Eureka Chemical Co.

162 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Eureka Chemical Company and International Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's Union , Local No. 6. Case 20-CA-3995. May 31,1967 DECISION AND ORDER BY MEMBERS FANNING, JENKINS, AND ZAGORIA On January 17, 1967, Trial Examiner Eugene K. Kennedy issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Decision. Thereafter, Respondent filed exceptions to the Decision and a supporting brief, and the General Counsel filed an answering brief to Respondent's exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three- member panel. The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial Examiner's Decision, the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions,' and recommendations of the Trial Examiner. ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board adopts as its Order the Recommended Order of the Trial Examiner and hereby orders that the Respondent, Eureka Chemical Company, San Francisco, California, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order. I These findings and conclusions are based, in part, upon credibility determinations of the Trial Examiner, to which the Respondent has excepted After a careful review of the record, we conclude that the Trial Examiner's credibility findings are not contrary to the clear preponderance of all the relevant evidence Accordingly, we find no basis for disturbing those findings Standard Dry Wall Products, Inc , 91 NLRB 544, enfd 188 F 2d 362 (C A 3) TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE EUGENE K. KENNEDY, Trial Examiner: This case was heard in San Francisco, California, on October 13, 14, 18, 19, and 25, 1966.' It involves the issues of whether Eureka Chemical Company, herein Respondent , unlawfully interfered with the rights of its employees by making threats and promises of benefit in connection with union organization , whether there was an unlawful refusal to bargain, and unlawful discriminatory discharges , violative of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended , herein the Act. Upon the entire record , my observation of the demeanor of the witnesses , and a consideration of the briefs submitted by Respondent and the General Counsel, I make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT I THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT AND JURISDICTION OF THE BOARD The Respondent is and at all times material herein has been a California corporation with its manufacturing facilities and principal place of business located in San Francisco, California. It is engaged in the manufacture, distribution, and sale of surface chemical products. Its principal product is called fluid film which is a rust and corrosion preventive. During the past year, Respondent purchased and received in California, goods and materials valued in excess of $50,000 which were shipped to it directly from outside the State of California. Also during the past year Respondent sold and shipped goods and materials valued in excess of $50,000 directly to customers located outside the State of California. Respondent is now, and has been at all times material herein, an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED Although denied in its answer , Respondent stipulated that International Longshoremen 's and Warehousemen's Union , Local No. 6, herein the Union , is a labor organization within the meaning of the Act. III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Preliminary Comments The stock in Respondent Company is entirely owned by Mrs. Rae Hess, who is the president and treasurer of the Company. Her son, Paul Hess, is vice president. One of his principal functions is connected with the sale of Respondent's products. Respondent has sales representatives in various parts of the world. Anna Hess, the daughter of Mrs. Hess, is the secretary. As of March 11, 1966, the date the Union requested recognition, Respondent's personnel, located in San Francisco, consisted of the three alleged discriminatees, Chalmers Jones, Archie Brown, and Marion Brooks. In addition there were Plant Manager Robert Mikesell, laboratory technicians Raymond Lynch and Joseph Lawrence, Chief Chemist Thomas Stanton, Turner Richards, head of photographic research, Helen Koski, bookkeeper, and Ross Thomas, West Coast sales manager. The facilities in San Francisco include a two-story building and a parking and storage area. The lower floor is the area where the chemical products are made and the raw materials stored. The upper floor contains offices for the clerical personnel ' The charge in this case was filed on March 17, 1966 The complaint was issued on June 29,1966 165 NLRB No. 7 EUREKA CHEMICAL CO. 163 and officers of Respondent, a laboratory, and a storage section. This record contains several credibility issues to be resolved as well as requiring a resolution of the issues presented. At the outset, a general observation will be made which pervades all the testimony in the case and which, although not specifically repeated hereafter, is a factor bearing on the findings made herein. Paul Hess and his mother, Mrs. Rae Hess, appeared to be intensely affected emotionally when testifying with respect to the events involved. The impression was obtained that their objectivity as witnesses was impaired by an extreme hostility to the Union. For example, when testifying as to conversations with union officials, Paul Hess stated with emphasis that when King, a union official, addressed him outside the plant to arrange a discussion, Paul Hess responded: "I don't speak to you or anyone else in the middle of the street." In his conversations with union officials concerning recognition of the Union, Paul Hess never invited them to sit down and also testified with emphasis: "Mr. King has never been in my private office." Similarly Mrs. Rae Hess testified that she "apprehended" Chalmers Jones one night going into the plant. As her testimony unfolded it developed according to her version that she unlocked the door to let Jones in and that he told her he was returning to get his wallet. Nothing in the record indicates that he was returning to the plant for any other purpose. B. The Events and Violations of the Act 1. The refusal to bargain On March 11, 1966 , LeRoy King, International representative for the International Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's Union, commonly referred to as the ILWU, and Keith Eickman, business agent for the Union, met with Respondent's vice president, Paul Hess, in the waiting room of his office in San Franc isco.z King advised Hess that the Union represented his warehouse and production employees and that "we would like to sit down and talk to him about recognizing the Union."' Hess asked , "What do you want me to do about it?" King then handed Hess a document entitled , "Recognition Agreement" and requested that Hess sign it. The proposed agreement provided for Respondent's recognition of the Union as the exclusive representative of Respondent's warehouse employees excluding clericals, guards, and supervisors . After Hess looked at it he asked King, "How do I know you represent my employees." King then handed Hess the three recognition cards signed by Jones, Brooks, and Brown , the alleged discriminatees. Hess removed a paper clip holding them together and examined every card and then said , "I will have to check and find out if these are my employees' signatures."4 Hess also told King and Eickman that two employees in the unit were going in the Army.' King indicated this was not significant and renewed his request that Hess sign the recognition agreement and a contract could be negotiated later. Hess then said he was leaving the city and that he could not give King and Eickman an answer until March 28,1966.6 Hess also testified that he told King that the corporate officers had to be advised of the request that this recognition agreement be signed and considered. The insincerity of this claim can be assessed by events occurring subsequently. On the evening of March 15, 1966, Chalmers Jones, one of the discharged employees, called King and asked why he had not heard about the progress of union recognition. King replied that Hess would be out of town until March 28, 1966. Jones told King that Hess was still around and also advised King that none of the three employees in the unit were going in the Army. On the evening of March 16, 1966, Chalmers Jones, Marion Brooks, and Archie Brown were fired although there was additional work to be done; they were fired on a day that was not the end of a pay period. A picket line was established on the morning of March 17, 1966. King unsuccessfully tried to see Hess on March 17 but did talk to him in his office on March 18, 1966. King had tried to contact Hess by phone on March 16, 1966. He had left his telephone number with Hess' secretary but did not receive a call. After the picket line was established on the morning of March 17, 1966, King spoke to Hess and Hess said he would meet with King at 2 p.m. that afternoon. Hess did not appear for the appointment. King waited until 3 p.m. and then left. On the morning of March 18, 1966, King again requested recognition of the Union which Hess refused, but in his testimony he admitted he may have recognized the Union if the pickets were withdrawn and King had been more genteel. This admission points up the fictitious nature of the claim that Paul Hess lacked authority to recognize the Union or that he doubted it represented a majority of the production or plant employees, or that there was any issue between Respondent and the Union as to the appropriateness of the bargaining unit. The record establishes that the refusal to recognize the Union on March 11, 1966, was in bad faith. Although on that occasion Paul Hess stated he wished to verify the signatures of the employees, he made no effort to do so and his giving the reason for postponing a further meeting until March 28, 1966, was clearly designed to provide time to maneuver into a position to avoid recognizing the Union. The precipitous discharge of the three and only union adherents on March 16, 1966, supports the reason assigned for the delay by Paul Hess in recognizing the Union. Although the record indicates Respondent has some facilities in Mobile, Alabama , all the events here under consideration occurred in San Francisco On March 8, 1966, King had obtained signed authorization cards from Respondent's three production and maintenance employees , the total number in the unit The above version of the incident was given by King and corroborated by Keith Eickman Both appeared to be objective, straightforward, and truthful witnesses The version given by Hess of this incident is not credited He testified to the effect that King did not give him the cards for examination but held them in his hand about 6 feet away from Hess s Hess testified he told King one or two of the employees were to be drafted There was no basis for this as Jones had a physical disability, and Brooks and Brown were each about 40 years old and beyond draft age. Viewing the whole record, it is apparent that Respondent, acting chiefly through Paul Hess, advanced a variety of fictitious reasons for refusing to accord recognition to the Union 6 King recalls that Hess said he had to go to a southern State below the Mason-Dixon line. Eickman recalls that Hess said he had to go to Mobile, Alabama (Respondent has a warehouse in that city ) Hess testified he told King and Eickman he was going to Los Angeles The record indicates Hess did not go to any of those places or, in any event if he did , his visit was very brief and not a plausible reason for postponing his answer until March 28, 1966, on the basis that he would be out of town 164 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD All the ingredients of an unlawful refusal to bargain and a violation of Section 8(a)(5) of the Act are present. The demand and refusal first occurred on March 11, 1966, and was reenacted on March 18, 1966. It is patent the unit of employees is appropriate. They are low paid hourly employees with a pay range from $2 an hour for Brown and Brooks to $2.13 an hour for Jones. Their work consists of mixing materials and chemicals under the supervision of Robert Mikesell, the plant manager, and other types of manual work such as cleaning 55-gallon steel drums, truckdriving, and janitorial work. Although Plant Manager Mikesell spent a portion of his time doing some of the same kind of work as Jones, Brooks, and Brown, Respondent concedes, and it is clear, he is a supervisor within the meaning of the Act. The balance of the employees are officers of the Respondent or salaried employees with educational degrees and one salesman for the West Coast. Since the work of the employees involved in the request for union recognition does include production and maintenance work in the plant, it is found that the appropriate unit consists of: All production and maintenance employees, excluding clerical employees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act. The apparent contention of Respondent that Jones, Brooks, and Brown were casual laborers and consequently should not constitute a bargaining unit is not tenable. Jones commenced work in July 1965, and worked regularly in addition to working overtime until he was discharged on March 16, 1966. Brooks and Brown commenced working for Respondent in November 1965, until their termination on March 16, 1966, along with Jones. All three were hired initially on a temporary basis through the casual labor department of the State of California Employment Service. However, after working a few days, each was told by Mikesell that they could work on a permanent basis. Jones received two increases in his wages; Brooks and Brown each received one. Brooks and Brown as well as Jones worked a regular 5-day week as well as overtime. For the purposes of collective bargaining, it is found Jones, Brooks, and Brown are regular employees and eligible members of the bargaining unit. Since the entire complement of the unit extended authorization rights to the Union, the majority representation is established. 2. Interrogation, threats, and promises of benefit On March 10, 1966, ILWU Representative King visited Respondent's plant and asked Plant Manager Mikesell to speak to Mr. or Mrs. Hess. Upon being informed they were not present, King left his business card with Mikesell. Later the same day Mikesell asked Chalmers Jones, one of the alleged discriminatees, who in the plant was advocating the Union. Mikesell then stated to,Jones that ' Mikesell denies the above version of Jones His/testimony is set forth below Neither his denial or other aspects of his testimony is credited. Mikesell's manner of testifying reflected that he was carrying out the policy of Mrs Hess and Paul Hess which was dedicated so strongly to avoiding"unionization that the objectivity of their testimony was severely impaired On the other hand, Chalmers Jones gave the'lmpression of an honest, ingenuous witness. His confusion with respect to some dates and times is regarded as not relevant to the portion of his testimony significant to the issues presented Mikesell's version is that he commented to Jones that Mrs Hess was generous in giving sick leave to Jones Then according to Mikesell, Jones said maybe he should not have joined the Union Mikesell also testified that he asked Jones why he wanted to join the Union since he was going to he would discharge anyone he found was advocating the Union. After King presented his request for recognition of the Union to Paul Hess on the morning of March 11, 1966, Mikesell in effect told Jones he could get him a raise to $2.30 an hour, but that he did not want to do it at that time because later he could get Jones some kind of a managerial job as Respondent was going to expand and build a new plant.' Mikesell also told Jones that the Respondent was "against the Union in any form." Following this comment, Mikesell told Jones to "take it easy for awhile." In the context of the described events, it seems probable that Mikesell was implicitly suggesting to Jones, the senior employee in the bargaining unit, that he would be rewarded with a better job with Respondent if he abandoned the Union, and it is so found. On March 11, 1966, after King's visit to Paul Hess, Mikesell asked Jones if it were true the employees had signed authorization cards. Inasmuch as Paul Hess had stated he wanted to verify the fact the employees had signed such cards, there is a color of justification for such questioning by Mikesell. In any event it would add nothing to the proposed remedy and order to find this a separate violation. 3. Discrimination against employees Jones, Brooks, and Brown At the end of the workday on March 16, 1966, Plant Manager Mikesell gave Jones, Brooks, and Brown their checks. This was not an ordinary payday. Previously on that day, Mikesell had given Jones instructions related to working with Respondent's products and had told Brown that on the following day he was to go to South San Francisco to pick up a pump and also to make a delivery in Palo Alto, both communities located within a radius of 30 miles of San Francisco. When the three employees were handed their checks, all of them recall the reason for discharge or layoff as given by Mikesell as relating to lack of work. Brown and Brooks recalled Mikesell saying to them that he would call them when work picked up. As reflected above, the Respondent had knowledge the three discriminatees had authorized the Union to represent them. The actions and comments, particularly of Paul Hess, corroborated in part by Mikesell, establish that Respondent was intensely hostile to union organization.8 The timing of the discharge coming shortly after Respondent had knowledge of the union organizational activity and the precipitous nature of the discharge not on a regular payday when there was work remaining to be done for the discriminatees are also factors in establishing a strong prima facie case of unlawful discrimination. The defenses of Respondent will next be considered. In view of the findings made herein, there are no defenses work at Hunters Point (a naval shipyard) where there was civil service and no unions 8 The fact that apparently the officers of the Respondent, the salaried supervisors, and technical employees did take over the manual labor involved in the production of fluid film, the Respondent's main product , retrospectively supports the finding that Respondent was extremely hostile to union organization when it was occurring and took every means within its power to stop it, including the discharge of the three union adherents. Evidence of the Respondent's continued hostility to union organization is also found in the fact that the three discrimmatees were not recalled and Respondent's officers and supervisors continued to perform manual production work apparently at least until the date of the hearing herein EUREKA CHEMICAL CO. meriting discussion of the violation of Section 8(a)(5) and (1). Respondent in its answer admits it refused to recognize the Union. With reference to the defenses advanced to the alleged 8(a)(3) violations, some discussion is indicated. At the outset the record indicates that Hess never indicated to King or Eickman that the reason he refused to recognize the Union or fire the three discriminatees was because of lack of orders or raw materials. At the hearing the lack of wool grease, an essential component of Respondent's main product, and the lack of orders emerged as the chief defense for the discharges. Mrs. Hess and Paul Hess testified production terminated on March 14 or 15, 1966. The three discriminatees testified that production was in effect through March 16, 1966, as did Plant Manager Mikesell. Mrs. Hess testified that Respondent did not manufacture goods for inventory in the last half of 1965 or 1966. However, Paul Hess contradicted her by testifying the sales of approximately $14,000 per month in March and April 1966 all came from inventory. Paul Hess testified there were several discussions among officers and supervisors of Respondent concerning a layoff prior to March 1966. However, he modified this by saying there was just one meeting for the purpose of reducing the payroll which was held on either March 14 or 15, 1966. There was a daytime meeting and an evening meeting, on one of these days. One of the topics was the subject of the Union's request for recognition. Allegedly there was also discussion about the lack of wool fat to produce Respondent's main product, fluid film. There was also mention of the lack of orders for their Respondent's products. Assuming a decline in orders for fluid film, there were prior occasions, according to Paul Hess and Mikesell, when there were no orders when the plant and warehouse personnel were not terminated. At no time from January 1965 until March 16, 1966, did Respondent employ less than two full-time plant employees although in March 1965, there were no orders for Respondent's products. According to the credited testimony of the discriminatees, there were several days' work remaining when they were terminated. In addition to the completion of production of some fluid film, there were about 150 drums to be cleaned which would take several days. At the meeting of March 14 or 15, 1966, Mrs. Hess allegedly said that because of shortage of materials and orders the plant must be shut down immediately. It is curious, to say the least, that shutting down the plant consisted in terminating only the three union adherents while all the higher paid personnel were retained, and, in fact, activity at the plant continued. According to Respondent's records, production in March 1966 was 8,904 gallons; in April, 800; in May, 3,578; in June, 6,802; and in July, 13,200 gallons. Certainly by July there was warrant for recalling the discriminatees if Respondent was sincere in its reason for discharging them. Because of the many unreliable facts of Respondent's evidence, the extracts from their records, particularly the lack of wool grease is viewed with skepticism. However, even assuming the data on this to be accurate, the record establishes by a heavy preponderance of evidence, Jones, Brooks, and Brown were fired for their union adherence and were not recalled for the same reason. 165 IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of the Respondent set forth in section III, above, occurring in connection with the Respondent's operations described in section I, above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relationship to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Respondent is, and has been at all times material, an employer within the meaning of the Act and is and has been engaged in commerce and in a business affecting commerce within the meaning of the Act. 2. The Union is, and has been at all times material, a labor organization within the meaning of the Act. 3. Commencing on March 11, 1966, and continuing thereafter, Respondent has refused and continues to refuse to bargain with the Union, thereby violating Section 8(a)(5) of the Act. 4. By discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of Chalmers Jones, Marion Brooks, and Archie Brown, thereby discouraging membership in a labor organization, Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act. 5. By the acts set forth in paragraphs 3 and 4 and by making threats and promises of benefit to an employee to induce him to abandon the Union, Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. 6. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of the Act. THE REMEDY Having found that Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices it will be recommended that it cease and desist therefrom. It will be recommended that upon request the Respondent bargain in good faith with the Union and if an agreement be reached the same be reduced to writing and signed. It is further recommended that Respondent make Chalmers Jones, Marion Brooks, and Archie Brown financially whole for any loss of pay suffered by reason of the discrimination against them by payment to them of a sum of money equal to that amount of wages they would have earned but for said discrimination from the date of their discharge to the day they are offered reinstatement, together with interest thereon. Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716. The loss of pay shall be computed in accordance with the formula and method prescribed by the Board in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289. The nature and scope of Respondent's violations of the Act warrant a cease-and-desist order appropriate to counter the potential threat of further violations. RECOMMENDED ORDER Upon the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record in the case, it is ordered that Respondent, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Refusing to bargain collectively concerning wages, hours, and other terms of employment with International 299-352 0-70-12 166 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's Union, Local No. 6, as the exclusive bargaining representative of its employees in the following appropriate unit. All of Respondent's production and maintenance employees excluding clerical employees, guards and supervisors as defined in the Act.9 (b) Discouraging membership in any labor organization of its employees, by discharging or in any other manner discriminating against any employee in regard to his hire, or tenure of employment, except as authorized in Section 8(a)(3) of the Act. (c) Interrogating its employees or promising them benefits in an unlawful manner with relation to their Union or concerted activities, and in any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of rights under Section 7 of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Upon request, bargain with the above-named labor organization as the exclusive representative of all employees in the aforesaid appropriate unit with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment and, if an understanding is' reached, embody such understanding in a signed agreement. (b) Offer Chalmers Jones, Marion Brooks, and Archie Brown immediate and full reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent positions without prejudice to seniority or other rights and privileges and make them whole for any loss of pay suffered by them as described in the section of this Decision entitled "The Remedy." (c) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the Board or its agents for examination and copying, all payroll records and reports, and all other records necessary to compute the amount of backpay due. (d) Notify the above-named employees if presently serving in the Armed Forces of the United States of their right to full reinstatement upon application in accordance with the Selective Service Act and the Universal Military Training and Service Act, as amended, after discharge from the Armed Forces. (e) Post at its offices in San Francisco, California, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix."19 Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for Region 20, after being duly signed by Respondent's representative, shall be posted by Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (f) Notify the Regional Director for Region 20, in writing, within 20 days from the receipt of this Decision, what steps have been taken to comply herewith." Unless Respondent so notifies said Regional Director, it is recommended that the Board issue an Order requiring Respondent to take the aforesaid action. u The complaint characterized the unit as consisting of warehouse employees. Since the record is clear that these employees do production and maintenance work, they have here been designated as production and maintenance employees. "' In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board, the words "a Decision and Order" shall be substituted for the words "the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner" in the notice. In the further event that the Board's Order is enforced by LABOR RELATIONS BOARD APPENDIX NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor Relations Board and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, we hereby notify our employees that: WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain collectively with the International Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's Union, Local No. 6 as the exclusive representative of the employees in the bargaining unit described below. WE WILL NOT interrogate our employees or promise them benefits in any unlawful manner with relation to their union or concerted activities. WE WILL NOT discourage membership and activity in any labor organization of our employees by discriminating in any manner in regard to hire,, tenure, or other terms or conditions of employment. WE WILL, upon request, bargain with the above- named Union as the exclusive representative of all employees in the bargaining unit described below with respect to wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment and, if an understanding is reached, embody such understanding in a signed agreement. The bargaining unit is: All of Eureka Chemical Company's production and maintenance employees excluding clerical employees, guards, and supervisors as defined by the Act. WE WILL offer Chalmers Jones, Marion Brooks, and Archie Brown immediate and full reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent positions, without prejudice to any seniority or other rights and privileges and make them whole for any loss of pay suffered as a result of the discrimination against them. ' EUREKA CHEMICAL COMPANY (Employer) Dated By (Representative ) (Title) Note: We will notify the above-named employees if presently serving in the Armed Forces of the United States of their right to full reinstatement upon application in accordance with the Selective Service Act and the Universal Military Training and Service Act, as amended, after discharge from the Armed Forces. This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. If employees have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions, they may communicate directly with the Board 's Regional Office, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, Box 36047 , San Francisco, California 94102, Telephone 556-3197. a decree of a United States Court of Appeals, the words "a Decree of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the words "a Decision and Order." " In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board, this provision shall be modified to read: "Notify said Regional Director, in writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith."