Peninsula Shipbuilders' Association

PENINSULA SHIPBUILDERS' ASSOCIATION Peninsula Shipbuilders' Association (Newport News Shipbuilding and Dry Dock Company) and United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO-CLC and Harwood Davis and Lenwood E. Archer. Cases 5 CB 2390. 5 CB 2420, and 5-CB 2466 December 14, 1978 DECISION AND ORDER BY MEMBERS JFNKINS. PINE.IO, ,N\D Mt RPHY On August 2, 1978, Administrative Law Judge Henry L. Jalette issued the attached Decision in this proceeding. Thereafter, General Counsel and the Re- spondent filed exceptions and supporting briefs. 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. ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Re- lations Board adopts as its Order the recommended Order of the Administrative Law Judge and hereby orders that the Respondent, Peninsula Shipbuilders' Association, Newport News, Virginia, its officers, agents, and representatives, shall take the action set forth in the said recommended Order, except that the attached notice is substituted for that of the Admin- istrative Law Judge. The Respondent has excepted to certain credibility findings made bs the Administrative Law Judge. It is the Board's established policy nolt 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 Dre 14Wall Product Inc,. 91 NLRB 544 (1950). enfd 188 F. 2d 362 (3d Cir. 1951). We hase carefully examined the record and find no basis for reversing his finding, APPENDIX NOTI(E To EMPLOYEES AND MEMBE!RS POSTED BY ORDER OF THil NATIONAL LABOR RFI ATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government After a hearing at which all sides had the opportunity to give evidence, the National Labor Relations Board found that we violated the National Labor Relations Act and ordered us to post this notice. Wi: , i NoI restrain or coerce employees in the exercise of their rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act: BN following employees and threatening them with bodily harm for supporting and assisting United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO- C(LC. in its campaign to supplant our organi- zation as the exclusive representative of the employees of Newport News Shipbuilding and Dry Dock Company in an appropriate bargaining unit. By assaulting employees because of their ac- tivities in support of United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO-CLC. By telling bargaining unit employees that we would not give them representation with re- gard to grievances concerning terms and con- ditions of employment because they are not members of our organization or because they have assisted United Steelworkers of America, AFL -CIO-CLC. By engaging in surveillance of the meetings of the United Steelworkers of America, AFL- CIO- LC. WlI WILL Nor in any other manner restrain or coerce employees in the exercise of rights guar- anteed in Section 7 of the Act. PLNINSt I A SHIPBU;IIDERS' ASS(X'IATION DECISION STAIEMENT OF THE CASE HENRY L JALETrE. Administrative Law Judge: This con- solidated proceeding is based on charges filed against the Peninsula Shipbuilders' Association (herein called the Re- spondent) by the United Steelworkers of America, AFL- CIO-CLC therein called the Union), in Case 5 CB-2390 on September 7, 1977,' by Haywood Davis in Case 5-CB- 2420 on October 6, and by Lenwood E. Archer in Case 5- CB-2466 on November 9. Pursuant to such charges, com- plaint issued in Case 5-CB-2390 on November 29, in Case 5 CB-2420 on December I (an amendment to this com- plaint issued on December 13), and in Case 5-CB-2466 on December 12. The complaints were consolidated for hear- ing by orders issued on December 2 and 13. The comp- laints allege that the Respondent engaged in conduct viola- tive of Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act. Upon the entire record, including my observation of the i tlnless otherwise indicated. all dates hereinafter are In 1977 831 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD witnesses, and upon consideration of the briefs filed by the parties, I hereby make the following: FINDIN(iS OF FA(TI I liHE FAI'(1AL SETTING Newport News Shipbuilding and Dry Dock Company (herein called the Company) is a Virginia corporation en- gaged in the construction and repair of oceangoing vessels at its Newport News, Virginia, location. The complaints allege, the Respondent admits, and I find that the Compa- ny meets the Board's $50,000 direct inflow standard for the assertion of jurisdiction. The Company employs about 25.300 employees, and at all times material herein it has recognized the Respondent, a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act, as the exclusive collective-bargaining representa- tive of its employees in a unit consisting of about 19.200 employees. Pursuant to a Board election in Case 5-RC-9911, on January 25, the Union had been certified as collective-bar- gaining representative of certain of the Company's employ- ees who were unrepresented, including senior designers. On April I, the Union went on strike for reasons not described herein, nor relevant to this proceeding. In 1977, the Union was also engaged in a campaign to obtain the right to represent the employees of the Compa- ny represented by the Respondent. The complaints allege that in the course of such campaign, the Respondent en- gaged in certain acts of restraint and coercion in violation of Section 8(b)(l)(A) of the Act. II. THE ALLEGED RESTRAINT AND COERCION A. The Facts Sometime in April, Haywood Davis, Lorenz Shelton, and Raymond Williams were discharged by the Company assertedly for smoking in a nonsmoking area. According to Davis, 3 or 4 weeks later, in May, he, Shelton. and Wil- liams went to the Respondent's office, where they asked to speak to Tobias, an assistant manager of the Respondent. Davis testified that Tobias asked him if he was a member of Respondent. Davis said no and Tobias said that he could not talk to him then. Shelton was a member of the Respondent and Tobias took him into his office. Sometime thereafter, Davis learned that Shelton had been reinstated and he called Tobias to ask why he had not been rein- stated. Tobias told him that he had not been reinstated because he was not a member of the Respondent, had not filed a grievance, and mentioned something about a statute of limitations. Lenwood Archer, an employee of the Company, a mem- ber of the Respondent until February 1978, and a volun- teer organizer for the Union, testified that on September 12 he learned from delegate Graham that a grievance he had filed had been denied. Graham suggested that Archer call Tobias and Archer did so the following day. He asked To- bias why his grievance had been denied and Tobias replied that they knew about him and to let the Union get it for him. Archer reminded Tobias that he was a member of the Respondent and Tobias repeated that he could let the Union get it for him and hung up. Edward Coppedge, a volunteer organizer for the Union, testified that, on May 22, a committee meeting was sched- uled for 4 at the Plumbers and Steamfitters Hall on War- wick Boulevard in Newport News. He arrived at the meet- ing early and observed Pat Stepp, an assistant manager of the Respondent, in his car parked in the parking lot across Warwick Boulevard at the Fox)y Cat Restaurant. Counting the time before the meeting and after the meeting started, Coppedge estimated that Stepp was parked in his car at that location over 1-1/2 hours. Volunteer organizers Oscar Petlow and R. C. Howard also testified to observing Stepp on this occasion. Howard also testified to attending a meeting at a Holi- day Inn on July 14, and that after he had arrived it was pointed out to him that there were two individuals sitting in a Chevrolet Vega, in the parking area of the Sheraton Inn which adjoins the Holiday Inn, who were observing who was coming in at the Holiday Inn through field glass- es. Howard accompanied union supporter William Turner in his truck to the location of the Vega and, from a dis- tance of about 10 feet, he observed John Tobias and An- drew Harris in the car. Harris, who is executive assistant business manager, had field glasses in his hand. Coppedge and Petlow testified that at this same meeting they saw George Carolina, a staff representative of the Re- spondent, in the parking lot at the rear of the Holiday Inn. On the afternoon of August 21, the Union was holding another meeting at the Plumbers and Steamfitters Hall. Earnest Surles, a designer who was on strike, testified that he observed a white Chevrolet about 100 to 150 feet away from the parking area of the meeting place, on the parking lot of the Foxy Cat Restaurant. He thought he recognized the car as belonging to the Respondent's assistant manag- er, W. D. London. He approached the car and noticed that the driver was London and standing outside the car was the Respondent's secretary, B. R. Pike. Two other people were sitting in the car. Surles then had a conversation with London, which he described as mostly light and joking, about the fact that they were sitting in the car. He testified that he thought, at one point, he invited London to come to the meeting as his guest. After several minutes, Surles left and returned to the meeting hall. He then moved to anoth- er location where he noticed another automobile in a pub- lic parking lot across Warwick Boulevard which he recog- nized as belonging to R. L. Daniels, assistant business manager of the Respondent. A few minutes later, Surles observed Pike joining Daniels. Surles was keeping both London's car and Daniels' car under observation, and about 20 to 30 minutes after the meeting started London left in his car. Daniels' car remained in the parking lot during two-thirds to three-fourths of the meeting. During most of that time, Daniels was sitting in the car with Pike. Surles estimated that Daniels spent well over an hour at that location. There were 400 to 500 employees in atten- dance at the meeting. People who attended the meeting were using the same parking lot in which Daniels had parked his automobile as well as the parking lot where London had parked his automobile. 832 PENINSULA SHIPBUILDERS' ASSOCIATION Michael Jurnigan, an employee of the Company and a volunteer organizer for the Union, testified that on August 31, during the lunch period, he was soliciting employees to sign cards on behalf of the Union at the 50th Street gate. He testified that there were about 40 delegates of the Re- spondent at various locations near the gate, as well as To- bias, and a large crowd of employees. Jurnigan was ad- dressing remarks to an individual approaching the gate, when Tobias approached him and told him not to block the gate. Jurnigan continued to solicit employees and Tobi- as pushed him first from one employee, then from another employee, pushing him with his hands against Jurnigan's chest. Jurnigan fell back when pushed and one of the times he raised his hand to show onlookers that he was not strik- ing at Tobias and at the same time yelling out the query whether this was the kind of representation the employees wanted. On September 1, Elliot Parkman, a senior designer on strike, was picketing at the 68th Street gate to the Com- pany's property. He testified that about 10 a.m. a car drove up to the picket line and four men jumped out and came up to him, boxed him in, and one of them, who he later learned was John Tobias, ripped the picket sign off his chest and threw it down a nearby cliff. Tobias then waved his finger at Parkman and said if he ever saw him there again he would go over the cliff like the sign did. Tobias and his companions then fled. On September 16, Carlton Hall, and employee of the Company and a volunteer organizer for the Union, was approaching the 35th Street gate enroute to work when he was engaged in a conversation by Otis Duffy, a friend of his and a supporter of the Respondent. Duffy had asked Hall to give him a union card, and Hall testified that as he was reaching into his pocket for one, Harvey Pike, a dele- gate of the Respondent, who was standing with Duffy, without uttering a word, struck him in the face twice then fled. Sherman Holland, a volunteer organizer for the Union, testified that on September 22, during the lunch period, he and two other volunteer organizers, Vines and Knowling, solicited employees to sign up with the Union at the 46th and 42d Street gates. About 12:45 p.m., they started back to work walking towards the 37th Street gate. Holland tes- tified that they were followed by Bob Daniels, an assistant business manager of the Respondent, B. R. Pike, secretary of the Respondent, and an unknown delegate; and that after they had entered the 37th Street gate, and as they were walking between some buildings, still being followed closely (about 5 feet), Daniels started driving his fist into his hand, mouthing obscenities, and inviting any of them to say something, pounding his fist as he was walking and talking. Holland testified they were followed all the way to the end of the pier. B. Analysis and Conclusions Except for the Jurnigan incident at the 50th Street gate, the Respondent offered no evidence to contradict the testi- mony of General Counsel's witnesses. Its defenses are that: (I) its conduct must be evaluated in the context of the conduct of the Union in its organizing activities; (2) it is not responsible for certain of the conduct described be- cause the individuals involved acted outside the scope of their authority; (3) the Jurnigan incident is de minimis and Jurnigan was as responsible for what occurred as Tobias; (4) the surveillance was not violative of the Act; and (5) the evidence does not support the allegation that the Respon- dent threatened to deny representation either to Davis or to Archer. I find the first defense lacking in merit for the reason that, assuming, arguendo, that the Union engaged in mis- conduct that would not justify the Respondent engaging in misconduct. I find the second defense lacking in merit. Section 2(13) of the Act provides that: In determining whether any person is acting as an "agent" of another person so as to make such other person respons ble for his acts, the question of wheth- er the specific acts performed were actually authorized or subsequently ratified shall not be controlling. And, as the Board indicated in International Longshore- men's and Warehousemen's Union, C.I.O., Local 6, el al. (Sunset Line and Twine Company): A principal may be responsible for the act of his agent within the scope of the agent's general authority, or the "scope of his employment" if the agent is a ser- vant, even though the principal has not specifically authorized or indeed may have specifically forbidden the act in question. It is enough if the principal actual- ly empowered the agent to represent him in the gener- al area within which the agent acted.2 The record indicates that all the individuals to whom mis- conduct was attributed by General Counsel's witnesses were agents of the Respondent. Thus, at the time of his alleged surveillance, Stepp was an assistant manager of the Respondent and a full-time salaried employee of the Re- spondent on leave from his job with the Company. Caro- lina is a staff representative. London, Daniels, and Tobias are assistant managers of the Respondent. All are on leave from their jobs with the Company. and use an office on company property to conduct business on behalf of the Respondent. Harris is executive assistant business manag- er, responsible for all administrative functions of the Re- spondent. B. R. Pike is secretary and an officer of the Re- spondent. Harveyv Pike is a delegate, an elected position. All the foregoing individuals participate in various stages of the grievance procedure and have been held out to the Company as agents of the Respondent. It is clear from the record, therefore, that the individuals herein charged with misconduct were agents of the Respondent. As the conduct was in furtherance of the interests of the Respondent and undertaken within their capacity as agents, I conclude that the Respondent was responsible for it. In light of the conclusion above, and based on the un- contradicted testimony of Parkman, Hall, and Holland, which I credit, I find that the Respondent violated Section 8(bX l)(A) of the Act by the conduct of Tobias on Septem- ber 1, in ripping the sign off Parkman and threatening him with bodily harm, by the conduct of Harvey Pike on Sep- 279 NLRB 1487. 1509 (1948). 833 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD tember 16, in his assault and battery on Hall, and by the conduct of Daniels on September 22, in following Holland, Vines, and Knowling and threatening them with bodily harm.3 As to the third defense, namely, that the Jurnigan inci- dent was de minimis and that Jurnigan was as responsible as Tobias, I find it lacking in merit for two reasons. First, there is no evidence that Jurnigan did anything to provoke Tobias beyond soliciting employees to sign union cards. He did not touch Tobias, menace him, or use abusive lan- guage. Unquestionably, Jumigan's solicitation of employ- ees provoked Tobias, but Jurnigan had the right to engage in such solicitation. Assuming, arguendo, that in doing so Jurnigan blocked the passage of an employee, that gave no license to Tobias to push him aside or otherwise intervene. It was not Tobias' responsibility to assure that ingress to the shipyard was not blocked. If, as the respresentative of an incumbent union, he felt he had a duty to the employees in the unit, his recourse was to the Company or the local police and not to self-help. The danger of self-help is, of course, that it may lead to a serious disturbance. For that reason, whether Tobias pushed Jurnigan once or twice with both hands, as Jurni- gan testified, or merely pushed him aside with one arm, as the Respondent's witnesses testified, is not important. In either case, Tobias' conduct was a restraint of Jurnigan and created the potential for more serious conduct. For that reason, plus the fact that the incident occurred in the presence of many employees and supporters of the Union, as well as a number of delegates of the Respondent. the incident can not be dismissed as de minimis. Accordingly, based on the testimony of the Respondent's own witnesses, Carlton Britt and Gene Clayton, that Tobias pushed Jurni- gan aside and prevented him from soliciting an employee, I find that the Respondent violated Section 8(b)(l)(A) of the Act. The fourth defense, that the surveillance herein de- scribed is not violative of the Act, is predicated on the theory that surveillance by a labor organization, unlike sur- veillance by an employer, does not tend to restrain and coerce employees in the exercise of Section 7 rights. In support of this position, the Respondent adverts to the tes- timony of Surles that he invited London to the meeting on the occasion when London was in the parking lot on Au- gust 21. I find the defense lacking in merit. The fact that Surles invited London to the meeting when he discovered London in the parking lot proves nothing. London did not accept the invitation: rather, he, along with other agents of the Respondent, remained in the park- ing lot where they could observe the arrival of unit employ- ees to the meeting. Their presence, I find, would have an inhibitory effect on employees attending the meeting. This finding is applicable to all the meetings where the agents of the Respondent were observed by unit employees, albeit volunteer organizers. The inhibitory effect can reasonably be inferred from the fact that the Respondent was the in- cumbent union from whom the unit employees were re- quired to obtain representation in matters affecting their The complaint in Case 5 -CB -2390 also alleges that the conduci of Dan- iels constituted surveillance I fail to see an) surveillance in the incident. terms and conditions of employment. As the testimony of Archer and the finding of the Board in Newport News Ship- building and Dry Dock Company, el al., 233 NLRB 1443, (1977), show, 4 the employees could well fear that knowl- edge of their presence at union meetings would result in their being deprived of rights of fair representation by the Respondent. On the basis of the foregoing, and the uncontradicted testimony of General Counsel's witnesses, I find that the agents of the Respondent who were observed at the union meetings on May 22, July 14, and August 21 were engaged in surveillance of employees and that the Respondent thereby restrained and coerced employees in violation of Section 8(b)(l)(A) of the Act. The fifth defense, namely, that the evidence fails to sup- port the allegation that Tobias threatened to deny repre- sentation to Davis and to Archer, is essentially an argu- ment against the credibility of Davis and Archer. Archer, it is argued, cannot be credited because of a demonstrated hearing difficulty, and Davis because of highly improbable testimony.5 Moreover, statements such as those attributed to Tobias were assertedly contrary to the Respondent's clearly set forth policy. The Respondent's arguments might have carried the day had the testimony of Archer and Da- vis been contradicted. Absent that, I am not persuaded that the matters referred to above warrant a finding that Archer and Davis were not credible witnesses. In this con- nection, I would note that Tobias' conduct relative to Park- man and Jurnigan described above, and his surveillance of a union meeting, demonstrated his disregard for the rights of employees under Section 7 of the Act. In addition, while the Respondent's policy may be to accord fair representa- tion to all employees, members and nonmembers alike, the statement to Archer was based not on a lack of member- ship (in fact, Archer was a member of the Respondent) but on Archer's activity on behalf of the Union. For the foregoing reasons, I find that the Respondent restrained and coerced employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act by telling Davis and Archer that they could not be represented because, in Da- vis' case, he was not a member of the Respondent; and in Archer's case, because he was a supporter of the Union. iI. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of the Respondent set forth in section I1, above, occurring in connection with the Company's opera- tions described in section 1, above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relationship to trade, traffic, and com- merce among the several States and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce. IV THE REMEDY Having found that the Respondent has engaged in, and I take official nonce of the Board's decision. For example, [)arls, discharged for smmkLng In a nonsmoking area. testi- fied that he did not smoke at the time of the discharge and only took up smoking a few weeks before the hearing. 834 PENINSULA SHIPBUILDERS' ASSOCIATION is engaging in, certain unfair labor practices, I will recom- mend that it be required to refrain therefrom and to take certain affirmative actions designed to effectuate the pur- poses and policies of the Act. The affirmative action nor- mally required to remedy unfair labor practices of the type herein found is the posting of notices. In his brief, General Counsel asks for variations on that remedy. Thus, he re- quests a special heading on the notice to be posted: name- ly, a heading of notice to employees and members. He also requests posting on bulletin boards utilized by the Respon- dent in the shipyard and publication in the monthly news- paper which the Respondent publishes. Finally, General Counsel requests that the Respondent be required to send a copy' of the notice to all employees of the shipyard. both design unit and production unit, at its own expense for reproduction and postage. The predicate for General Counsel's requests is that the Respondent has repeatedly shown its disregard for the rights of employees under Section 7 of the Act as shown by the Board's Order dated January 27. 1976, in Peninvsula Shipbuilders' Association, JD-735 75. and the Board's De- cisions and Orders in Newport News Shipbuilding and Dry Dock Companyr and Peninsula Shipbuilders' Assoc,aution, su- pra, 236 NLRB 1470 (1978), and 236 NLRB 1499 (1978), all of which I take official notice. Granted that is the case to a degree, I am not persuaded that all the special addi- tions to posting requested by General Counsel are neces- sary to effectuate the policies of the Act. As to the request that the notice be headed notice to employees and members, the predicate for it is that the objects of the Respondent's unfair labor practices have been shown generally to be nonmembers and a notice to members would lack the necessary reassurance to non- members that they can exercise their Section 7 rights with- out fear of restraint and coercion. The argument has clear merit and the notice will be prepared accordingly. As to posting in the shipyard, the same consideration applies. Nonmembers would not likely see the notice if it were posted only at the Respondent's office away from the shipyard and, while the Company will be asked to post, the fact that the Respondent also posts in the shipyard will give added reassurance to employees. As to publication in the Respondent's newspaper, the Respondent's demonstrated disregard for the rights of em- ployees under Section 7 of the Act warrants requiring it to use this additional method of notifying employees of their rights. However, with the posting requirements herein rec- ommended and publication in the newspaper. the policies of the Act can be effectuated without imposing on the Re- spondent the onerous requirement of mailing notices to in excess of 20,000 employees. Cf. Local Union No. 3, Interna- tional Brotherhood of Electrical Workers. AFL-CIO (East- ern States Electrical Contractors, Inc.), 205 NLRB 270 (1973). Finally, in light of the Respondent's demonstrated disre- gard for the rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act, the danger that it may commit other unfair labor practices in the future may reasonably be anticipated and justifies or- dering the Respondent from in any manner infringing upon the rights of employees guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record in the case, I make the following: CONCLI SIONS OF LAW I. The Company is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 2. The Respondent, Peninsula Shipbuilders' Associa- tion, and United Steelworkers of America, AFL CIO- CLC. are labor organizations within the meaning of Sec- tion 2(5) of the Act. 3. By the conduct of the Respondent's agents in follow- ing employees, threatening employees with bodily harm, assaulting employees, engaging in surveillance of the union activities of employees, and telling employees that they would not give them representation with regard to griev- ances because they were not members of the Respondent or because they had assisted United Steelworkers of Amer- ica. AFL-CIO-CLC, the Respondent has engaged in. and is engaging in, unfair labor practices within the meaning of Sections 8(h)(l)(A) and 2(6) and (7) of the Act. ORDER 6 The Respondent. Peninsula Shipbuilders' Association, Newport News. Virginia, its officers, agents. and represen- tatives, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Restraining or coercing employees in the exercise of their rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act by following employees, threatening employees with bodily harm, as- saulting employees, engaging in surveillance of the activi- ties of the employees on behalf of United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO-CLC. and telling employees that it will not represent them with regard to the processing of grievances because of their lack of membership or because of their support of the United Steelworkers of America, AFLO-CIOLC. (b) In any other manner restraining or coercing employ- ees in the exercise of their nghts guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action which is neces- sary to effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Post at its offices and meeting halls, including its offices on the premises of the Company, and on the bulle- tin boards on the Company's premises on which the Re- spondent customarily posts notices, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix." 7 Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 5, af- ter being duly signed by the Respondent's representative, In the event no exceptions are filed as provided bh Sec 102.46 of the Rules and Regulations of the Natinal iLabor Relations Board. the findings. conclusions. and recommended Order herein shall. as provided in Sec 102.48 of Ihe Rules and Regulations. hbe adopted h) the Board and become its findings. conclusions. and Order. and all objections thereto shall be deemed waled for all purposes In the event that this Order is enforced b) audgment of a United States Court of Appeals. the words in the notice reading "Posted hbs Order of the Natlonal t.abor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursuant tio a Judg- ment of the Ilnited States Court of Appeals E[nforcing an Order of the National l.abhr Relations Board." 8i5 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD shall be posted by it immediately upon receipt 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 Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (b) Deliver to the Regional Director for Region 5, signed copies of the notice for posting by Newport News Shipbuilding and Dry Dock Company, the Company will- ing, at its Newport News. Virginia. shipyard, in places where notices to employees are customarily posted. (c) Publish a complete text of the attached notice marked "Appendix" in a conspicuous place in its monthly publication. The Shipbuilder, and distribute a copy of said publication in the same manner in which the publications are customarily distributed. (d) Notify the Regional Director for Region 5, in writ- ing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith. 836