Senca Enviromental Products

IDE('ISIONS OF NATIONAL I.ABOR RELATIONS BOARD Seneca Environmental Products, a Division of Seneca Sheet Metal, Inc. and Lake Erie District Council of Carpenters, Affiliated with United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO. Case 8 CA 11391 July 23, 1979 DECISION AND ORDER BY MFMBERS JENKINS, MURPHY, ANDI TIRUESI)AI.I On March 29, 1979, Administrative Law Judge William F. Jacobs issued the attached Decision in this proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent filed excep- tions and a supporting 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 brief and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings,' and conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge and to adopt his recommended Order, as modified herein.2 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, Seneca Environmental Products, a Division of Seneca Sheet Metal, Inc., Tiffin. Ohio, its officers, agents, succes- sors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the said recommended Order, as so modified. i Respondent has excepted to certain credibility findings made by the Ad- ministrative Law Judge. It is the Board's established policy 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 Prui rv. Inc. 91 NI.RB 544 (1950). enfd. 188 F.2d 362 (3d Cir. 1951). We have carefully examined the record and find no basis for reversing his findings. 2 The Administrative Law Judge failed to order as part of the remedy that Respondent make employees whole for any losses they may have suffered as a result of Respondent's unfair labor practices with interest computed thereon in accordance with Board precedent. Where, as here, a respondent has failed to execute a contract as agreed upon. a rrtrus quo ante remedy is appropriate. Werner Kallman dh/a Charles Sporswrear Mantufl turting Conm- pany, 231 NLRB 797 (11977). In addition, the Administrative Law Judge failed to include a provision requiring Respondent to honor any dues-checkoff authorizations which may have been submitted to it after it was obligated to honor the contract. Slack- pole Components Company. 232 NLRB 723 (1977). We have modified the remedy accordingly. Although it appears that Respondent implemented some of the provisions of the agreement, the record does not establish that all the terms of the contract have been implemented and maintained. Therefore, we find that remedial order provision requiring such implementation, retroactively, is necessary to effectuate the purpose of Act. I. Insert the following after paragraph 2(b) and re- letter the subsequent paragraphs accordingly: "(c) Upon execution of the aforesaid agreement, give retroactive effect to the provisions thereof and make whole its employees for any losses they may have suffered by reason of Respondent's failure to sign the agreement with interest computed thereon in the manner prescribed in Florida Steel Corporation, 231 NLRB 651 (1977). (See, generally, Isis Plumhing & Heating o., 138 NLRB 716 (1962).) "(d) Reimburse the Union for all membership dues which, since June 2, 1977, Respondent has failed to withhold and transmit to the Union pursuant to signed dues-deduction authorizations and in accord- ance with the checkoff provision of the collective-bar- gaining agreement, with interest thereon in the man- ner prescribed in Florida Steel (Corporpration. supra." 2. Substitute the attached notice for that of the Administrative Law Judge. A PPLI'N[)IX No II(EI To EPI.()YIIS PoSIrTD BY ORI)DR () IE NAI()ONAI. LABOR RI.AI()ONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government WI WillI. N()I refuse to bargain collectively in good faith with Lake Erie District Council of Carpenters, affiliated with United Brotherhood off arpenters and Joiners of America. AFL ('10. by refusing, upon request, to sign the col- lective-hargaining agreement. the terms and con- ditions of which were agreed upon on June 2, 1977. WiV wIn I. NOI unilaterally and without prior notification to the Union discontinue the holding of safety meetings which were instituted, and which were held, under the terms of the collec- tive-bargaining agreement agreed upon on June 2, 1977. WEI WII.. NOI in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of their rights to self-organization, to form, join. or assist labor organizations, in- cluding the Union herein, to bargain collectively through a bargaining agent chosen by our em- ployees, to engage in concerted activities for the purposes of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any such activities. Wi Wl.l., upon request by the Union. sign the collective-bargaining agreement, the terms and conditions of which were agreed upon on June 2, 1977. The bargaining unit is: 243 NLRB No. 77 624 SENECA I!NVIRONMINNIAL PROI)t( I'S All regular and part-time production emplox - ees. but excluding all office clerical employees, professional. engineering, technical. school work programs, administrative emplosees, in- cluding working supervisors and guards as de- fined in the Act. Wti wil l upon request by the Union reinsti- tute the holding of safety meetings in accordance with the terms of the aforesaid collective-bar- gaining agreement. WE wit, 1l reimburse the Union for all member- ship dues which, since June 2. 1977. were autho- rized by our employees to be deducted, but which we failed to deduct and transmit to said Union. WE wl,, upon execution of the aftresaid agreement. give retroactive effect to the proAi- sions thereof and make whole its employees for any losses they may have suffered by reason of our failure to sign the agreement. plus interest. SENE(fA ENVIRO)NNIMNtAl. PRI)It(l IS, A 1)I- VISION OF SENE(A SIEI MHlAI., IN('. DECISION S r..i MItN I ill: ( AS WIlI IAM . JA.oBs, Administrative aw Judge: This case was heard before me on February 21 and 22. 1978. in Tiffin, Ohio. The charge was filed September 27. 1977, and amended on November 3. 1977. b Lake Erie District Council of Carpenters, affiliated with United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America. AF -CIO, herein called the Union. The complaint issued on November 4, 1977, alleging that Seneca Environmental Products. a Divi- sion of Seneca Sheet Metal. Inc.,' herein called the (Coom- panrty or Respondent, violated Section 8(a)( I) and (5) of the National Labor Relations Act. as amended, by refusing to execute a collective-bargaining agreement previously agreed upon and by unilateralls discontinuing safety meet- ings which had been instituted pursuant to said collective- bargaining agreement. Respondent denied the substantive allegations contained in the complaint. All parties appeared, were aflforded flull opportunity to be heard, and presented evidence and argument. Briefs were not filed. Upon the entire record. my observation of the demeanor of the witnesses, and after giving due consider- ation to argument of counsel I make the following: FINI)IN(S O I:( I 1. fill Ht SINISS ()I RISIPONDNI Respondent. an Ohio corporation, operated a holl owned division with a plant in Tiffin. Ohio, knoun as Sen- i As of Octiober 31. 1977. Seneca Ensironmental Products. Inc. beanlme i separate corporation aInd s aIdmitted Io he a succesor It, Respondenl named herein eca Environmental Products where Seneca Metal. Inc.. also had its corporation headquarters and general otlices and Mhere it \%as engaged in met;al lahrication of dust control and sound control devices. miscellaneous metal work, and air handling engineering work. Annuall, Seneca EInviron- mental Products. s a l)ivision of Seneca Sheet Mletal. Inc.. in the course and conduct of its operations hippcd goods and products valued in excess of $50().X) directl to points outside of the State of Ohio. As of Octoher 3 1. 1977. Seneca ln,ironmiental Products, Inc.. hereinafter also called the (onlmpa; or Respondent. became separate corporatiln. no longer a Di, ision of Seneca Sheet Metal. Inc. B3 stipula- tion of the parties, it has been agreed that Seneca In ron- mental Products. I nc.. is a sccessor to Seneca En ironmen- tal Products, a tivision of Seneca Sheet Metal. Inc.. and adimitted that it is an emplo'er engaged in commerce within the mea;ning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 11. 1111 I AB(R ¢/R(,NIOlN It is admitted and I find that the tlnion is a labor orga;ni- lation ithin the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Acl. 111. lit tNIl AIR l.tA )R P'RA( II IS A. Iciu I. Negotlations. April June 2, 1977: The (ompanN began operation in the spring of 1975. In April 1977. the Union contacted the executie ice pres- ident of the (ompans. ilarple. and told him that the em- ployees desired representation and that it wanted a recogni- tion agreement signed. On April 25 Louis Fusile. organizer tior the U nion, met with i larple tr the purpose of executing a recognition agreement. According to llarple. the Com- pan 5 had. from its inception. suffered a high turn,. er rate and since the small community in which it was located had a limited amount of skilled labor this turnov. er rate posed a serious problem for the Conmpan3 . For that reason Iltarple felt that any labor agreement upon which the parties might agree. would hae to first he ratified b the emploees be- fiore it could become etlectixe. since ans failure of ratifica- tion b the emplosees might result in additional losses of employees which in turn would cause further problems for the Compan. Pursuant to these considerations. again ac- cording to Harple he told Fusile during the April 25 meet- ing that he thought the parties could work things out but whatever was worked out. tlarple had to be sure that it was acceptable to the compan\ work force. and that this uould have to he a condition greed to even before he signed the recognition agreement. larple testified that usile replied that ratification would not be a problem. The Comppan takes the position that it it as clear from the ver beginning. and understood b all parties. that the Utnion would take an, agreement reached hetween the parties back to the em- ploees for ratification hb' means of checkoff cards. Present during this recognition cnfterence were I usile, larple. and Marion Smith. the shop superintendent. Another union rep- : llI .i r i 1 7 I 1llcs, s thr l e Inlltdil I)<F('ISIONS OF NA'IIONAI LABOR RELATIONS BOARD) resentative attended the earlier part of the meeting held at a local restaurant. but not the latter part held in Harple's office. Fusile testified that the purpose of the April 25 meeting was to get the recognition agreement signed and that the Union submitted a copy of the recognition agreement to the Company. but that Hlarple wanted the wording contained therein revised and kept the document foir that purpose, not returning it until the first negotiation session, which oc- curred on May 4. Fusile, during his testimony, did not specifically address himself to the remarks allegedly made by larple at the April 25 meeting regarding his concern fr turnover and his desire for assurances that any agreement reached would first have to be ratified by the employees before it went into effect. He did, however, state that the subject of ratification was never injected into contract negotiations, and I take this denial to include the discussion which took place on April 25. I find with regard to the meeting of April 25 that the subject of ratification did not arise as a precondition to the execution of a contract. Granted that Harple may have un- derstood that any agreement reached would have to he ac- ceptable to the employees and Fusile may have mentioned his intention to have any such agreement ratified, I do not find sufficient evidence in the record to support Respon- dent's contention that ratification was a necessary precondi- tion to the execution of any agreement eventually reached. I credit Fusile that no such quid pro quo was agreed upon and note in support of this finding that Smith, Respondent's plant superintendent, who testified as Rgspondent's witness as to other matters, did not testify as to the events of April 25 though he was present throughout; that Harple's affida- vit contains no reference to such an agreement: and, that although Respondent insisted on revising the recognition agreement in other respects and obtained the Union's agreement to so revise this document, the alleged ratifica- tion precondition to recognition and to contract execution, was not made part of this document. If, in fact, such a precondition had been agreed to, I find that it would have been included therein. In short, I find that no agreement was reached between the parties on April 25 whereby em- ployee ratification was to be a precondition to either recog- nition or execution of the contract. The recognition agreement was signed April 251 and cov- ered a unit of employees described simply as production employees. There is no question concerning the appropri- ateness of the unit' and it is herein found that the unit of ] It was stipulted that the agreement was signed April 25, and I so find Despite Fusile's testimony that the document was taken by Ilarple for resi- sion and not returned until May 4 when the first negotiation session took place, Harple testified that he signed this document on April 25, the date appearing thereon, and did not know when Denecia signed it. he record appearing inconclusive on the matter, perhaps Harple signed it on April 25. made corrections later that day, and through Fusile or by some other means eventually got the document to Denecia for signature. whereafter the docu- ment next appeared on May 4 as Fusile testified. In any event. I find the discrepancy of no significant moment. 4 At the hearing. Respondent amended its answer in order to admit the appropriateness of the unit described in paragraph 6 of' the complaint. Said unit consists of: employees which the Union claimed to represent is an ap- propriate unit. The first negotiation session occurred on May 4 in Harple's office. Present were Harple, Smith. and Fusile and possibly Denecia and Jadwisiak.' Harple and Smith both testified that at this first negotiation session the Company and the Union exchanged proposals while Fusile testified that while the Union offered a complete contract for con- sideration, the Company only submitted a copy of the Company's work rules and policies. In any event, the docu- ments offered by each of the parties were discussed at length by Harple and Fusile while Smith marked up copies of both proposals as changes were agreed upon. The Union's proposed contract contained provisions cov- ering wages, job postings. and a grievance procedure. Also contained in the Union's proposal was a provision for hold- ing periodic labor management meetings, a proposal with which Harple was in full accord, as well as a management right's clause. According to Harple, during the May 4 meeting he brought up the subject of a guaranteed work force. iFusile. on the other hand, denied that the subject of a guaranteed work force came up at this meeting or at any other negoti- ating session. Harple also testified that when he brought up the subject of a guaranteed work force Fusile replied that he could not guarantee that employees would continue to work fbr the Company, or that the Union could supply new employees for the Company as needed because that was larple's job. Fusile added, however, again according to Harple, that the contract could be ratified, thus making the plant a more satisfactory place for employees to work, that way avoiding excessive turnover. Smith testified, in accord- ance with Harple, that the subject of ratification did in fact arise during the May 4 meeting. Fusile once again denied that the subject of ratification came up during this meeting or at any negotiation session. In accord with the testimony of Harple and Smith. I find that the subject matters of a guaranteed work force and possible ratification of the labor agreement were discussed, but find insufficient evidence to warrant the conclusion that Fusile agreed that ratification would be a condition precedent to execution of the con- tract. In support of this conclusion I note that Harple did not mention either of these matters in connection with the May 4 meeting in his affidavit: the C(ompany did not sub- mit its notes of the meeting to support its witnesses' testi- mony: and there was nothing in writing to indicate that any precondition agreement had been reached. With regard to evidence that the Union agreed to ratifi- cation as a precondition to execution of the contract, Harple testified that throughout negotiations whenever wages and certain fringe benefits were discussed, Fusile fre- quently advised Harple that the employees would not ac- All regular and part-time production employees. hut excluding all offtice clerical employees, professinal. engineering, technical, schiiol work programs, administrative employees. all super sor, employees. includ- ing working supervisors and guards as defined in the Act. tHarple testified that Denecia and Jadwisiak attended this meeting in addition to himself' Smith, and tusile. uile testified that larple. Smith. Fusile. and L)enecia attended. Neither [)enecia nor Jadwisiak ho attended. played much of a role in negotiatins at the first meeting Neither was called as a 'itness. 626 SLNIC(' F:NVI RO()NM 1.N AI. PROI)t( IS cept these certain provisions; or that he would have to con- suit with the employees before agreeing to these provisions: or that said provisions would have to he acceptable to the employees. Fusile admitted that it is entirely possible that during negotiations he told Harple that he would not agree to a certain specific provision "because the people won't accept it." but denies that he ever agreed that the contract had to be accepted or ratified b the employees before the Company was required to execute it. I ind that the utiliza- tion of these bargaining tactics did not in an' wa evidence ratification of the contract as a precondition to execution. but merely reflected standard bargaining procedures almost universally utilized by Unions during negotiations. name attempts to obtain concessions which would be most ac- ceptable to the membership. With regard to the mechanics of ratification. Ilarple tes- tified that the parties agreed that Fusile would provide checkoff cards as an indication of ratification because Harple "was concerned about liabilit? in that area." Ite stated that this subject matter was discussed when the'. were negotiating the checkoff provision of the contract. Smith testified. however. that it was F[usile's idea to add the dues checkoff since the C'ompany did not have it dues checkoff provision in its contract proposal at the first meet- ing. According to Smith. it "was talked about . .. it was brought up at that time . that we'il we wanted the dues check off before we would sign a contract." Elsewhere. Smith testified, concerning the May 4 meeting: "We were talking about the dues checkoff cards. that if they were turned in as a majority, that we would accept that as being a ratification." Smith understood the submission of checkoff cards as proof of ratification to be a condition of entering into a final and binding agreement with the Union. Fusile testified that he could recall discussing with Harple his intention of making sure that the employees would be taken care of, that theN would be happy. and that there would be a work force there to perform the manufac- turing operation, but denied that he promised that he would guarantee a work force or that the employees would remain though he intended to negotiate a contract which would satisfy the employees. From the above testimony it would appear that both Harple and Smith honestly believed that Fusile intended to obtain ratification of any contract agreed upon by the Com- pany's employees, and indeed this appears likewise to have been Fusile's intention, but just as a matter of course, and not as a matter of precondition to the execution of the con- tract. Further, although Harple and Smith may have "felt" or "understood" that it was agreed that ratification would be a precondition to execution of the contract. Fusile testi- fied to the contrary. and inasmuch as the Board has stated that for ratification to be a condition precedent to a collec- tive-bargaining agreement the parties must agree in express words to such a condition, and this clearly was not the case here, ratification was not a precondition to execution of the contract.' Here. as in the cited case. Fusile, at best, stated his intention to take the contract reached to the member- ship to obtain their approval or to see to it that they were 6C & W Lektra Bat Co.. 209 NLRB 1038 (19741, affd. 513 F.2d 200 (6th Cir. 1975). satisfied. I he Board stated.' "''We arc unwilling to distort words (ot intention into terms of agreement. particularl where the subject is unrelated to wages and terms and con- ditions ol employmlent." In the instant case. fIusile did not at the Ma' 4 meeting specificalhl offer ratification as a pro- posal and there could therefore he no acceptance. 1he second negotiation session was held on Ma' 9. Iusile sas oined hb two additional union representatives. Chester Jadsisiak and Ernie l)enecia. he compan? repre- sentatives remained the same. At this meeting the ('Copan submitted a second proposal" anid the parties worked pri- marilx on language. Ihere is no indication in the record that ratification was specificall discussed at this meeting. The third negotiating session occurred on Ma'N 16 and vwas attended b union representatives [:usile. J.adislak. and )Denecia and. for the first time b' rank-and-file emplo,\- eces Charles Bernard and Willard Allen as menibers of the bargaining committee. These two unit employees had ear- lier brought to Ilarple's attention certain dissatisfaction with the tlnion's representation. Hlarple referred them to Fusile and apparently it was Fusile who ,as responsible for their attendance at the Ma 1 meeting. l)uring the third negotiating session, according to Smith. wages and the grievance provision and the tclt of its being too cumhbersome were discussed. Also, the subject of ratifi- cation being a condition precedent to the ('ompanx's execu- tion of the contract was brought up a second time. Smith testified that "it was brought up again because we wanted to make sure we had some sort of a w. ork force to carr on the business." There was discussion at this meeting to the eflect that the ompany would use dues authorization cards as a means of determining that ratification of the con- tract had occurred. Harple did not testifs concerning any discussion of ratification at the third negotiating session. Fusile testified that the third negotiating session involved discussions about the contract and working conditions at the plant. Labor-management meetings were discussed and certain criticisms of compan> policies were aired. Accord- ing to Fusile. the meeting "became quite disoriented fromn the regular norm of the negotiations." 1 understand Fusile's remark to mean that the criticism of compan, policies. pre- sumably bN the rank-and-file emplosees in attendance. in- terfered with further progress toward negotiating a con- tract. Fusile did not mention any discussion at this meeting concerning ratification. and neither Denecia nor Jawisiak were present at the hearing. so did not testify. Charles Ber- nard. however, called as a witness for Respondent, testified as followks: Q. During the time that you were on the negotiating committee. did you hear any discussion of any kind about when you came to a final agreement, that it had to he ratified by the men? A. Sure. All the agreements had to be ratified by the men. Q. I am not talking about anybody else's agreement or all agreements. I am talking about was there dis- I id Fusile testified that this Adas the Compan's first proposal. the document submitted on May 4 being more aptl 5 described as a collection ofcornpan rules and policies 627 DI)'(ISIONS ()1: NATIONAl. I.AB()K RIL.. IONS BOARKI cuss[ion] during the time of the negotiations that there had to be ratification by the rank and file of this con- tract before you had an agreement with the ('ompnpny' A. A liscussion on it? No. There was ne ver anyI dis- cussion. It was just point blankly said. "We'll take this back to the men and see if it is ratified.'" No, we never discussed it at any of' the meetings how we were going to do it. Q. Was it discussed by anybod, by anyone on the Compan 's side or the Union's side that ratification would occur in the form of the men signing the dues checkoff' cards? A. Well, that was that last meeting we had upstairs that that ewas more or less understood that signing this card was going to mean ratification Thus, it would appear from Bernard's testimony that nothing was specifically agreed to at the third meeting con- cerning ratification although Bernard like Harple and Smith. at earlier meetings, assumed that the employees would have a chance to ratify' any contract agreed upon by the Company and Union. Bernard's testimony also effec- tively undercut Smith's testimony concerning the third ne- gotiating session having included a discussion of ratification taking the form of the men signing dues checkoil cards. Bernard's statement that this discussion did not take place until the last meeting is credited over Smith's testimony to the contrary. I reach this conclusion on the basis of Ber- nard's very credible demeanor, the fact that Iarple did not support Smith with regard to his account of the content of the third bargaining session, and the fact that Harple's dis- cussion of the third bargaining session as reflected in his affidavit made no mention of ratification or checkoff cards. I find therefore that no specific agreement was reached at the third bargaining session whereby ratification was made a precondition to contract execution. (' & W' l.etra Bur Co., supra. The fourth bargaining session was held on May 24 and was attended by approximately the same individuals who attended the previous session.9 At the fourth session most of the contract was agreed upon except for wages and a sim- plified grievance procedure. Similarly, the fifth session, which occurred on June 1, was attended by the same group that attended the previous two meetings. Additional mat- ters were resolved including increased holiday pay. addi- tional fringe benefits, and wages. Overtime remained an outstanding issue. There is no indication in the record that ratification was discussed at these meetings. On June 2 the parties met for their sixth and last bargain- ing session. Agreement was reached at this meeting on wages and other conditions of employment. Though basic agreement was reached. there remained, however, a few things yet to be accomplished. First, according to Harple. the language had to be cleaned up throughout the contract. Secondly, it was agreed by the parties that the grievance provision, though acceptable to all as to content, was too cumbersome and should be shortened. It was therefore agreed that the jobs of making the language changes and shortening the grievance provisions would be placed in the I Fusile testified that Denecia did not attend whereas Smith testified that he did. hands of the attorneys for both parties. thereafter the final document to he returned to the parties for execution. No changes in the intent of the document was contemplated hby the parties: the attorneys were to perform merely the minis- terial function of putting into more legally acceptable lan- gutage the contract agreed upon on June 2. Having reached basic agreement on all provisions of the contract. Fusile suggested to Harple that the wages increase and other fringe benefits included in the contract he made effective retroactively to June . According to Harple, he agreed to institute these benefits, retroactively to June I1 pending ratification and signing of the contract. usile de- nied however, that ratification was mentioned. Smith testi- tfied as follows: Q. I)o Nou remember Mr. Fusile asking whether the wages part of the agreement was going to be imple- mented retroactive to June I at the meeting of June 2nd? A. Yes. Q. Do you remember what Mr. [larple said to that? A. Yes. Hle asked if we was going to have ratifica- tion and it was said that, why, definitely that there wottuld be. So we said that we would take it back to June I. Once again, it would appear from the totality of testi- mony on the subject that Ilarple and Smith may well have believed that ratification was to be a precondition to execu- tion of the contract, but the record does not indicate that any specific agreement was reached on June 2 or prior thereto that such was the case. Rather, while I find, con- trary to Fusile's testimony, that ratification, approval, or acceptance of the contract's provisions was in some means or fashion discussed at the June 2 meeting and that Fusile indicated his intention to try to obtain acceptance by the employees of the contract reached on June 2, he by no means bound the Union to an} agreement that without rati- fication there would be no contract. Bernard testifies that on June 2 Harple stated something to the effect: "You get the checkoff cards signed by the men and we'll get together and get this settled." and that Fusile replied, "Okay, then we've got an agreement." Bernard also testified, however, contrary to Respondent's witnesses, that he could not recall Harple making such a statement during prior negotiation sessions and did not believe that anything was ever said before June 2 to the effect that before the contract would he signed, checkoff cards would have to he presented. but that this "was more or less the understanding in this last meet- ing." Thus, it would appear that on June 2. as was the case at earlier sessions, management understood or believed that any agreement reached would be taken hack to the employ- ees for acceptance or ratification, and indeed this too was the understanding of one or more of the employee partici- pants. Moreover, it also appears, and I find, that Fusile advised management that he would seek approval of the employees of any contract provisions negotiated and. in fact, did so as negotiations proceeded. This stated intention by Fusile, however, as noted above. is not tantamount to an agreement that ratification was to be a necessary precondi- tion to execution of the contract otherwise agreed upon, since ratification. to be a condition precedent to a collec- 628 SENFC(A I'NVIRONMNlNIAAI PRO())l ( IS tive-bargaining agreement must be agreed upon in express words and not merely implied. C & 1' I ektrra Bat (Co. 1- pro. In short, no condition precedent existed prior to June 2 and none came into existence on that date. In addition to agreeing that the provision for wage in- creases would be retroactively instituted as of June I, the parties, on June 2, similarly agreed to retroactively imple- menting the provisions dealing with job posting."' safet meetings (also referred to as labor-management meetings). and the probationary period. I find that agreement to im- plement these provisions retroactively is indicative of the fact that the parties' understood that agreement had been reached. While basic agreement was reached as to the content ot the labor agreement. there existed a certain lack of under- standing between the employees in the unit and the Union itself which still had to be straightened out. Thus, when Bernard asked Fusile on June 2 what the union dues were going to be and Fusile told him, 10 cents, Bernard replied that this was something new and that they would have to get back to the employees on that subject. Management was aware of problems existing between the rank-and-file unit employees and the Union, and Smith testified that he had heard rumors that some employees would leave ift' the Company signed a contract with the Union without those employees getting a chance to look at it. The existence of some friction between unit employees and the Union was emphasized when during the June 2 session, one of the union agents in attendance advised Bernard that the Union wanted to select the representative from among the unit employees, to which Bernard objected, stating, "You're not coming in here and telling us who is going to represent us." It was about the time of this brief discussion, and perhaps in part because of it, due to Respondent's concern with maintaining its work force, that Harple brought up the fact that there was still the dues checkoff to talk about, and asked the union representatives present whether they had yet obtained the signed checkoff authorization cards in or- der to show that the employees had ratified what had taken place to that point. According to Smith, Fusile replied that he would have them, that he would "get what it takes." in the way of authorization cards to show ratification or ap- proval. 2. Ratification efforts after June 2 The morning of June 3 Fusile, in accordance with his stated intention, visited the plant to discuss the contract with the employees. There were still 7 employees employed of the original 13 who were there at the time recognition was granted. According to Fusile, he described to them the money package which had been negotiated and discussed with them the provisions of the contract." He advised them that the contract would be retroactive to June 1. then asked them if they had any objections to it, or to the way it was negotiated. Six of the employees present were in favor of O The job-posting provision ma) have been put into effect even before June 2. " One witness for Respondent denied that the contract was discussed I credit Fusile the contract and one wAas against it. usile a.sked them to sign checkoff autihorization cards': hut seerad ojhlected. claiming that the dues and initiation tees were Ioo hligh andi that the Union w*as not doing anything lor them. iusile replied. "Until I get the cards signed. eAC don't hace the authority to come in here and make them do anything." Although usile asked the emploxees to sign checkoff cards, he did not pass anix out t this time hut merely in- formed them that if the\ signed the cards. ;larple would sign the contract. Although Respondent may argue that the une 3 meeting between 'usile and the employees is evidence of the condi- tion precedent which it alleges A;as agreed upot. I indll. o the contrary that Fusile was merel trying to obtain the employees' agreement to sign checkot authorization cards because he had been advised by iLarple that he `lould not sign the contract without such an indication of their accept- ance of the contract: because he had told Ilarple that he intended to tr, to obtain checkoff alulihorilations: and be- cause checkoff authorizations are, in an case. a valuable asset to the strength of a labor organization. I am therefore unwilling to imply a preconditional commitment a ured by Respondent on the basis of Fusile's efforts to acquire checkoff authorizations subsequent to the June 2 meeting at which the parties agreed to the basic contract. After Fusile's June 3 meeting Kwith the employees. he met with them three or four times throughout the summer m order to get them to sign checkoff cards. ach time he would tell them that it was necessary in order tor him "to get the ball rolling" and to "help the guys ut." and that theN "didn't have an agreement until the dues chieckoff cards were signed." " Once again. I find that Eustle. bh these words. was advising the employ ees that H[arple would not sign the agreement unless they signed checkoff authoriza- tion cards. so that until they did so. there would be no contract. I do not conclude that b these statements he was admitting having entered into the alleged precondition agreement. Despite usile's urgings. however. the employees contin- ued to refuse to sign the authorization cards. according to Bernard. because they had gotten their raise and did not want to pay dues and initiation fees which. in any event. they considered too high. Though Fusile did manage at one time to actually obtain some signatures on the cards he never apparently was able to get majority support. In Au- gust. he once again met with the employees in order to try to get them to sign the checkoff cards and a secret vote was taken. but *w`hen the ballots were counted it turned out that they had once again rejected the checkoff authorization. On September . he met with them for the last time. but once again failed to obtain majority support." 12 Bernard estified It) this fact although Fusile denied ii I credit Bernard because it seems more consistent with the pattern ot events that after being asked bs Harple on June 2 to obtain checkoff cards. Fusile would follovwup on his request since he had stated his intenlion to do so. i Based upon Bernard's testimons In answer to Respondent counsel's leading question t Fusile testified that n September I he met ith Bernard and other employees and named six individuals horm he slated signed g heckoff aulho- nzatmin cards on that date Onl, to of the six had been emploed on the date oit recogniiion the cards were notl ofifred into eidence lthough it sniniia, 629 I)lI.(ISI)NS ()1: NA (IONAI. ABOR R.A IONS BOAR[) 3. ('ontraict discussions after .lune 2 According to the agreement reached June 2. after attor- nes for Respondent and the Inion worked out the new, simplified grievance procedure language, the finished labor agreement was to be forwarded to the Union" for execu- tion, then returned to the Company. Pursuant to this under- standing, Harple subsequently gave to his attorney, Arthur Graham, the final agreement as worked ouu between him- self' and Fusile on June 2, apparently with directions to draw up a formal document, legally acceptable to the par- ties and containing the revisions agreed upon. On June 27. after making telephone contact with the Union's attorney, William Gore, on two occasions, Graham forwarded to him a copy of the amended labor agreement, Respondent's Exhibit 3, with copies sent also to )enecia. A cover letter instructed Gore to have I)enecia execute two copies and thereafter forward them to Graham after which, he advised Gore, he would have Respondent execute both, returning one copy to Gore. In the same cover letter, he advised Gore that he had no objection to an amendment which would simplify and shorten the grievance procedure, said amendment to be proposed by Gore's office. According to Graham, who testified at the hearing, his intention in sending the contract and cover letter was to give recipient a completed agreement which Respondent was willing to sign subject to any suggested amendment as to shortening the grievance procedure. Graham advised Harple by telephone concerning this matter. Though Graham, in his cover letter, had asked Gore to have Denecia execute the document and return it, it was never sent back to (iraham, nor did he receive any response to it. After giving Graham his copy of the June 2 labor agree- ment, Harple did not see it again until some time later, when in Graham's office, Graham showed him a copy of the contract as apparently rewritten by Graham. Though Harple looked at Graham's copy at the time, and asked questions about it, he did not then, or later, compare this copy with that which had been reduced to writing by Fusile and himself earlier. Neither Gore nor Denecia testified concerning receipt of the contract from Graham. But Fusile stated that although he was not present at the local district office when the con- tract arrived there from Graham, he later picked up a copy of the contract, date stamped: "June 30, 1977, Lake Erie District Council of Carpenters." He compared this docu- ment with a working copy of the contract agreed to by Harple and himself which had been forwarded to him on June 9 by Harple. After finding them similar, he took the copy whch he had obtained from Denecia to Harple on July 5 and showed it to him,'6 advising him that the copy Fusile claimed a majority, the record does not support his claim. In an) event, however, since I have found that ratification was not made a precon- dition, whether or not a majority of employees signed checkoff authorization cards, it is irrelevant to the decision rendered herein. '~ Harple testified that the Union was to get signed authorization cards from unit employees indicating ratification or the contract. I have found, however, that ratification was never agreed to by the Union as a precondi- tion to execution of the contract, and cannot therefore be relied upon by the Company as a legitimate basis for refusing to execute an otherwise agreed upon contract. Houchens Market of Elizabethtown, Inc., 155 NLRB 729 (1965). IF G.C. Exh. 4, unsigned at the time. had been received, but that the reVised grievalice procedure had not yet been completed. At this point, according to I:usile, Ilarple asked him for the first time it he had ob- tained the dues checkoff authorization cards from the unit employees to show ratification, I:usile replied that obtain- ing authorization cards and ratification was not part ol the deal, that they had agreed on a contract and had shaken hands on it. Ilarple replied, "If you don't rati) it. I amn not going to sign it." Fusile therelore went out to talk to the employees about signing authorization cards. but was un- successful. Harple denied that he met with Fusile on July 5. IHe maintained that he was out of town on that day. relying on his appointment calendar for support. Moreover, he testi- fied, he did not see Fusile in June or July afler the June 2 meeting. On the other hand. Harple testified that in mid- July he received a telephone call fronl either Fusile or [)enecia during which he was asked to sign the contract. In response, larple asked whether the Union had obtained ratification and the signed authorization cards. When the reply turned out to he negative. H-arple stated, "Until you do that, I don't feel that I should sign the contract." Whether the contract occurred, in person as Vlusile testi- fied, or was by telephone' as larple testified. is of little import. In either case, the Union was attempting to obtain Respondent's agreement to the contract and Respondent was refusing to execute the contract until ratification by means of signatures on checkoff authorization cards was accomplished. In either case, there is no indication from the record that the Union agreed. in July. that ratification would be a precondition to execution of the formerly agreed upon contract. Ihis condition had been unilaterally set by Respondent back on June 2, if not earlier. Throughout the rest of July and early August there was no contact between the parties." On August 15, Fusile. who had been incapacitated because of an accident, visited the plant and presented a signed contract" fr execution. He stated, "Ernie (Denecia). signed this. All we are waiting for is your signature." He then placed the document on Harple's desk. HIarple, however, did not look at the docu- ment, but instead asked Fusile if he had the checkoffautho- rization cards signed. When Fusile said that he did not, Harple stated: "Get the contract ratified and I will sign it." Fusile replied, "We agreed on a contract on June the 2nd. We shook on it on June the 2nd. As far as I am concerned. we have an agreement."" Harple replied that until the "floor" ratified the contract, he received the checkoff cards. and he was assured of a work force, he would not sign the contract. Upon being advised that Harple would not sign the con- tract without ratification by the employees in the unit, l? Fusile also testified that he may have called Harple by telephone on July 18. but was not certain. i$ Fusile testified that he telephoned Harple's office and home several times, but his calls were not returned. " G.(C Exh. 4. 20 Fusile's description of the meeting of August 15 is strikingly similar to his description of the meeting of July 5, which Harple denies ever occurred For this reason I am inclined to find that there was no Jul) 5 meeting, but that the contents of the alleged July 5 meeting is a fictional composite of what occurred during the meetings of June 2 and August 15 and the tele- phone call of July 18. 6301 SENECA ENVIRONMENTAl PRODUCTS Fusile, as noted earlier, requested permission to talk with them once again. Harple granted permission, but Fusile's attempt to obtain agreement from the employees to sign checkoff authorization cards once again proved futile and Fusile left the premises without satisfactory results after ad- vising Harple that he still intended to get the signatures on the cards. In September. Fusile again called Harple but was re- ferred to Graham. Arrangements were made for the three to meet in Harple's office on September 20. On the ap- pointed date. Fusile arrived before Graham and waited in Harple's outer office until Graham arrived. When Graham arrived, he and Fusile went to talk with Harple. According to Fusile. he told Harple that he had gotten the checkoff authorization cards signed, but that Harple replied that he did not have enough cards, that he wanted "the thing rati- fied." Again, according to Fusile. Harple then stated, "You know what the situation is. I need personnel to run this plant. You know all the guys will quit." Harple. however. testified that he did not meet with Fusile alone on Septem- ber 20, but that Graham was always present. He further testified that at no time did Fusile offer to show authoriza- tion cards or even indicate that he had them to show. Ac- cording to Harple, Fusile stated that if he did not obtain ratification, on September 20, he would "walk." Graham supported Harple's testimony. On cross-examination, Fusile appeared to waiver and indicated that it was on some other occasion that he had advised Harple that he had obtained signatures on the checkoff authorization cards.2' I credit Harple and Graham's description of the events which occurred on September 20. At the end of the meeting on September 20, arrangements were made by Fusile and Gra- ham to meet in a couple of days with the employees. On September 22, in accordance with the arrangements made 2 days earlier, Fusi!e met with the employees, later to be joined by Graham. According to Harple. Fusile and Graham met with him after the meeting, and Fusile an- nounced that he had taken a poll and that he only had a few people who would sign dues checkoff authorization cards and who were in favor of ratifying the contract. He also stated that Harple would lose his work force because over half of the employees stated that they would leave his employ if Harple signed the contract. Neither at this nor at any time. before or after, did Fusile announce that he had obtained the support of a majority of the rank-and-file em- ployees for ratification. 4. Position of the parties As noted above. Respondent takes the position that the Union agreed from the beginning that ratification of the contract by the employees. as evidenced by execution of dues checkoff authorization cards by a majority of them. was a precondition to execution of the contract by Respon- dent. I have found the although the existence of such a precondition may have been the understanding of Respon- 21 Though I do not consider the fact of whether or not usile obtained a majority of signatures on the checkoff authorization cards at all controlling in the instant case. I find nevertheless, that he failed to do so and at no time obtained the majority he claimed dent's officers. and the Union had announced its intention to seek ratification. the alleged precondition was necer put specifically into words and in the absence of the required specificity, such a precondition will not he implied. I ind, therefore, that ratification was not a precondition to execu- tion of the contract and unless there is some other impedi- ment to Respondent's executing the basic agreement agreed upon on June 2. Respondent is in violation of the Act in refusing to do so. During the hearing Respondent noted that the document presented by Fusile to Harple on August 15. General Coun- sel's Exhibit 4. which purported to be a copy of the contract agreed upon on June 2. as revised by the parties' respective attorneys. was not in fact, the same as the one agreed upon. Attorney Graham noted in a post-hearing letter that it dif- fered from Respondent's Exhibit 3. which he personall drew up on behalf of Respondent for execution bh the Union. in that the International Union's name aas stricken from the document whenever it appeared and the name of' the Lake Erie District Council of Carpenters. substituted. Respondent emphasizes that it considers this to be a funda- mental change because it desires the International to be bound to any agreement entered into by the parties. Analysis and comparison of the two documents reeals that the described change in the name of the U'nion did, in fact, occur, twice in the grievance section (that section. inci- dentally, never having been revised 2 as initially planned: once in "Article XIII Union Responsibility') and finall?, on the signature page. The documents are othervise identi- cal. With regard to the execution of either contract, Ilarple testified at the hearing: A. If I received the checkoff cards as agreed. I would have gotten with my lawyer regardless of when it was or what else I would have had to do :ind re- viewed it with him and if he said that the legal terms were proper and the intent was not changed. I would have signed it. That is correct. Respondent's attorney. Arthur Graham testified as fol- lows: Q. And is it your understanding that your client would be willing to sign Respondent's Exhibit No. 3 today if he had proof that the employees had ratified that contract? Is that our position? A. Respondent's Exhibit No. 3? Q. That is correct. A. Being the contract that I prepared. that is cor- rect. That has always been our position since opening statement. Q. Your understanding is that Mr. Harple would place his signature on that document if he had proof that the employees had ratified it?2' 22 The planned revision and shortening of the grievance procedure wais included neither n Graham's copy of the contract. Resp Ekh 3. not In the tinion's copy, G.C Exh 4. Although reslsed griesance procedure. C; ( Exh 5, was eventually prepared bh the union attorne), t .Ias notI rece,scd by Fusile until a few dass belore the hearing and was never submitted Respondent for consideration. 23 (raham agreed to execute the document as Is. een tllh the iong. cUr bersome grievance provision which had been iniluded 6l1 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD A. Yes. by the presentation of the dues checkoff cards in the manner that he has related from the begin- ning, was the agreement. Clearly. by Respondent's own admission. but for the is- sue of the precondition of ratification by means of execu- tion of checkoff authorization cards by employees, which I have already fund not be a precondition, and therefore not an issue, it would be willing to execute Respondent's Ex- hibit 3 as the contract agreed upon by the parties on June 2. Having found that no precondition or other impediment exists upon which Respondent may rely in refusing to ex- ecute the labor agreement previously agreed upon, I find Respondent's refusal to execute the document, Respon- dent's Exhibit 3,24 in violation of Section 8(a)(5) of the Act. In summary, I have found that Respondent has insisted since June 2 that the contract be ratified as a condition of signing the agreement, in spite of the fact that ratification had not been mutually agreed to as a precondition to or term of the final agreement reached. Since ratification of a contract, under these circumstances, is a nonmandatory subject of bargaining, Respondent's insistance to impasse on ratification is tantamount to an improper refusal to bar- gain. Accordingly, Respondent's refusal to sign the agree- ment presented is violative of Section 8(a)(5) and (I) of the Act. C& W Lktra Bat Co., 209 NLRB 1038 (1974), South- land Dodge, Inc., 205 NLRB 276 (1973): Southeastern Michigan Gas Companv, 206 NLRB 60 (1973). 5. Discontinuance of safety meetings The complaint alleges that in July,25 Respondent, without prior notification to the Union. discontinued safety meet- ings which had been established by, and had occurred, un- der the terms of the negotiated, but unexecuted, collective- bargaining agreement. The contract does, in fact, contain "Article XVII Weekly Labor Management Meetings." and provides for periodic meetings between the Company and the Union for purposes of discussing mutual problems re- garding production, quality control, and similar matters. As noted earlier, once the basic agreement was arrived at on June 2, the parties agreed that certain provisions thereof would be implemented retroactively as of June 1. One of the provisions so implemented was article XVII, and begin- ning about a week after the last negotiating session, labor management meetings were initiated. Initially, the meetings were held on a weekly basis. Safety and production prob- lems were discussed, just as provided for in the agreement, at least at the beginning. Later, again according to Harple. these meetings devolved into gripe sessions about the way the Company was operated, then about the Union, but throughout, employee problems were discussed. The Com- pany was represented at these meetings by Harple and Smith while Charles Bernard and William Allen, both unit employees. participated on behalf of the Grievance Safety Committee. U The General Counsel. during his closing argument stated: "On behalf of the General Counsel and . .on behalf of the Union, it would not disturb us if you order the Employer to execute Respondent's Exhibit No. 3." 2" Harple testified that the last meeting was in August. According to Harple, after the unfair labor practice charge was filed, he consulted his attorney who advised him to discontinue the meetings. At the same time. Harple testi- fied, Allen stopped attending the meetings for personal rea- sons and Bernard also quit coming to the meetings, stating that not much was being accomplished. According to Harple. he placed no notice on the bulletin board concern- ing the cancelling of these meetings: they just died. Al- though Harple testified that the Union never requested ad- ditional safety/grievance meetings, their discontinuance was the subject of an amended charge filed on November 3. Despite being put on notice of the Union's displeasure with the discontinuance of the safety meetings, Respondent did not, so far as the record indicates, seek to reinstitute the practice of holding safety meetings, nor did Harple or his attorney contact the Union concerning the matter. Though mostly implied rather than stated, from the general tenor of Harple's testimony, it appears that the employees attending the later meetings spent much time complaining about the Union. particularly about dues requirements and their not being permitted to have their own local after having been told initially that they could. Rather than getting involved in such discussions, which Harple felt were not his concern, he refused to talk about such matters. Thereafter, following the filing of the unfair labor practice charge, and upon ad- vice of counsel, he simply ceased holding the meetings. Although, as Harple testified, the practice of holding these periodic grievance/safety meetings may simply have fallen into desuetude through lack of interest on the part of the employees, nevertheless, he also admitted that they were discontinued unilaterally by the Company upon ad- vice of counsel. Inasmuch as the meetings were provided for by the labor agreement which the parties mutually agreed to implement retroactively, and which, but for Re- spondent's unlawful refusal to execute, should have been effectuated in its entirety, Respondent was obligated to bar- gain any change in its provisions with the Union, and its unilateral discontinuance of these meetings without obtain- ing the Union's agreement was clearly violative of Section 8(a)(5) of the Act. and I so find. CONCUI.USONS ()F LAW I. Respondent is engaged in commerce within the mean- ing of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act and it will effectuate the purposes of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein. 2. The Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3. All regular and part-time production employees. but excluding all office clerical employees, professional, engi- neering, technical, school work programs, administrative employees, including working supervisors and guards as de- fined in the Act, constitute a unit appropriate for the pur- poses of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act. 4. Since April 25. 1977, the Union has been the duly designated exclusive representative of the employees in the aforesaid appropriate unit. 5. By refusing to sign a collective-bargaining agreement. the terms of which were otherwise agreed upon. unless and until the contract was first ratified by a majority of the 632 SENECA f:NVIRONMNlNT'AI PR()tI)('IS employees in the appropriate unit. Respondent has refused to bargain with the Union in iolation of Section 8(a)15) and (1) of the Act. 6. By unilaterally, and without prior notification to the Union, discontinuing safety meetings which had been insti- tuted, and had occurred, under the terms of the aforesaid collective-bargaining agreement, Respondent has refused to bargain in violation of Section 8a)(5) and (I) of the Act. 7. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. Tii: RNMI:I)Y Having found that Respondent has violated Section 8(a)(5) and (I) of the Act I will recommend that it be or- dered to cease and desist therefrom and take certain affir- mative action as set forth below designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law, and upon the entire record herein considered as a whole. and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act. I issue the fillow- ing recommended: ORDER 26 The Respondent, Seneca Environmental Products. Inc.. its officers, agents, successors, and assigns. shall: I. Cease and desist from: (a) Refusing to bargain collectively in good faith with Lake Erie District Council of Carpenters, affiliated with the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO, and United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America," AFL-CIO. by refusing, upon request, 26 n 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. 1024R of the Rules and Regulations, he adopted b) the Board and become its findings, conclusions, and Order, and all objections thereto shall be deemed waived for all purposes. 27 The name of the district council appears on p. I and the International appears on the signature page of the labor agreement identified as Resp Exh. 3, which all parties have agreed is most acceptable under the circum- stances. to sign the collective-bargaining agreement designated in the records and herein as Respondent's Exhibit 3, the terms and conditions of which were agreed upon on June 2. 1977. b) t nillaterall 5, and without prior notification to the I nion. discontinuing the holding of grie; ance safety meet- ings Which were instituted, and which ere held. under the terms of the ;tafresaid collecti, c-bargamlng agreement. (c) In any like or related manner nter intering ith, re- straining, or coercing employees in the exercise of their rights to seltf-organization, to form. join or assist labor or- ganizations, to bargain collectivsel through representatives of their own choosing. and to engage in other concerted activities for the purposes of collectie h;argaininig or other mutual aid or protection. or to refrain from anm, and all such activities. 2. Take the following affirmative action necessars to ef- fectuate the purposes and policies of' the Act. (a) Upon request bh the LUnion sign the collective-bar- gaining agreement designated herein as Respondent's Ex- hibit 3, the terms and conditions of which sere agreed upon on June 2. 1977. (b) Upon request by the Union. reinstitute the holding of griesance/safety meetings in accordance with the terms of the aresaid collective-bargaining agreement. (c) Post at its Tiffin, Ohio. place of business copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix. " : Copies of said no- tice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Re- gion 8. after being duly signed b its authorized representa- tive, shall be posted by Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof; and be maintained bN it for 60 consecutiv e dass thereafter, in conspicuous places. including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reason- able steps shall he taken bh Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered hby an other material. (d) Notify the Regional D)irector for Region 8. in writ- ing, within 2( days from the date of this D)ecision. what steps have been taken to comply herewith. 2t In the eent that this Order s entforced bh a Judgement of ai lnited States Courl of Appeals. the Words in the nontice reading "Posted hb Order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall be read "Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of thc I nited States (ourt 1o Appeal, tnforcing an Order of the National Labir Relalhions Board" 633