Sussex Properties, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 6, 1987

283 N.L.R.B. 896 (N.L.R.B. 1987)

896 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
,Sussex ; Properties , Inc. and Hotel Employees and
Restaurant Employees Local Union 886, AFL-
CIO. Case 10-CA-21425
6 May 1987
DECISION AND ORDER
By CHAIRMAN DOTSON AND MEMBERS
JOHANSEN AND BABSON
On 27 May 1986 Administrative Law Judge J.
Pargen Robertson issued the attached decision. The
Respondent filed exceptions and a supporting brief,
the General Counsel filed limited exceptions and a
supporting brief, and the Respondent filed a brief
in opposition to the General Counsel's exceptions.
The National Labor Relations Board has delegat-
ed its authority in this proceeding to a three-
member panel.
The Board has considered the decision and the
record in light of the exceptions and briefs and has
decided to affirm the judge's rulings, findings,1 and
conclusions and to adopt the recommended Order
as modified.
We-;agree with the judge that the Respondent
violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act by dis-
charging Ruth Morton, the president of the
Union.s We also agree that the Respondent violat-
ed Section 8(a)(1) when it solicited employee
Addie Dorsey to check with the employees to see
if they were going to walk out, and report back to
the Respondents
The General Counsel excepts to the judge's fail-
ure to find in addition that about 28 or 29 Decem-
ber 1985 the Respondent again unlawfully solicited
Dorsey to conduct surveillance on the union activi-
ties of other employees, and report those activities
to the, Respondent. The Respondent contends that
the General Counsel's allegation that there was a
second incident of unlawful solicitation of surveil-
lance goes far beyond the narrow allegations of the
charge in this case. We find merit in the General
,Counsel's exception, and we agree with the judge
i The Respondent has, excepted to some of the judge's credibility find-
ings. The Board's established policy is not to overrule an administrative
law judge's credibility resolutions unless the clear preponderance of all
the relevant evidence convinces us that they are incorrect Standard Dry
Wall Products, 91 NLRB 544 (1950), enfd 188 F 2d 362 (3d Cir 1951).
We have carefully examined the record and find no basis for reversing
the findings.
2, Member Babson agrees with the judge's finding that the Respondent
knew of Morton's position In so doing, however, he does not rely on the
judge's statement that "[I]t is incredible that any employer would hear of
a possible strike without fully investigating the status of the employee
that uttered the threat."
a See, e.g, Holding Co, 231 NLRB 383, 388 (1977) In adopting the
judge's conclusion, we find it unnecessary to pass on his reliance on
Eagle Headers, 273 NLRB 1486 (1985). Member Babson additionally
notes that no exception was filed to the judge's finding that Dorsey is not
a supervisor
that the surveillance allegation does not exceed the
scope of the charge.
In finding that the Respondent unlawfully co-
erced employee Dorsey into interfering with the
employees' protected union activities, the judge
credited Dorsey's testimony that, on 27 December
1985, Acting General Manager Clayton asked
Dorsey to check with the maids to see if they were
going to walk out so he could get somebody else in
there to work, and that Dorsey did report back
that the maids were not going to walk out. Howev-
er, Dorsey also testified that a day or two later
Clayton again asked her if she would talk to 'the
ladies and find out what was going on with the
Union. According, to Dorsey, a couple of days
after that, she reported to Clayton that the maids
were not talking to her and that if they were talk-
ing when she approached, they would stop talking.
We find, based on this testimony of Dorsey, who
was generally credited by the judge,- that by this
second incident the Respondent again solicited its
employee to report on the union activities of her
fellow employees, and thus again interfered with
their Section 7 rights in violation of Section
8(a)(1).4
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board adopts the
recommended Order of the administrative law
judge as modified below and orders that the Re-
spondent, Sussex Properties, Inc., Birmingham,
Alabama, its officers, agents, successors, and as-
signs, shall take the action set forth in the Order as
modified.
1. Substitute the following for paragraph 1(a).
"(a) Interfering with, restraining, or coercing its
employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed
them by Section 7 of the Act in violation of Sec-
tion 8(a)(1) of the Act by soliciting its employees
to report on union activities of other employees
and to engage in the surveillance of the union ac-
tivities of other employees."
2. Substitute the attached notice for that of the
administrative law judge.
4 See, e g ., Holding Co., supra
283 NLRB No. 139
SUSSEX PROPERTIES 897
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
ployees to engage in surveillance of its employees' union
activities.
On consideration of the entire record and briefs filed
by the General Counsel and Respondent, I make the fol-
lowing2
FINDINGS OF FACT
The National Labor Relations Board has found
that we violated the National Labor Relations Act
and has ordered us to post and abide by this notice.
WE WILL NOT solicit our employees to report on
activities of other employees or to engage in sur-
veillance of the activities of other employees on
behalf of Hotel Employees and Restaurant Em-
ployees Local Union 886, AFL-CIO, or any other
labor organization.
WE WILL NOT discharge our employees because
they engage in union activities or other concerted
activities protected under the National Labor Rela-
tions Act.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner
interfere with, restrain, or coerce you in the exer-
cise of the rights guaranteed you by Section 7 of
the Act.
WE WILL offer Ruth Morton immediate and full
reinstatement to her former job or, if that job no
longer exists, to a substantially equivalent position,
without prejudice to her seniority or any other
rights or privileges previously enjoyed and WE
WILL make her whole for any loss of earnings and
other benefits resulting from her discharge, less any
net interim earnings, plus interest.
WE WILL notify her that we have removed from
our files any reference to her discharge and that
the discharge will not be used against her in any
way.
SUSSEX PROPERTIES, INC.
Virginia Jordan, Esq., for the General Counsel.
Barry V Frederick and Charles A. Powell III, Esqs., of
Birmingham , Alabama, for the Respondent.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
J. PARGEN ROBERTSON, Administrative Law Judge.
This case was heard in Birmingham, Alabama, on 21
March 1986. The charge was filed on 30 December 1985,
and amended on 13 February 1986. The complaint,
which issued on 7 March 1986, alleges that Respondent'
violated Section 8(a)(l) and (3) by discharging employee
Ruth Morton, and Section 8(a)(1) by soliciting its em-
' The charge and the complaint show Respondent as Columbia Sussex
Corporation, Inc However, the parties stipulated during the hearing that
the correct name of Respondent is Sussex Properties, Inc
This case involves an admitted successor employer and
the discharge of the Local Union's president because she
made a statement to a nonunit employee about a strike.
Respondent operates a hotel in Birmingham, Alabama,
which has changed owners on several occasions during
the past few years. From 1980 until 27 December 1985,
the hotel was owned by the Birmingham Hilton. In 1976,
the hotel was called the Kahler Plaza, and from 1978
until 1980 it was called the Plaza Hotel South. Respond-
ent purchased the hotel effective 12:01 a.m., 27 Decem-
ber 1985.
The unit employees involved in the instant matter
have been represented by Hotel Employees and Restau-
rant Employees Local Union 886, AFL-CIO continuous-
ly since 1977.
Alleged discriminatee Ruth Morton served as vice
president beginning in 1979. She also served as shop
steward in the housekeeping department.
From 1982 on, Ruth Morton was Local 886' s presi-
dent.
On 27 December, 1985 Respondent interviewed numer-
ous applicants for employment, including employees of
the predecessor employer. One of those applicants was
Ruth Morton. Morton had worked continuously at the
hotel under its various owners since August 1976. Ac-
cording to Morton's testimony, which I credit, 3 she was
interviewed by Acting General Manager Stan Clayton.
Before beginning the interview, Morton noticed Clayton
talking with Assistant Housekeeper Addie Dorsey.4
Clayton left Dorsey, walked to Morton, and -said, "Oh,
you're Ruth." Morton said she was wearing an idlentifica-
tion button and a union button during the interview.
However, according to Clayton, he did not notice Mor-
ton's name tag.
On the night of 27 December, around 8:30 p.m.,
Morton was called by Addie Dorsey and told to report
to work at the hotel the next morning.
Morton reported to work on 28 December. She
worked approximately 6 hours when she was paged by
Addict Dorsey.' Dorsey directed Morton to report to the
front office where she was discharged by Stan Clayton.
2 Neither jurisdiction nor the status of the ' Charging Party is at issue.
Respondent admitted that it is an Alabama corporation with a Birming-
ham, Alabama location, where it is engaged in the business of providing
hotel and restaurant services to the public and is an employer engaged in
commerce within the meaning of Sec 2(6)'and (7) of the Act. Respond-
ent also admitted that the Charging Party is a labor organization within
the meaning of Sec 2(5) of the Act.
a Respondent 's acting general manager Stan Clayton demomitrated by
his testimony that he did not recall Morton's interview in detail.
4 Dorsey had been employed at the hotel since it wag the Kahier
Plaza When Respondent took over the hotel on 27 December, Dorsey
was a member of the staff and was' mcluded in the meeting of the depart-
ment heads on that day.
898 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Present at the discharge interview were Clayton,
Morton, Addie Dorsey, and Karen Mineo . Mineo testi-
fied that she works "for the home office ... more or
lessin quality control."
Stan Clayton asked Karen Mineo to sit in the inter-
view, but not to say anything.
According to Morton, Stan Clayton asked her about
her problems and told, her "I've got an employee that
would tell me you said you, all was going to strike."
Morton admitted that she denied telling any employee
that she was going to strike. Clayton subsequently called
in employees Norma Gaddy and Rhonda Hatcher who
said that Morton had told them that "they was going to
'strike on Saturday."
Morton was discharged. Her payroll charge notice
states:
1 Ruth Morton was heard by Norma and Rhonda
that she was going on strike Saturday.
Addie Dorsey testified that she was present at a staff
meeting on 27 December. During the meeting, Rhonda
Hatcher told Stan Clayton that "he should know they
had plans to strike that Saturday." Hatcher said to Clay-
ton that "it was told to her in confidential [sic] by Ruth
Morton."5
Clayton told Dorsey "to check with the ladies to see if
they were going to walk out so he could get somebody
else in there to work." On the day of Morton's dis-
charge,,' Dorsey reported to Clayton that the ladies
"weren't going to walk out because they needed to
work. 116
Conclusion
The evidence does not dispute that on 27 December
employees, including Ruth Morton, received their final
paychecks from the predecessor employer. Ruth Morton
went to,the 'office to inquire why insurance premiums
were deducted from both her wage and vacation checks.
At the office Morton spoke with Executive Secretary
Rhonda Hatcher. According to Morton, Hatcher had
been Morton's "inside source" and they maintained a
close relationship.
After discussing Morton's,'insurance deduction prob-
lems, Hatcher asked Morton "what is [International
5 Clayton's testimony about what he was told by Hatcher is similar to
the above testimony of Dorsey. However, Clayton testified that Hatcher
talked with him after the staff meeting outside the hearing of Dorsey I
credit Dorsey who showed good demeanor Dorsey's testimony reveals
personal knowledge she could not have possessed if Clayton's version of
.the incident is correct. Neither Rhonda Hatcher nor Norma Gaddy testi-
fied.,
6 Clayton, denied that he asked anyone to "spy on the Union." When
asked if he asked anyone to let him know if they heard,anything about a
strike, Clayton testified-
Not really. I was concerned that we were going, to be busy with the
All-American Bowl and I was concerned if anyone wasn't going to
show up because of the change in ownership.
Again I credit Dorsey over Clayton. 'Clayton's answer demonstrated that
he was concerned about a strike after hearing that a strike was predicted.
His testimony that he did not mgwre about a strike appears improbable
and somewhat self-contradictory Moreover, I was more impressed with
Dorsey's demeanor
Union Agent] Marshall Race gonna do about this mess,
Ruth?" Morton responded, "We gonna strike."
Morton then noticed that an' employee later identified
as Norma Gaddy was standing behind her. Hatcher as-
sured Morton that Gaddy would not say anything.'
The record illustrates that a strike did not occur as
forecast by Morton. Nevertheless, the question of wheth-
er Morton's comment was correct is not of significant
importance in the instant analysis. The issue at this point
is whether Morton's action was protected -by the Nation-
al Labor Relations Act.
At the time of Morton's comment, no collective-bar-
gaining agreement was in effect.8
Respondent does not quarrel with the above facts.
However, Respondent argues that it was unaware on 27
and 28 December that Ruth Morton was the Local
Union's president, and for that reason it did not realize if
Morton was engaged in union activities. Additionally,
Respondent argues that it understood Morton was threat-
ening that she alone would strike; and her action was not
concerted or protected. - -
Respondent's argument must be rooted in jurispru-
dence that has established that a so-called pretextual or
mixed motive allegation must fail in those situations
where the General Counsel is unable to prove that the
employer knew of the alleged dischargee's union or pro-
tected activities. See, e.g., Wright Line, 251 NLRB 1083
(1980), enfd. 662 F.2d 899 (1st 'Cir. 1981), cert. denied
455 U.S. 989 (1982). Here, Respondent contends that I
should credit evidence that it had no knowledge that
Morton was engaged in protected activities when she
talked with Rhonda Hatcher.
In that regard, the record evidence shows that Addie
Dorsey was present when.Rhonda Hatcher told Acting
General Manager Stan Clayton of Morton's comment.
As indicated above, -I credit Dorsey's testimony. Dorsey
testified:
A. Rhonda Hatcher. She told Mr. - Clayton she
thought he should know they had plans to strike
that Saturday.
Q. Did she say, anything else?
A. She said it was told to her in confidential, you
know, by Ruth.
Q. Did she say Ruth who?
A. Ruth Morton. -
Q. Was anything else said at that time?
A. Well, he asked me to check with the ladies to
see if they were going to walk out so he could get
somebody else in there to work.
Q. What ladies are those?
A. The maids.
Q. And did you do that?
A. Yes, I did. - -
7 Neither Hatcher nor Gaddy testified. Apparently, neither is now em-
ployed by Respondent I credit Morton's testimony of the incident with
Hatcher and Gaddy Her testimony is unrebutted and it is supported by
record evidence about matters that flowed from that incident.
The Union asked Respondent to assume the contract of the predeces-
sor, but Respondent refused
SUSSEX PROPERTIES 899
Q. Did you have a further conversation with Mr.
Clayton after you had checked with the ladies?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. When was that?
A. It was the same day I told him they weren't
going .to walk out because they needed to work.
It is, obvious from the above that Clayton was told
that Ruth Morton had said that the employees planned
to strike. Additionally, Clayton's subsequent action in
asking Dorsey to check out the employees' plans sup-
ports my conclusion that he was originally told the em-
ployees planned to strike.
Moreover, Respondent retained department heads, in-
cluding Addie Dorsey, from the predecessor employer.
All of those people knew that Ruth Morton was, and
had been since 1982, president of the Local.
I ami convinced that Respondent knew of Ruth Mor-
ton's position as Local 886's president before her dis-
charge. In the first place, as shown above , Respondent
retained several department head supervisors from the
predecessor employer. Therefore, Respondent, through
its supervisors and agents , knew of Morton 's union posi-
tion. Moreover, the actual source of Respondent's infor-
mation that Morton was threatening to strike, Rhonda
Hatcher, was fully aware of Ruth Morton's position as
president of the Local. Finally, it is incredible that any
employer would hear of a possible strike without fully
investigating the status ' of the employee that uttered the
threat. See Marathon LeTourneau Co. v. NLRB, 699 F.2d
248 (5th Cir. 1983); United Supermarkets, 261 NLRB
1291, 1301 (1982).
Respondent also argues that Morton's comment was
inconsistent with the Union's request that Respondent
should assume its collective-bargaining agreement with
the predecessor employer in that the predecessor em-
ployer agreement contained a no-strike provision. I find
no merit in that argument . The record is not in dispute
that Respondent rejected the Union's efforts to extend to
Respondent the terms of its predecessor agreement. Cf.
Energy Coal Partnership, 269 NLRB 770 (1984), in which
the union made a specific recommendation to the alleged
discriminatees that they not engage in a strike.
The issue here is much more fundamental than Re-
spondent's arguments would imply.
Here, the facts and issues are simple. An employee,
Rhonda Hatcher, asked the Local Union's- president
what the Union planned regarding changed working
conditions. There can be no real dispute regarding the
import of Hatcher 's question . That Hatcher 's question
referenced union action was established by Hatcher men-
tioning International Union Representative ' Marshall
Race.
The instant matter is similar in many ways to the land-
mark case of NLRB v. Burnup & Sims, 379 U.S. 21,
(1964). See also Rubin Bros. Footwear, 99 NLRB 610
(1952); K & K Transportation Corp., 262 NLRB 1481
(1982). In Burnup & Sims, the 'employer was advised by
an employee that while soliciting him for membership in
the union, two employees had said that "the union will
use dynamite to get in if the union did not acquire the
authorization." 379 U.S., at 21. There, as here, the em-
ployer argued that its knowledge should be determina-
tive . In Burnup & Sims, the employer argued that its
good-faith belief that the two employees engaged in mise
conduct should show that it did not engage in illegal ac-
tivity. Here, Respondent argues that'it was unaware that
Morton was engaged in protected activity. The Supreme
Court in Burnup & Sims held that where employees are
engaged in union activities , an employer 's good-faith
belief is immaterial unless the record shows that the em-
ployees actually engaged in misconduct.
Here, the record shows that Rhonda Hatcher ques-
tioned Ruth Morton about what the Union, through its
International representative, planned . Ruth Morton re-
sponded in kind (i.e., she told Hatcher the Union planned
to strike). Hatcher and Gaddy understood that Morton
was talking about union action . In fact, unrebutted testi-
mony shows that Gaddy tried to persuade Morton to
avoid calling a strike. Morton 's discussion of union ac-
tivities constitutes protected activities9 as much as the
employees ' solicitation efforts constituted protected ac-
tivities in Burn up & Sims. Therefore, Respondent 's action
against Morton is illegal unless it is shown that, Morton
engaged in misconduct.
The record shows that Morton did nothing more than
predict a strike. She made no threat to Respondent. In
fact, the evidence shows that Morton did not intend to
convey her comments to Respondent. There was no in-
stant - collective-bargaining agreement and, of course,
there was no contractual prohibition to striking,. There-
fore, neither a strike nor a prediction of a strike consti-
tutes misconduct in this instance . Cf. Champion Parts,
260 NLRB 731 (1982); John Morrell & Co., 270 NLRB 1
(1984); General Electric Co., 253 NLRB 1189 (1981).
I find that Morton was , engaged in union activities
when she discussed the Union' s plans with employee
Rhonda Hatcher on 27 December 1985. Those activities
are protected by the National Labor Relations Act. Re-
spondent did not have a good-faith belief that Morton's
activities were unprotected. Nor did Respondent have a
good-faith belief that Morton engaged in misconduct. In
fact, Ruth Morton did not engage in misconduct. I find
that Respondent's discharge of Morton violates the terms
of the Act.,
The General Counsel also alleges that Respondent vio-
lated Section 8(a)(l) by asking Addie Dorsey to report
on its employees ' planned union activities.
The only record evidence dealing with Dorsey's em-
ployee status illustrates that she was not a supervisor.
The credited evidence proves that Stan Clayton asked
Dorsey "to check with the ladies to see if they were
going to walk out so he could get somebody else in there
to work."
The Act protects employees from being required to
report on union activities.
I agree with Respondent's argument that it had a le-
gitimate business interest in inquiring whether the house-
keeping employees would strike. However, Respondent
9 Since the credited evidence shows that Respondent was, told that
Morton had said that the employees were going to strike , I find that she
was forecasting concerted activity that is protected regardless of Re-
spondent 's knowledge about her position as president of the Local
900 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
had other sources to determine whether a, strike was
planned. For, example, Respondent could have checked
with International Representative Marshall Race. By re-
quiring an employee to investigate and report, Respond-
ent coerced that employee into interfering with the em-
ployees' protected union activities. The Board has con-
sistently found similar activities to be violative of Section
8(a)(1). Eagle Headers, 273 NLRB 1486, 1490 (1985).10
ADDITIONAL CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. By soliciting its employee to report on the union ac-
tivities of other employees, Respondent violated Section
8(a)(1) of the Act.
2. By discharging employee Ruth Morton on 28 De-
cember 1985, Respondent has engaged in conduct viola-
tive of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act.
3. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor
practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Sec-
tion 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has engaged in unfair
labor practices in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of
the Act, I shall order it to cease and desist therefrom and
take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the
policies of the Act.
Having ' found that Respondent has illegally discharged
its employee Ruth Morton in violation of Section 8(a)(1)
and (3) of the Act, I shall order Respondent to offer
Morton immediate and full , reinstatement to her former
position or, if that' position no longer exists , to a substan-
tially equivalent position without prejudice to her senior-
ity or other rights and privileges , and to make Morton
whole for any loss of `earnings she may have suffered as
a result of the discrimination against her . Backpay and
interest shall be computed in the manner described in
F. W. Woolworth Co., 90 NLRB 289 (1950), and Florida
Steel Corp ., 231 NLRB 651 (1977).11
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and
on the entire record, I issue the following recommend-
edtz
10 Respondent argues that the General Counsel's 8(aXi) allegation
should' be dismissed as outside the scope of the charge and additionally
that it was misled by the General Counsel regarding the nature of the
evidence in support of that allegation. That contention by Respondent
must be rejected If Respondent was prevented from properly preparing
a defense because of a misunderstanding as to the nature of the allegatipn,
its proper recourse would have been to ask for sufficient time to prepare
after the conclusion of the General Counsel's evidence. Respondent failed
to make that request.
I find the General Counsel's allegation does not exceed the scope of
the charge. Clark Equipment Co, 278 NLRB 498, 499 (1986).
'' See generally Isis Plumbing Co, 138 NLRB 716 (1962).
13 If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sea 102.46 of the Board's
Rules and Regulations, the findings, conclusions, and recommended
Order shall, as provided in Sec 102 48 of the Rules, be adopted by' the
Board and all objections to them shall be deemed waived for all pur-
poses.
ORDER
The Respondent, Sussex Properties, Inc., Birmingham,
Alabama, its officers, agents, successors , and assigns,
shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Interfering with, restraining , or coercing its em-
ployees in the exercise of rights guaranteed them by Sec-
tion 7 of the Act in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the
Act by soliciting, its employees to report, on union activi-
ties of other employees,
(b) Discharging and refusing to reinstate employees be-
cause of their protected union activities.
(c) In any like or related manner interfering with, re-
straining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of
rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to
effectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Offer immediate and full reinstatement to Ruth
Morton to her former position or, if that position no
longer exists, to a substantially equivalent position, with-
out prejudice to her seniority or other rights and privi-
leges, and make Morton whole. for any losses she may
have suffered as a result of the discrimination against her
in the manner set forth in the remedy section of this, de-
cision.
(b) Remove from Ruth Morton's personnel files any
reference to its discharge of her and notify Morton in
writing that this has been done and that evidence of its
unlawful discharge will not be used as a basis for future
personnel action against Morton.
(c) Preserve and, on 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 amount of backpay due under the
terms of this Order.
(d) Post at its Birmingham, Alabama facility copies of
the attached notice marked "Appendix."13 Copies of the
notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for
Region 10, after being signed by the Respondent's au-
thorized representative, shall be posted by the Respond-
ent immediately upon receipt and maintained- for 60 con-
secutive days in conspicuous places, including all places
where notices to employees are customarily posted. Rea-
sonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to ensure
that the notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by
any other material.
(e) Notify the Regional Director in writing within 20
days from the date of this Order what steps the Re-
spondent has taken to comply.
13 If 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 Nation-
al 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."