with respect thereto.
I find that Respondent, through General Manager and
E^,cJtive Vice President Clark, in his conversations
with August, threatened him with unspecified reprisals
and discharge if he testified against Respondent. I find
such conduct on the part of Respondent to be flagrant
and heinous. It constitutes a clear attempt to interfere
with the Board's processes and as such violates Section
8(a)(1) of the Act. Further, I find the conduct of Clark
on May 8, 1981, to constitute a false accusation to an em-
ployee of soliciting other employees' signatures on union
cards on Respondent's premises and as such constituted
unlawful coercive conduct on the part of Respondent in
violation of Section 8(a)(l) of the Act.
C. The Discharge of William Brent, Jr.
William Brent, Jr., commenced work for Respondent
in 1963 as a seasonal laborer and worked in that capacity
for 5 years. In 1968 Brent became a year round crystaliz-
ing floor employee. From 1968 until 1969 Brent worked
in the factory and in 1969 was transferred to the position
of yard person and chauffeur to then General Manager
Earl B. Wilson. Brent was chauffeur and yard person for
Wilson until Wilson's death in May 1974. In 1974 Brent
returned to working inside the mill and continued in that
capacity until his termination on July 1, 1980. Brent
worked under the direct supervision of Superintendent
Jose Fernandez. Brent described his duties from 1974
until his discharge as: "Well I'll say utility. I was doing
some of everything. Janitor, truck driver, going on trips,
picking up trash, anything they told me to do I did it.
Work in the office, work in the factory. Janitor work."
Brent's normal work hours were from 7 a.m. to 4 p.m.
daily.
Brent testified that during 1980, prior to his discharge,
he became involved in the Union's organizing campaign
at Respondent. Brent testified the extent of his participa-
tion was to attend some five union meetings held during
May and June 1980. All meetings of the Union were held
at a local motel. Brent testified he accompanied Union
Representative Shanklin on or about June 17 or 18, 1980,
to Supervisor Jose Jorajuria's home where Brent asked
Supervisor Jorajuria to provide Union Representative
Shanklin with a list of all of the new employees who
worked for Respondent.
Brent testified that on or about June 27 or 28, 1980, he
was asked to substitute for janitor Percy Hatcherson
who was going on vacation. Brent had previously substi-
tuted for Hatcherson when Hatcherson had to be away
from Respondent. The reporting hours for Brent when
he subsitituted for Hatcherson were from 4 a.m. until
noon. The first date that Brent was to have reported as a
substitute for Hatcherson was the night of June 30 and
morning hours of July 1, 1980. Brent testified he was
unable to report to work on June 30 because of car prob-
lems and that he notified James August and August was
to have informed Superintendent Fernandez that he
(Brent) would be unable to report to work.
On the evening of July 1, 1980, Brent reported for
work. Brent testified he could not find his timecard but
commenced work anyway inasmuch as it was not an un-
usual incident for timecards not to be in the rack. Brent
testified he thought maybe they forgot to put it his time-
card there.
Brent testified that after he commenced work the tele-
phone rang and it was General Manager and Executive
Vice President Clark on the phone. Brent described his
conversation with Clark as follows:
I asked him-I said, "Good morning, where is my
card." He said, "You ain't got no card." I said,
"Why?" He said, "Because you missed." I said,
"Well, didn't you get the message?" He said, "Well,
I don't know about that, because you didn't come
in." I said, "Well, didn't Westley tell Fernandez?"
He said, "You were supposed to come." I said,
"Well, I couldn't come. My car was broke. I had to
go to Jeanerette to get a battery." He said, "Well,
you don't have no card, no job either." I said,
"Okay."
He told me that I'd been sticking my nose in a lot
of things that I had no business and causing a lot of
confusion, plus I had a bad absentee; I missed a lot
of days. And I said, "What?" I said, "Explain this. I
haven't missed no lot of days." He said, I'd been
missing a lot of work and my work wasn't no good.
I said, "No one ever told me my work wasn't no
good. I never had no warning or nothing." So, I
said, "Well, okay." He said, "Leave the damn key,
when you go."
Brent testified he left Respondent's facility at that
time. Brent returned to Respondent's plant on July 3,
478
STERLING SUGARS, INC.
1980, to obtain his paycheck. While at the plant Brent
stated he saw Superintendent Fernandez. According to
Brent, Fernandez stopped him and said:
"Come, come, come." So, I went where he points
his hand. He say, "I want to talk to you." He said,
"I'm sorry what happened." He said, "Well, it's not
me, it's Fred Clark. I don't have nothing to do with
it." I said, "I understand." He said, "You're a good
man." He said, "You're one hundred with me." He
said, "If you need recommendation or you need any
kind of recommendation, or anything," he said,
"call me up." He said, "Don't forget. You still come
to see me cause I'm your friend and you're my
friend." He said, "You ain't did me nothing wrong.
Your work is good with me." He said, "But it's
Fred Clark; it's not me." I said, "Yeah, I under-
stand."
Brent testified he next spoke with Superintendent Fer-
nandez on June 3, 1981, when he went to Fernandez'
house to find out about his work record because "he had
told me nothing about my working record." Brent de-
scribed his conversation with Superintendent Fernandez
as follows:
We talked about the weather. I said, "Mr. Fernan-
dez. I have a question to ask you." I said, "How
was my work performed with you?" He said, "one
hundred." He said, "I had no problems with you."
He said, I-I said, "In the office they say I missed a
lot of time." He said, "No." He said, "Why don't
you get all your check stubs and show them." He
said, "You didn't miss no lot of time." He said, "On
the last you missed a little." He said, "But-and I
had a few complaints about the people in the board-
ing house, but you had thirty-one rooms to clean,
but one man, I know you couldn't do that all in one
day." He said, "But otherwise, your work perform-
ance was excellent with me."
Fabrication Superintendent Fernandez testified that
Brent worked under his supervision. Fernandez de-
scribed Brent's job as "to take care of the boarding
house during the grinding season. Then, during the idle
season, we close the boarding house at that time. And
then, he work in the factory as laborer doing different
jobs in the factory." Fernandez testified that during the
last grinding season he had complaints regarding Brent's
performance in that Brent was not cleaning the boarding
house. Fernandez made a memorandum to file dated
August 18, 1980, regarding Brent wherein he stated there
had been complaints during the 1978 and 1979 grinding
seasons regarding Brent's cleaning of the boarding house.
Fernandez also stated that during the idle season Brent
frequently came to work late and also missed work on
several occasions. Fernandez stated that the quality of
Brent's work was less than satisfactory. Fernandez testi-
fied he assigned Brent to substitute for janitor Hatcher-
son on a Friday before Brent was to report to work on
Monday in the latter part of June 1980.
Executive Vice President and General Manager Clark
testified that when he reported to work on June 30,
1980, the offices were filthy, the bathrooms had not been
cleaned, the air-conditioning had not been turned on, and
the place smelled badly. Clark learned Brent had not re-
ported for work at 4 a.m. that morning as instructed. In-
asmuch as Brent had not called in by 4 p.m. that eve-
ning, Clark had timekeeper Parker pull Brent's timecard.
Clark testified he wanted Superintendent Fernandez to
talk with Brent.
Clark testified the next time he heard from Brent was
on July 1, 1980, at 3:55 a.m. when he received a call
from Brent which call awakened him from his sleep.
Clark described the telephone conversation between
Brent and himself as follows:
"Mr. Clark, this is Bill." I said, "Yeah, Bill." He
said, "I can't find my card." I said, "Well don't
bother about looking for it, Bill." He said, "What's
the matter?" I said, "Well, I asked Ms. Parker to
pull it." He said, "What you want me to do?" I
said, "Well, leave the key with the guard, Bill, and
go on home." He said-oh . . . I said, "Where the
heck were you yesterday?" Or, "Where were you
yesterday." He said, "My car broke down." And I
said, "Well, did your telephone break down too?"
He said, "No sir." . . . I believe at that point he
said, "What do you want me to do." I said, "Well,
leave the key with the guard and go on home."
Clark testified he had no indication as of July 1, 1980,
that Brent was associated with the Union. Clark testified
he had Brent's timecard pulled on June 30, in an effort to
have Superintendent Fernandez "dress him down a little
bit," but he had not planned at that point to discharge
Brent.
Respondent contends Brent was discharged because he
awakened Executive Vice President and General Man-
ager Clark from his sleep at 3:55 a.m. on the morning of
July 1, 1980. This factor, taken in conjunction with the
fact that Brent had failed to report for work on June 30,
1980, causing Clark's workday to be interrupted by com-
plaints of office personnel regarding the unkempt condi-
tion of their workplace resulted in Brent's discharge. Re-
spondent asserts Clark had no intention of terminating
Brent even as late as 4 p.m. on June 30, when his time-
card was pulled, but rather only intended at that time to
have a discussion with Brent. Respondent in its brief
states: "The disruption of Clark's workday that resulted
from Brent's failure to report to work on Monday, June
30, and the disruption of Clark's sleep caused by Brent's
early morning telephone call on July 1, combined to
cause Clark to dismiss Brent during their Tuesday morn-
ing telephone conversation."
Counsel for the General Counsel contends Respondent
unlawfully discharged Brent and asserts three factors
clearly support its contentions, namely, the timing of the
discharge, the distortion of Brent's work record, and
what the General Counsel contends are shifting explana-
tions for the discharge. Counsel for the General Counsel
stresses the fact that Brent's discharge occurred 2 weeks
after he signed a union card and at a time when Clark
threatened termination for any employee engaged in such
activity. Additionally, Brent's discharge came approxi-
479
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
mately 2 weeks after he had asked Supervisor Jorajuria's
aid in obtaining a list of new employees for Union Orga-
nizer Shanklin. Counsel for the General Counsel con-
tends the distorted work record is evidenced by Re-
spondent's attempt to picture Brent as a marginal em-
ployee while at the same time down playing the fact he
had been employed by Respondent for approximately 17
years. The General Counsel contends Respondent shifted
defenses by among other factors the testimony given by
Clark that the fight employee Brent had with James
Westley "weighed somewhat towards dismissal (of
Brent) but not at the particular instant when he called
me at 3:55 in the morning on July 1."
For the reasons set forth elsewhere in this Decision, I
discredit Clark's testimony that he was called by Brent. I
rather credit Brent's testimony that Clark called Brent.
There are a number of reasons that persuade me that
Brent was discharged because of his union activities
rather than for any other reason. I find the abruptness of
the discharge and its timing as persuasive evidence of
Respondent's motivation. See Patrick Plaza Dodge, Inc.,
210 NLRB 870 (1974). Respondent discharged Brent 2
weeks after his having asked Supervisor Jorajuria for a
list of new employees to provide to the union representa-
tive for utilization in its organizational campaign. Re-
spondent acknowledged it would not have discharged
Brent for his failure to show for work on June 30 inas-
much as both Respondent's Executive Vice President
and General Manager Clark and timekeeper Parker testi-
fied that others had failed to show for work and had not
been discharged even in those cases where the individual
had not called in. I find, based on the credited testimony
of Brent, that he did not call Clark. Therefore, the
reason advanced by Respondent did not take place but
was rather a fabrication on the part of Respondent in an
attempt to justify its discharge of Brent. The comments
of Clark to Brent on the morning of his discharge clearly
demonstrate motivation on the part of Respondent when
Clark stated to Brent that he (Brent) was sticking his
nose where he had no business and causing a lot of con-
fusion. The pretextual nature of Brent's discharge is fur-
ther demonstrated by the fact that Superintendent Fer-
nandez prepared a memorandum on August 18, 1980,
after Brent had been discharged outlining complaints
against Brent for his work performance in 1978 and 1979.
Further, there can be no question but that Clark mani-
fested strong antiunion bias and unlawful hostility
toward employees who would exercise their Section 7
rights. For example, Clark's comments that he was not
going to tolerate the Union clearly demonstrated the
degree of animus Respondent held toward the Union and
union supporters. In summary, I find the reason ad-
vanced by Respondent for the discharge of Brent did not
occur; that is, Brent did not call Respondent Executive
Vice President and General Manager Clark in the early
morning hours of July 1, 1980, but rather Clark called
Brent.4 Thus, the only reason for Brent's discharge was
' Having found that the reason advanced by Respondent for the dis-
charge of Brent was pretextual, I find it unnecessary to discuss the instant
case within the analytical objectives of Wright Line, a Division of Wright
Line, 251 NLRB 1083 (1980); see also Limestone Apparel Corp., 255
his union and concerted protected activities. I, therefore,
find that Respondent's discharge of Brent on July 1,
1980, violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Sterling Sugars, Inc., is an employer engaged in
commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and
(7) of the Act.
2. United Food and Commercial Workers International
Union Local 1422, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization
within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3) and (I) of the
Act by discharging its employee William Brent, Jr., on
July 1, 1980.
4. By engaging in the following conduct, Respondent
committed unfair labor practices in violation of Section
8(a)(1) of the Act:
(a) Threatening its employees that selection of the
Union as the employees' bargaining representative would
be futile.
(b) Threatening its employees with discharge if they
engaged in activities on behalf of the Union.
(c) Creating the impression that selection of the Union
as the employees' bargaining representative would be
futile.
(d) Threatening its employees with reprisals if they en-
gaged in activities on behalf of the Union.
(e) Threatening its employees that selection of the
Union would result in or cause strikes at Respondent.
(f) Creating the impression of surveillance of its em-
ployees' union activities.
(g) Interrogating its employees concerning their union
sentiments and activities.
(h) Orally threatening its employees to take unspeci-
fied reprisals against its employees if the employees testi-
fied against Respondent at a Board hearing.
(i) Orally threatening to terminate employees if said
employees testified against Respondent at a Board hear-
ing.
(j) Falsely accusing employees of soliciting employees'
signatures on union cards during worktime on company
premises.
5. The violations of the Act noted above constitute
unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the
meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
REMEDY
Having found that Respondent engaged in certain
unfair labor practices, I shall recommend that it cease
and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action
designed to effectuate the purposes of the Act.
Having found that Respondent unlawfully terminated
the employment of its employee William Brent, Jr., I
shall recommend that Respondent be ordered to offer
Brent reinstatement in the same position he previously
had or, if that job no longer exists, to offer him a sub-
stantially equivalent job, and to make him whole for any
loss of earnings he may have suffered, with interest
NLRB 722 (1981). However, an application of the Wright Line analysis
would not result in a different conclusion with respect to the instant case.
480
STERLING SUGARS, INC.
thereon and without prejudice to his seniority or other
rights. Backpay for Brent shall be computed in accord-
ance with F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289
(1950), with interest thereon computed in the manner
prescribed in Florida Steel Corporation, 231 NLRB 651
(1977). See, generally, Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138
NLRB 716 0962).
I have concluded that a broad remedial order is re-
quired to effectuate the purposes of the Act. In my judg-
ment Respondent, when it attempted to interfere with
the Board's processes by attempting to persuade a wit-
ness not to testify at a Board hearing under the threat of
losing his job, engaged in egregious and repugnant mis-
conduct and demonstrated a general disregard for its em-
ployees' fundamental statutory rights. I shall, therefore,
recommend a broad remedial order. See Hickmott Foods,
Inc., 242 NLRB 1357 (1979). It is recommended that Re-
spondent post the attached notice.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of
law, and the entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c)
of the Act, I hereby issue the following recommended:
ORDER
The Respondent, Sterling Sugars, Inc., its officers,
agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Threatening its employees with discharge if they
engage in activities on behalf of the Union.
(b) Creating the impression that selection of the Union
as the employees' bargaining representative would be
futile.
(c) Threatening its employees with reprisals if they
engage in activities on behalf of the Union.
(d) Creating the impression it had its employees' union
activities under surveillance.
(e) Threatening its employees that the selection of the
Union as their representative would result in or cause
strikes at Respondent.
(f) Interrogating its employees concerning their union
sentiments and activities.
I 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 find-
ings, conclusions, and recommended Order herein shall, as provided by
Sec. 102.48 of the Rules and Regulations, be adopted by the Board and
become its findings, conclusions, and Order and all objections thereto
shall be deemed waived for all purposes.
(g) Orally threatening its employees to take unspeci-
fied reprisals against them if they testified against Re-
spondent at a Board hearing.
(h) Orally threatening to terminate employees if em-
ployees testified against Respondent at an unfair labor
practice hearing before the Board.
(i) Falsely accusing an employee of soliciting employ-
ees' signatures on union cards during worktime on com-
pany premises.
() Threatening its employees that selection of the
Union as the employees' bargaining representative would
be futile.
(k) In any other manner interfering with, restraining,
or coercing employees in the exercise of the rights guar-
anteed them by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which will ef-
fectuate the purposes of the Act:
(a) Offer William Brent, Jr., immediate and full rein-
statement to his former job or, if that job no longer
exists, to a substantially equivalent position without prej-
udice to his seniority or other rights and priviledges and
make him whole for any loss of earnings he may have
sufferred in the manner set forth in the section of this
Decision entitled "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 nec-
essary to analyze the amounts of backpay due under the
terms of this recommended Order.
(c) Post at its Franklin, Louisiana, plant copies of the
attached notice marked "Appendix."6 Copies of said
notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for
Region 15, after having been duly signed by Respond-
ent's representative, shall be posted by it immediately
upon receipt thereof and be maintained by it for 60 con-
sectutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, includ-
ing all places where notices are customarily posted. Rea-
sonable 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 15, in
writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what
steps have been taken to comply therewith.
' In the event that this Order is enforced by a Judgment of a United
States Court of Appeals the words in the notice reading "Posted by
Order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursu-
ant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an
Order of the National Labor Relations Board."
481