Youngstown Sheet and Tube Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 29, 1978

238 N.L.R.B. 1082 (N.L.R.B. 1978)

DE( ISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR REI ATIONS BOARD
Youngstown Sheet and Tube Company and United
Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO, Local 1011.
Case 13 CA-16636
September 29, 1978
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN FANNING AND MEMBERS JENKINS
AND PENELLO
On June 14, 1978, Administrative Law Judge Low-
ell Goerlich issued the attached Decision in this pro-
ceeding. Thereafter, Respondent filed exceptions and
a supporting brief, and the General Counsel filed a
brief in support of the Administrative Law Judge's
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 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.
Respondent has excepted, inter alia, to that portion
of the Administrative Law Judge's recommended Or-
der which vacates the strike vote of June 21, 1977,
allows a new strike vote, and restores all collective-
bargaining rights and privileges as they existed on
June 8, 1977. The General Counsel joins with Re-
spondent with respect to this exception.
Both Respondent and the General Counsel con-
tend correctly that the collective-bargaining agree-
ment between Respondent and the Union Local re-
quires the participation of the International Union in
any strike vote authorization. Since the International
Union is not a party to this proceeding, we agree with
Respondent and the General Counsel that Section
10(c) of the Act prohibits the Board from adopting
that portion of the Administrative Law Judge's rec-
ommended Order which vacates the vote of June 21,
1977. We shall modify the recommended Order ac-
cordingly.
I The Respondent has excepted to certain credibilit) findings made by the
Administrative law Judge. It is the Board's established policy not to over-
rule 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 Drv Wall Products, Inc , 91
NLRB 544 (1950)1 enfd 188 F.2d 362 (C.A. 3. 1951). We have carefully
examined the record and find no basis for reversing his findings.
We make the following corrections in the Administrative L.aw Judge's
Decision. In in 2, both references to "L.ocal 3117" should be to "Local
3127." Further, 24, not 21, issues were resolved for Ltocal 3127. In fn. 9, only
the three sentences beginning with "if the package was rejected .. ." are
quoted from the Respondent's brief The remainder of the footnote is the
commentary of the Administrative Law Judge.
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,
Youngstown Sheet and Tube Company, East Chi-
cago, Indiana, its officers, agents, successors, and as-
signs, shall take the action set forth in the said recom-
mended Order, as so modified:
1. Delete the final paragraph.
2. Substitute the attached notice for that of the
Administrative Law Judge.
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARI
An Agency of the United States Government
After a hearing at which all parties participated and
offered evidence, the National Labor Relations Board
found that we unlawfully interfered with our employ-
ees' strike vote election held on June 21, 1977, at our
Indiana Harbor Works.
WE WILL Nor unlawfully threaten our employ-
ees that if they authorize a strike all bargaining
proposals will be automatically withdrawn and
all answers to previously resolved issues will be
withdrawn from the bargaining table, or convey
threats of like import.
WE XVll.l NOT in any like or related manner
interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees
in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them by
Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act.
YOUNGSTOwN SHEEI AND TUBE COMPANY
DECISION
SIA1.EMMiNI 01F IIIE (ASi
LOWE.L GOERLI(wC, Administrative Law Judge: The
charge filed by United Steelworkers of America, AFL CIO.
Local 1011, herein called the Union, on July) 6. 1977, was
served by registered mail on Youngstown Sheet and Tube
Company., Respondent herein, on July 8, 1977. A complaint
and notice of hearing was issued on August 19. 1977. The
complaint charged that Respondent "interfered with, re-
strained and coerced the rights of its employees . . . in a
letter to employees that if a strike was authorized by em-
ployees in a pending strike vote election, all company pro-
posals for contract agreement would be withdrawn from the
bargaining table and all answers to previously resolved is-
sues would be withdrawn from the bargaining table." in
violation of Section 8(a)( 1 ) of the National l.abor Relations
Act, as amended, herein referred to as the Act.
238 NLRB No. 153
1082
YOUNGSTOWN SHEET AND TUBE COMPANY
Respondent filed a timely answer denying that it had en-
gaged in any of the infair labor practices alleged but admit-
ted that on June 15. 1977. it had addressed a letter to its
employees which contained the following statement:
I want sou to be aware that, in the event a strike is
authorized, all Company proposals described in the at-
tachments to this letter are automatically withdrawn.
Additionally. all issues previously resolved were re-
solved with the understanding that the Company's an-
swers would be withdrawn if a strike is authorized.
The case came on for hearing at Chicago, Illinois. on
February 17 and April 3, 1978. Each party was afforded
full opportunity to be heard. to examine and cross-examine
witnesses, to argue orally on the record, to submit proposed
findings of fact and conclusions, and to file briefs. All briefs
have been carefully considered.
FINDINGS OF FACT.
I
CON( I .ISIONS. ANt) REASONS
Ti ERE):OR
1. HBUSINESS OF TlE REiSP()NI)ENT
Youngstown Sheet and Tube Company is, and has been
at all times material herein, an Ohio corporation.
At all times material herein, Respondent has maintained
its principal office at Youngstown. Ohio, and has main-
tained a manufacturing plant at Riley and Dickey Roads in
East Chicago. Indiana, (also known as the Indiana Harbor
Works), where it is engaged in the business of manufactur-
ing, producing, processing. selling, and distributing basic
steel.
During the past fiscal or calendar year, a representative
period, Respondent, in the course and conduct of' its busi-
ness operations described above. sold and shipped goods
valued in excess of $50,000 directly: from its plant in Indi-
ana to points outside the State of Indiana.
During the past fiscal or calendar year, a representative
period. Respondent. in the course and conduct of its busi-
ness operations described above, purchased and received
goods valued in excess of $50,000 at its plant in Indiana
directly from points outside the State of Indiana.
Respondent is now, and has been at all times material
herein, an employer engaged in commerce within the mean-
ing of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
11. THE I.ABOR ORGANIZAIION INOI .VID
The Union is, and has been at all times material herein, a
labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the
Act.
I The facts found herein are based on the record as a whole and the obser-
vation of the witnesses. The credibility resolutions herein have been denved
from a review of the entire testimonial record and exhibits, with due regard
for the logic of probability, the demeanor of the witnesses, and the teachings
of N. L. R. B. v. Walton Manufacturing Company and Loganville Pants Co., 369
U.S. 404. 408 (1962). As to those witnesses testifying in contradiction to the
findings herein, their testimony has been discredited either as having been in
conflict with the testimony of credible witnesses or because it was in and of
itself incredible and unworthy of belief. All testimony has been reviewed and
weighed in the light of the entire record. No testimony has been preter-
mitted.
III. ill INFI AIR .AB()R PRA( IR(tS
A. The alcts
The 1977 negotiations between the United Steelworkers
of America. AFL CIO (herein referred to as the Interna-
tional Union). and the Coordinating Committee Steel Com-
panies, of which Respondent was a member, were pursuant
to and governed by the Experimental Negotiating Agree-
ment dated May 1. 1974. known as "ENA 77." ENA 77
required that all collective-bargaining issues, except those
defined as "local collective bargaining issues shall be either
resolved [by the parties to ENA 77] or decided by [an] Im-
partial Arbitration Panel" created by the agreement.
Strikes, work stoppages or concerted refusals to work, and
lockouts in support of collective-bargaining issues otheir
than local collective-bargaining issues were prohibited under
the agreement. However, in respect to local issues the
agreement provided that "[a]ny local issue not disposed of
by April I, 1977, shall be referred to and dealt with bs the
respective Chairmen of the Union-Company negotiating
committee. Should any such issue or issues initiated bx the
Union remain unresolved as of June 10. 1977, the Union
Co-Chairman shall decide whether the issue or issues shall
be withdrawn or put to a secret ballot vote" and "I[should
an': local collective bargaining issue or issues initiated bh a
Company remain unresolved as of June 10. 1977. the Com-
pany shall decide whether the issue or issues shall be with-
drawn or become the basis for a lockout at the plant in-
volved."
The basic agreement was settled as of April 9. 1977: how-
ever, certain local issues at Respondent's Indiana Ha.rbor
Works had not been resolved by June 10. 1977. In conform-
ity with ENA-77, it was decided that these issues he "put to
a secret ballot vote."
The International had established at the Indiana Harbor
Works for the purpose of servicing the collective-bargaining
agreements the following three Locals: Local 1011. repre-
senting approximately 7,500 employees in a production and
maintenance unit: Local 3127. representing approximately
300 employees in a clerical unit: and Local 2775, represent-
ing approximately 105 employees in a plant protection unit.
In respect to the strike vote, ENA 77 provided that each
member of the above Locals was entitled to vote on
whether to strike over a local collective-bargaining issue.
regardless of whether the local collective-bargaining issue
was initiated by the particular Local Union which repre-
sented that employee in local issue bargaining and regard-
less of whether the Local Union which represented that
employee had, in fact. resolved all of the local collective-
bargaining issues it had presented to the Company. Thus,
members in all three Locals participated in the strike vote
which was scheduled for and conducted on June 21. 1977.
in conformity with ENA 77.2 The secret strike vote re-
In response to the request of the Union dated May 20. 1977, for a final
answer on disputed local issues, Respondent by letter dated June 8. 1977.
listed 128 local issues as resolved for Local 1011. 21 as resolved for Local
3117. and 5 as resolved for Local 2775. Unresolsed local issues were listed as
51 for Local 1011. I for local 2775. and none oir L.ocal 3117 In addition, the
letter included a "'package proposal' contingent on there not being a strike
at the particular plant in connection with the 1977 negotiations." The "pack-
age proposal" proposed the resolution of pay pentris and pay dates for the
(Continued)
IOR1083
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
vealed that a majority of the voters in Local 1011, the
Union with the greatest number of unresolved issues, voted
in favor of the strike while in Local 3127, with one unre-
solved issue, and in Local 2775, with no unresolved issues, a
majority of the voters voted against the strike.
Prior to the strike vote, the positions of the three Locals
were set forth in a strike vote pamphlet which had been
distributed to the membership on June 17 and 18, 1977.
Respondent prepared a response to the Local's pamphlet
which was mailed on June 16, 1977. The letter informed the
employees of the status of negotiations and specified the
details of Respondent's proposed package. It also included
the reasons why the employees should vote against the
strike. Among other things, it included the following para-
graph:
I want you to be aware that, in the event a strike is
authorized. all Company proposals described in the at-
tachments4 to this letter are automatically withdrawn.
Additionally. all issues previously resolved were re-
solved with the understanding that the Company's an-
swers would be withdrawn if a strike is authorized.
Bargaining in regard to local issues had followed the dic-
tates of ENA-77 and the memorandum of understanding
on local issue handling dated January 1. 1977. In the
memorandum it was provided:
Following a complete and thorough discussion of each
local issue at the plant level, the local parties shall pre-
pare and jointly sign a "Local Issue Form," using the
form attached hereto, recording the nature and dispo-
sition of each such local issue.
The local issue form provided for a statement of the is-
sue, disposition. and signatures of the parties. When a local
issue was resolved, it was "signed off' on the form 5 and was
not again returned to the bargaining table. As is evident
from the issue referred to in the foregoing footnote, resolved
issues were sometimes implemented. Nevertheless. Respon-
dent claimed through the testimony of George W. Liniger.
manager of employee services at Indiana Harbor Works,
that "nothing is settled until everything is finalized and set-
tled." Testify ing along this line. Liniger said. "We have al-
ways told the union traditionally that anything that w e
clerical and technical unit, overtime meal tickets for all employees involving
six issues, compans local issues I A and I-B, low yield incentive, union
claim of shutdown of bar mill, and grievances relating to Central States
Operating Company Services and Equipment at Indiana Harbor. In this
correspondence, there was no indication that Respondent intended to with-
draw its answers to the resolved issues if the employees voted for a strke.
3 The strike vote tally was as follows: Local 1011 had 2,684 yes votes and
2.653 no votes; Local 3127 had 22 yes votes and 184 no votes; Local 2775
had 7 yes votes and 49 no votes.
4 T he attachments were "the remaining unresolved true local issues with
the Company's most recent response" and "the Company Package proposal
still on the table."
A sample local issue "signed oW' fform contains the following:
Statement of Issue:
we ask a shanty be uilt to house and protect the weighers and
assistant tester on the 2 Stand: The Company has agreed to this for two
years.
Dispositio:
A shanty is now being built and the Carpenter Shop estimates it
should be installed during the week of 3/6/77.
6 The credited record reveals that in response to a resolved issue a water
fountain was installed
were signing off was in the nature of a tentative settlement,
and that we would have to get down to the final line and we
have an agreement on everything or we have an agreement
on nothing." On the other hand, Norman Purdue, president
of Local 1011., testified, "When a local issue was resolved, at
that time the person representing the union ... would sign
it off. Management would then sign the local issue. It would
be considered as one that was resolved no longer to be
negotiated upon, and we figured it was one of local issues
that was out of the way and settled."' ENA-77 provided
that March 1, 1977, was the cutoff date for the submission
of issues "except for those issues which thereafter arise as a
result of changed conditions, may subsequently be initiated
by either party under the procedures of the agreement at
the plant level."
B. Conclusions and Reasons There/fr
The General Counsel asserts that Respondent violated
Section 8(a)(l) of the Act when it advised its employees on
June 16, 1977, that if its employees authorized a strike all
company proposals and answers to resolved issues would be
withdrawn. Or, in other words, if the employees voted for a
strike, bargaining would start at scratch or, as expressed by
Respondent, "we were back to ground zero again in Febru-
ary [the time negotiations commenced] and they' [the
Union] had nothing."8 Respondent asserts that its represen-
tations to its employees were lawful and simply recited the
ground rules governing bargaining, i.e., "the company has
made a 'package proposal' contingent on there not being a
strike at the particular plant in connection with the 1977
negotiations."9
Respondent's letter of June 15, 1977, assured employees
that, if they voted against the strike, resolved issues would
remain firm and the benefits therefrom retained, and the
Company's package would lie on the bargaining table for
Robert Rospierski, chairman of the gnevance committee testified:
Q. As you signed off local issues, at any time did anyone from
Youngstown Sheet and Tube state that such issues could be withdrawn
at a later date?
A No; on the contrary what was said by George Liniger, head of
Industrial Relations, was that we need to go ahead and sign off some of
these issues and get them off the table so that we can continue with
those unresolved issues.
Liniger's testimony.
9 In its brief. Respondent presents a more complete statement of its posi-
tion:
If the package was rejected, however. ever thing in the package was
removed from the table, including conditionally agreed-on items, and
negotiations in Liniger's words "are back to day one." Although theo-
retically the negotiations could start over from scratch at this point, as a
practical matter not everything which had been previously discussed
would be renegotiated. All items that had been on the table up to that
point, however, either tentatively agreed to or unresolved, were now
considered unresolved. These were the "ground rules" which Respon-
dent apparently set for itself. C redible proof does not establish that the
Union agreed to these "ground rules." The rules do not appear in ENA
77 or the memorandum of understanding on local issue handling. In
fact, the latter, which required a "Local Issue Form" bor recording the
nature and disposition of each such local issue, contemplated the re-
moval of any resolved local issue from the bargaining table and F NA
77 contemplated that only unresolved local issues would be submitted to
a strike vote or lockout. Until Respondent insisted that resolved issues
would become unresolved if the employees chose to strike. it seems clear
that the parties had been following the contemplated procedure de-
scribed above. Indeed, as noted, some of the resolved issues had been
implemented.
1084
YOUNGSTOWN SHEET AND TUBE COMPANY
the taking. Such message manifested the same ominous
overtones as the employer's message in Yama Woodcraft,
Inc., d/b/a Cal-Pacific Furniture Mfg. Co. 228 NLRB 1337
(1977). In that case it was stated:
Respondent's message, that in the event of a strike it
would institute its contract proposal for the benefit of
the employees who did not support the strike, was cal-
culated to subvert the Union and to wean employees
away from the Union and to deal directly with them
concerning matters over which it was obligated to bar-
gain with the Union.
Such misconduct was held to be in violation of Section
8(a)(1) of the Act. The same legal conclusion obtains in the
instant case.
On the other hand, if the employees had voted in favor of
the strike they would have experienced the withdrawal of'
any benefits which had accrued to them from signing off of
the 154 resolved issues and would have been exposed to the
detriment"' implicit in commencing bargaining negotiations
from scratch. Thus. Respondent's letter contained promises
of benefits and threats of reprisal which constituted a viola-
tion of Section 8(a)( I) of the Act.''
Additionally. Respondent's threat that all benefits accru-
ing from the signed-off resolved issues would be withdrawn,
that its package offer would be rescinded, and that ans
future bargaining would start at "ground zero" or from
scratch is similar in coercive nature to employers' threats to
commence collective-bargaining from scratch if employees
voted for a union. In this connection the Board has said in
Plastronics, Inc_. 233 NLRB 155 (1977). "Such statements
[collective-bargaining 'begins from scratch.' 'starts at zero.'
or 'starts with a blank page'] are objectionable when, in
context, they effectively threaten employees with the loss of
existing benefits and leave them with the impression that
what they may ultimately receive depends in large measure
upon what the Union can induce the employer to restore."
L ikewise, in the instant case, the Fmployer's method otf
"package bargaining" as described in its brief and its mes-
sage of June 15. 1977, was calculated to leave the employ-
ees with the impression that if they voted for the Union's
strike restoration of any loss of benefits which had accrued
to them by reason of the signed-off 154 resolved issues
would ultimately depend upon what the Union could in-
duce Respondent to again accept. Thus. there was a likely
risk that the employees might receive less if they voted in
favor of the strike because of the bargaining position
adopted by Respondent even before collective bargaining
recommenced.
Moreover. the Respondent compounded its misconduct
by injecting bad-faith bargaining into the negotiations in
that by the letter Respondent threatened to withdraw
agreed-upon contract proposals without good cause.?
I For example, if Respondent had carried out its threat. Local 2775,
whose issues had been fulls resolsed. would have been torced to have started
from scratch and renegotiated Moreoser. benefits which had been gained
from the implementation of a signed-ofl resolved issue would have been
taken awa) and the Issue w ould have been subject to renegiotiatlon
11 t nder these circumstances protection for the letler's publication cannot
be claimed under Sec. 8(c) ot the Act (tf 1 eutinghouivel Elec, riu ( irpuoraltlon.
Dlirnbhulun Fquipment Duii.ion. 232 NRB 56 (1977)
I` In the instant case the contemplated withdrawal it the answers to
signed-off resiolved issues was In reprisal tfur voting in favor of a strike
"Ilt is well established that withdrawal by the employer of
contract proposals. tentatively agreed to by both the em-
ployer and the union in earlier bargaining sessions, without
good cause, is evidence of a lack of good faith bargaining.
. ." .merican Seating Company of Mississippi v. N.L.R.B.,
424 F.2d 106. 108 (C.A. 5. 1970).
The record further reveals that prior to the letter of June
15. 1977. Respondent had not notified the Locals or their
members that, in the event a strike vote was authorized, it
would withdraw its answers to the signed-off resolved is-
sues. Thus, the letter announced a new bargaining position
to the employees that had not been communicated to the
Union. Such action taken by Respondent was an unlawful
attempt to bypass the Union and deal directly with the
employees and resulted in the undermining of the Union as
the exclusive bargaining agent. Cf, Medo Photo Supply Cor-
poration v. NA.L.R.B.. 321 U.S. 678 (1944).
Accordingly, it is found that Respondent violated Section
8(a)(I) of the Act when on June 15. 1977, in a letter to its
employees it advised its employees, in essence, that if a
strike was authorized all company proposals would be auto-
matically withdrawn and all answers to previously resolved
issues would be withdrawn from the bargaining table, and
by such misconduct Respondent unlawfully interfered with
the strike vote conducted on June 21. 1977.
CoN( IL SIONS oi LA\.x
I. The Union is a labor organization within the meaning
of the Act.
2. Respondent is engaged in commerce within the mean-
ing of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act and it will effectuate
the policies of the Act for jurisdiction to be exercised
herein.
3. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing employ-
ees in the exercise of rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the
Act, Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices
within the meaning of' Section 8(a)( 1 ) of the Act.
4. Ihe atforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor
practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section
2(6) and (7) of the Act.
THiF R-MEI)Y
It having been found that Respondent has engaged in
certain unfair labor practices. it is recommended that it
cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative ac-
tion designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
Respondent argues that "Jelven if the Company's state-
ments to employees in the June 15 letter were found to
violate Section 8(a)(1), therefore, no policy under the Act
would he effectuated by issuing an order requiring the
Company to refrain from engaging in conduct alleged in
the Complaint in the future and post a notice." I am prone
to agree with Respondent that little. if anything, toward the
effectuation of the policies of the Act would be accom-
plished by an Order or notice at this stage of the proceed-
ing. Thus. I am convinced that if the Act is to be effectu-
ated, as envisioned bh the statute, an Order should be
entered for the restoration of the status quo ante to the ex-
tent feasible. Cf. .Allied Products Corporation. Richard
1085
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Brothers Division, 218 NLRB 1246 (1975). Accordingly, I
recommend that the strike vote election be vacated and
held for naught and that a new strike vote election be al-
lowed, with the restoration of all collective-bargaining
rights and privileges, as they existed on June 8, 1977, the
date on which Respondent stated its "last position" on local
issues before the strike vote. Such an Order will avoid the
Government's spinning its wheels and will gratify the Act's
remedial objectives. The Board has recently said in Libertv
Mutual Insurance Co., 235 NLRB 1387 (1978), that in-
cluded in its duty to take "such affirmative action ... as will
effectuate the policies of [the] Act," is the requirement that
the Board restore the status quo ante and fashion remedial
orders "in such a manner as to prevent or deter recurrence
of the unlawful activity which is the subject of the action."
The recommended remedy conforms with these require-
ments. Indeed, unless Respondent is deterred from its pre-
sent course of misconduct there can be no end to the kind
of unlawful interference found herein. Any future strike
vote election will be imperiled. The remedy will have
"wholesome prophylactic effects." Id.
Accordingly, upon the basis of the foregoing findings of
fact, conclusions of law, and the entire record in this pro-
ceeding, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act. I hereby
issue the following recommended:
ORDER 13
The Respondent, Youngstown Sheet and Tube Com-
pany, Youngstown, Ohio, its officers. agents, successors,
and assigns, shall:
:' 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 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.
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Unlawfully threatening employees that if they autho-
rize a strike all company bargaining proposals will be auto-
matically withdrawn and all answers to previously resolved
issues will be withdrawn from the bargaining table, or con-
veying threats of the same import.
(b) In any like or related manner interfering with, re-
straining, or coercing employees in the exercise of the rights
guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which will effec-
tuate the purposes of the Act:
(a) Post at its Indiana Harbor Works. East Chicago, In-
diana, plant copies of the attached notice marked "Appen-
dix."'4 Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Re-
gional Director for Region 13, after being duly signed by
Respondent's representative, shall be posted by it immedi-
ately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60
consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, includ-
ing all places where notices to employees are customarily
posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to
insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered
by any other material.
(b) Notify the Regional Director for Region 13, in writ-
ing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps
Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
ITr Is FURTHER ORDERED that the strike vote election held
on June 21, 1977, be vacated and held for naught and that
a new strike vote election be allowed with the restoration of
all collective-bargaining rights and privileges as they existed
on June 8, 1977.
14 In the event that this Order is enforced by a judgment of the 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 Judg-
ment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board.'
1086