United Parcel Service

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 23, 1979

241 N.L.R.B. 1074 (N.L.R.B. 1979)

DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
United Parcel Service and Leo G. Kohls. Case 9-CA-
9873
April 23, 1979
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN FANNING AND MEMBERS JENKINS
AND MURPHY
On September 18, 1978, Administrative Law Judge
Ralph Winkler issued the attached Supplemental De-
cision in this proceeding.' Thereafter, the Respondent
filed exceptions and a supporting brief, and the Gen-
eral Counsel filed a 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 Supplemental Decision in light of the excep-
tions and briefs and has decided to affirm the rulings,
findings, and conclusions 2 of the Administrative Law
Judge and to adopt his recommended Order, as modi-
fied herein.3
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Rela-
tions Board adopts as its Order the recommended Or-
der of the Administrative Law Judge, as modified be-
low, and hereby orders that the Respondent, United
Parcel Service, Columbus, Ohio, its officers, agents,
successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth
in the said recommended Order, as so modified:
I. Substitute the following paragraph for 2(a):
"(a) Offer to Leo Kohls immediate and full rein-
statement to his former job or, if that job no longer
exists, to a substantially equivalent position, without
prejudice to his seniority or other rights or privileges
previously enjoyed."
2. Substitute the attached notice for that of the
Administrative Law Judge.
'The original Decision in this proceeding is reported at 228 NLRB 1060
(1977).
'We find it unnecessary to rely on N.L.R.B. v. J. Weingarten, Inc., 420
U.S. 251 (1975), and Certified Grocers of California. 227 NLRB 1211 1977).
cited by the dministrative Law Judge, since he properly found that the
primary reason for Kohls' discharge was his refusal to drive a truck which he
considered unsafe and that his refusal constituted protected concerted ac-
tivity. Thus, whether or not those cases are distinguishable as the Respon-
dent argues is immaterial.
3The Charging Party's motion for attorney fees is hereby denied, as we
cannot conclude that the Respondent's defense was "patently fnvsolous."
Heck's Inc., 215 NLRB 765 (1974).
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT discharge or take any other re-
prisal against employees for asserting rights un-
der collective-bargaining agreements.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere
with, restrain, or coerce our employees in exer-
cising their rights under the National Labor Re-
lations Act.
WE WILL offer Leo Kohls immediate and full
reinstatement to his job or, if that job no longer
exists, to a substantially equivalent position,
without prejudice to his seniority or other rights
or privileges previously enjoyed, and make him
whole for any loss of earnings since his discharge
on November 26, 1975.
UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC.
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
RALPH WINKLER, Administrative Law Judge: Upon the
original hearing in this case, I issued a Decision finding that
the matter in dispute was cognizable under grievance-arbi-
tration provisions of an operative agreement between Re-
spondent, United Parcel Service, and the Union, Local 413,
International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Ware-
housemen and Helpers of America. Without hearing the
merits of the case, I recommended that the matter be de-
ferred for handling under the applicable contract provisions
in accordance with Collyer Insulated Wire, 192 NLRB 837
(1971), and National Radio Company, Inc., 198 NLRB 527
(1972). While the recommended deferral Order was on ap-
peal before the Board, the Board issued General American
Transportation Corporation, 228 NLRB 808 (1977), in which
it reversed National Radio and thus substantially modified
the Collyer deferral doctrine. Then, finding that deferral
was no longer appropriate in the present case, the Board
directed that this matter be heard and decided on its merits,
228 NLRB 1060 (1977). A record on the merits was subse-
quently made.
Upon the entire record in the case, including my observa-
tion of the demeanor of witnesses, and upon consideration
of briefs,' I make the following:
I agree with the General Counsel in his motion to strke, dated Novem-
ber 10. 1977. that it is wholly unreasonable to infer that Foster and Shnver
would have corroborated Respondent's witnesses. It is therefore unnecessary
to rule on such motion.
241 NLRB No. 166
1074
UNITED PARCEL SERVICE
FINDINGS OF FA(I
I. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Preliminary, Statement
This case involves the discharge of Leo Kohls on Novem-
ber 26, 1975.2 Kohls had been in Respondent's employ for 8
years at its Columbus, Ohio, facility, the last 6 years as an
over-the-road driver. Kohls refused to drive a tandem axle
trailer unit on November 12 because he considered the
brakes on the unit unsafe to operate. Contending that
Kohl's discharge was substantially motivated by his refusal
to undertake this driving assignment, the General Counsel
alleges that Respondent thereby violated Section 8(a)(1) of
the Act. The General Counsel asserts, as the legal predicate
for the violation, that in refusing the assignment Kohls was
asserting rights under a collective-bargaining agreement
and that the assertion of such contract rights is protected
concerted activity under the Act. The pertinent contract
provisions are as follows:
ARTICLE XVII
Equipment, Accidents. Reports
The Employer shall not require employees to take
out on the streets or highways any vehicle that is not in
safe operating condition or equipped with the safety
appliances prescribed by law. It shall not be a violation
of this Agreement where employees refuse to operate
such equipment unless such refusal is unjustified. All
equipment which is refused because not mechanically
sound or properly equipped, shall be appropriately
tagged so that it cannot be used by other drivers until
automotive maintenance department has adjusted the
complaint.
Under no circumstances will an employee be re-
quired or assigned to engage in any activity involving
dangerous conditions of work or danger to person or
property or in violation of any applicable statute or
court order, or in violation of a government regulation
relating to safety of person or equipment. The term
"dangerous conditions of work" does not relate to the
type of cargo which is hauled or handled.
Respondent contends that the November 12 incident was
one of a series of incidents involving a purported failure by
Kohls to follow legitimate work orders. In claiming that it
discharged Kohls for cause, Respondent admits that the
November 12 incident was a factor in its determination to
fire Kohls. Respondent further asserts that Kohls' refusal to
drive on that occasion was "unjustified" within the afore-
mentioned contract language and, in any event, was not
concerted activity within Section 7 of the Act.
B. Events of November 12
Edgar Ater has been in Respondent's employ for 21
years; presently a yardman, he was an over-the-road driver
for 15 years. On the morning of November 12, Ater drove a
2 All dates are in 1975 unless otherwise indicated.
tractor to a railroad yard some 15 miles from Respondent's
Columbus terminal to pick up and deliver a loaded tandem
axle trailer to the terminal. (This was the trailer involved in
this case; it was owned by a railroad express company, not
by Respondent.) Ater had difficulty coupling the trailer to
the tractor because the trailer rolled backwards, which was
caused by brakes not holding. Ater took the trailer to the
railroad maintenance shop and reported the faulty trailer
brakes to the railroad shop supervisor. After the brakes
were adjusted pursuant to the supervisor's orders, the unit
was returned to Ater. Ater tried the brakes again and found
little improvement in their performance. He nevertheless
drove the trailer, slowly and "in a cautious manner," to
Respondent's terminal, where he wrote up the trailer for
repairs and informed Respondent's mechanic, Wade Fos-
ter, that the trailer brakes were not holding. Foster directed
the trailer into the terminal maintenance shop, where he
proceeded to work on the brakes.
Kohls meanwhile reported for work at 10:30 that morn-
ing and was assigned to take the trailer to Lexington, an
over-the-road run of approximately 3-3/4 hours. Kohls met
Ater while going to the shop to pick up the trailer, and Ater
mentioned the brake problem on the trailer's front axle and
cautioned Kohls to check the brakes before leaving on his
trip. Drivers are required to "pretrip" units at the start of a
run to check safety items and the general roadworthiness of
their assigned equipment. In "pretripping" the vehicle on
this occasion, Kohls performed a "rolling brake" test (regu-
larly performed by all drivers) and he noted that the right
front wheel on the trailer did not lock at all. He repeated
the test, with the same results.
Kohls returned the trailer to the shop at or about 11:15
a.m., and he referred the brake matter to Foster and Gary
Shriver, another mechanic. Foster and Shriver removed the
trailer's front wheels and sanded the right front brake shoes
(or lining) in an effort to remove "glaze" from the shoes.
(This is a hardening of shoes which reduces or may even
eliminate the braking efficiency of the shoe.) The wheels
were placed back. Kohls once more tested the brakes, and
this time upon full brake application there was no braking
action at all on the entire front axle. Kohls again returned
the unit to the shop.
Foster asked another mechanic, James East, to look at
the trailer brakes, and he informed East that the brakes
would not lock notwithstanding efforts to remove the glaze.
East tested the vehicle and checked the brake adjustment
and also threw sand on the brake drums to remove glaze.
East retested the vehicle and the brakes still did not lock,
whereupon he reported to Foster that the front axle re-
quired new brake lining (or shoes). Foster agreed.
Kohls had been observing the various tests and efforts by
Foster, East, and Shriver to remedy the brake problem, and
he overheard East finally tell Foster that new brake shoes
were needed. Kohls also observed in connection with East's
last test that the "front " wheels] kept turning. They didn't
grab."
East then went to the stockroom for new linings, to be
informed that the linings were not immediately available
but could be requisitioned in about an hour. Kohls saw
East go to the stockroom and from there to the office of
George Hurt, the supervisor of Respondent's 13 journey-
1075
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL. LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
man mechanics. East reported to Hurt that the trailer
needed new linings and that they would be available in an
hour. Hurt, in effect, rescinded the requisition for new lin-
ings and instructed East to let the unit cool off, after which
it would "probably be all right."
East, Foster, and shriver initialed a "repair order" on
November 12 respecting their brake work on the trailer.
This order describes the pertinent work requiring attention
as "No brakes front axle and 2 bad air lines to rear cham-
bers" and states that the mechanics spent 2-1/4 hours on
the job. In a related "breakdown memo" signed by Foster
and Kohls, Foster described the defect as "front brakes not
holding-could not repair-ordered shoes." This memo
also indicates that Foster stopped working on the unit at
1:25 p.m.
Hurt testified that he thereafter tested the vehicle and
found the brakes "ready to go" and that he advised Feeder
Manager Henry Sherman to such effect. While there is tes-
timonial conflict concerning the next sequence of events,
the parties agree that Kohls, Sherman, Hurt, and Union
Steward Bob Marshall were gathered in Hurt's office. Hurt
stated on that occasion that the brakes had been checked
and were functioning properly, and Sherman instructed
Kohls to pull the unit. Kohls refused to do so, with the
explanation to Sherman that "the brakes are not good
enough for me." Sherman told Kohls the latter was putting
his job "on the line" or "in jeopardy" by refusing to drive
the unit.
It was now about 1:30 p.m., according to the credible
testimony of East and Kohls, and Kohls was told to go to
lunch. During the lunch period, East told Kohls and Mar-
shall (the shop steward) that the trailer was "unsafe, that it
definitely needed shoes."
Sherman testified that, sometime after the parties left
Hurt's office, he himself tested the brakes and purportedly
found them "normal in every way" and operable in accord-
ance with Department of Transportation safety specifica-
tions. (Automotive Department Manager George Ritter tes-
tified that he also tested the vehicle, with similar results.)
Sherman further testified that he informed Kohls to this
effect and again instructed the latter to pull the vehicle and
that Kohls once more refused to do so. Kohls denied this
second meeting with Sherman, and I am satisfied that it did
not take place and that Sherman did not himself test the
brake.' Whether or not Sherman conducted, and informed
Kohls of, his own test, Sherman admittedly did not invite
Kohis to be present on such purported occasion, and Sher-
man also testified as follows concerning the significance of
such observation by drivers:
Q. (By Mr. Murphy) You didn't ask Leo to be pre-
sent when you made the tests, is that correct?
A. No, I didn't ask him to be present.
Q. Isn't it true-Well, with regard to Leo and other
drivers in the past that you have been able to show
them the unit was safe, they would take it?
A. No, not on every occasion.
Q. But on some occasions?
3 Based on a consideration of the testimony of all wilnesses, including
Keith Kauffel. Sherman, I find, was not a credible witness, in view of my
demeanor observations of him as well as on consideration of inconsistencies
in his own testimony.
A. On almost every occasion. Once I was able to
show the driver the unit was safe, yes he took it. There
are occasions where they didn't, but ninety-nine per-
cent of the time. sure they did.
It also does not appear that Kohls was invited to observe,
and he did not observe, any testing of the vehicle by Ritter
or any other personnel during which test the brakes were
purportedly determined to be in safe working condition.
Sometime that afternoon another driver (Charles Mason)
was given the Lexington driving assignment with the trailer
in question. Mason completed the run. In a vehicle writeup
upon Mason's return to Columbus, there was a complaint
about "brake hoses & connections." (I do not know
whether this complaint was related to Kohls' brake prob-
lem.)
The Carwash Incident
Kohls, upon refusing to pull the trailer, was directed to
report after lunch to work in the "car-wash" for the rest of
the day. Kohls had performed "car-wash" work many times
befbre, and he reported to that section at or about 2 p.m.
About 4 o'clock that afternoon, Ron Zunk, the carwash
supervisor of some five employees, approached Kohls.
Zunk testified that he directed Kohls to service a vehicle
outside the immediate carwash area and that while outside
that area he sought to speak to Kohls about the safety as-
pects in performing carwash operations. Kohls credibly tes-
tified that Zunk told him to step outside the carwash area
and that he (Zunk) wanted to discuss something with Kohls
but did not then disclose what he proposed to discuss. Both
Zunk and Kohls testified in effect that Kohls refused to
participate in the discussion with Zunk except in the pres-
ence of a fellow employee or a union representative. ("I
informed him [Zunk] whatever he had to say, he could say
in front of my co-workers.") Zunk did not call either a
union steward or another employee to witness the conversa-
tion. Instead, he notified his own superior, Manager Dan
Esquinas (or Esches), and the latter sent for Kohls. Kohls
refused to see Esquinas in the latter's office without a union
steward. Zunk testified that there were other employees in
the carwash whom he could have summoned to be present
while he spoke with Kohls but that he did not want to take
them from their work and involve them in his discussion
with Kohls. Zunk eventually told Kohls that he had wanted
to discuss safety matters, to which Kohls commented, "If
you want to give me instructions I feel the best place is at
the work site, not outside or anyplace else, or here."
At the time he sought to speak with Kohls, Zunk admit-
tedly knew of Kohis' earlier refusal to pull the trailer. Ac-
cording to Kohls, he refused Zunk's request to engage in
private conversation with Zunk outside the presence of a
witness or a union representative because of the earlier epi-
sode during which Sherman had advised him that "I had
put my job on the line" by not pulling the trailer.
C. The discharge
Kohls was discharged on November 26, this being the
first available opportunity that such action could be taken
under applicable contract procedures on the basis of the
1076
UNITED PAR(TL SERVICE
November 12 events. Robert B. Furno( then the division
manager ol' Respondent's Columbus operations, testified
that he made the decision to fire Kohls. <'laiming that he
made such decision on the totality of' Kohls' disciplinary
record, both before and after November 12. Fornof testified
that Kohls' refusal to pull the trailer on November 12 "in-
stigated the final investigation and the compiling of facts
which led to his discharge." Kohls' entire record was liti-
gated, hut in the following-described circumstances I do not
consider it necessary to burden this Decision with a discus-
sion and resolution of such other items., Suffice it to say
that Kohls has been a stickler respecting the safe condition
of vehicles he operates and also for compliance with legal
requirements (e.g.. refusing to drive a vehicle with expired
license plates); he may have made a few errors in judgment
in his 8-year employment history, as the General Counsel
states, yet he was an honest employee throughout.
Sherman, as field manager. was in charge of 80 drivers
(including Kohls) and five group supervisors over these
drivers. Sherman testified that "if Kohls] had not refused
that vehicle on that day [November 121. he would not have
been discharged...." And Fornof stated at the contract
hearing on November 26 that Kohls' "refusal to pull the
trailer on November 12th and subsequent failure to folllow
instructions in the car wash are acts that we cannot and will
not tolerate." In a "position" letter respecting Kohls' dis-
charge to the Regional Office on December 16. 1975, Re-
spondent's counsel advised that "Kohls' acts of insubordi-
nation occurred on November 12 and he would have been
discharged at that time" if the aforementioned contract
hearing could have been held promptly.
Mindful of the totality of Kohls' employment record, I
am satisfied and find that Respondent discharged Kohls
because of the November 12 events and primarily for the
refusal-to-drive incident.' J. P. Seliens & Co. v. N.L.R.B..
380 F.2d 292, 300 (2d Cir. 1967). cert. denied 389 U.S.
1005: N. L. R.B. v. West Side Carper Cleaning Co. 329 F.2d
758, 761 (6th Cir. 1964). Compare Erie Strayer Complny.
213 NL.RB 344. 345 (1974). where the Board dismissed an
allegation of unlawful discharge upon finding that pro-
tected activity in that case was not "a substantial factor" in
the termination.
Conclusions
Dealing first with Respondent's claim of insubordination
as to the carwash incident, I find that Kohls did not know
what Zunk had wanted to discuss outside the carwash and
that he had ample basis for apprehension that conversa-
tions with Zunk and then with Esquinas could involve or
result in disciplinary action. This is particularly so in view
of the refusal-to-drive incident earlier that day when Sher-
'Except to mention Sherman's testimony, credihr' denied hb Kohis, that
Kohls purportedly told him during the summer of 1975 that one of Kohis'
"main goals was to see United Parcel Service go broke ... [tol bring the
company and the country to its knees."
In ecisions issued on December I and 23, 1976. in an unemployment
compensation proceeding, now pending further appeal, the Ohio Board of
Review concluded that "while the facts establish the claimant Kohls] had
been disciplined for violations of company policy and work rules prior to
November 12,. 1975, the facts further establish that claimant's discharge was
a direct result of the two incidents occurring on November 12. 1975"
mani told Kohls the latter was putting hisjoh "on the line"
Fir not pulling the trailer. Kohls X.sas clearli entitled to a
"lfellow employee] witness or union representative" in
those circumstances. .'.L.R.B. . J. I'einiarten, Inc.. 420
U.S. 251 (1975); ('erlified (;rocerrs ofJ ('alfornia, 227 NLRB
1211 (1977).
In refusing to pull what he claimed itL be an unsafe
trailer. Kohls was asserting a right under article XVII of the
operative agreement. The assertion of such right is pro-
tected concerted activity under the Act if his claimed belief
was honestly held and regardless of its correctness. Inter-
horo ('onlrtclors, Ic.. 157 N.RB 1295. 1301 02 (1966),r
enfd. 388 F.2d 495, 499-500 (2d Cir. 1967): N.L.R.B. v.
Selwsvn Shoe :Manufacturing Corp., 428 F.2d 217, 221 (8th
Cir. 1970); Roadwa v E.rpress. Inc., 217 NLRB 278 (19751,
enfd. 532 F.2d 751 (4th Cir. 1976): '.L.R.B v. H. C. Smith
Construction Co.. 439 F.2d 1064 (9th Cir. 1971): N.L.R.B. v.
Ben Pekin Corporation. 452 F.2d 205, 206 (7th Cir. 1971);
John Serton & Co., Diirsion o' Beatrice Food Co.. 217
NI.RB 80 (1975). The record thus shows, in summary. that
Ater first warned Kohls of the brakes after apprising me-
chanic Foster of the problem: Kohls tested the brakes and
returned the trailer to the shop when the right front brakes
failed to perform; Kohls saw mechanics Foster and Shriver
remove the front wheels and attempt to remove the glaze
from the brake shoes: Kohls again tested the brakes this
time to find that no front brakes operated; Kohls returned
the trailer to the shop and saw it tested by Foster, who, with
Kohls' knowledge, in turn requested the assistance of me-
chanic East because he (Foster) "[c]ould not get the brakes
to lock up": Kohis saw East test the brakes and retest them
again after throwing sand on the drum to remove glaze, and
Kohls observed that the wheels kept turning and didn't
grab" during this latter test: Kohls overheard East tell Fos-
ter that the unit needed new brake shoes: East, Foster, and
Shriver initialed a repair order stating "no brakes front
axle" and Foster filled out a "breakdown memo." also
signed hy Kohls, stating "front brakes not holding could
not repair ordered shoes"; Kohls did not see new brake
linings installed on the vehicle, for none were. Although
Sherman testified that he thereafter told Kohls he had him-
self tested the vehicle (testimony I do not credit), Sherman
nevertheless did not invite Kohls to observe such purported
test, despite Sherman's testimony that drivers would oper-
ate vehicles of questioned safety on "almost every occa-
sion" once he demonstrated to them that the vehicle was
safe.
There is no need to discuss the technology of braking or
brake shoes or the differences in opinions (even among Re-
spondent's own witnesses) respecting the optimum se-
quence in which brakes should operate. Without deciding
whether the vehicle was in fact safe, I find that Kohls be-
lieved it was not. I therefore conclude that, by discharging
Kohls for refusing to pull the trailer. Respondent violated
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.'
I must apply "established Board precedent" and, without more, therefore
deny Respondent's request (to reject the Board's Interboro doctrine. See Ford
Motor Companry, 230 NLRB 716. 718. fn 12 (1977).
' Although no violation was alleged under a Sec. 502 theory, I would find
that Kohls' refusal t drive for safety considerations was based on "ascer-
tainable obectise evidence" Garteiav Coal Co . United Mine.rAers, of
Ameriwa, 414 U!.S 368, 387 (1974)
1077
I)E(CISIONS OE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
CO N(Lt ISIt)NS OF LAAW
I. Respondent is an employer within Section 2(6) and (7)
of the Act.
2. The Union is a labor organization within Section 2(5)
of the Act.
3. By discharging Leo Kohls on November 26, 1975, Re-
spondent has violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act, and such
violations affect commerce within Section 2(6) and (7) of
the Act.
Tim RUMSray
Hlaving found that Respondent has engaged in unfair la-
bor practices in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of' the Act, I
shall recommend that it be ordered to cease and desist
therefrom and to take certain affirmative action, including
reinstating and making whole Kohls, in order to effectuate
the policies of the Act. All backpay computations shall be
in accordance with F: W. Wool/worth Company, 90 NLRB
289 (1950), and Florida Steel Corporation, 231 NLRB 651
(1977). (See, generally, Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138
NLRB 716 (1962).)
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, United Parcel Service, Columbus,
Ohio, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
I. Cease and desist from:
(a) Discharging or taking any other reprisal against em-
In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of' the
Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the findings,
conclusions, and the 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 he
deemed waived for all purposes.
ployees for asserting rights under collective-bargaining
agreements or for otherwise engaging in concerted activity
protected under the Act.
(b) In an) other manner interfering with, restraining, or
coercing its employees in the exercise of the rights guaran-
teed them in Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action:
(a) Offer to Leo Kohls reinstatement to his former job or,
if' that job no longer exists, to a substantially equivalent
position, without prejudice to his seniority or other rights
and privileges, and make him whole as set forth in the rem-
edN section, above, for any loss of earnings suffered as a
result of his discharge.
(b) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the
Board or its agents, for examination and copying, all pay-
roll records, social security payment records, timecards.
personnel records and reports, and all other records neces-
sary to analyze the amount of backpay due and the right of
reinstatement under the terms of this recommended Order.
(c) Post at its facilities at Columbus, Ohio, copies of the
attached notice marked "Appendix."' Copies of said notice,
on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 9,
after being duly signed by an authorized representative of
Respondent, shall he posted by Respondent immediately
upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 con-
secutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all
places where notices to employees are customarily posted.
Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to in-
sure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by
any other material.
(d) Notify the Regional Director for Region 9, in writ-
ing. within 20 days from the date of this Order. what steps
Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
I In the event that this Order is enforced by ajudgment 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."
1078