United Slate Workers, Local 36

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 24, 1968

172 N.L.R.B. 2248 (N.L.R.B. 1968)

2248 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL
United Slate, Tile & Composition Roofers, Damp &
Waterproof Workers Association , Local No. 36
(Roofing Contractors Association of Southern
California, Inc., for and on behalf of each of its
members ) and Jones and Jones , Inc. Case
21-CB-3044-2
September 24, 1968
DECISION AND ORDER
By MEMBERS FANNING, JENKINS, AND ZAGORIA
On June 17, 1968, Trial Examiner Eugene E.
Dixon issued his Decision in the above-entitled
proceeding, finding that the Respondent had en-
gaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor
practices within the meaning of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, and recommending that
it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affir-
mative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Ex-
aminer's Decision. Thereafter, the Respondent filed
exceptions to the Decision.
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
powers in connection with this case to a three-
member panel.
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial
Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no
prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are
hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the
Trial Examiner's Decision, the exceptions, and the
entire record in this case, and hereby adopts the
findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the
Trial Examiner.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board adopts as its Order the Recom-
mended Order of the Trial Examiner and hereby
orders that the Respondent, United Slate, Tile &
Composition Roofers, Damp & Waterproof Wor-
kers Association, Local No. 36, Los Angeles,
California, its officers, agents, and representatives,
shall take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's
Recommended Order.'
' The attached notice is substituted for the Trial Examiner 's notice
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL MEMBERS OF UNITED SLATE, TILE &
COMPOSITION ROOFERS, DAMP & WATERPROOF
LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
WORKERS ASSOCIATION , LOCAL No. 36
Pursuant to the Decision and Order of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board and in order to effec-
tuate the policies of the National Labor Relations
Act, as amended, we hereby notify you that:
WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain with Heet-
land Roofing Company and Roofing Contrac-
tors Association of Southern California, Inc.,
as Heetland's collective-bargaining representa-
tive in the below appropriate unit by ( I ) insist-
ing upon a contract without affording Heetland
and its bargaining agent an opportunity to bar-
gain thereon , ( 2) insisting that Heetland ex-
ecute a contract requiring the posting of a per-
formance bond without affording him or his
agent an opportunity to bargain thereon, and
(3) insisting on grievance and trust clauses
which compel Heetland to rely on employer
representatives not of his own choosing in mat-
ters pertaining to those clauses.
WE WILL NOT refuse to designate Roofing
Contractors Association of Southern Califor-
nia, Inc ., as Heetland's collective-bargaining
representative in the preamble to the collec-
tive-bargaining agreement nor will we insist on
grievance and trust clauses which compel
Heetland to rely on employer representatives
not of his own choosing involving matters per-
taining to such clauses.
WE WILL continue in effect all of the provi-
sions of the current master agreement other
than the bond requirements and the grievance
and trust clauses insofar as they compel Heet-
land to agree to be represented by employer
representatives not of his own choosing.
WE WILL notify Heetland in writing that we
will not insist upon a performance bond or on
any other nonmandatory collective-bargaining
provisions objected to by Heetland and that we
will reimburse Heetland for any expenses in-
curred in connection with such provisions con-
tained in the current contract.
WE WILL recognize Roofing Contractors As-
sociation of Southern California, Inc., as Heet-
land's collective-bargaining representative.
WE WILL, upon request, bargain with Heet-
land for a mutually acceptable grievance
procedure and the administration of trust
funds.
UNITED SLATE, TILE &
COMPOSITION ROOFERS,
DAMP & WATERPROOF
WORKERS ASSOCIATION,
LOCAL No. 36
(Labor Organization)
172 NLRB No. 249
UNITED SLATE WORKERS , LOCAL 36 2249
Dated By
(Representative ) (Title)
Upon the entire record in the case and from my
observation of the witnesses, [ make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecu-
tive days from the date of posting and must not be
altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
If members have any question concerning this
notice or compliance with its provisions, they may
communicate directly with the Board's Regional
Office, Eastern Columbia Bilding , 849 South
Broadway, Los Angeles, California
Telephone 688-5200.
90014,
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
Statement of the Case
EUGENE E. DIXON, Trial Examiner: This proceed-
ing, brought under Section 10(b) of the National
Labor Relations Act, as amended (61 Stat. 136),
herein called the Act, was heard at Los Angeles,
California, on May 2, 1968, pursuant to due
notice. A complaint, issued by the Regional
Director for Region 21 (Los Angeles, California) as
the representative of the General Counsel for the
National Labor Relations Board (herein called the
General Counsel and the Board), dated February
13, 1968, and based on charges filed and served on
November 24, 1967, alleged that United Slate, Tile
& Composition Roofers, Damp & Waterproof Wor-
kers Association, Local No. 36, had engaged in and
was engaging in unfair labor practices in violation
of Section 8(b)(1)(B) and (3) of the Act by refus-
ing to bargain collectively with Heetland Roofing
Company as the duly designated collective-bargain-
ing agent of all of Heetland's employees performing
roofing work, exclusive of all other employees and
all supervisors as defined in the Act, which em-
ployees constitute a unit appropriate for the pur-
poses of collective bargaining within the meaning of
Section 9(b) of the Act. The substance of the un-
fair labor practice allegations was that Respondent
insisted (under the threat and use of a strike) that
Heetland sign a collective-bargaining agreement
without permitting Heetland to bargain as to its
terms, which terms included certain provisions that
involved nonmandatory subjects of collective bar-
gaining as well as requiring Heetland to accept a
representative for grievance, arbitration, and other
purposes not of Heetland's own choice.
In its duly filed answer Respondent denied the
commission of any unfair labor practices and in ad-
dition affirmatively alleged that Heetland signed the
contract in question voluntarily and that at the time
it was signed had indicated to the Union that "his
previous personal indemnity bond was still effec-
tive."
1. HEETLAND'S BUSINESS
Heetland Roofing Company is engaged at Los
Angeles, California, and vicinity as a roofing con-
tractor in the building and construction industry.
During the calendar year 1967, Heetland per-
formed work and furnished supplies valued in ex-
cess of $50,000 to employers who themselves each
performed work and furnished products valued in
excess of $50,000 directly to points outside the
State of California. At all times material Heetland
has been an employer engaged in commerce within
the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
11. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION
United Slate, Tile & Composition Roofers, Damp
& Waterproof Workers Association, Local No. 36,
Respondent herein, at all times material has been a
labor organization within the meaning of Section
2(5) of the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
At the hearing a stipulation was entered into by
and between the parties in part as follows:
1. After a period of some 20 years of collec-
tive bargaining relationship upon a multi-em-
ployer, multi-union basis there had been a
Master Agreement covering the period August
15, 1963, to August 16, 1967, by and between
the Roofers Union Locals 36 and 72, on the
one hand, and Roofing Contractors Associa-
tion of Southern Clifornia, Inc.,' and Roofing
Contractors of Orange County, Inc., on the
other hand....
2. Prior to the expiration of this agreement,
the local union gave timely notice to the two
associations, to the members of each, and to
individual signatory contractors (a) to ter-
minate the agreement as of the termination
date thereof, (b) their intention to negotiate
subsequent agreements upon an individual
contractor basis rather than upon a multi-em-
ployer basis, and (c) their readiness to bargain
for an agreement.
3. No agreement having been reached by Au-
gust 15, 1967, the roofer employees of Heet-
land ceased work until their employer signed a
document, designated Interim Agreement....''
4. Heetland Roofing Company was a signatory
to the 90-day interim agreement, having signed
the same on August 26, 1967.
Herein sometimes referred to as RCA
' The effective period of this interim agreement was limited to 90 days
from the date of execution
354-126 O-LT - 73 - pt. 2 - 70
2250 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL
5. During the course of the negotiations which
ensued after the Union's notice with the as-
sociations for and on behalf of its members in-
dividually, and not as a multi-employer unit,
another association of contractors entered the
field and engaged in negotiations on behalf of
its member contractors-Union Roofing Con-
tractors Association.'
6. A master agreement was finally negotiated
and executed on October 18, 1967, by and
between the local unions, on the one hand, and
Roofing Contractors of Orange County, Inc.,
and Union Roofing Contractors Association,
on the other hand, for and on behalf of their
individual contractor-members who likewise
also executed the said master agreement.
7. No master agreement has been negotiated
between Roofing Contractors Association of
Southern California, Inc., and the Local Unions.
The parties have not concluded the negotiation
of contract terms.
8. Heetland Roofing Company is and at all
times material herein has been, a member of
Roofing Contractors Association of Southern
California, Inc.
The interim agreement expired on November 24,
and neither Heetland nor Roofing Contractors As-
sociation of Southern California, Inc., having en-
tered into the new master agreement or any other
agreements with the Union, Heetland was operating
without a union contract as of November 27. About
6 a.m. on that day Albert Nelson, assistant business
agent of the Union, went to Heetland's shop where,
according to the General Counsel's witnesses, he
told the four or five employees who were there in
anticipation of going to work that they could not go
to work because Heetland had no contract and that
if they did go to work they would be given a max-
imum fine by the Union.4 As a consequence none
of the men went to work.
According to the testimony of Heetland's pre-
sident, C. U. Heetland, later that same morning,
about 9:30 or 10, Nelson returned to the shop with
copies of the master agreement and told Heetland
"that this was the contract" and that if he wanted
to go back to work he "would have to sign it."'
Heetland told Nelson he "would be happy to sign it
if they would eliminate several items in (it) that
' Heetland did not belong to this association and it was not authorized to
act as Heetland's bargaining representative
' To this effect employee Arthur E Fashbaugh testified that Nelson told
them that the "90-day interim contract was expired" and that they "should
not go to work", that it was the same as if they were on strike and that
"there would be a maximum fine " Employee Paul Rupple testified that
Nelson told them that they "couldn't go to work" and that if they did go to
work they would be fined "the maximum " Abel Perez, Heetland's superin-
tendent, testified that Nelson told them that they "couldn't go back to
work," that they "had no more contract," and that if they did go to work he
would fine them as much as $250 if they "got caught "
5In the meantime Heetland's superintendent had told him about Nel-
son's earlier visit
LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
were not mandatory for bargaining." In this con-
nection he specifically objected to the bond provi-
sion of the contract and also indicated that he
could not accept the preamble in the contract
because it did not recognize the RCA as his bar-
gaining agent. Nelson's comment was, "Sign it as it
is or forget it." Heetland refused to sign.
The men stayed out for the rest of the week. On
the following Friday when they came to get their
checks Heetland told them that they could come
back to work the following Monday because he was
going to sign the contract. Accordingly, on Mon-
day, December 4, according to Heetland's further
testimony, he went to the union hall "voluntarily"
where he signed the agreement. It further appears
from Heetland's undenied and credited testimony
that he had been a member of the negotiating com-
mittee of the RCA and had participated in most of
the bargaining sessions with the Union prior to
November 27 and had seen Nelson at those ses-
sions. In those negotiations the RCA was in dis-
agreement with the Union over the fact, among
other things, that other associations and parties
were named in the agreement in connection with
the grievance procedure and the trust provisions.
In his testimony Nelson admitted an early morn-
ing visit to Heetland's shop on November 27, but
denied telling the men not to go to work or that
they would be fined if they did. According to his
version, he had gone there to discuss Paul Rupple's
delinquency in initiation fee payments.' This he did
and was at the shop only 3 or 4 minutes. Before he
left, however, one of the employees, Mario Janco,
asked "what about the contract." Nelson told
him that "he had his telegram' and his letter
and he knew his rules."" There were some other
questions raised and Superintendent Perez assured
Nelson that he "didn't have to worry as there would
be no trucks leave until there was a contract..,."
According to Nelson's further direct testimony,
he drove back to the Heetland shop about 11 o'-
clock that morning and as he was driving by em-
ployee Tommy Alcarez, who was talking to part-
owner Bill Billups, hailed him to come into the
yard. He did so and Alcarez asked him in effect
how long it would take to get a contract. Nelson
replied that it was up to the contractor-that he did
not know. On that note Nelson left. He specifically
denied having seen Heetland that day or at any
' Rupple was in the process of paying $3 a day on the initiation fee and
was behind in the payments Rupple testified that Nelson spoke to him
about this matter before he told the employees not to go to work
The following telegram was sent to Heetland's employees by the Union
on November 25
HEETLAND ROOF VAN NUYS NOT SIGNATORY TO CON-
TRACT WITH THIS LOCAL UNION CALL YOUR BUSINESS
REPRESENTATIVE FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CHECK
YOUR CONSTITUTION AND BYLAWS
Article V I of the Union 's constitution makes it a chargeable offense for
a member to remain working for an employer whose men are on strike or to
remain working for an employer "who has not complied with the require-
ments of the current master labor agreement "
UNITED SLATE WORKERS , LOCAL 36 2251
other time until December 4 when Heetland came
to the union hall and signed the contract.
On cross-examination Nelson admitted that he
drove to the Heetland shop the second time on
November 27 to see if the men were working. He
also testified that he knew that Heetland was a
member of the RCA and a past president of it. He
also admitted that in the resolved negotiations with
that association the failure to name the RCA in the
preamble, the bond requirement, the naming of
other associations in connection with the grievance
procedure, and the trust provisions were in dispute.
He also admitted that when Heetland came to sign
the contract on December 4 he told Nelson that
"he didn't like it but he was going to sign it."
In corroboration of what took place on Nelson's
first visit to the Heetland shop on November 27,
Rspondent called Mario Janco as a witness. For the
most part Janco's recollection was so vague as to be
detrimental rather than helpful in supporting Nel-
son's version of what took place on that occasion.'
About the only part of Nelson's testimony that
Janco could be said to have corroborated was that
Nelson did talk to Rupple "about dues or
something" but even here he was uncertain, testify-
ing that he was "almost sure" that that was what he
heard Nelson talking to Rupple about. On the basis
of the foregoing testimony and from my observa-
tion of those who testified, I credit the General
Counsel's witnesses.
Conclusions
I believe and find that the preponderance of the
evidence here clearly establishes that, by means of
strike pressure from the Union, Heetland was
forced to sign a contract containing the following
nonmandatory provisions to which it objected, thus
violating Section 8(b)(3) of the Act: 'I
1. The bond requirement (art. III, F, 4, and 7
(A) M), Local 164, Brotherhood of Painters, etc.
(Cheatham Painting Company), 126 NLRB 997,
enfd. 293 F.2d 133 (C.A.D.C.), cert. denied 368
U.S. 824.
2. The grievance procedure (art. VIII ( B)) in-
sofar as it compels Heetland to agree to be
represented by employer representatives not of its
own choosing on the joint labor relations board.
Painters District Council No. 36, AFL-CIO (Com-
mercial Drywall Constructors, Inc.), 155 NLRB
1013, 1016, 1017.
3. The trust agreements (art. XX) insofar as they
compel Heetland to agree to be represented by em-
ployer representatives not of its own choosing as
trustees in the administration of the funds, cf. Com-
mercial Drywall, supra.
I also find that by the use of strike pressure
Respondent violated Section 8(b)(1)(13) in
preventing Heetland from exercising an uncoerced
choice of bargaining representative by:
1. Dealing directly with Heetland and bypassing
its designated representative, Roofing Contractors
Association of Southern California, Inc.; Arnold M.
Hansen, supra; General Teamsters Local No. 324,
etc. (Cascade Employers Association, Inc.), 127
NLRB 488; Southern California Pipe Trades District
Council No. 16 of the United Association (Aero
Plumbing Co.), 167 NLRB 1004.
2. Refusing to agree to designate RCA as Heet-
land's representative in the preamble to the agree-
ment, Arnold M. Hansen, supra; Cascade Employers
Association, Inc., supra.
3. Insisting on acceptance by Heetland of
Respondent designated representatives not of Heet-
land's choice as its representatives for the adjust-
ment of grievances, Commercial Drywall Construc-
tors, Inc., supra at 1017-18.
4. Insisting on Heetland's acceptance of Respon-
dent designated representatives not of Heetland's
choice as its representatives for the administration
of the trust funds, cf. Commercial Drywall Construc-
tors, Inc., supra.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Union set forth in section III,
above, are found to constitute unfair labor prac-
tices occurring in connection with the Company's
operations described in section Is above, have a
close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade,
traffic, and commerce among the several States
tending to lead to labor disputes burdening and ob-
structing commerce, and the free flow of com-
merce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent violated Section
8(b)(3) by insisting on certain nonmandatory con-
tract provisions to which Heetland objected and
8(b)(1)(B) by infringing on Heetland's choice of
° For instance, Janco claimed he asked Nelson about the contract When
asked what he said to Nelson he testified, "Well, I don't quite remember,
but if we should go to work, something like that " When asked if he had
asked Nelson whether the men should go to work he replied, "I think I
did " When asked what Nelson replied , he testified, "He (said ) something
about (a) telegram I don't know " He later testified that he did not re-
member Nelson saying anything about a telegram As for the telegram
(which he claimed to have received on Sunday) he did not recall what it
said His wife had read it to him (he did not read too well) but he had not
paid much attention to what she read He could not recall if Nelson had
told the men not to go to work Nor could he recall if Nelson had told them
to "check (their) constitution and bylaws " He claimed to have brought up
himself the question of fines to Nelson asking him if they would "get fined"
if they went to work. According to him, Nelson did not answer-or if he
did Janco did not hear him. When it was suggested that Janco meant that
Nelson did not "answer yes or no" Janco testified, "Well he might have
hinted is what I am not sure because there was so much noise amongst the
men that I didn't hear anything "
i" N L R B v Wooster Division of Borg-Warner corporation, 356 U S
342, operative P lasterers'. etc, Local #2 (Arnold M Hansen), 149 NLRB
1264,1267
2252 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
bargaining representatives , it will be recommended
that Respondent cease and desist from such con-
duct and take certain affirmative action in order to
effectuate the policies of the Act.
It will be recommended that Respondent be or-
dered to
1. Continue in effect all of the provisions of the
current contract other than the bond requirement
and the grievance procedure and the trust provi-
sions" insofar as they compel Heetland to agree to
be represented by employer representatives not of
their own choosing.
2. Repay Heetland for any expenditures incurred
in connection with the bond provisions of the con-
tract plus 6 percent interest as provided for in Isis
Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716.
3. Notify Heetland that it will not insist on non-
mandatory collective- bargaining provisions ob-
jected to by Heetland nor on the designation of
Heetland's collective-bargaining representatives.
4. Recognize Roofing Contractors Association of
Southern California, Inc., as Heetland's collective-
bargaining representative.
5. Bargain for a mutually acceptable grievance
procedure and the administration of trust funds.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact
and upon the entire record in this proceeding,
I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Heetland Roofing Company, at all times
material, has been an employer within the meaning
of Section 2(2) of the Act.
2. United Slate, Tile & Composition Roofers,
Damp & Waterproof Workers Association, Local
No. 36, at all times material has been a labor or-
ganization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of
the Act.
3. All of Heetland's employees performing roof-
ing work, exclusive of all other employees and all
supervisors as defined in the Act, at all times
material has constituted an appropriate unit for the
purposes of collective bargaining within the mean-
ing of Section 9(b) of the Act.
4. At all times material the aforesaid Union has
been the exclusive representative of the employees
in the above appropriate unit for the purposes of
collective bargaining within the meaning of Section
9(a) of the Act.
5. In refusing to bargain with Heetland and
Roofing Contractors Association of Southern
California, Inc., as Heetland's collective -bargaining
representative in the appropriate unit herein by (1)
insisting on a contract without affording Heetland
and the RCA an opportunity to bargain thereon,
(2) insisting that Heetland execute a contract
requiring the posting of a performance bond
without affording him and his agent an opportunity
to bargain, and (3) insisting on grievance and trust
clauses which compel Heetland to rely on employer
representatives not of his own choosing in matters
pertaining to those clauses, Respondent has refused
to bargain in violation of Section 8(b)(3) of the
Act.
6. By refusing to designate RCA as Heetland's
representative in the preamble to the agreement
and by insisting on grievance and trust clauses
which compel Heetland to rely on employer
representatives not of his own choosing in matters
pertaining to those clauses, Respondent has
coerced and restrained Heetland in the selection of
his representatives for the purposes of collective
bargaining in violation of Section 8(b)( I )(B) of the
Act.
7. The above unfair labor practices are unfair
labor practices affecting commerce within the
meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the basis of the entire record in the case
and the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions
of law, I recommend that the Respondent, United
Slate, Tile & Composition Roofers, Damp &
Waterproof Workers Association, Local No. 36,
their officers, representatives, and agents, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Refusing to bargain with Heetland and Roof-
ing Contractors Association of Southern California,
Inc., as Heetland's collective-bargaining representa-
tive in an appropriate unit by ( 1) insisting on a con-
tract without affording Heetland and the RCA an
opportunity to bargain thereon, (2) insisting that
Heetland execute a contract requiring the posting
of a performance bond without affording Heetland
or its agent an opportunity to bargain thereon, and
(3) insisting on grievance and trust clauses which
compel Heetland to rely on employer representa-
tives not of its own choosing in matters pertaining
to those clauses.
(b) Refusing to designate Roofing Contractors
Association of Southern California, Inc., as Heet-
land's representative in the preamble to the agree-
ment and by insisting on grievance and trust clauses
which compel Heetland to rely on employer
representatives not of its own choosing involving
matters pertaining to those clauses.
2. Take the following affirmative action which I
find will effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Continue in effect all of the provisions of the
current contract other than the bond requirement
and the grievance and trust clauses insofar as they
compel Heetland to agree to be represented by em-
ployer representatives not of their own choosing.
(b) Notify Heetland, in writing, that it will not
insist upon a performance bond or any other non-
mandatory collective-bargaining provisions ob-
jected to by Heetland and that it will reimburse
" Heetland has indicated it is willing to abide by the other terms of the
contract
UNITED SLATE WORKERS , LOCAL 36
Heetland for expenses incurred in connection
therewith to date under the contract now in effect.
(c) Recognize Roofing Contractors Association
of Southern California, Inc., as Heetland's collec-
tive-bargaining representative.
(d) Upon request, bargain with Heetland for a
mutually acceptable grievance procedure and the
administration of trust funds.
(e) Post at its principle office and usual mem-
bership meeting place, copies of the attached
notice marked "Appendix. "12 [Board's Appendix
substituted.] Copies of said notice, on forms pro-
vided by the Regional Director for Region 21, after
being duly signed by Respondent's representative,
shall be posted by it immediately upon receipt
'2 In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board,
the words "a Decision and Order" shall be substituted for the words "the
Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner" in the notice In the further
event that the Board's Order is enforced by a decree of a United States
Court of Appeals, the words "a Decree of the United States Court of Ap-
2253
thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive
days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all
places where notices to members are customarily
posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the said
Local to insure that said notices are not altered,
defaced, or covered by any other material.
(f) Forthwith, mail copies of said notices to the
said Regional Director, after such copies have been
signed as provided above, for posting by Heetland,
if he so agrees, at places where he customarily posts
notices to individuals in his employ.
(g) Notify said Regional Director, in writing,
within 20 days from the receipt of this Decision,
what steps have been taken to comply herewith.13
peals Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the words "a Decision
and Order "
" In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board,
this provision shall be modified to read "Notify the Regional Director, in
writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps the
Respondent has taken to comply herewith "