Bricklayers, Masons And Plasterers, Local 2

434 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL Bricklayers, Masons and Plasterers' International Union of America, Bricklayers Local No. 2, AFL-CIO ( Glenshaw Glass Company , Inc.) and James R. Zollinger and Robert Zollinger, Jr. Cases 6-CB- 1494-l and 6-CB- 1494-2 June 6, 1969 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN MCCULI OCH AND MEMBERS FANNING AND JENKINS On January 6, 1969, Trial Examiner Milton Janus issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices, 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 General Counsel filed a brief in support of the Trial Examiner's Decision, and Respondent filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's 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 proceeding 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 this proceeding, and hereby adopts the Trial Examiner's findings, conclusions, and recommendations. 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 Respondent, Bricklayers, Masons and Plasterers ' International Union of America, Bricklayers Local No. 2, AFL-CIO, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, its officers, agents, and representatives, shall take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order. TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE MILTON JANUS, Trial Examiner: Charges were filed on April 8, 1968, by James R. Zollinger and Robert Zollinger, Jr., and a consolidated complaint based thereon was issued on August 29, 1968. The complaint alleges that the Respondent (also referred to at times as the Union or as Local 2) violated Section 8(b)(IXA) and (2) of the Act by causing Glenshaw Glass Company, Inc. (referred to LABOR RELATIONS BOARD here as Glenshaw or the Company) to terminate the employment of the charging parties because of their lack of membership in Local 2. I conducted a hearing in this matter at Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, on October 17, 1968. Briefs have been received from the General Counsel and Respondent, and have been fully considered. Upon the entire record in the case, and from my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor, I make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. JURISDICTIONAL FACTS Glenshaw is a Pennsylvania corporation with its principal place of business at Glenshaw, Pennsylvania, where it is engaged in the manufacture and sale of glass containers. During the 12-month period preceding the issuance of the complaint , it shipped goods and products valued in excess of $50,000 from its Glenshaw plant directly to points outside the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. I find that Glenshaw is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. 11. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED Respondent admits , and I find , that it is a labor organization within the meaning of the Act. III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES Background and Issues In its production of glass, Glenshaw uses furnaces which must be periodically taken out of service to be rebricked. Glenshaw does not employ a permanent crew for this purpose, but has for some years hired Edgar Campbell as its foreman for the hiring and supervision of bricklayers to do the job. Campbell is a member of Bricklayers Local 28, Erie, Pennsylvania, who moves about the country as a bricklayer foreman for different employers. Because production is lost when a furnace is out of service, it is economically justifiable to pay bricklayers premium pay for overtime and weekends in order to expedite getting a furnace back into production. For example, the Glenshaw job involved in this proceeding required 19 working days, early in April 1968, to complete. For it, Campbell needed 8 men working 10 hours per day, including Saturdays and Sundays. i The Glenshaw plant is in Allegheny County, of which Pittsburgh is the county seat. Local 2 has jurisdiction over Allegheny County and nine townships of adjoining Washington County. Although Glenshaw has not entered into any formal arrangement or understanding with Local 2, it pays its bricklayers the current contractual wages and abides by the working conditions and other provisions of the agreement between the Union and union employers. Campbell hired only union bricklayers. He selected his own men, except for the job steward who is a working 'The normal working schedule within Local 2's jurisdiction was 7-1/2 hours per day, 5 days per week. The base wage rate payable in April 1968 (see G.C. Exh. 3(b)) was $6.07-1/2 per hour . Daily overtime and all weekend work were paid at doubletime. Although the amount of pay received on the Glenshaw job is not directly material to my discussion, I mention it to show that these were well-paid , desirable jobs. 176 NLRB No. 54 BRICKLAYERS, MASONS AND PLASTERERS , LOCAL 2 bricklayer appointed by the Local's business representative. Campbell made it a practice to hire men whom he knew to be qualified and, within the area of Local 2's jurisdiction he hired, as closely as he could, half his crew from among Local 2 members, and half from other Bricklayer Locals.' Actual work on the Glenshaw furnace job began on Tuesday, April 2, 1968. Besides Campbell, there were then four men in the crew, Edwin Barris, the steward, another Local 2 man, and two men from the Johnstown Local. To begin work on Saturday, April 6, Campbell hired the Zollingers, father and son, the charging parties here, and members of Local 75, Greensburg, Pennsylvania, as well as two additional men from Local 2. Thus, on April 6, there were eight working bricklayers including the steward, of whom four were from Local 2, and four from sister Locals, plus Campbell from Local 28. On Sunday, April 7, after a number of telephone conversations involving Mincin , business representative of Local 2, Steward Barris, Foreman Campbell, and Glenshaw Vice President Cricks, Glenshaw laid off the Zollingers and hired two men from Local 2. The issues raised by the testimony and arguments in this case are whether Mincin and/or Barris of Local 2 caused the termination of the two Zollingers because of their nonmembership in Local 2, and whether Mincin, 2 days later, effectively withdrew his and Barris' former objections to the employment of the Zollingers by Glenshaw. The Events Through Saturday, April 6 Since Glenshaw was under no contractual obligation to use Local 2 as a hiring agent, Campbell, as its foreman, could and did hire any union man he wanted, except as this right was qualified by an obligation to hire the particular person appointed by Local 2 as the steward, and possibly by observance of the practice that half of all bricklayers hired were to be from Local 2. About a week before the job was scheduled to start, Campbell had called Mincin to get his permission to work 10 hours per day, and to have Mincin appoint a steward. When the job began on April 2, Campbell had not spoken again with Mincin. On Saturday, April 6, the two Zollingers went to work, together with two men from Local 2. Barris, as was his right, asked to check their dues books, which were in order. As he was looking at their dues books, Barris said he did not think the Zollingers would be able to work. The elder Zollinger said that Campbell had hired them and that Barris should talk to Campbell about the matter. That afternoon, Barris came back to the elder Zollinger and collected $7 for himself and his son, for work permits. Barris apparently said nothing to Campbell about the two Zollingers not being allowed to work. Campbell and Mincin agree that they had a telephone conversation Saturday evening, April 6. According to Campbell's version, it was Mincin who called to tell him that the Zollingers had to be laid off or the job would be stopped. Mincin also complained, according to Campbell, that Campbell was not abiding by the practice of having an equal number of Local 2 members on the project. Campbell pointed out to him that he had eight bricklayers working, four of whom were from Local 2. Mincin 'There is a dispute over whether Local 2 did in fact have a 50-50 rule, practice or understanding , and to what extent foremen were required to adhere to it. The testimony on this point will be developed later. 435 insisted however, that Campbell himself should be counted as an out-of-town bricklayer, thus making the count 5 to 4 in favor of the outside locals. Campbell told Mincin that a foreman should not be counted in determining whether the 50-50 rule was being observed, but rather than argue more about it, he asked Mincin to send him a Local 2 man to begin work the next morning. Mincin continued to say that Campbell would have to lay off the two men who had begun work on Saturday who were not from Local 2, because there were Local 2 men who were looking for work. Mincin also told Campbell, according to Campbell, that if he did not lay those two men off he would see that Campbell never worked again in Local 2's jurisdiction. Mincin's version of his telephone conversation with Campbell is quite different. He agreed that he had called Campbell at the latter's hotel, but insisted that he did it only to return Campbell's previous call to him. According to Mincin, Campbell said he was calling to get an additional man from Local 2 for the Glenshaw job. Mincin denied that he told Campbell that the job would be shut down unless the Zollingers were laid off. Mincin also claimed that he had said nothing about the so-called 50-50 rule of Local 2. Mincin denied, as a matter of fact, that Local 2 had any such rule, and that it was the practice of his local to allow men from the l l area locals which surround Local 2's jurisdiction to work freely in Allegheny County. I credit Campbell's version of his telephone conversation with Mincin on Saturday, April 6. First, it seems improbable that Campbell should have called Mincin to have him send out another Local 2 man the next morning. That would have made a nine-man crew which Campbell did not need. Also, Campbell had not called Mincin before for Local 2 men (except for a steward) and it seems unlikely that Campbell should suddenly decide to let Mincin pick an unknown Local 2 man for him, when he had always previously done his own selecting. Second, Barris did not deny the Zollingers' testimony that Barris had told them on Saturday that they would not be permitted to work there. In view of Barris' opposition to the Zollingers' continuing to work, it is likely that Barris alerted Mincin to get him to call Campbell and to insist that Local 2 men be hired to replace the Zollingers. Finally I discredit Mincin's version of the conversation because I find that Local 2 did have a 50-50 rule in effect and that Campbell intended to abide by it. Thus, the only way Mincin could deny that he had anything to do with the termination of the Zollingers was also to deny that he was trying to get around his local's own practice of permitting half the men on a job in Allegheny County to be members of sister locals. The Events of Sunday, April 7 As with the testimony about the events of April 6, there is disagreement between the witnesses for the General Counsel and those for the Respondent as to what occurred the next day. But the disagreement as to the facts mainly revolves about whether Mincin, as well as Barris, was responsible for the termination of the Zollingers. There is no disagreement that Barris made it plain to Campbell and to Cricks, Glenshaw's vice president, that he would not work if the Zollingers worked, and that the other members of Local 2 also made it plain that they would not work without a steward. Barris turned this into a little joke by saying that he could not work because he was sick, but when Cricks asked him if he would get unsick if the Zollingers were laid off, Barris said he would 436 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD immediately feel better and, as a matter of fact, went back to work with the other crew members as soon as the Zollingers were fired. The version of the General Counsel's witnesses: I see no need to give a minutely detailed description of what took place Sunday morning after the bricklayers assembled to begin work. First off, Barris told Campbell that he would stop the job if the Zollingers were not laid off. Cricks was called at home and was told to come to the plant, that there was a work stoppage because of a labor difficulty. In the meantime, Campbell told the Zollingers what Barris had told him and suggested to them that they try to contact someone who might be able to help them. They left to call the president of the Bricklayers' State Conference who told them that his only suggestion was to take the matter to the National Labor Relations Board. By the time the Zollingers returned to the plant, Cricks had arrived and he, Campbell and the Zollingers went into an office to call Mincin. Cricks first talked to Mincin and told him about the work stoppage and his urgent need to get the job done. Campbell then took the telephone from Cricks to speak to Mincin. According to Campbell, Mincin immediately berated him for bringing Cricks into the matter at all and repeated his demand of the preceding night that the two Zollingers be laid off. Campbell told Mincin that Cricks had control of the project and had to be told of problems like this. He then handed the telephone back to Cricks. Mincin now told Cricks that the Zollingers could go back to work and that the job would not be shut down. He then said that he wanted to speak to the job steward, Barris. Barris was called and came to the office to speak to Mincin. After some conversation with Mincin, Barris said that he could not hear because of the noise in the office and asked if he could have a private telephone. Barris then went to another office to continue his conversation with Mincin, and the other men prepared to go to work. Barris then appeared from the private office where presumably he had been having a conversation with Mincin, and announced to Campbell that he was sick and was going home, and made the same announcement to the other bricklayers. Campbell and Cricks then conferred and got all the bricklayers to come into Cricks' office while they put through another telephone call to Mincin. A woman who answered the telephone at Mincin's home said that he was gone and would be away all day. Cricks then asked Barris if he would feel better if the Zollmgers were laid off, Barris said he would, and Cricks then directed Campbell to discharge the two Zollmgers. Later that day, Campbell made arrangements to hire another member of Local 2 in order to complete the necessary crew of eight men. The version of Mincin and Barris: As related by Mincin and Barris, there were two telephone conversations that Sunday morning between Mincin at home and Cricks, Campbell and Barris at the plant. When Cricks called Mincin the first time to tell him of the work stoppage Mincin testified that he told Cricks, Campbell and Barris separately that the job was to proceed with the Zollmgers allowed to work. Mincin said he bawled Barris out for trying to stop the job, but whatever it was that Mincin was telling him, Barris either could not hear, wanted it said privately, or wanted to tell Mincin something privately. It was then that Barris asked to talk to Mincin over another telephone. Barris went to another office and Mincin was given the telephone number. Although Barris waited patiently, and although Mincin called the number given him, Mincin was unable to contact Barris. Barris then returned to the office where Campbell and Cricks were waiting for him. Although Barris does not say so, it is apparent that he must have told Cricks again that he would not work, because Cricks then called Mincin back. Again Mincin, according to himself and Barris, told the latter to go back to work, but Barris just slammed down the receiver and refused to work because he was sick. It was then that Cricks offered to fire the Zollingers if Barris would recover from his illness, and Barris did so. The Union's Responsibility for the Discharges Thus, what emerges from the testimony of Mincin and Barris is that the latter, contrary to the former s specific instructions to him, refused to work unless the Zollingers were laid off. Local 2 admitted in its answer that Barris was its agent, but it contends nevertheless that Local 2 was not responsible for the work stoppage, or for Barris' actions, because he acted beyond the scope of his authority as steward and union agent, and because Barris never claimed that he was acting on the Union's behalf. The Union contends that Barris was motivated in his refusal to work with the Zollingers by personal reasons. He had never met the Zollingers before April 6, but he knew that they were not members of his union, Local 2. He knew Campbell, if not personally then certainly by reputation. He bore some animosity toward him because Campbell had never selected him, before this time, for the desirable Glenshaw jobs with their long hours at premium pay. Barris was near retirement age, felt indifferent about working in the future, and therefore freed from the intimidating fear of crossing his business agent or Campbell. He resented the fact that Campbell preferred men from other locals and he expressed this resentment, on April 7, by refusing to work with the newly hired Zollingers, who were not members of Local 2, when fellow members of his Local were unemployed. Barris may have been influenced by a personal resentment against Campbell, which was not shared by other Local 2 members on the Glenshaw job or by Mmcm. Nevertheless, if Campbell had hired only Local 2 members, Barris' resentment against Campbell for passing him over on previous jobs would have had no focus of opposition. It was only because Campbell was hiring men from other Locals, specifically the Zollingers, that Barris was given the chance to uphold what he considered to be the paramount interests of his Local, by refusing to work if they remained on the job. I have no difficulty in finding that Barris' insistence that the Zollingers be discharged, as an exaction for Local 2 men continuing to work, was because of their nonmembership in Local 2. This insistence of Barris caused Glenshaw to discriminate against the Zollingers in violation of Section 8(a)(2), and therefore constitutes a violation of Section 8(b)(2), if the Union is responsible for Barris' actions. I think it is, on two grounds. First, I credit Cricks and Campbell over Mincin and Barris as to their respective recollections of the telephone conversation on April 7. Mincin was telling Cricks that the Zollingers should be kept on, and at the same time was telling Campbell that they should be laid off. Mincin was thereby trying to keep the Union out of trouble while putting pressure on Campbell, a Bricklayers' member, to accomplish what he knew Barris was striving for, the termination of the Zollingers. I do not know precisely what Mincin told Barris in their conversation or conversations, but it must have been one of the following: either giving Barris permission to call a work stoppage in order to get rid of BRICKLAYERS, MASONS AND PLASTERERS, LOCAL 2 the Zollingers (and this is quite probable in view of what Mincin had told Campbell the night before); or to caution him that what action he took must appear to be without Mincin's approval; or to order him not to leave the job under any circumstances. Barris never told Mincin in their conversations that he would allow the Zollingers to work. So, when Barris slammed down the receiver on Mincin, Mincin must have known that a work stoppage would ensue unless the Zollingers were fired, yet he did not call Barris back, but quickly left his home to be gone all day Sunday. I find on these facts that Mincin and Local 2 bear the responsibility for Barris' refusal to work with the Zollingers. Second, even if Mincin had told Barris not to impede the Zollingers' working, Local 2 is still responsible for Barris' failure to carry out instructions. Barris was the Union's steward and its authorized representative on the job. That his specific acts were not actually authorized nor subsequently ratified is not, under Section 2(13) of the Act determinative as to whether he was acting as the Union's agent. I have already found that Barris' actions were not merely personal, but had as its objective a union aim of forwarding the interests of its members. Thus, the Union is responsible for Barris' conduct within the scope of his general authority, granted him under Article III, Section 1 of the Constitution and Bylaws of Local 2 to "determine whether or not all bricklayers on the job are members" of Local 2.' Mincin's Telegram of April 9 On April 8, the two Zollingers filed charges with the National Labor Relations Board which were served on Respondent the same day. The following day, Mincin sent a telegram to Glenshaw with copies to the Zollingers which read as follows: You are notified that Bricklayers' Union Local 2 does not object to your employment of James R. Zollinger and/or Robert Zollinger, Jr. or to their reinstatement in employment. This confirms what was stated by me in our telephone conversation with you of recent date. A. Mincin, Business Agent On receiving the telegram, the elder Zollinger called Campbell, on his and his son's behalf, to learn if this meant that they could return to work. Campbell told him that Cricks was out of town and that he wanted to talk to him first. The following Friday, Zollinger, Sr. spoke to Campbell again and Campbell told him that he would not hire the two Zollingers due to the previous trouble, and that he had to replace them. Campbell pointed out to him that Mincin had already okayed their working on Sunday, but that they had had trouble with Barris despite Mincin's statements to Cricks over the telephone. Neither of the Zollingers made any further attempt to return to work at Glenshaw. The Union contends that if there was any liability on the part of the Union for the discharge of the Zollingers on April 7, it terminated with Mincin' s telegram of April 9 that the Union had no objection to the employment of the Zollingers. It should be noted that by Tuesday, April 9, Campbell had a full eight-man crew working, of whom the last two employed were members of Local 2, who had in effect replaced the Zollingers. To reinstate the 'United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America. Local Union 2067, AFL-CIO, 166 NLRB No 78 (TXD). 437 Zollingers and still maintain the normal complement of eight would mean that Glenshaw would have to lay off Ferris and Presley, the Local 2 members who had been hired on Sunday. The telegram did not say that the Union would guarantee that Barris was withdrawing his objection to the employment of the Zollingers. The telegram rather merely reiterated what Mincin had told Cricks on Sunday, that he, Mincin, had no objection to the Zollingers working. But Cricks and Campbell knew that Barris had already effectively overruled Mincin's permission to Glenshaw to retain the Zollingers. I consider that Cricks was justified in believing that no essential change in the situation as of Sunday, April 7, had been accomplished by the telegram of April 9. Assuming that Barris was disobeying Mincin's instructions with respect to the retention of the Zollingers on April 7, it is obvious that the telegram did nothing to allay Cricks' reasonable fear that Barris would again refuse to work so long as the Zollmgers were holding jobs which would otherwise be filled by Local 2 members. I therefore find that Mincm's telegram of April 9 did not effectively repudiate the illegal action which Barris had taken on April 7, and which there was every reason to believe he would continue, if the Zollingers were reinstated. W. 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 Employer's activities described in section I, 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 As I have found that the Respondent violated Section 8(b)(1) (A) and (2) of the Act, I will recommend that it cease and desist therefrom, and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. The record shows that the Zollingers were discharged at the Union's behest on April 7, 1968, and that the Glenshaw job was not completed until April 19, 1968. As a result, the Zollingers were deprived of employment which they would otherwise have had between those dates. I shall therefore recommend that the Respondent make them whole for any loss of pay each may have individually suffered by 'reason of its discriminatory conduct. Loss of pay shall be determined in accordance with the formula prescribed in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289, including interest thereon at 6 percent per annum in accordance with Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716. I shall also recommend that the Respondent notify Glenshaw Glass in writing, with copies to the two Zollingers, that it will not object to their employment in the future because of their nonmembership Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record in the case, I make the following. Conclusions of Law 1. Glenshaw Glass Company, Inc., is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 438 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 2. Bricklayers, Masons and Plasterers' International Union of America, Bricklayers Local No. 2, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3. By causing Glenshaw Glass Company, Inc., to terminate the employment of James R. Zollinger and Robert Zollinger , Jr., because of their nonmembership in Bricklayers Local 2, Respondent has engaged in, and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(b)(2) and 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act. RECOMMENDED ORDER Upon the entire record in this case , and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended , I recommend that Bricklayers , Masons and Plasterers' International Union of America, Bricklayers Local No. 2, AFL-CIO, its officers, agents, and representatives, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Causing or attempting to cause Glenshaw Glass Company, Inc., to lay off, or otherwise discriminate against employees in any way because of their nonmembership in Bricklayers Local No. 2. (b) In any other manner restraining or coercing employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action which will effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Notify Glenshaw Glass Company, Inc., in writing, with a copy to James R. Zollinger and to Robert Zollinger , Jr., that it has no objection to their employment by the Company in the future. (b) Make James R. Zollinger and Robert Zollinger, Jr., whole for any loss of pay they may have suffered by reason of the discrimination against them , in the manner set forth in the section entitled "The Remedy." (c) Post in conspicuous places in all its business offices, meeting halls, and places where notices to its members are customarily posted, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix."' Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 6, shall, after being duly signed by an authorized representative of Bricklayers Local No. 2, shall be posted immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter . Reasonable steps shall be taken by Local No. 2 to insure that said notices are not altered , defaced or covered by any other material. (d) Furnish to the Regional Director signed copies of the notice marked Appendix for posting by Glenshaw Glass Company, Inc., in places where notices to employees are customarily posted . Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director, shall, after being duly signed by an authorized representative of Local No. 2, be returned forthwith to the Regional Director for disposition by him. (e) Notify the Regional Director for Region 6, in writing, within 20 days from the date of receipt of this Decision, what steps Local No . 2 has taken to comply herewith.' APPENDIX 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 you that: WE WILL NOT cause or attempt to cause Glenshaw Glass Company, Inc. to lay off, or discriminate against, employees in any way because of their nonmembership in Bricklayers Local No. 2. WE WILL NOT in any other manner restrain or coerce employees in the exercise of their rights which are guaranteed by Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act. WE WILL notify Glenshaw Glass Company, Inc., in writing, with copies to James R. Zollinger and Robert Zollinger, Jr., that we have no objection to their employment by the Company in the future. WE WILL make James R. Zollinger and Robert Zollinger, Jr. whole for any loss of pay they have suffered because of the discrimination which we caused them. Dated By BRICKLAYERS, MASONS AND PLASTERERS INTERNATIONAL UNION OF AMERICA, BRICKLAYERS LOCAL No. 2, AFL-CIO (Labor Organization) (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 members have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions, they may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, 1536 Federal Building, 1000 Liberty Avenue, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15222, Telephone 644-2969. n e 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 be enforced by a decree of a United States Court of Appeals, the words "a Decision 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 be 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 the Respondent has taken to comply herewith."