Northwest Oil Equipment, Inc.

534 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Northwest Oil Equipment, Inc. and International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, Iron Shipbuilders, Blacksmiths , Forgers and Helpers , AFL-CIO, Local 647. Case 18-CA-2509 November 1, 1968 DECISION AND ORDER By CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS FANNING AND BROWN On June 18, 1968, Trial Examiner Phil Saunders issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the 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, the Respondent filed exceptions to the Decision and a supporting brief. 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 brief, and the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner, with the following additions: 1. The Trial Examiner concluded, and we agree, that the Respondent's termination of John Sundseth violated Section 8(a) (3) and (1). Our dissenting colleague, however, believes that the termination was lawful. The apparent basis of his argument is that Sundseth's discharge was for cause, namely, his refusal to see Koeplin. But the record clearly shows that this refusal was not the reason for Sundseth's discharge; indeed, the Respondent does not even so argue. Rather, it contends that its reason for termina- ting Sundseth "in accordance with" his original October 13 notice to quit was that it never had "definite" knowledge he had changed his plans and wished to continue working; and that, accordingly, it was "reasonable to assume" that Sundseth "still planned to quit." These assertions are without merit. As the Trial Examiner found, and as the record plainly shows, the Respondent in fact knew Sundseth had changed his mind about leaving, neither its business plans nor its company policies justified the termination; and the true reason the Respondent terminated Sundseth was to nd itself of a known union supporter before he could cast a vote-possibly decisive-in an imminent representation election. 2. As stated, we conclude that the termination of Sundseth was discriminatonly motivated. It follows that the nine employees who walked out in protest were engaged in protected, concerted activity, and were thus unfair labor practice strikers. But even assuming, arguendo, that the walkout on October 27 was an economic strike, on October 28 it was converted into an unfair labor practice strike; for on that date the Respondent terminated the nine strikers because they had walked out. Baldwin County Electric Membership Corp., 145 NLRB 1316, 1318 (1964); N.L.R B. v. Comfort, Inc, 365 F.2d 867, 873-875 (C.A. 8, 1966). 3. We also agree with the Trial Examiner's conclu- sion that the Respondent's liability for the strikers' backpay commenced on October 30, when it rejected their applications for reinstatement. We are persuaded by our examination of the record that these applica- tions for reinstatement were clearly unconditional. The Respondent's unsupported assertion to the con- trary is without merit. 4. The Trial Examiner recommended that certain issues bearing on the amount of the strikers' backpay be determined at the compliance stage of this proceeding. We agree, and note that the record is incomplete as to whether the Respondent made any valid offer of reinstatement after October 30; if so, on what date it was made, and to whom; and whether any such offer was improperly rejected, so as to toll backpay liability. ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board hereby adopts as its Order the Recommended Order of the Trial Examiner, as modified herein, and orders that the Respondent, Northwest Oil Equipment, Inc., Moorhead, Minne- sota, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order, as so modified: 1. In paragraph 1(c), substitute the words "to induce" for "in inducing." 2. In paragraph 1(f), substitute the words "inter- fering with, restraining, or coercing" for "interfere, restrain, or coerce." 3. Reletter the present paragraphs 2(d) and (e) to read 2(e) and (f), respectively, and insert the follow- ing as paragraph 2(d): (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. 173 NLRB No. 86 NORTHWEST OIL EQUIPMENT 535 4. Substitute the attached notice for that recom- mended by the Trial Examiner. CHAIRMAN Mc CULLOCH, concurring in part and dis- senting in part: I agree with the majority's decision except in its adoption of the Trial Examiner's finding that Re- spondent discriminatorily discharged employee Sund- seth. I would not find that the termination of Sundseth was unlawful. The barebone facts of Sundseth's termination which the Trial Examiner assumed were correct for the purposes of his Decision are these: About October 13, 1967, Sundseth notified Storsved, Respondent's agent, that he intended to quit at the end of 2 weeks. If Sundseth went through with this decision, he would not be eligible to vote in the representation election scheduled to be conducted in November. Sundseth was a Union adherent. The election was expected to be close. Several fellow employees who were also Union adherents remon- strated with him about his quitting because they felt they needed his vote if the Union were to win the election. About October 24, Sundseth notified Storsved that he had changed his mind, and would "stay around for a while." Storsved then informed Sundseth that his 2 weeks would be up on October 27, and that Sundseth should see President Koeplin about his decision to continue at work so that there would be no misunderstanding. Sundseth refused to meet with Koeplin and was terminated on October 27, in accordance with his original quit notice. Upon being notified that Sundseth had changed his mind about quitting on October 27, Respondent could reasonably require that Sundseth communicate his decision directly to President Koeplin, particularly since the shop was a small one and had relatively few employees. Presumably Koeplin would have ques- tioned Sundseth about how long he intended to remain, whether indefinitely, for a stated period, or only so long as necessary to enable him to vote in the election. If it was the latter, probably Respondent could have refused to accept the withdrawal of the quit notice. In any event, Respondent had the right to know Sundseth's intentions so as to make its own plans as to whether and when to secure a replacement for Sundseth. There is no question but that Sundseth refused to submit to an interview with Koeplin and the reason he gave for this refusal is not valid justification.' An employee has no right to insist upon employment on terms prescribed solely by him.' There is no evidence that Respondent was guilty of disparate treatment of Sundseth. Under the ' Sundseth testified that when Storsved told him to go into the office to see Koeplm, Sundseth replied that he did not want to see Koeplin because several other employees who had been in to see him had been offered better jobs in order to convince them to vote against the Union. 2 C G Conn, Ltd v N.L R.B., 108 F 2d 390, 397 (C. A. 7). circumstances, I would find that Respondent refused to accept Sundseth's attempted withdrawal of his quit notice for cause and not for discriminatory reasons. Hence, I would dismiss this allegation of the com- plaint. APPENDIX NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES This notice is posted by order of the National Labor Relations Board An Agency of the United States Government After a trial at which all sides had the chance to give evidence, the National Labor Relations Board found that we, Northwest Oil Equipment, Inc., violated the National Labor Relations Act. The Board therefore ordered us to post this notice. The Act gives all employees these rights To engage in self-organization, To form, join or help unions; To bargain collectively through a representative of their own choosing; To act together for collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection; and To refrain from any or all of these things. Accordingly, we give you these assurances. I AS TO YOUR RIGHTS AS EMPLOYEES WE WILL NOT do anything which interferes with the rights listed above. WE WILL NOT ask you any questions about the union activities, or union leadership, of any of our employees. WE WILL NOT spy on your union meetings or union activities. WE WILL NOT promise you wage increases, or other benefits, in an attempt to discourage you from supporting any union. WE WILL NOT fire you or take away any current job benefits-or threaten to do either of these things-because you join or support any union; NOR WILL WE do these things because you law- fully protest the layoff of fellow employees; NOR because you act together for your mutual aid and protection in other lawful ways. II. AS TO THE EMPLOYEES WE FIRED AND REFUSED TO REINSTATE The National Labor Relations Board found that we fired John Sundseth because he supported a union . The Board ruled that our firing him for this reason violated the National Labor Relations Act. WE WILL therefore offer to give him back his job with full seniority, and all other rights and priv- ileges. WE WILL also make up any pay he lost, with 6 percent interest. 536 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD The National Labor Relations Board also found that we fired (and later refused to reinstate) nine employees because they went on strike to protest Sundseth's unlawful discharge. The Board ruled that our firing them (and refusing to reinstate them) for this reason violated the National Labor Relations Act. WE WILL, therefore, offer to give back their jobs, with full seniority and all other rights and priv- ileges, to the nine strikers who were fired. They are, Carl Aamold Julian Gaikowski Dean Arneson Steven Grosz Erling Bjorndahl Arthur Kempenich William Burke Delbert Lee Theodore Solien WE WILL also make up any pay they lost, with 6 percent interest. If any person named above is presently serving in the Armed Forces of the United States, WE WILL notify him that he will be reemployed if he applies after his discharge. NORTHWEST OIL EQUIPMENT INC. (Employer) Dated By (Representative) (Title) 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, 316 Federal Building, 110 South 4th Street, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 , Telephone 612-334-2611. TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE PHIL SAUNDERS, Trial Examiner The unfair labor prac- tice charge on which the complaint of January 30, 1968, is based, was filed by International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, Iron Shipbuilders, Blacksmiths, Forgers and Helpers, AFL- CIO, Local 647, herein called the Union, on November 2, 1967, against Northwest Oil Equipment, Inc., herein called the Respondent or the Company. The issues litigated were whether or not the Company violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended The Company de- nied the unfair labor practice allegations. A hearing was held before me and all parties were represented, and were given full opportunity to examine and cross-examine witnesses, to introduce evidence, and to argue orally. The Company filed a brief and I have given it due consideration. Upon the entire record and from my observation and demeanor of the witnesses, I make the following FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT Respondent is and has been at all times material herein a Minnesota corporation having its principal place of business at Moorhead, Minnesota, where it is engaged in the manufacture, sale and service of fuel oil tanks and equipment. During calendar year 1967, Respondent sold in excess of $50,000 worth of its manufactured products and its services to customers located outside the State of Minnesota By virtue of its operations described above, Respondent is and has been at all times material herein an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act, and I so find. II THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED The Union is, and has been at all tunes material herein, a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES The amended complaint alleges that on or about October 23, 1967-all dates are 1967 unless specifically stated other- wise-the Company threatened its employees with discharge for having protested in concert a layoff notice given to Erling Bjorndahl, that on October 19, the Respondent engaged in surveillance of its employees attending a meeting of the Union,' that the Company promised wage increases if em- ployees rejected the Union, that the Respondent threatened employees with loss of existing benefits if they selected the Union, and it is also alleged that the Respondent interrogated employees as to the identity of their union leaders. It is further alleged that on October 27, the Respondent discriminatorily discharged employee John Sundseth in violation of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act, and that on October 27, the Company discharged nine other employees2 because they ceased work concertedly and went out on strike in support of and activities on behalf of the Union. It appears that the Union commenced its organizing campaign some time in the late summer or early fall of 1967. On September 29, the Company was notified the Union represented a majority of production and maintenance em- ployees, and requested recognition. The Company was of the opinion the Union did not represent a majority and on October 2, the Union then filed a petition for an election (18-RC-7308) in the unit mentioned above and consisting of 23 employees. On October 23, the parties entered into a consent election agreement and the election was scheduled for November 7. This election was held, but the General Counsel produced testimony through the Union's international repre- sentative, Thomas Conway, to the effect that the final results of the election are still pending as the Company challenged the votes of those employees it discharged on October 27, as aforestated, and these ballots were impounded by the Board's Regional Office and have not been counted. There were 12 unchallenged ballots and they were counted. The credited evidence in this record shows that on or about October 23, Respondent Supervisor Milton Johnson, known as Al Johnson,' raised the subjects of company benefits- I The Company admits this allegation , and therefore, the General Counsel did not produce any evidence in relation thereto CCarl Aamold Steven Grosz Dean Arneson Arthur Kempenich Erling Brorndahl Delbert Lee William Burke Theodore Solien Julian Gaikowski 3 Respondent's Foreman Milton or Al Johnson and Respondent's president, Marvin Koeplin , are supervisors within the meaning of the Act, and the Company so admits NORTHWEST OIL EQUIPMENT 537 insurance, retirement, coffee breaks, profit sharing and bonuses, in a discussion with employee Joe Robison and then told Robison the employees could lose all of these benefits if the Union came in. Johnson further informed Robison that employees could also get a "cut in pay" if the Union came in, and if the employees forgot about the Union they could get 11 cents an hour increase in wages. Robison then informed Johnson that he would talk to the other employees about it In October, Supervisor Johnson inquired of Theodore Solien if he knew who the instigators of the Union were, and then mentioned the names of Joe Robison and Delbert Lee as the employees who he thought were the leaders 4 In early October, the Respondent's president, Marvin Koeplm, in- formed Carl Aamold the wages paid by the Company were comparable to the wages at the nearby Fargo Foundry, and on this basis it was possible that truckdriver Joe Robison would have to take a cut in his wages. Koeplin then took out a piece of paper and wrote $2.35 on it-the hourly rate Aamold was then getting-and wrote 50 cents under it Aamold testified he assumed this meant an increase in his pay, but Koeplin told him he could not do anything about it as he might get into trouble. Koeplin then picked up his telephone and called Supervisor Johnson and asked Johnson, "Do you think Carl [Aamold] would make a good leadman'" Shortly after this conversation, Koeplin again sought out Aamold and presented another piece of paper to him with the figures of $2.35 and 50 cents written under it and also figures representing a bonus and profit-sharing amounts. On cross-examination, Aamold agreed that company hospital and insurance benefits paid to each employee amounted to the equivalent of 18 cents an hour, agreed that the company bonus amounted to 19 cents an hour per employee, and also the company profit-sharing payments to each employee amounted to 35 cents an hour, and in consideration of the above this would make his hourly rate above $3 an hour. Aamold then testified, " But I did not take it to be that at the time " Regardless of whatever intent Koeplin may have had or whatever might have prompted these figures, it is hardly a warrant for overlooking the coercive elements in this conversation under the circumstances then existing.5 In early October, Supervisor Johnson told Steven Grosz that he would have received a 25-cent raise in pay had not the Union entered into the picture, but that his hands were now tied and he could do nothing about it. Johnson then stated, "Well, Steve-stick with us." At about the same time, Supervisor Johnson told employee Dean Arneson about the pay scale the Company had contemplated and would have been in effect, but now they were unable to do anything about it with the advent of the Union. Johnson then went on and mentioned some of the benefits the employees could lose. He told Arneson, "It was a Thanksgiving turkey, he said it wasn't very much, like the Thanksgiving turkey and Christmas party and bonuses, but he said it is a little bit, he said we could lose them if the Union came in. He didn't say we would, but he said we could." Sometime during the week of October 23, Koeplin had a conversation with William Burke about statements Burke had made around the plant to the effect that some employees had not received blanket wage increases. Koeplin then mentioned the profit-sharing plan and stated some changes would be made so employees could qualify without first serving 3 years, and also told Burke the Company had drawn up plans to equalize Respondent's wages with the wages being paid at the Fargo Foundry, but these plans had to be cancelled because of the Union coming into the picture. At the conclusion of their conversation, Burke asked Koeplin why he was so "dead set" against the Union coming in, and Koephn then replied he did not want anybody telling him how to run his business. Koeplin admitted a talk with Burke on or about October 23, but only remembered that it dealt with an explanation of the profit- sharing plan, and could not recall any discussion about wages or blanket wage increases. The foregoing instances that have been credibly attributed to the Respondent include unlawful interrogation as to the identity of the union leaders among the plant employees, on numerous occasions threatening loss of existing benefits and wages, and in several instances promising employees wage increases As aforestated, the Company admitted in its amended answer that on or about October 19, Supervisor Johnson engaged in surveillance of employees who were in attendance at a union meeting.6 This conduct on the part of the Respondent clearly constitutes violations of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. I will turn now to the allegation that the Company threatened its employees with discharge for their having protested in concert a notice of layoff issued to Bjorndahl on October 21. This record shows that Bjomdahl had been employed by the Company on three separate periods starting in 1964. His last period of employment ran from July until October 27, and during this time Bjorndahl was also attending school and reported for work at the plant in the afternoons. His main job was cutting, welding, and building small basement oil tanks. On October 19, the first union meeting for company employees was held at the nearby Labor Temple in Fargo, North Dakota, and Bjorndahl attended this meeting, and was given a union button which he then wore continually thereafter on his work clothes or cap, as did the other employees of the Respondent who attended this meeting, and who are directly involved in this proceeding. On October 21, Supervisor Johnson told Bjorndahl the Company had a backlog, and no future orders were forth- coming on the type of small oil tanks he was building, and informed Bjorndahl that next week he would be laid off. Bjorndahl then told fellow union employees Robison, Lee, and Aamold about his notice of layoff from Johnson, and that evening a discussion followed among these employees at Delbert Lee's home as to their future course of action. Bjorndahl testified the employees felt his layoff would be unfair due to the pending election coming up on November 7, that the Company was attempting to eliminate them "one by one," and it was then decided they would all "stick together." As a result of their discussion and considerations, it was finally decided to protest Bjorndahl's notice of layoff on Monday 4 Solien also testified that Supervisor Johnson had asked him why employee Gene Corwin had quit on about October 6, as the Company had given him a raise in wages Sohen replied that Corwin had informed him that he had to sign a statement that his raise was not a "bribe" in efforts to get Corwin to reject the Union. Johnson then showed Solien the statement or paper Corwin had signed 5 Koeplin admits a conversation with Aamold in early October, but recalls that the ensuing conversation dealt with men loafing on the job and a rumor around the plant that he had been talking about the Union with Aamold and Hovland , and that he took this opportunity to deny the rumor Koeplin remembered that when Aamold informed him that he might go to California in order to make $3 an hour, he then told Aamold he was already getting $3 07 an hour 6 Supervisor Johnson did not deny any of the statements attributed to him by witnesses for the General Counsel 538 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD morning. On the morning of October 23, the union adherents- approximately 12 employees wearing union buttons, gathered at the plant and spoke to Supervisor Johnson. Joe Robison was the spokesman for these employees who had joined the Union, and he asked Johnson not to do any "firing" or "hiring" until after the election Johnson told them he would accept these terms and also promised to keep Bjorndahl on until the union matter or election was settled, and the employees then went to work. A short while later, on the same day, Robison and supervisor Johnson talked together, and Johnson then told Robison the employees could have been fired for their conduct in meeting with him earlier that morning and "sticking up" for Bjorndahl. Robison then passed this message on to Steven Grosz, Delbert Lee, and several other union adherents who had been in the group meeting with Johnson earlier that morning.7 The Company admits the meeting with union adherents on the morning of October 23, and that Robison was their group spokesman, but Johnson testified the meeting took place shortly after 7 a.m , that this was their reporting time for work and they had not punched in by 7 a.m , and later in the morning he then informed Robison that the employees who were in the group could be discharged for their failure to report for work 8 I find that on October 23, the Respondent unlawfully threatened its employees with discharge for their having protested in concert the notice of layoff given to Bjorndahl. The evidence and circumstances surrounding these events amply supports this conclusion. Johnson and Koeplin admit the Monday morning meeting with union adherents, that Robison was the spokesman for the dissatisfied group who had all recently signified their interest in the Union, and that all employees in the group were wearing union buttons at the time in question Johnson's immediate agreement with the group to keep Bjorndahl on until after the election and then shortly thereafter telling Group Spokesman Robison the employees could have been discharged, especially clarifies the Respondent's intention to specifically retaliate against the employees concerted and protected protest It was most obvious to the Company that Robison was not acting alone in seeking redress for Bjorndahl, and it was also clear that the meeting on Monday morning of union adherents with Johnson was for the object of initiating and preparing for group action. In fact, Koeplin admitted he instructed Johnson to "scare" these employees so they would stay on the job and to tell them they could be discharged for refusing to work. Koeplm further admitted he then directed Johnson to inform Spokes- man Robison of the above and for Robison "to spread the word among the employees." The events and circumstances involved in this incident clearly show group action, and it is well settled by the Board and the courts that employees in situations of this kind, who spontaneously refuse to work to protest grievances concerning wages, hours, working conditions, or tenure of jobs and employment, are engaged in conduct for "mutual aid and protection" within the meaning of Section 7 of the Act. In accordance with the above, the Respondent further engaged in conduct violative of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act, and I so find 9 John Sundseth started work for the Company at its Moorhead shop in late 1966 Prior thereto he was engaged in the operation of his own farm located at Halstad, Minnesota, until March 1966, when he started work for a creamery and stayed there until sometime in July 1966. While working for the Company, Sundseth continued to live in Halstad which meant he had to drive about 70 miles round trip each day. Sundseth worked in the service department at Respondent's Moorhead plant, and this job included the installation of bulk oil and gasoline plants in and around the Moorhead area. Sundseth testified that on or about October 13, he informed Floyd Storsved that he wanted some time off from his job to work on his apartment house in Halstad and to go deer hunting.' 0 Sundseth stated that Storsved told him he could have time off, but then asked him if he would come back to work Sundseth replied that he would return after deer season, but his leaving depended on the installation of the bulk plant at Elbow Lake, Minnesota, and that if it was impossible to finish this job for lack of materials-he would then start taking time off on November 1.1 1 Sundseth went on to testify that soon thereafter he was informed by Storsved that he was not eligible to vote in the upcoming union election in November because he had quit his employment. In reply, Sundseth then told Storsved he had not quit and his name was on the eligibility list. Storsved informed Sundseth to go into the office and see Koeplin about it, but Sundseth replied he did not want to see Koeplin because several of the other employees had been in to see him and Koeplin had offered them better jobs in efforts to convince employees to vote against the Union. Delbert Lee and others testified that at the union meeting on October 19, the subject of Sundseth's eligibility came up for discussion as Sundseth had reported at this meeting his 7 The above facts as to the incidents involving Bjorndahl, are established through the credited testimony of Robison, Biorndahl, Lee, Solien, and Grosz 8 There is some testimony in this record on whether or not the Company had sufficient steel of the right kind to continue making small basement tanks at the time in question , and on whether or not additional orders for steel were placed, and also testimony on the normal periods of the year when such tanks were made and at what time in the fall such production was generally stopped However, the General Counsel stated that this incident was not alleged as 8(a)(3) conduct Therefore, testimony bearing on possible discriminatory motivation need not be considered here 9 At the hearing the Company moved for the written statement of Biorndahl for purposes of cross-examination under the Jencks rule The General Counsel refused on the grounds that Bjorndahl gave no signed statement nor did he ever adopt or approve one, and I denied the Respondent's motion to produce. The evidence merely shows that Biorndahl was interviewed by the General Counsel in preparation for trial, that he took notes in so doing , that Biorndahl never read the notes , and that he signed nothing The most that can be said is that on a few occasions the notes were read back to Bjorndahl There is ample law to establish that the General Counsel need not produce notes made while interviewing a witness when the same are not signed or authenticated by the witness , nor need Board agents produce an oral statement of a witness reduced to writing but not signed or seen by the witness See Paul Biazevich , 136 NLRB 13, and Amencan Steel, 123 NLRB 1363 To hold otherwise would practically eliminate meaningful investigation procedures of the Board, and would eventually restrict all trial preparations to merely verbal "bull sessions " with all prospective witnesses without regard to the hopeless and utter confusion which would result therefrom this is not the rule nor is it the law 10 This record shows that Floyd Storsved has some degree of status or authority in the service department , and Johnson and Koeplin are always immediately accessible to him . In all matters relevant to this proceeding , and at all times material herein , Storsved was acting as the Respondent 's agent and clearly within his scope of authority Admitted- ly, Koeplm also had full knowledge of all pertinent communications between Storsved and Sundseth 11 Work at the Elbow Lake installation did not start until October 19 or 20 , and Sundseth worked on this project until his termination on October 27 NORTHWEST OIL EQUIPMENT 539 conversation with Storsved to the effect that he was not eligible to vote. Lee stated an eligibility list was then circulated and Sundseth's name was on the list. Joe Robison testified that on or about October 16, Delbert Lee asked him if he knew Sundseth was quitting, and in reply he then asked Lee whether Sundseth was quitting or was asking for time off. Robison stated that at this time they knew the vote at the election would be very close and every vote important. During the week of October 23, Robison was working with Sundseth on the bulk station at Elbow Lake, and Robison testified that in their conversations at the job Sundseth told him he was going to sell his farm and was also going to do some hunting and fishing, and from such conversations Robison had the under- standing Sundseth was either going to take time off, quit, or retire after the job at Elbow Lake was completed. Robison admitted hearing remarks or rumors from other employees around the shop to the effect that Sundseth had informed them he was quitting. Robison told Sundseth he should "stick around" until after the election. On cross-examination Robi- son stated he had never heard of an employee taking a 2 or 3 weeks leave of absence after only 10 months on the job, and around October 25, Sundseth had commented on hardships of driving back and forth from Halstad, Minnesota to Moorhead and, therefore, had lined up a job at a garage in Halstad where he lived. Robison also related Sundseth had informed him about his conversation with Storsved, and wherein Sundseth told Storsved he was not quitting his job as he had "changed his mind." Robison testified that at the union meeting on October 19, there was considerable discussion on whether or not Sundseth had asked for time off or had given a notice to quit, and stated Sundseth then informed the 10 or 11 employees at this meeting that he had not quit, but had asked for time off. Robison further testified that at the meeting Sundseth was also told by the Union's international representa- tive, Thomas Conway, "You had better change your tactics." Theodore Solien related in his testimony that prior to October 27, Sundseth informed him that he had no vacation coming because he had only worked for the Company 9 months so he was going to take a leave of absence. The Company produced testimony through M. S. Parries to the effect that around the middle of October, Sundseth in- formed Parries and others he had sold his 320-acre farm for $300 an acre, and replied affirmatively when asked by Parries if he would retire. 12 Frank Slaby, also a witness for the Company, stated that on or about October 10, Sundseth made the remark that he planned on taking a garage job in Halstad, and further testified that around the middle of October, Storsved told him Sundseth had given a 2 weeks' notice to quit. Slaby and other witnesses stated this was common "shop talk" among the employees in the plant. Christopher Sundseth only involved as a witness, gave testimony to the effect that in late April, Sundseth told him he was going to quit his job to go deer hunting, and was not going to work during the winter months. Floyd Storsved testified that on October 13, Sundseth informed him that he was giving a 2 weeks' notice of quitting because he was selling his farm and had an apartment building 12 This record shows that Sundseth did sell his farm to Harris Henderson , and the deed for same is dated November 22, 1967. Henderson testified that prior to the execution of the deed, he and Sundseth had several discussions in 1967 about the transaction , and "at some point" a price was agreed upon . Sundseth places the date of November 6, when he and Henderson first reached a verbal understand- ing as to the terms and conditions of the sale to repair Storsved stated it was then agreed between them that Sundseth would continue to work for 2 weeks or until the Elbow Lake installation job was completed-if this work was finished before the 2 weeks period Sundseth would then leave, but if not he would still leave-according to Storsved. Foreman Storsved related he then informed Koeplin that Sundseth had given a 2 weeks' notice of quitting. Storsved went on to state that on or about October 24, he had picked up rumors that Sundseth had apparently decided to stay on his job so he discussed this with Koeplin. Storsved testified he then also inquired of Sundseth if there was any truth in the rumor he was staying on, and Sundseth replied, "Well, I think I will stay around a while." Storsved then informed Sundseth that Friday, October 27, would be his last day as the 2 weeks period would be up, and Sundseth should see Koeplin about it so there would be no misunderstanding, but Sundseth stated, "I don't think I would care to see anybody." Storsved further testified that Sundseth never asked for time off to go hunting, that the fall is a very busy time for the Company, and admitted that on October 24, he told Koeplin that Sundseth was not going to quit. Koeplin testified that on October 13, Storsved told him Sundseth would be leaving the Company in 2 weeks, and also stated that on October 24, he was informed by Storsved that Sundseth was going to stay on and was not quitting his job. Koeplin then told Storsved to have Sundseth see him, but Sundseth refused to do so. Koeplin maintains the Company has no policy permitting an extended leave of absence, and the same are only granted for a day or so for strictly emergency purposes, and that Storsved could not make any such arrangements with employees. John Maier gave testimony on a conversation with Sundseth, and it was to the effect that Sundseth made a remark about selling his farm and retiring Milton Johnson testified for the Company that during the week of October 16, he had also heard "shop talk" to the effect Sundseth was quitting. Finally, the Respondent pro- duced testimony through Thomas Becker and which testimony supposedly had some bearing on the announced future plans of Sundseth. On October 23, 1967, a meeting regarding the representa- tion election was held in the Moorhead offices of G. L. Dosland, Attorney at Law, representing the Company. Present were Dosland, Thomas Conway of the Union, Koeplin and Marlowe Parries, officers of the Respondent, and a Board agent from the Region. A consent election agreement was executed and the representatives also discussed who would be eligible to vote in the election. The Union noted that Sundseth's name was not on the proposed eligibility list and maintained that it should be on the list. Dosland replied that Sundseth's name was not on the list because he had given notice on October 13 that he was quitting in 2 weeks, on October 27, and would not be working for the Company on the date of the election in November. Conway stated that Sundseth had never given notice of quitting, but had only asked Storsved on October 13, for time off to go--hunting. Dosland then told Conway that Sundseth had given notice of quitting and inquired what kind of hunting Sundseth intended to do at that time of year. Conway stated he thought it was deer hunting. Dosland testified that at this stage in the meeting it was decided to put Sundseth's name on the list, but if he was not employed at the time of the election, he could not vote and the parties all agreed on this arrangement. By letter dated October 26, the Company enclosed his final paycheck and thereby notified Sundseth that in accordance 540 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD with his 2 weeks' notice on October 13, his employment was terminated. On October 27, the letter and check were put in an envelope and placed in Storsved's desk in the service shop during that afternoon. Shortly before 3 p.m. on October 27, Sundseth returned from the Elbow Lake job and went to the desk of Storsved at the plant as usually done, and removed the envelope and read the letter. Immediately thereafter, he showed the letter to employees Delbert Lee and William Burke and the three of them then showed the letter around to several of the other employees in the service and tank departments. About 10 of the union employees then gathered together in the tank shop work area to discuss the letter to Sundseth At approximately 3.10 p.m., Sundseth and the nine other alleged discriminatees punched out and left the plant and proceeded to the Fargo Labor Temple. Before leaving the plant the umon employees attempted to find some officer of the Company- Koephn, Parries or Johnson-to discuss Sundseth's termination with, but none of the officers were at the plant. 13 The Respondent's secretary at the plant, Florence Sell, observed these employees congregating in the work areas of the plant before they left, and testified that they were in the process of leaving at the time Johnson and Koeplin returned from their coffee break. Koeplin stated that he saw the employees walking toward their cars as he drove up to the plant at about 3:10 p.m. on October 27. On October 28, all of the union adherents who walked out the prior afternoon, except Sundseth, received a letter from the Company in effect stating the Respondent considered they had quit their employment with the Company on the previous day by punching out at the time they did, and accordingly their final paychecks were enclosed. On October 30, the employees who walked out came to the plant and asked Supervisor Johnson if he was going to put them back to work, and Johnson then told them they had punched out and left, and so they no longer worked for the Company. Immediately thereafter, these employees commenced picketing at the Respondent's plant. The Company maintains that Sundseth voluntarily termina- ted his employment on October 27, pursuant to his notice of quitting on October 13, and the Company had the right to rely on such notice. The Respondent points to numerous conversa- tions wherein Sundseth had further conveyed his message of quitting and retiring, as aforestated. One of the initial discussions of whether or not Sundseth had quit or merely asked for a leave absence, took place at the union meeting on October 19. At this meeting, with about 12 employees in attendance, international representative for the Union, Thomas Conway, specifically asked Sundseth whether he had quit or had asked for time off. Sundseth replied he had never told anyone he was quitting, but has asked Storsved for a 2 weeks' leave of absence to go deer hunting. 14 This concern and apparent confusion on the status of Sundseth at the meeting, resulted in an immediate request or suggestion by Conway that Sundseth document his exact position in a letter- Respondent's Exhibit No. 1. On October 28, the day after Sundseth was discharged, several of the employees who had walked out in protest, held another meeting at Delbert Lee's 13 Koeplin and Johnson have a regular coffee break at this time each afternoon , and Parries was doing some work or repairs elsewhere. 14 The Company points out that the 1967 Minnesota deer season did not start until November 18, and argues that by leaving on November 1, and taking 2 weeks off-Sundseth would not be able to hunt deer in Minnesota during this period home and a discussion followed on the above-mentioned letter. Conway was contacted by telephone and the letter was read to him and Conway made comments about it, and certain lines in the letter were then stricken out. In light of the above, and in consideration of the admitted "shop talk" and various statements by Sundseth about hunting, getting a job at Halstad, selling his farm, and such other remarks, all tied in to possible retirement, it is apparent that the Company could easily interpret Sundseth's statement on October 13 to Storsved, as a 2 weeks' notice to quit. This also becomes quite apparent with the extensive discussion on his status during the union meeting on October 19, and the request by Conway to write down his exact position on paper. The Respondent argues that Sundseth did tell Storsved he was quitting and in its brief states the following The record shows that there was great concern at that meeting by Conway and the rest of the employees present, who totaled approximately twelve employees including Sundseth, about the anticipated affirmative votes for the Union in the coming election and the anticipated negative votes and about the eligibility of Sundseth. The persons present believed that the vote would be very close and so it became very important to them that Sundseth, who was a known and admitted Union supporter, be eligible to vote in the election. Accordingly, Sundseth at the urging of Conway and some of the other employees present agreed to remain in the employ of the Company until after the election and further agreed that if the employer inquired about his notice of quitting that he would deny any such notice was ever given. The understanding was that Sundseth would state that he had merely told Storsved on October 13, that he wanted time off to go hunting and to fix up an apartment building he owned in Halstad. The other employ- ees at that meeting agreed that each of them would deny that they had ever heard Sundseth say to themselves or to anyone that he had given notice of quitting or had turned in his time. All agreed that they would maintain that the only thing they had ever heard Sundseth say about leaving was that he was going to take a leave of absence around the first of November to go hunting and to work on his apartment. Sundseth also agreed that not only would he remain in the employ of the Company until after the election, but also that he might stay on indefinitely if the Union won the election. Finally, all employees at this meeting agreed to stick together by joint action in the event Sundseth was unable to convince the Company that he had not given notice of quitting. (See testimony of William Burke.) These facts are confirmed by the testimony of one of the General Counsel's own witnesses, Joe Robison, and by the mys- terious letter prepared by Sundseth and identified and received as Employer's Exhibit 1. This letter was prepared by Sundseth at the request of Conway apparently for sending to the Board in support of the charge that Sundseth had been unlawfully discharged. The letter makes clear that the Union and the employees present at the Union meeting of October 19 well knew that Sundseth had given notice of quitting. Even granting the Respondent's contention that Sundseth initially informed Storsved he was quitting, and also granting that subsequently umon adherents and leaders persuaded or induced him to change his mind or plans-these factors must all be evaluated in light of the total evidence, circumstances, and events. Certainly, as I will point out, Sundseth had the NORTHWEST OIL EQUIPMENT 541 privilege to change his mind and if the Company had knowledge of this fact prior to October 27, then all the additional circumstances become highly important in ascertain- ment of the true motivation for his discharge. This record clearly shows that on October 23 and 24, the Company knew that Sundseth would continue his employment. Certain aspects to this effect were specifically brought out in the representa- tion meeting before Conway and company supervisors in the office of Attorney Dosland on October 23, and on October 24, Sundseth informed Storsved that he was not quitting, and Storsved then admittedly passed this message on to Koeplin. These events reduce the Respondent's contention to the fact that Sundseth did not report to Koeplin when he was asked to do so by Storsved in order to avoid any misunderstanding In the final analysis here, the Company had reason to believe the union election in early November would be extremely close,15 and on the basis of facts already mentioned, the Company also had specific knowledge that Sundseth was a supporter for the Union In addition to these factors, it is admitted that Sundseth was a good worker, that the fall season of the year is an extremely busy time for the Company, that the Company hired a new employee, Arthur Kempenich, in October,i 6 that the job at Elbow Lake was not fully completed by October 27-one tank had yet to be installed, and it is further admitted that 3 days before his termination Sundseth informed the Company he was not quitting. Based on the above, coupled with the antiunion animus demonstrated by the unlawful threats, interrogations, and promises made to employees, as aforementioned herein, I find that John Sundseth was discharged on October 27, 1967, in violation of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act. Had union considerations not been the motivating and prevailing force, there is no question that Koeplin would have sought out Sundseth between October 24 and October 27, as he frequent- ly visited the work areas in the plant and the Company needed his services. There is also no credited evidence to show that even if Sundseth changed his mind from quitting to staying on-this in any way altered company plans or was inconvenient in making work schedules. Likewise, there is no showing that even if Sundseth gave a definite notice to quit on October 13, that this pronouncement then became such an iron clad verbal agreement that it could not be revoked or changed before its effective date. The Company offered no testimony to show any general or specific policy in this regard, and the statement to Sundseth by Storsved on October 24 that he should see Koephn to avoid any misunderstanding by his staying on, is clearly in repudiation of any existing or binding company policy in respect to irrevocable notices of quitting From the indications in this record, all such matters were treated on a very informal basis. It is further noted that Storsved made a call to the Elbow Lake jobsite on the morning of October 27, and talked to Morken about the overtime for employees on this job. Had the Company entertained any desire to avoid the possible misunderstanding about Sundseth staying on-this would have been an excellent opportunity for clarifications On the afternoon of October 27, the employees who had joined the Union and who were wearing union buttons, concertedly went out on strike to protest the unlawful discharge of Sundseth, and these employees were then also terminated, as aforementioned herein. This record shows that at the meeting on October 19, the employees had agreed to jointly take action in event of any such difficulties, and this joint or group dedication was initially established and demon- strated during the incident involving Erling Bjorndahl. When Sundseth received his termination letter, he showed it to a few other employees in the plant and it was then passed around. A discussion among the union adherents followed, and the employees involved herein then decided to walk out in order to "back up" Sundseth. As this record plainly shows, the Company treated the action of the union adherents in walking off their jobs and refusing to abandon their protected activity-as a termination of their status as employees. Thus, when the strikers returned to the plant on October 30 and asked for their jobs back, Supervisor Johnson told them they had punched out and "they no longer worked for the Company." It is clear from the foregoing that the Company's response to the walkout was nothing less than to discharge the participants. The Respondent argues and points to decisions holding that an employer does not violate the Act when he discharges strikers protesting the termination of a fellow employee, when they do not have a good-faith belief that their fellow employee was unlawfully discharged In its brief the Company states-as follows "Where the nine protestors not only knew the employee on whose behalf they pretended to protest had voluntarily terminated his employment, but also where they participated in an elaborate scheme to deny such fact and suppress evidence to the contrary, it demonstrates gross disloyalty to the employer and such lack of good faith as to make their concerted activity fall outside the area of legitimate concerted activities and outside the protection of the Act." The facts in this record will not support this contention. During the union meeting on October 19, Sundseth made it known to all in attendance that he was not quitting his job, and there is no credited evidence that an "elaborate scheme" was ever made to suppress the alleged notice to quit. Undoubtedly, up to October 19, there existed considerable confusion and consternation as to the exact status of Sund- seth, but the controlling event and statements that followed made it very clear-both to fellow union employees and the Company-that he was staying on. Relating the happenings at the time Sundseth received his discharge letter, Delbert Lee credibly stated- "I believe John Sundseth and I went over in the tank shop and Bill Burke happened to be in there, and he showed him this letter there, and we started to discussing if we were going to let this take place So I went back to the tank shop and he [Sundseth] was starting to go around to some of the guys and the word was already getting around to what took place, and so we all decided to walk out and back him up, he would do the same for us, he was wearing a button just like the rest of us." Theodore Sohen testified that when Sundseth read his termination letter he told Solien "it was a dirty deal." Solien stated the "group" then decided that if the Company was going to fire Sundseth it would be someone else the next time, so they decided "to stick by John, by either talking with the management, or walking out in protest." There can be no successful argument to the effect that the union adherents demonstrated gross disloyalty or such a lack of good faith as to 15 At least 10 or 11 employees out of 23 on the eligibility list in the unit were wearing union buttons 16 At one stage of his testimony , Koeplin suggested that Kempenich was hired as a replacement on the city desk job, but later on stated he told Storsved that Kempenich would make a good replacement for Sundseth. In any event, the Company hired Kempenich prior to October 13 , to replace Gerald England on the city desk 542 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD place their activities outside the protection of the Act. In the final analysis, the Union employees obviously believed that the Company had acted unlawfully in discharging Sundseth and as a result they induced group action for all employees support- ing the Union, and since the Company knew that a group of their employees had walked out together-the Respondent had specific and direct knowledge that these employees were acting in concert The unfair labor practice which took place in the discrimi- natory discharge of Sundseth clearly interfered with the union activities of the employees. It is again pointed out that by October 27, Sundseth's name had been added to the list of the eligible voters in the November election and the Company had also agreed that he could vote if he was still working. The credited testimony, as set forth prior herein, also shows that on October 23, Supervisor Johnson had agreed not to do any hiring or firing until the union matter was settled It therefore appears clear to me that the walkout and strike resulted not only from the unlawful discharge of Sundseth, but also because of previous complaints or grievances by employees that the Company was discriminatorily attempting to ter- inmate them on an individual basis There most definitely is a sufficient causal relation between the above incidents and the walkout, to fully warrant my finding that this was an unfair labor practice strike As an issue fully litigated, this finding is appropriate and essential in establishing the lawful benefits and right of the strikers The discharge of such strikers is, of course, violative of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act, and I so find.17 IV THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of the Respondent described above have a close, intimate and substantial relation 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. V THE REMEDY Having found that the Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices violative of the Act, I shall recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. It will be recommended that the Company offer John Sundseth immediate and full reinstatement to his former or substantially equivalent positions, without prejudice to senior- ity and other rights and privileges, and make him whole for any loss of earnings he may have suffered by reason of the discrimination against him, by payment to him of a sum of money equal to that which he would have earned as wages from the date of the discrimination against hun to the date of offer of reinstatement less interim earnings, and in the manner set forth in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289, with interest added thereto in the manner set forth in Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716. I have found that the strike which took place on October 27, 1967, was caused by unfair labor practices of Respondent. As unfair labor practice strikers, Respondent's stnkmg employ- ees were, upon their unconditional application for reinstate- ment on October 30, 1967, entitled to reinstatement, and Respondent's failure to reinstate any of them was a violation of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act. I shall recommend that Respondent offer such employees as it has not reinstated immediate and full reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent positions, dismissing, if necessary, any employees hired since October 27, 1967, and make such employees whole for any loss of pay they may have suffered by reason of Respondent's discrimination against them. This shall be done by payment to each of them of a sum of money he normally would have earned from October 30, 1967, to the date of Respondent's offer of reinstatement less his net earnings in accordance with the Woolworth and Isis Plumbing formula. It will also be recommended that the Respondent preserve and make available to the Board, upon request, payroll and other records to facilitate the computation of the backpay due. It will be further recommended, in view of the nature of the unfair labor practices the Respondent has engaged in that it cease and desist from infringing in any manner upon the rights guaranteed employees by Section 7 of the Act.' 8 Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record in the case, the Trial Examiner makes the following. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Respondent's operations occur in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 2. The Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3. By discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of John Sundseth, thereby discouraging member- ship in a labor organization, the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act. 4. The strike was an unfair labor practice strike, and further the Respondent's discharge of the strikers was an unfair labor practice within the meaning of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act. 5. By the aforesaid conduct, the Respondent independent- ly violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act in its unlawful promises, surveillances, threats, and inteirogations 17 There is some testimony in this record bearing on subsequent offers by the Company to have the strikers return to their jobs On November 14, Koeplin told Joe Robison to contact the strikers and to inform them that their jobs were still available Robison reported to Koeplin that "it was nothing or all," and the Respondent 's offer of reinstatement did not include Sundseth and Bjorndahl It appears that all of the strikers except two or three of them took other jobs. Lee and Grosz returned to their work at the Company in January 1968 All can be definitely ascertained during the compliance negotiations or proceed- ings. 18 The General Counsel stated that the representation case (18-RC-7308 ) is only "obliquely " involved in this proceeding, and then further explained that the testimony given by Conway on the voting, ballots , challenges and impoundment of ballots cast by those on strike, was merely offered to show the current status of the entire case and this was the only reason for such testimony The representation case was not consolidated with the instant complaint nor is an RC remedy in any way requested In view of the above , I do not pass on the rights of the strikers to cast their ballots or make any recommendations in relation thereto Furthermore, the specific factors and circumstances on which the Respondent based its challenges are not clearly defined in this proceeding , as the General Counsel had only a very limited objective in offering such testimony NORTHWEST OIL EQUIPMENT 543 6 The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act RECOMMENDED ORDER Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, it is recommended that the Respondent, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall 1 Cease and desist from (a) Illegally interrogating employees as to their union activities or leadership. (b) Unlawfully engaging in surveillance of its employees' union activities or meetings (c) Promising wage increases or other benefits in inducing employees to refrain from supporting the Union (d) Threatening loss of benefits or wages and discharges for engaging in union and protected concerted activities. (e) Discharging or otherwise discriminating against its employees because they engage in lawful strike activity. (f) In any other manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce its employees in the exercise of their rights to self- organization, to form, join or assist any labor organization, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or to refrain from all such activities. 2. Take the following affirmative action designed to effec- tuate the policies of the Act. (a) Offer to John Sundseth immediate and full reinstate- ment to his former or substantially equivalent position without prejudice to his seniority or other rights and privileges and make him whole for any loss of pay suffered as a result of the discrimination against him. (b) Offer those strikers who unconditionally applied for reinstatement on October 30, 1967, immediate and full reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent positions, without prejudice to their seniority and other rights and privileges, and make each of them whole for any loss they may have suffered by reason of Respondent's discrimination against them, all in accord with and in the manner set forth above. (c) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the National Labor Relations Board or its agents, for information and copying, all payroll records, social security payment records, timecards, personnel records and reports, and all other records necessary for the determination of the amount of backpay due under these recommendations. (d) Post at its Moorhead, Minnesota, plant copies of the notice attached hereto marked "Appendix."' 9 [Board's Ap- pendix substituted for Trial Examiner's ] Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for Region 18, shall, after being duly signed by Respondent's authorized representa- tive, be posted by Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted, and maintained by it for a period of 60 consecutive days. Reasonable steps shall be taken to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (e) Notify the Regional Director for Region 18, in writing, within 20 days from the date of the receipt of this Recom- mended Order, what steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith .20 19 In the event that this Recommended Order be adopted by the Board, the words "a Decision and Order" shall be substituted for the words "the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner" in the notice In the further event that the Board's Order is enforced by a decree of a United States Court of Appeals, the words "a Decree of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the words "a Decision and Order " 20 In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board , this provision shall be modified to read "Notify the Regional Director for Region 18, in writing , within 10 days from the date of this Order , what steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith."