Union Medical Center, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 9, 1976

222 N.L.R.B. 45 (N.L.R.B. 1976)

UNION MEDICAL CENTER, INC. 45
Union Medical Center , Inc. and Dr . Daniel Lane and
Dr. Ronald Buro. Cases 5-CA-7215-1 and
5-CA-7215-2
January 9, 1976
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS FANNING, JENKINS, AND PENELLO
On September 25, 1975, Administrative Law Judge
Charles W. Schneider issued the attached Decision in
this proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent filed excep-
tions and a supporting brief, and the General Coun-
sel filed an answering brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au-
thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the record and the at-
tached Decision in light of the exceptions and briefs
and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings,' and
conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge and to
adopt his recommended Order, as modified herein.'
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Re-
lations Board adopts as its order the recommended
Order of the Administrative Law Judge, as modified
herein, and hereby orders that' the Respondent,
Union Medical Center, Inc., Washington, D.C., its
officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take
the action set forth in the said recommended Order,
as so modified:
1. Substitute the following for paragraph 2(a):
"(a) Offer Dr. Daniel Lane and Dr. Ronald Buro
immediate and full reinstatement to their former po-
sitions or, if those jobs no longer exist, to substantial-
ly equivalent positions, without prejudice to their se-
niority or other rights and privileges, and make each
of them whole for any loss of earnings (including any
expenses incurred in seeking other employment) suf-
fered by reason of his discharge by the Respondent,
with interest at the rate of 6 percent per annum."
2. Substitute the attached notice for the Adminis-
trative Law Judge's notice.
i Respondent asserts that the Administrative Law Judge 's resolutions of
credibility , findings of fact , and conclusions of law are the result of bias
After a careful examination of the entire record , we are satisfied that this
allegation is without merit There is no basis for finding that bias and par-
tiality existed merely because the Administrative Law Judge resolved impor-
tant factual conflicts in favor of the General Counsel's witnesses. As the
Supreme Court stated in N.LR B v. Pittsburgh Steamship Company, 337
U S. 656 , 659 (1949 ), "[T]otal rejection of an opposed view cannot of itself
impugn the integrity or competence of a trier of fact " Furthermore , it is the
Board's established position not to overrule an Administrative Law Judge's
resolutions with respect to credibility unless the clear preponderance of all
of the relevant evidence convinces us that the resolutions are incorrect.
Standard Dry Wall Products, Inc, 91 NLRB 544 (1950), enfd 188 F.2d 362
(C.A. 3, 1951). We find no basis for reversing his findings.
2 The recommended Order is modified in three ways First , the phrase in
par. 2(a) "to their former or substantially equivalent positions " is changed
to read "to their former positions , or if those jobs no longer exist , to sub-
stantially equivalent positions " Second, since the Administrative Law
Judge inadvertantly omitted it , wording is included in par. 2 (a) to state that
the reinstatement of Drs Lane and Buro shall be "without prejudice to their
seniority or other rights and privileges " Both these changes have also been
made in the revised "Notice to Employees." Third, the last clause of par
2(a), "less any of his net earnings during the period of his unemployment by
Respondent," is deleted . The reason for this modification is that both den-
tists apparently have worked part-tune outside the employ of Respondent
both before and after their discharges for an unknown number of hours per
week . Therefore, it would not make Drs Buro and Lane whole to subtract
any net earnings made after their discharges from the amount of earnings
they would have received from Respondent, since each would have evident-
ly been able to count on some part-time work anyway . As a result, we have
decided to leave the determination of the exact amount of lost earnings
owed by Respondent to Drs Lane and Buro to the compliance stage
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
After a hearing, the National Labor Relations Board
has ruled that we discharged Dr. Daniel Lane and
Dr. Ronald Buro in violation of the National Labor
Relations Act, and has ordered us to take certain
remedial action. In compliance with the Board's or-
der, we hereby notify our employees that:
WE WILL NOT discharge, discipline, or other-
wise penalize any employee for engaging in, pro-
posing, or supporting lawful concerted activities
under the National Labor Relations Act.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere
with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exer-
cise of rights under the National Labor Rela-
tions Act.
WE WILL offer Dr. Daniel Lane and Dr. Ron-
ald Buro immediate and full reinstatement to
their former positions or, if thosejobs no longer
exist, to substantially equivalent positions, with-
out prejudice to their seniority or other rights
and privileges, and reimburse them for any loss
of earnings they incurred as a result of their dis-
charge by us.
All our employees are free to become and remain
members of any labor organization, or to engage in
any lawful concerted activity, without fear of dis-
charge or other adverse action for doing so.
UNION MEDICAL CENTER, INC.
222 NLRB No. 7
46 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
CHARLES W. SCHNEIDER, Administrative Law Judge: On
March 20, 1975, Dr. Daniel Lane and Dr. Ronald Buro,
individuals, each filed an unfair labor practice charge
against, Union Medical Center, Inc., the Respondent, alleg-
ing;that they had been discharged by the Respondent be-
cause of their protected concerted activities. On May 2,
1975, the Regional Director of Region 5 of the Board is-
sued a complaint against the Respondent alleging that the
Respondent had engaged in unfair labor practices within
the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, as amended (29 U.S.C. 158), by terminating the
employment of Lane and Buro, and failing and refusing to
reinstate them, because they engaged in protected concert-
ed activities with other employees by threatening to stage a
"sick-out" should Respondent fail to institute improve-
ments in their wages and working conditions. Respondent
duly filed an answer on May 7, 1975, admitting some of the
allegations of the complaint but denying the commission of
unfair labor practices. Pursuant to notice a hearing was
held before me in Washington, D.C., on June 3 and 4,
1975. All parties appeared and were afforded full opportu-
nity to participate, to introduce and to present material
evidence, and to engage in oral argument. A brief was filed
by the Respondent on July 1, 1975, and by the General
Counsel on July 2, 1975.
Upon the entire record in the case, and the briefs, and
from my observation of the witnesses, I make the follow-
ing:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. JURISDICTION
Union Medical Center, Inc., a District of Columbia cor-
poration, is engaged in providing ambulatory medical and
dental care at its Washington, D.C., location. During the
preceding 12 months, a representative period, Respondent
had gross revenues in excess of $250,000 and purchased
and received, in interstate commerce, materials and sup-
plies valued in excess of $10,000 from points located out-
side the District of Columbia.
It is admitted that the Respondent is engaged in com-
merce within the meaning of the National Labor Relations
Act.
II. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
The Respondent operates a dental clinic in Washington,
D.C., where it provides dental and medical service to,
among others, members of the Laborers International
Union of North America, through health plans. President
and board chairman of the Respondent is Leo Nazdin,
who is also director of jurisdiction of the Laborers Interna-
tional Union of North America. Doctors Buro and Lane,
employed as part-time staff dentists at the Respondent's
clinic, were discharged on March 15, 1975, according to
the General Counsel because they had engaged in the con-
certed activity related above as incorporated in the com-
plaint. The Respondent denies that Buro and Lane were
discharged because of the threatened sick-out and affirma-
tively contends that they were discharged because of dere-
liction in their duties.
There are approximately 15 dentists employed at the
clinic, all on a part-time basis. Dr. E. Preston Lee is the
director of the clinic, and, as of the time of the instant
events, Dr. William Francis was assistant director. To the
knowledge of the Respondent, a spirit of discontent existed
among the dentists in the clinic originating in late 1974,
principally over salaries and working conditions, but also
relating to the condition of the equipment. It is admitted
that in December 1974 and again in January 1975 Director
Lee and Assistant Director Francis of the clinic relayed to
Board Chairman Nazdin a request on the part of the staff
for wage increases. However no action appears to have
been taken by the Respondent on those requests.
Around March 1, 1975, Dr. Lee held a staff meeting with
the dentists, at least partially in response to complaints that
had been made by the dental assistants, relating to "unpro-
fessional" conduct by the dentists and improper regard for
patients. So far as appears from the evidence, the com-
plaints were not directed at any particular dentist.'
As a consequence of the meeting, it was apparently
agreed that all dentists would wear smocks, that dental
assistants would be addressed formally, and that late pa-
tients would be seen if some work could feasibly be done,
consistent with other appointments.
At this meeting the dentists also brought up the question
of pay increases. Dr. Buro stated that on previous occa-
sions the dentists had been given promises of raises and
improvements in working conditions, but that nothing had
materialized. Dr. Lee seemed in sympathy. Dr. Francis
concurred in the opinion that it was time that something
was done. Dr. Lee said that he understood, and stated that
something would be done. However, nothing occurred un-
til sometime in the week of March 12, when Dr. Lee told
Dr. Buro that Chairman of the Board Nazdin would be at
the clinic on March 12, and that Drs. Lee and Francis
would present the matter to him. However, though the
board of directors met on March 12 with several of the
dental assistants, they did not meet with the dentists, or
with Doctors Lee and Francis.
On March 14, 1975, after the dentists came to work they
learned that the anticipated meeting with Lee and Francis
over the matter of pay had not taken place. This height-
ened the simmering discontent. During the remainder of
that day an "on-going" discussion was carried on intermit-
tently throughout the day among the dentists as to what to
do. The dentists felt that they were being ignored. Methods
were discussed of securing Nazdin's attention to the griev-
ance in order to get a meeting with him. Buro suggested
i The gist of the charges was that some dentists did not wear smocks, that
some showed disrespect for the assistants by calling them by their first
names, and that late patients were not being seen The clinic at that time
appears to have had a rule to the effect that if a patient was 15 or more
minutes late for a half-hour appointment , he would not be seen by a dentist
unless there was emergency time available The burden of conveying that
unpleasant information fell to the dental assistants, who found it distasteful
UNION MEDICAL CENTER, INC. 47
that the dentists call a sick-out, that is, that they call in sick
one day. Lane, and apparently Francis, agreed to the sug-
gestion. However, Dr. Crainson, one of the dentists, who
was a family man and concerned about his job, opposed
the proposal, to the point where a loud argument ensued in
the clinic over it. Crainson, Buro, and Lane urged Francis
to see Lee, to which Francis-replied that he felt that that
was useless . However, in response to further urging by
Crainson, Lane, and Buro, to the effect that they did not
want a strike, Francis left the meeting to speak to Lee.
Upon his return, Francis advised the group that he had
told Lee that the dentists were upset and "ready to walk,"
and that something should be done. Francis quoted Lee as
responding that he knew that, and that he was going to talk
to Nazdin about it. After further discussion the group ap-
parently agreed that the matter should be discussed among
the entire staff of dentists during the following week in
order to ascertain their views.
Later in the day a report circulated in the clinic to the
effect that there would be a meeting that evening between
Nazdin and Lee, and presumably Francis, regarding the
matter.
On the following day, Saturday, March 15, after arriving
at work, Buro, Lane, and Crainson went to Lee's office to
learn what had happened at the meeting the night before.
Lee said that he had bad news, that at the meeting the
board of directors had instructed him to discharge Lane
and Buro and a dental technician named Lasko and, fur-
ther, that Dr. Francis was to be removed from his assistant
directorship position. Queried as to the basis for those ac-
tions by the board, Lee said that as to Lasko he was dis-
charged because of complaints by patients, but that as to
Buro and Lane, "They heard about the strike and they said
you are bad for the clinic and I should fire you." As to
Crainson, Lee told him that, "They like you," and that
Crainson would be given a raise and put on full-time. Buro
asked Lee for a meeting with Nazdin, to which Lee replied
that the matter was out of his hands and he could do noth-
ing about it. Lane and Buro then left the building. They
have not been reinstated.
During their employment by the Respondent the work
or conduct of Lane and Buro was never criticized by their
superiors , Drs. Lee and Francis. The evidence is uncontra-
dicted that they were good'dentists.
Dr. Lee denied that he told Buro, Lane, and Crainson
that the board had heard of the proposed sick-out. Howev-
er, Buro, Lane, and Crainson testified to the contrary. I
credit their testimony. I do not deem it likely in the circum-
stances that Crainson, who had opposed a strike because of
his concern for his job, would have testified falsely or in-
correctly concerning the matter.
The Respondent's Asserted Reasons for the Discharges;
Conclusions
The Respondent denies that Buro and Lane were dis-
charged for concerted activity or because they had dis-
cussed or proposed a strike or sick-out. The Respondent's
testimony, principally that of Chairman of the Board and
President Leo Nazdin, is that the Respondent was unaware
of such activity, and that Buro and Lane were discharged,
and Francis was demoted, in reliance upon charges made
by three dental assistants at a "special" meeting with the
Respondent's three-man board of directors and Associate
Hilda Daniels, on March 12, 2 days before the discharges.
It is conceded that Nazdin had no personal knowledge as
to the truth of whatever accusations were made. There is
no evidence that Nazdin or any other member of the
board, or Associate Daniels, had any personal knowledge
as to the performance or conduct of Lane, Buro, or Fran-
cis, or of Crainson who was given a promotion. It is con-
ceded that, other than questioning of the dental assistants
at the board meeting, no inquiry was made into the truth of
the asserted allegations . Of the five management represen-
tatives identified as being present at either the March 12 or
14 meeting (Chairman Nazdin, Board Members Dr. Wil-
lard Jones (head of the medical program) and Robert L.
Wearring (secretary), and Associate Daniels) only Lee and
Nazdin testified.2 As has been related above, on March 15
Dr. Lee told Buro, Lane, and Crainson, in response to
queries from them as to the reason the board of directors
discharged Buro and Lane, that "They heard about the
strike and they said you were bad for the clinic and I
should fire you."
There were differences of opinion between the dentists
and some of the dental assistants as to the manner of con-
ducting the clinic. As has been seen, the meeting of dentists
in early March was called by Dr. Lee in response to com-
plaints from dental assistants as to the handling of late
patients, the wearing of smocks by dentists, and the desire
of assistants to have the dentists address them formally,
rather than_on a first name basis. The dentists, in turn, had
complaints about the assistants-apparently principally
from Lane and Buro-to the effect that some dental assis-
tants did not take X-rays properly, or adequately sterilize
instruments. The assistants' complaints were apparently
disposed of in the way they desired, to judge from the testi-
mony as to the March 1 meeting.
Nevertheless, Nazdin and the three assistants testified
that the special meeting of March 12 was held at the re-
quest of the assistants, at least two of whom considered
that they had been the objects of unmerited reproof by
Lane or Buro as to the condition of instruments. Nazdin
and the board of directors were evidently given the same
complaints as to "unprofessional" conduct by the dentists
which had been the subject of the March 1 staff meeting-
with one significant difference. This time, according to the
testimony of Nazdin, after being asked by the board to
assess the performance of each dentist on the staff, the
three assistants identified Lane and Buro as the "worst" of
the dentists in respect to the practices complained of.
Nazdin's further testimony is that the board was so
"shocked" by the revelations of the assistants that it tenta-
tively decided to discharge Lane and Buro and to demote
Francis, but took no definitive action, deciding to "sleep
on it" and then, on the evening of March 14, without
knowledge of the events of that afternoon, concluded to
effect the discharges and notified Dr. Lee accordingly.
However, Nazdin could not, under cross-examination by
2 Dr. Lee was not present at the March 12 meeting, nor, so far as appears,
advised about it
48 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the General Counsel, recall any specific incident involving
Lane or Buro which the assistants brought to the attention
of the board.
Whatever the three dental assistants may have told the
board on March 12, I am of the opinion that it was not the
reason Buro and Lane were discharged.
In the first place, whatever the assistants said, the uncon-
tradicted evidence is that Buro and Lane were, in the opin-
ions of Drs. Lee and Francis, good dentists, and Lee so
informed the board. Admittedly, the discharges came as a
complete surprise to him. It seems clear from the testimony
that Lee's opinion was not asked, he was not consulted,
and that he was merely told of the decision of the board,
and directed to carry it out.
The supposition that Nazdin or the board of directors
would have taken at face value, and without apparent
question, the information supposedly transmitted at the
March 12 meeting, and proceed to act upon it without re-
gard to the opinion of the head of the dental clinic, and,
without further inquiry, to discharge Lane and Buro, is not,
in my opinion, either an expectable or a credible course of
conduct in the circumstances here. In this connection it
must be remembered that Nazdin is a responsible official
in a large international trade union. I cannot believe that,
in representing a member of his union, he would so unhesi-
tatingly accept ex parte statements as to the conduct of the
member and approve his discharge by his employer with-
out further inquiry. Questioned at the hearing about his
omission in this regard, Nazdin could only state that he did
"not think it a possibility that [the assistants'] stories were
not true." And again, that since he had made up his mind
to accept the assistants' charges, he did not think that it
would have made any difference in his decision if he had
talked to Lane or Buro. That is not the attitude of an objec-
tive employer in such a situation, and in one of Nazdin's
professional background it is incredible. This is particular-
ly so in the light of the fact that Nazdin had never met
Buro or Lane, and there was ample time between the two
meetings to question both of them, as well as the two de-
partment heads, Lee and Francis, about the asserted dere-
lictions.
And, although Lane and Duro were supposedly the
"worst" of the dentists, the faults attributed to them were
not different in character than those attributed to all the
dentists. Nazdin's justification, that it was "a matter of de-
gree," finds meager support in the evidence. For, upon
analysis of the record, I find no substantial basis for asser-
tions, or belief, that Lane or Buro treated patients improp-
erly, or for another allegation-which I find little short of
contrived-that Lane and Buro continually brought
friends and dogs into the clinic. That Lane and Buro had
differences with the assistants over methods appears to be
true. Indeed, the testimony of the assistants reflects that
they resented criticism by Lane and Buro as to their hygen-
ic methods and X-ray work. This, perhaps, may explain
why Lane and Buro might have been singled out for special
attention. In evaluating the merits of the asserted com-
plaints' about Lane and Buro, I think it significant that
their superiors, Lee and Francis, found nothing in their
work or conduct warranting criticism. Against this back-
ground I deem it significant that this was the only time in
the history of the clinic that a dentist had been discharged
solely at the direction of the board. Thus the circumstantial
facts alone require disbelief of the grounds asserted for the
discharges of Lane and Buro.3
The rejection of the other bases for the discharges, leave
as possible bases only Lane's and Buro's failure to wear
smocks and to address the assistants formally. Assuming
the continued existence of such delinquencies after March
1 solely or substantially by Lane or Buro-which I deem
contrary to the credible evidence-I cannot conceive the
Respondent acting upon such premises. When to those
facts and conclusions we add Dr. Lee's statement that the
board had "heard about the strike," and had said that
Lane and Buro were "bad for the clinic," the conclusion is
compelling that the grounds now asserted for the dis-
charges are pretexts, and that the real reason was that the
board had heard about Buro's and Lane's espousal of job
action on the afternoon of March 14. In view of the length
and vehemence of that discussion, it is a fair inference that
it became known to others in the clinic and was reported to
the Board.
The treatment of Dr. Crainson tends to support that
conclusion. Thus he, the sole dentist shown to have op-
posed a strike, received a full-time appointment and a sal-
ary increase, though at least one of the dental assistants,
upon whose statements at the March 12 meeting Nazdin
and the board supposedly relied, identified Crainson as
among those deficient in "professionalism."
In these circumstances I cannot credit the testimony of
Nazdin, uncorroborated by the other management repre-
sentatives available.
The Respondent suggests that if Lee made the state-
ments attributed to him by Lane, Buro and Crainson as to
the board of directors' knowledge of the strike proposal
and its reason for the discharges, it may have been his
kindly way of letting them down easily.4 Whatever Lee's
motivation for making the statement, I have found that he
made it. Absent any basis, other than speculation and
Nazdin's testimony, to question the truth of it, I find it to
be a probative admission by the Respondent. In addition, I
do not, in these circumstances, deem humanitarian motives
a persuasive explanation for Lee to have fabricated to
Buro, Lane, and Crainson at that time.
I therefore conclude that Buro and Lane were dis-
charged for their militant positions on the dentists' wage
demands and for suggesting a sick-out.
3It may be noted that the alleged meeting on March 12 between the
board and the assistants was itself rather singular . This was a "special"
meeting, assertedly in response to requests by the three assistants. In the
light of the fact that all of the avowed dissatisfactions of the assistants had
been discussed by Lee with the dentists in the staff meeting around March
1, and the assistants ' suggestions apparently adopted, there is no evident
reason for a meeting on March 12. Though there is testimony by at least one
of the assistants to the effect that there was no improvement after March 1,
those assertions find no support elsewhere in the record Indeed, as I read
the evidence, the testimony of the assistants is that there was no mistreat-
ment of patients after March 1 In addition the very fact that a special
meeting was called seems curious , when it is noted that the dentists had
been seeking a meeting with the board for months without success.
4 " . this man . a kindly, ineffectual well, a bumbler as far as admin-
istrative details are concerned perhaps , a fine dentist but no handier of men
. [was] probably incapable of really saying anything harsh in connec-
tion with firing anybody "
UNION MEDICAL CENTER, INC.
One need not be sympathetic with job action by profes-
sionals. However, the action discussed here was lawful.
Moreover, it did not eventuate, since it was finally decided
to await determination of further action until after discus-
sion with the full staff in the following week. Finally, it is
to be noted that for months the attempts of the dentists to
secure a wage increase, or a meeting with the board about
the matter, were apparently ignored-in contrast with the
Respondent's prompt action in holding a special meeting
to listen to the grievances of the dental assistants about the
dentists.
Finally, with respect to Nazdin's testimony to the effect
that the board was "shocked" at the revelations of the as-
sistants, it is worthy of note that Nazdin, according to
other parts of his testimony, was aware of that asserted
situation for over 6 months, and did nothing about it. In
addition, though the alleged deficiencies, if they existed,
were attributable to mismanagement, it is also notable that
Dr. Lee was not affected by the board's decision, whereas
Dr. Francis, his subordinate was demoted. The
Respondent's explanation is that Dr. Lee was not a good
administrator, and that Dr. Francis had been appointed to
assist him, but that Francis had failed to improve the situa-
tion. The discharge of a subordinate for asserted misman-
agement, while leaving untouched the head administrator
who admittedly was responsible for any such conditions,
does not merit acceptance as plausible in these circum-
stances. A more reasonable conclusion for the demotion of
Francis is that he approved of the proposal for the sick-out
as a means of securing the attention of the board of direc-
tors.
It is therefore concluded and found that, by terminating
the employment of Drs. Lane and Buro because they en-
gaged in protected concerted activities, the Respondent en-
gaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Sec-
tion 8(a)(1) of the Act.
Upon the foregoing findings and conclusions, and the
entire record in the case, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of
the Act, I hereby issue the following recommended:
5In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec 102.46 of the
Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the findings,
conclusions, and recommended Order herein shall, as provided in Sec
102 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
ORDERS
49
Union Medical Center, Inc., Washington, D.C., its offi-
cers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Discharging, disciplining, or otherwise penalizing
employees for engaging in, proposing, or supporting lawful
concerted activities under the National Labor Relations
Act.
(b) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or
coercing employees in the exercise of rights under the Na-
tional Labor Relations Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to ef-
fectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Offer Dr. Daniel Lane and Dr. Ronald Buro imme-
diate and full reinstatement to their former or substantially
equivalent positions, and make each of them whole for any
loss of earnings (including any expenses incurred in seek-
ing other employment) suffered by reason of his discharge
by the Respondent, with interest at the rate of 6 percent
per annum, less any of his net earnings during the period of
his unemployment by the Respondent.
(b) Preserve and upon request, make available to the
Board or its agents, for examination and copying, all pay-
roll records, social security payment records, timecards,
personnel records and reports, and all other records neces-
sary for the determination of the amount of backpay due
under the terms of this recommended Order.
(c) Post at its place of business in Washington, D.C.,
copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix." 6 Copies
of the notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director
for Region 5, after being duly signed by Respondent's rep-
resentative, shall be maintained by it for 60 consecutive
days thereafter, 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 said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by
any other material.
(d) Notify the Regional Director for Region 5, in writ-
ing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps
Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
6 In the event that the Board's Order is enforced by a Judgment of a
United States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by
Order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursuant
to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of
the National Labor Relations Board"