San Francisco Typographical Union

SAN FRANCISCO TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION 319 San Francisco Typographical Union No. 21 Interna- tional Typographical Union , AFL-CIO and Cali- fornia Newspapers, Inc. d/b/a San Rafael Inde- pendent Journal. Cases 20-CB-2285-1, 20-CB-2285-2, and 20-CB-2285-3 September 24, 1971 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS JENKINS AND KENNEDY On May 13, 1971, Trial Examiner James T. Barker issued his Decision in this proceeding, finding that the 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 Respondent filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision with a supporting brief, the General Counsel filed limited cross-exceptions and an answering brief, and the Charging Party filed cross-exceptions and an answer- ing 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 findings, conclusions, and recommenda- tions of the Trial Examiner as modified below. The Trial Examiner found that the Respondent violated the Act by filing charges against, and citing before an investigating committee and its trial committee, employer representatives who conse- quently were fined and expelled from Respondent. However, he did not refer to such violations in his recommended Order and notice. The General Coun- sel excepts to this apparent oversight. We find merit to this exception and shall amend the Order and notice. As we agree with the Trial Examiner that the Employer's representatives were at all relevant times supervisors within the meaning of the Act, we find it unnecessary to adopt or pass upon the Examiner's statement that it is the individual's status at the time discipline is imposed that governs. ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor 193 NLRB No. 41 Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board adopts as its Order the recommend- ed Order of the Trial Examiner as modified below and hereby orders that Respondent, San Francisco Typo- graphical Union No. 21, International Typographical Union, AFL-CIO, its officers, agents, and representa- tives, shall take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's recommended Order as herein modified. 1. Insert the following at the beginning of para- graph 1(b) of the Trial Examiner's recommended Order: "Filing intraunion charges against, citing before an intraunion committee or trial tribunal,". 2. Substitute the attached notice for the Trial Examiner's notice. APPENDIX B NOTICE To MEMBERS POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government WE WILL NOT restrain or coerce California Newspapers, Inc., d/b/a San Rafael Independent Journal, in the selection and retention of its representatives, including Earl Dixon, Robert Dixon, and Ernest Fingerlos, for purposes of collective bargaining and adjustment of grievances of employees. WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner restrain or coerce California Newspapers, Inc., d/b/a San Rafael Independent Journal, in the selection of representatives chosen for the purpos- es of collective bargaining and adjustment of grievances of employees. WE WILL NOT file intraunion charges against, cite before an intraunion committee or trial tribunal, fine, or otherwise discipline Earl Dixon, Robert Dixon, or Ernest Fingerlos because of their conduct and performance of work as the selected representatives of California Newspapers, Inc., d/b/a San Rafael Independent Journal, for the purposes of collective bargaining and adjustment of grievances. WE WILL rescind any fines, suspensions, expul- sions, or other disciplinary acts taken against Earl Dixon, Robert Dixon, and Ernest Fingerlos, and exise and expunge all records or other evidence in our files resulting from charges and proceedings brought against Earl Dixon, Robert Dixon, and Ernest Fingerlos because of their working for San Rafael Independent Journal during the course of the strike called by us. 320 Dated By DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD SAN FRANCISCO TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION No. 21 INTERNATIONAL TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION, AFL-CIO (Labor Organization) (Representative) (Title) This is an official notice and must not be defaced by anyone. 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. Any questions concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions may be directed to the Board's Office, 13050 Federal Building, Box 36047, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, California 94102, Telephone 415-556-3197. TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE JAMES T. BARKER, Trial Examiner: This matter was heard at San Francisco, California, on January 12, 27, 28, and 29, 1971, pursuant to separate charges filed on July 20, 1970, by California Newspapers, Inc., d/b/a San Rafael Independ- ent Journal, hereinafter called The Journal. On September 14, 1970, the Regional Director of the National Labor Relations Board for Region 20 issued a consolidated complaint and notice of hearing alleging that San Francisco Typographical Union No. 21, International Typographical Union, AFL-CIO, hereinafter called the Respondent had violated Section 8(b)(1)(B) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, hereinafter called the Act. On March 22, 1971, the parties timely filed briefs with me. Upon consideration of the briefs of the parties, and upon the entire record in this case ' and my observation of the witnesses, I make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY California Newspapers, Inc., d/b/a San Rafael Inde- pendent Journal, is a California corporation which has been at all times material herein engaged in the publication at its newspaper publishing plant in San Rafael, California, of a daily newspaper, the San Rafael Independent Journal. During the calendar year immediately preceding the issuance of the complaint herein, The Journal received gross revenues in excess of $200,000 from the sale of newspapers and of advertising therein. During the same period of time, The Journal has been a subscriber to the I The transcript of this proceeding contains numerous errors Counsel for the General Counsel has filed a motion to correct certain of them No opposition has been filed As the motion of the General Counsel is addressed to the principal substantive errors in the transcript and as my analysis of the record indicates that the corrections are warranted, the Associated Press and United Press International, each of which is an interstate news service. Additionally, during the same period of time, in the course and conduct of its business operations, The Journal has purchased and received goods and services valued in excess of $50,000 at its San Rafael plant directly from sources located outside the State of California. Upon these admitted facts, I find that at all times matenal herein California Newspapers, Inc., d/b/a San Rafael Independent Journal has been an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act. 11. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED The Respondent concedes that at all times material herein it has been a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act, and I so find. III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. The Issues 1. Contentions of the parties The principal issue in this proceeding is whether Robert Dixon, Earl Dixon, and/or Ernest Fingerlos were supervi- sors of The Journal with authority to adjust grievances of employees at a time when Respondent initiated disciplinary proceedings against them, fined them, and expelled them from membership for working behind a picket line established by Respondent in support of its lawful strike against The Journal. The Respondent denies the commis- sion of any unfair labor practices. Initially, the Respondent contends that the relevant period for determining the authority of the individuals expelled from membership is the date on which they first worked behind the Respondent's picket line during the strike which ensued. Building upon this premise, the Respondent further contends that none of the three individuals possessed authority on behalf of the Company to adjust grievances or engage in collective-bargaining negotiations on behalf of the Company at the time they crossed the Respondent's picket line to work in the employ of the Company, or at any prior time.2 Additionally, the Respondent contends that the proscriptions of Section 8(b)(1)(B) are not applicable in the context of this proceeding, because union membership of a supervisory employee was voluntary under the most recent collective- bargaining agreement between the Respondent and the Company and remained so at times subsequent to the beginning of the strike. As further ground for dismissing the complaint, the Respondent contends that, in light of the prefatory language of Section 8(b)(I), and in consideration of the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in N.L.R.B. v. Allis-Chalmers, 388 U.S. 175, Section 8(b)(1)(B) does not prohibit a labor organization from instituting disciplinary proceedings against a foreman for crossing a lawful picket transcript is hereby corrected in the manner indicated at "Appendix A" (omitted from publication] 2 It is conceded that none of the three had authority to engage in collective-bargaining negotiations on behalf of The Journal. SAN FRANCISCO TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION 321 line during a strike ; and that, in any event, no violation of Section 8(b)(1)(B) should be found where, as here, the expelled members do not wish to regain their union membership. 2. Ruling as to the relevant period At the hearing the General Counsel took the position that the relevant period for determining the possession and exercise of supervisory authority by Robert and Earl Dixon was January 7 through 30, 1970; and for Ernest Fingerlos March 31 to April 22, 1970. In light of the position of the General Counsel and the gravamen of the respective intraunion charges tiled against the three alleged supervi- sors, the Trial Examiner ruled, in substance, at the hearing that the relevant period for determining the supervisory status of the three individuals subjected to union charges was delineated, on the one hand, by the dates on which they respectively commenced working behind the Respondent's picket line and, on the other hand, by the date upon which intraunion charges were preferred against them. This ruling was made over objections of counsel for Respondent who contended, in substance, as noted above, that the relevant and material date for determining a possession of supervisory authority was the date upon which each individual crossed the Respondent's picket line, which action gave rise to the intraunion charges. Respondent thus contended that, for the aforesaid reason, it was entitled to probe the status of each of the alleged supervisors preceding the date upon which each crossed the Respon- dent's picket line and to elicit testimony and introduce evidence pertaining to a period prior to January 7 with respect to Robert and Earl Dixon and March 31 with respect to Ernest Fingerlos. Although the Trial Examiner ruled adversely to the Respondent on this issue, he permitted an offer of proof designed to establish that prior to crossing the Respondent's picket line none of the three alleged supervisors in fact possessed supervisory authority. This offer of proof was rejected by the Trial Examiner at the hearing. I affirm that ruling and I do here specifically reject Respondent's contention that introduction of evidence revealing the actual status of the three disciplined individuals as "rank and file employees" before their return to work behind the picket line was warranted on the theory that this would reveal that the Company's investiture of supervisory authority in them after the strike was for the sole purpose of immunizing them from union discipline. Among the purposes of Section 8(b)(1)(B) is the extension of freedom to an employer isolated from union interference and coercion to select supervisory personnel to meet business and operational exigencies . It is the authority possessed by the individual selected by management at the time he was subjected to union discipline that governs and not his prior or subsequent status. Practical impediments confronting the Respondent in disproving the General Counsel's contention do not warrant a different result. In any event, latitude was given Respondent in probing the authority possessed by each of the disciplined employees immediately preceding the relevant date on the theory that 3 All dates herein refer to the calendar year 1970 unless specifically indicated otherwise 4 At all pertinent times advertising composition at The Journal had this would give insight into the validity of testimony suggesting that during the relevant period previously possessed supervisory authority was merely reinforced and reiterated by top management. B. The Pertinent Facts 1. Background facts On January 7, 1970,3 Respondent commenced a strike at The Journal. The strike grew out of the inability of the Respondent and The Journal to successfully negotiate a collective-bargaining agreement to replace the agreement between them which had expired on November 2, 1968. On January 7 ultimate authority and responsibility for the entire operation of The Journal resided with the publisher of The Journal. Norwin Yoffie in his capacity as general manager of The Journal was next in line of authority. On January 7, and at relevant times thereafter, Gordon Dixon was employed in the capacity of superin- tendent of The Journal and in this capacity had general supervisory authority over the composing room, the pressroom, the engraving department, and the typing department. He similarly had the title of foreman. Gordon Dixon had the authority to hire and discharge composing room employees. He maintained one office adjacent to the composing room and a separate office on the same floor as the composing room but not contiguous to it. On or about January 22, Gordon Dixon suffered a heart attack and was hospitalized until March 1970. During his hospitalization, he retained the title of superintendent and of foreman. In the composing room work tasks are performed which relate to the flow of editorial copy through the department. It is also in the composing room that the markup and pasteup of advertising copy is performed. Additionally, linotype and TTS machines are utilized and monitors are operated. It is in the composing room that the task of proofreading material is performed. During the relevant period, Earl Dixon served as assistant foreman in charge of the day shift in the composing room and Robert Dixon was employed in the composing room in the capacity of assistant foreman in charge of cold-type composition and makeup.4 Earl Dixon had general responsibility for the entire operation of the day shift in the composing room and had specific responsibility in the area of composition, which included work performed by TTS and linotype operators, and by monitors and proofreaders. Robert Dixon's area of specific responsibility was with respect to cold-type composition. Additionally, he had responsibility in the makeup of news pages in the composition room. With the commencement of the strike and for a period of time thereafter, the work of the composing room was performed by management and supervisory personnel augmented by a number of rank-and-file employees. By January 17, management was able to begin assigning personnel permanently to a work position, but no definitive two-shift arrangement emerged until several days later. been in cold-type By this process advertising is composed on a photo- composition or lino-film machine and then pasted into position on the page 322 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 2. The supervisory issue a. The hiring procedures In January, following commencement of the strike, approximately 30 or 35 composing room employees were hired. By virtue of the strike, it became necessary for The Journal to increase its recruitment efforts, and to this end, after initial testing and screening procedures were per- formed with the participation of Norwin Yoffie, Gordon Dixon and other officials of the Company, the assistant foremen of the various departments, including Robert and Earl Dixon, conducted final interviews and made the final selection of personnel. New hires were accomplished by Robert and Earl Dixon during this period of time without the prior approval of Gordon Dixon. Coincident to undertaking the reconstitution of the work force, Norwin Yoffie spoke to all plant supervisors, including Robert and Earl Dixon. He informed them of the urgency of recruitment efforts and outlined the program to be followed in recruiting, screening, testing, and selecting personnel. He delineated to the supervisors their respective areas of work responsibility and informed them that they would have the responsibilities for making the final evaluation of an applicant's qualifications and for selecting personnel for hire in their respective assigned departments. He detailed for the supervisors some of the "specifics" entailed within their "general responsibilities." Yoffie further discussed with the supervisors the "wage philoso- phy" that would apply in operating their departments and in the course of the discussion informed them that they had authority to recommend wage increases for personnel under their direction. b. Robert Dixon During the period January 7 to January 30,5 Robert Dixon, as found, was employed in the composing room of The Journal in the capacity of assistant foreman in charge of cold-type composition and makeup. On or about January 22, when Gordon Dixon became hospitalized, Robert Dixon became acting foreman of the composing room. During the aforesaid period, Robert Dixon was paid a weekly salary of $197.10. His normal workweek was 35 hours. For the purposes of overtime compensation, he was paid at a premium rate of time and one-half of his hourly compensation which was the equivalent of 1/35th of his weekly salary. The highest weekly scale for any rank-and- file employee working under Robert Dixon during the relevant period was $182.10 per week. Robert Dixon did not participate in any bonus or other remuneration other than his salary and overtime compensation. 5 In accordance with the ruling of the Trial Examiner, this period of time is deemed the relevant period for determining the status of Robert and Earl Dixon 6 Eight or ten employees were employed in pasteup and advertising tasks while an additional four or five were employed as floor workers r Yoffie testified that much overtime was worked in the composing room during the period of January 7 to 30, and that the work force during that period of time was an expanding one However , he further testified that "the pattern of life" in the department was such as to necessitate an assumption that time off was requested and granted. I Norwin Yoffie testified that some of the personnel had worked in other departments and that, to effectuate the transfer of these employees During the relevant period, Robert Dixon had responsi- bility and authority to assign work and to supervise the work of rank-and-file employees in the composing room. After January 17, but prior to January 30, a complement of approximately 15 permanent employees had been achieved at The Journal in those job categories in the composing room over which Robert Dixon had authority.6 During the relevant period, Robert Dixon had authority to transfer, recall, discipline and discharge employees and he was vested with authority to grant time off, to participate in the hire of new employees, to recommend wage increases for employees under his direction and to request said employees to work overtime. Additionally, Robert Dixon had authority to adjust grievances of employees engaged in the pasteup, cold-type composition work and in the floor makeup work. Procedures in effect after January 7 provided for grievances to be taken up individually by the aggrieved employee with his supervisor. During the period immediately following the commencement of the strike, Yoffie specifically instructed Robert Dixon that he had authority to discharge employees and to take disciplinary action against them. In his testimony at the hearing, Yoffie could not recount with particularity instances wherein Robert Dixon had discharged, disciplined, granted time off to, adjusted grievances of, or required employees to work overtime. Yoffie testified, nonetheless, in substance, that these prerogatives and authorities were inherent in Robert Dixon's assigned responsibilities in the composing room and would have been exercised in the normal course of events in the composing room.7 However, Yoffie testified that Robert Dixon had a role in hiring "most" of the 15 employees who constituted the complement of permanent employees in the composing room in those job categories over which Robert Dixon had authority.8 Additionally, the testimony of Norwin Yoffie establishes that during the relevant period Robert Dixon recalled at least two employees.9 In the daily performance of his duties, Robert Dixon spent a portion of the worktime making up advertising copy to be set on the linotype machine in the department. By this procedure indication is made on the advertising copy transmitted from the advertising services department to the composing room as to the type face, size, and measure in which the copy is to be finally set for reproduction. Robert Dixon also performed some pasteup and floor work. Other portions of his workday were devoted to overseeing and directing the work of others in the department. Because of the relative inexperience of the work complement during January 7 to 30 a large portion of Robert Dixon's time was spent in oversight tasks. Included in these tasks, as those responsibilities relate specifically to the flow of advertising under then prevailing procedures , Robert Dixon would have had to make a specific request to the department head of the department in which these employees had formerly been employed, or to Gordon Dixon Yoffie was unable to testify specifically with respect to individual transfers requested by Robert Dixon, but he testified that he learned by word of mouth from supervision that at least one such request had been made by Dixon and had been honored 9 The term "recall" is a word of art referring to the return upon request of supervision of an employee to perform additional work tasks after he had completed his normal shift and has left the plant for the day Robert Dixon's authority to recall employees had been verbally emphasized to him by Yoffie during conversations between them SAN FRANCISCO TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION 323 copy through the composing room, Robert Dixon had the responsibility for directing an employee to "redo" an advertisement which was revealed by proofreading scrutiny to have been incorrectly marked as to type and size. c. Earl Dixon During the relevant period, Earl Dixon's responsibilities as assistant foreman in charge of the entire day shift in the composing room required him to designate the work to be performed by the employees employed in those job categories, as above found, over which he had specific responsibility. Additionally, this element of his responsibili- ty required him to determine whether or not thejob tasks he designated to be performed had been carried out in a timely fashion. In fulfilling these responsibilities, Earl Dixon exercised judgment and discretion in the designation of employees to perform the work tasks at hand. His exercise of this judgment and discretion was based on his knowledge of the work skills and capabilities of the employees under his direction. During relevant times, Earl Dixon had a desk in the composing room from which he had a view of portions of the composing room. Throughout the relevant period, Earl Dixon participated in the selection of personnel for work in the composing room and he had authority to hire, discharge, transfer, and suspend employees. He had authority also during this period of time to grant time off, to request employees to work overtime, to recall employees, and to recommend wage increases. Earl Dixon had occasion during the relevant period to be in complete charge of the composing room and during this time span he caused employees to be transferred from one job to another. Additionally, during this time period, Earl Dixon was vested with specific authority to deal with and adjust employee grievances. This authority included the capacity to advise and assist the employees under his direction concerning problems relating to their compensation or to their work. 10 d. Ernest Fingerlos During times relevant herein, and specifically during the first week of April, Ernest Fingerlos served in the capacity of chief machinist at The Journal. His duties were performed in the composing room at The Journal and they included responsibilities to maintain and repair all of the composing room equipment, to order equipment and parts as needed, to obtain supplies for the continued operation of the equipment and to direct the work of other machinists. During the time period March 31 to April 22, two 10 Earl Dixon credibly testified that prior to January 7 he had authority to hire, discharge, and suspend employees and to resolve grievances He testified that he exercised his authority to hire employees prior to January 7 and resolved some grievances Documentary evidence of record supports Dixon's testimony in this latter regard. Earl Dixon further testified that he did not discharge or suspend any employee prior to January 7 and that he did not possess the authority to discharge employees when Gordon Dixon was present u Norwin Yoffie testified that while the collective-bargaining agreement then in effect gave Gordon Dixon the exclusive authority to discharge employees in the composing room , in actual practice, when Gordon Dixon was not present, this right to terminate employees was "assumed by another" He testified further, in substance , with respect to machinists whom Fingerlos in 1969 employed, that Gordon Dixon made the formal machinists, in addition to Fingerlos, were employed by The Journal. In his capacity as chief machinist, Fingerlos possessed during pertinent times, authority to hire, discharge, assign, and to transfer machinists from one job to another. He also had authority to request machinists to work overtime and to recommend a wage increase for machinists. His authority included the responsibility to consider and deal with employee grievances. Fingerlos worked principally during the daytime hours at The Journal, whereas one of the machinists, Craig Dumont, worked during the evening hours. However, on "most days" the hours of work for Fingerlos and Dumont overlapped. Norwin Yoffie testified that subsequent to the beginning of the strike he specifically detailed to Fingerlos the nature of his authority as head machinist. He pointed out to Fingerlos that in his capacity as head machinist Fingerlos had the responsibility for the selection, hiring, and discharging of machinists. Yoffie testified, however, that Fingerlos played no role in the initial hire or transfer of the two machinists who were working in the department during times pertinent herein. He further testified that during the period March 31 to April 22 Fingerlos did not hire or terminate any machinists. However, he testified that during 1969 Fingerlos hired a machinist and that in late 1968 or early 1969 he terminated one.ii Norwin Yoffie testified that one of the machinists working under the direction of Fingerlos during times pertinent herein was a "fully competent" machinist who had the capacity to work by himself without supervision. However, he further testified that one of the other machinists was "not fully qualified" and that while he was capable of working by himself there were many levels of work that he could not perform. Yoffie further testified that in instances wherein the two machinists had performed complex work on machinery in the composing room it was Fingerlos' duty and practice to check the work to determine whether or not it had been satisfactorily accomplished.12 Norwin Yoffie was unable to testify with specificity concerning instances wherein, during the period March 31 to April 22, Fingerlos actually exercised the authority to adjust grievances, recommend wage increases, grant time off to employees or to require employees to work overtime. However, Yoffie testified that authority to take these several actions was inherent in the authority possessed by Fingerlos.13 On April 22, and at pertinent times, Fingerlos was salaried and his weekly salary exceeded that of either of the two machinists who worked under his direction. Like the offer of employment but that Fingerlos, nonetheless, effectively selected the machinists for employment 12 Norwin Yoffie testified that at a time subsequent to the strike the machinery in the composing room was replaced by more sophisticated machinery which had the effect of eliminating much of the routine maintenance which at the time of the strike was absorbing the attention of the machinists . Yoffie did not specify in his testimony when this transition to the more sophisticated and automated machinery was accomplished 13 Yoffie testified, in substance, that prior to the strike Fingerlos had actually participated in the resolution of a grievance , had made a recommendation to Gordon Dixon on behalf of a machinist of a wage increase and possessed, independent of the authority of Gordon Dixon, authority to grant time off to machinists and to require them to work overtime 324 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD two machinists, Fingerlos received overtime compensation for work in excess of 35 hours per week. 3. The alleged unlawful conduct The intraunion proceedings On or about January 30, Leon Olson, president of Respondent, filed charges with the Union against Robert Dixon and Earl Dixon alleging that by working behind Respondent's picket line during Respondent' s strike against The Journal which commenced on January 7, Robert and Earl Dixon had violated Respondent's constitution and bylaws. Thereafter, on or about March 23, Respondent cited Robert and Earl Dixon to appear before its investigating committee scheduled to convene on March 30 to answer charges filed against them by Olson. Subsequent- ly, on or about May 1, Respondent cited Robert and Earl Dixon to appear before its trial committee scheduled to convene on May 11 to answer the charges which had been filed against them by Olson. On or about June 21, as a consequence of action of its membership, Respondent found Robert Dixon and Earl Dixon guilty of the charges against them and they were expelled from membership. Additionally, Robert and Earl Dixon were each fined $10,000. In a similar manner, on or about April 22, Leon Olson filed charges against Ernest Fingerlos alleging that, in violation of Respondent's constitution and bylaws, Finger- los had crossed the picket line which Respondent had established at The Journal and had returned to work in The Journal's struck plant. Thereafter, on or about June 25, Fingerlos was cited by Respondent to appear before its investigating committee which was scheduled to meet on July 7, for the purpose of answering the charges which Olson had filed against him. Subsequently, on July 23, Respondent cited Fingerlos to appear before its trial committee scheduled to meet on August 3. On or about August 16, Respondent, through action of its membership, found Fingerlos guilty of the charges which had been filed against him . He was expelled from membership and fined $10,000. The evidence of record establishes that, as charged by Respondent, Robert and Earl Dixon worked in the employ of The Journal at all relevant times on and after January 7, during which period of time Respondent was engaging in a strike against The Journal and in support thereof was engaging in picketing at The Journal's San Rafael place of business. Moreover, the evidence reveals that on and after March 31 Ernest Fingerlos worked behind the picket line which had been established at The Journal.14 4. Union membership benefits John De Martini, first vice president of Respondent, credibly testified that there has been in existence at all times pertinent a fraternal pension plan and a negotiated pension plan in which, to the extent found below, members of Respondent and/or employees represented by it partici- pate. The former plan exists by virtue of provisions of the Book of Laws of the International Typographical Union and the latter plan derives from the terms of collective- bargaining agreements between employers and local unions of the ITU. The negotiated plan is funded entirely by the employers pursuant to the terms of the collective-bargain- ing agreement and the benefits under the plan are not dependent upon union membership. De Martini testified that a negotiated plan had been in effect for approximately 4 or 5 years between Respondent and The Journal. He testified that when the strike commenced on January 7, The Journal ceased making contributions to the negotiated pension plan. The provisions governing the fraternal pension plan are contained in article XX of the Book of Laws of the ITU. The basic, enabling provision is as follows: Section 1. Any member of the International Typograph- ical Union who has reached the age of 60 years and having a continuous membership of twenty-five years immediately antedating the time of application and who is unable to continue in or secure sustaining employ- ment because of age or disability may receive the sum of $100 per month. The provisions relating to the fraternal pension plan also contain allowances for payment of pensions to disabled members and, inter alia, specifies procedures for applying and qualifying for pension benefits. Under article XX of the Book of Laws of the ITU, the following provision is contained with respect to mortuary benefits: Sec. 11. Mortuary claims shall be allowed the beneficiary of any deceased member in good standing under the following terms and conditions: It is expressly provided that the beneficiary of any member shall be entitled to the mortuary benefit should death occur within the thirty-day period immediately following the expiration date of a current working card. (See Section 1, Article IX, and Section 2, Article XXIII, Bylaws). Article IX, section 1, provides for the issuance of a working card to members whose dues are fully paid and article XXIII, section 2, specifies the wording and content of a traveling card which may be issued to members in good standing who desire to leave the jurisdiction of the local union. De Martini further testified there are in existence no health plans which derive solely from membership in the ITU, or in Respondent. He testified that the health plans in which members of ITU participate are negotiated health plans which exist under terms of collective-bargaining agreements with employers. Earl Dixon testified that prior to his expulsion from the Union he had been a member of the ITU for approximately 36 years. He further testified that he had been a vice president of an ITU local with which Respondent merged. Earl Dixon continued to be a member of the ITU after the merger and was thereafter a member of Respondent until 14 The foregoing is based on admissions of record and on evidence expulsion and fining of Robert and Earl Dixon and of Ernest Fingerlos is adduced at the hearing . The legality of the proceedings leading to the not here in issue SAN FRANCISCO TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION 325 his expulsion in 1970. Earl Dixon testified that at the time of the hearing he was 62 years of age.15 Article XII, section 1, of the Book of Laws of the ITU contains the obligation to which every person admitted to membership in the ITU must subscribe. In pertinent part the article provides, ". . . I will, in good conscience and to the best of my ability, comply with all the laws, rules, regulations and decisions of the International Typographi- cal Union and of any subordinate union to which I may belong...." The most recent collective-bargaining agreement be- tween Respondent and The Journal expired on November 2, 1968. Negotiations followed and the strike commenced, as found, on January 7, 1970. There is a dispute, which I find unnecessary to resolve, whether the terms of the collective-bargaining agreement remained in effect until the strike. It is clear that none of its terms were given effect on or after January 7, 1970. Conclusions The issues in this case are, (1) whether Robert and Earl Dixon and Ernest Fingerlos were at relevant times supervisors within the meaning of the Act, and (2) whether by filing charges against them, citing them to appear at an intraunion investigatory committee meeting and a trial committee proceeding to answer charges, fining them and expelling them from membership, all for the reason that they worked in the employ of The Journal during the union-called strike, the Respondent violated Section 8(b)(I)(B) of the Act. Initially, I find that Robert and Earl Dixon and Ernest Fingerlos were supervisors within the meaning of the Act at all pertinent times after the strike commenced and throughout the several stages of the intraunion proceeding against them. The evidence of record adduced by the General Counsel, and upon which the General Counsel placed entire reliance established, I find, that after January 7 and on January 30 when charges were preferred against them, Robert and Earl Dixon were vested with the array of authority which is the accepted indicia of supervisory status under Section 2(11) of the Act. I further find that on March 30 and on April 22, respectively, and through the intervening period of time, and thereafter, Ernest Fingerlos was similarly vested with supervisory authority. Additionally, I find that there is credible evidence of record sufficient to establish that during the period of time ruled relevant as to each, Robert and Earl Dixon and Ernest Fingerlos exercised elements of supervisory authority vested in them and that this exercise of authority was sufficient, independently, to establish their supervisory status. 15 To the extent that Earl Dixon's testimony inferred that life and health insurance benefits and dental care benefits derived solely from membership in Respondent, I reject his testimony Rather, I credit the testimony of John De Martini that these benefits became available to members only under collective-bargaining agreements with employers De Martini's testimony in this regard finds support in the absence of any provisions in the Book of Laws of the ITU making provisions for such benefits is Sec . 2(11) of the Act provides as follows "The term 'supervisor' means any individual having authority, in the interest of the employer, to hire, transfer , suspend, lay off, recall, promote , discharge, assign, reward, The General Counsel correctly contends that under the terms of Section 2(11) of the Act,is the Board has made clear that it is the possession of supervisory authority and not its exercise that is determinative. 17 Further, the Board has found that an individual becomes a supervisor within the meaning of the Act if he possesses just one of the attributes of supervisory authority delineated in Section 2(11).18 The credible evidence of record reveals that under the operating and oversight procedures utilized by The Journal after January 7, Robert and Earl Dixon and Ernest Fingerlos were vested with a broad range of supervisory authority. It is clear from the record that, in addition to being vested with authority to hire personnel to work in the departments under their direction-an investiture in which Ernest Fingerlos shared-Robert and Earl Dixon played a role in selecting the composing room work complement which was reconstituted after January 7. Further, during the relevant period Robert Dixon recalled employees under his direction and Earl Dixon had occasion to transfer composing room employees from one job to another. The record evidence also establishes authority on the part of Robert and Earl Dixon and Ernest Fingerlos to responsibly direct the work of employees assigned to them. Thus, while Robert and Earl Dixon, as well as Ernest Fingerlos, performed some work tasks typically performed by journeymen, the record makes clear that each was required separately and additionally to control the flow of work, to observe the work of the rank-and-file employees and to specify corrections. The work flow from one department to another was well defined but the work being performed by rank-and-file employees within the department was, the record suggests, skilled work which was on an order of difficulty requiring the exercise of independent judgment on the part of supervision both as to the identity of personnel who would perform the work tasks and some elements of its actual performance. A further attribute of supervisory authority which was shared by Robert and Earl Dixon and Ernest Fingerlos was the authority to adjust grievances and to make effective recommendations with respect to their resolution. Thus, the authority of each included not only that authority normally associated with the typical first step grievance procedure but included authority to make efficacious recommenda- tions to higher authority. Upon the foregoing considerations, including the find- ings which I make that Robert and Earl Dixon and Ernest Fingerlos not only were vested with authority to act on behalf of The Journal in a manner which constituted them supervisors within the meaning of the Act, but that they actually, during the periods of time relevant as to each, exercised this authority, I find that each was a supervisor within the meaning of Section 2(11) of the Act.19 I further find that, by filing charges against Robert and or discipline other employees , or responsibly to direct them, or to adjust their grievances, or effectively to recommend such action , if in connection with the foregoing the exercise of such authority is not of a merely routine or clerical nature, but requires the use of independent judgment." 17 The Eavey Company, 115 NLRB 1779; Waldo Rohnert Company, 120 NLRB 152, 154, at fn. 9. is Research Designing Service, Inc., 141 NLRB 211 is To find, as Respondent contends, that none of the three was a supervisor would require the trier of fact to indulge the anomalous assumption that a work force of more than 30 employees could function (Continued) 326 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Earl Dixon and Ernest Fingerlos , citing each of them to appear before an intraunion committee and a trial tribunal of the Union, and by subjecting each of them to intraunion disciplinary actions which resulted in an assessment of fines against them and their expulsion from membership, Respondent violated Section 8(b)(1)(B) of the Act. This finding is predicated upon an application of the Board's decision in San Francisco-Oakland Mailers' Union No 18, International Typographical Union, 172 NLRB No. 252, and upon the Board's subsequent decisions in New Mexico District Council of Carpenters and Joiners of America (A.S. Horner, Inc.), 177 NLRB No. 76, and Toledo Locals Nos. 15-p and 272 of the Lithographers and Photoengravers International Union, AFL-CIO (The Toledo Blade Company, Inc.), 175 NLRB No. 173. In San Francisco Mailers the Board found that the union therein had violated Section 8(b)(1)(B) of the Act by engaging in certain conduct directed towards company supervisors of a variety similar to that in which Respondent here engaged . This union conduct included citing the supervisors to appear before an executive committee of the union to answer charges of alleged violations by the supervisors of provisions of the collective-bargaining agreement between the union and the company and of fining them for the alleged offenses . In reaching its determination that the union had by these actions violated Section 8(b)(1)(B), the Board observed: We are in agreement with the Trial Examiner that the citation of [the supervisors] was not, as contended by Respondent, solely for investigative purposes . We find rather, the Respondent's actions, including the cita- tions, fines, and threats of citation , were designed to change the Charging Party 's representatives from persons representing the viewpoint of management to persons responsive or subservient to Respondent 's will. In enacting Section 8(b)(1)(B) Congress sought to prevent the very evil involved herein- union interfer- ence with an employer's control over its own represent- atives. That Respondent may have sought the substitu- tion of attitudes rather than persons, and may have exerted its pressure upon the Charging Party by indirect rather than direct means , cannot alter the ultimate fact that pressure was exerted here for the purpose of interfering with the Charging Party's control over its representatives. Realistically, the Employer would have to replace its foremen or face defacto nonrepresentation by them . [Footnote citations deleted.] Subsequently, in the Horner case the Board considered whether a union had violated Section 8(b)(1)(B) of the Act by preferring charges, imposing fines and attempting to collect such fines against a supervisor because, in his capacity as a project superintendent he had , inter aha, refused to accede to the union's demand that he cease working for an employer not making contributions to the union's health and welfare fund. The Board found, on the basis of its decision in San Francisco Mailers that the union over a substantial period of time without first-line supervision As there is no evidence of record to warrant the assumption that officials in the hierarchy of the company vested with primary responsibility for management of the affairs of the company expended their energy in day- to-day direction of the operating departments I find additional ground for rejecting Respondent's contention on the supervisory issue Sturgeon had by its conduct violated Section 8(b)(1)(B) of the Act. In reaching this conclusion the Board noted that the company was not contractually or otherwise obligated to contribute to the union's health and welfare fund. The Board reasoned that the union was accordingly " using its internal working rules to boycott an employer who did not have a contract with the [union ] by making it a violation, subject to a fine, for its members to work for such an employer." The Board concluded that it was clear that the basic dispute underlying the disciplinary action against the superintend- ent was not entirely an intraunion matter but involved an underlying dispute between the union and the company and not one between the union and one of its members. The Board reasoned that compliance by the superintendent to the demands of the union which the company was not contractually obligated to honor "would have had the effect of depriving the Company of the services of its selected representatives for the purposes of collective bargaining or the adjustment of grievances." The inhibiting effect in the context of Section 8(b)(1)(B) of the Act deriving from union disciplinary actions against supervisors vested with authority to adjust employee grievances which was given demarcation in the San Francisco Mailers case was given further dimension by the Board in Toledo Locals Nos. 15-P and 272 of the Lithographers and Photoengravers International Union, AFL-CIO (The Toledo Blade Company, Inc.), supra. In Toledo Blade the Board adopted the following rationale of the Trial Examiner therein: If, therefore, the supervisor has actually been designat- ed as the employer's bargaining or grievance represent- ative (as the Board and the Trial Examiner found in the San Francisco Mailers' case, and I have also found in the present case), the Unions' discipline of the supervisor is unquestionably a restraint upon, and coercion of the employer's continuing its selection of, and reliance upon, the supervisor as its bargaining and grievance representative and an unfair labor practice within the meaning of Section 8(b)(1)(B) of the Act. But even if, as I have also indicated the Board might find in the present case, the disciplined supervisor merely has such present substantial other supervisory authority and regular contact with the employees under him as to make him a natural, possible, future choice of the employer to handle its grievances as occasion might arise, his discipline by the union restricts the employer's freedom in making that choice and future selection as bargaining or grievance representative and would, in accordance with the language of Section 8(b)(l)(B) and the Board's reasoning in San Francisco Mailers, also constitute a restraint and coercion of the employer in "the selection of his representatives for the purposes of collective bargaining or the adjustment of grievances." Furthermore, in either of these cases, it is apparent from the language of Section 8(b)(1)(B) and from the general reasoning of the Board in San Francisco Mailers, that it Electric Co, 166 NLRB 210, 214. Although there is evidence of record to reveal that poor to January 7 both Earl and Robert Dixon possessed and exercised aspects of supervisory authority , I deem it unnecessary, in context of the instant record, to rely on this evidence to support my finding, above made, that they were supervisors SAN FRANCISCO TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION 327 is not an essential element of the unfair labor practices that the disciplined supervisor be a compelled union member under a union-security clause obtained by the union. It is enough that his actual membership has colorably subjected him to the offensive discipline and its effect upon his employer's right to rely upon him as a supervisor. [Emphasis supplied.] Proceeding by analogy from the thrust of the Board's decision in Horner and taking cognizance of the nature of the inhibitions against the exercise of supervisory preroga- tives to handle and adjust employee grievances alluded to in Toledo Blade, in conformity with what I deem to be the Board's meaning and application of Section 8(b)(1)(B), I conclude that a labor organization violates that section of the Act, and thus engages in restraint and coercion within the meaning of that provision of the Act, by bringing intraunion charges against supervisors and subjecting them to intraunion proceedings, fines, and ultimate expulsion because they worked behind a picket line in the employ of their employer during a union-called strike. The violation is consummated even though, as here, no union-security arrangement abides to render compulsory the union membership of the disciplined supervisor. It is enough that he was a member of the union when the disciplinary actions were taken, and that the intraunion sanctions to which he was subjected were of a character, quality, or gradation sufficient to reasonably have the effect of inhibiting him in carrying out those supervisory grievance handling and collective-bargaining responsibilities which had been entrusted him prior to the initiation of the disciplinary action; or to serve as a signal to other supervisors who are members of the union that similar discipline might be visited upon them by the union for similar "offenses" against it . It is through this chain of causation that the interference and coercion against employer choice which is the protection accorded by Section 8(b)(1)(B) arises.20 Nor is it essential that the authority of the disciplined supervisor to adjust grievances derived from a collective-bargaining agreement. Rather, it is sufficient that the authority vested in him by his employer extends merely to the adjustment of personal grievances of employees.2i These conclusions are consonant with those reached by Trial Examiner George Downing in Milwaukee Printing & Pressmen Assistants Union, No. 7, TXD-187-70, issued April 2, 1970. In reaching his determination that the union therein had violated Section 8(b)(1)(B) for fining a supervisor for crossing the union's picket line, Trial Examiner Downing observed: As the Board has noted, the firing or other disciplining of a management representative will have an inhibiting effect on his future conduct as a supervisor and representative of the employer and will accordingly restrain the employer from retaining him as its representative. Such disciplinary measures will also be a clear signal to other foremen, who under the established 20 Dallas Mailers Union, Local No 143, and International Mailers Union (Dow Jones Company, Inc), 181 NLRB No 49 21 Toledo Locals Nos 1S-P and 272 of the Lithographers and Photoengravers International Union, AFL-CIO (The Toledo Blade Company, Inc), supra 22 New Mexico District Council of Carpenters and Joiners of America, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America (A S Horner, practice are members of the Union, that they would be subject to similar discipline if they administer the contract or dispose of grievances in a manner displeasing to the union. Thus the effect of the disciplinary action is to restrain and coerce the employer within the meaning of Section 8(b)(1)(B) by limiting its "right at any time to make and rely upon a selection of representatives from an uncoerced group of such supervisors whose loyalty to [it] has not been prejudiced." Dallas Mailers' Union etc. (Dow Jones Company, Inc.), 181 NLRB No. 49 quoting from Toledo Blade Company, supra. A similar conclusion as to the violative nature of such conduct was reached by Trial Examiner Allen Sinsheimer, Jr., in his decision in San Francisco Typographical Union No. 21, International Typographical Union, AFL-CIO, TXD-(SF)-134-70. In consideration of the foregoing, I must reject the contention of the Respondent that no violation of Section 8(b)(1)(B) may be found when, as here, the disciplined supervisors are not required to be or remain union members. Each was at the time of the disciplinary action against him a member of Respondent and the inhibiting effect of the discipline both to the disciplined supervisors and the Employer was accordingly immediate and direct. Moreover the less direct impact upon the Company's future selections of supervisory personnel who may also be union members when the instant dispute is settled is both substantial and predictable and not merely speculative, particularly in the newspaper industry where the ITU is so vital a force.22 Additionally, I must reject the further contention of Respondent that no violation of Section 8(b)(1)(B) may be found when an expelled supervisor does not desire to regain his union membership. The protection accorded by Section 8(b)(1)(B) is the right of an employer to be free from restraint and coercion in the selection of his representatives, and the impact upon this freedom is not to be measured solely by its immediate effect upon the disciplined supervisor.23 Similarly, I find without merit Respondent's contention that a proper balancing of interests as between the right of a union through intraunion disciplinary proceedings and fines to preserve itself and the 8(b)(1)(B) protection given employers in the selection of bargaining and grievance handling representatives requires Board sanction of the conduct of Respondent herein. Where, as here, the purpose and effect of the disciplinary action was such as to affect not only the relationship between the union and its members, but related closely to strike activity and thus to an underlying dispute between the union and the company, the Board has balanced the interests to which Respondent alludes in favor of the statutory policy of allowing the employer an unimpeded choice of representatives for collective bargaining and the settlement of gnevances.24 Moreover, to the extent that Respondent would broaden Inc), 176 NLRB No 105, New Mexico District Council of Carpenters and Joiners of America (A S Horner, Inc), 177 NLRB No 76 23 San Francisco-Oakland Mailers' Union No. 18, International Typographical Union, supra, Toledo Locals Nos 15-P and 272 of the Lithographers and Photoengravers International Union, AFL-CIO (The Toledo Blade Company, Inc), supra 24 New Mexico District Council of Carpenters and Joiners of America (A (Continued) 328 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD the applicability of Section 8(b)(I) through an analogized application of decisions legitimizing union discipline in the area of picket line and decertification petition disciplinary fines25 to incorporate the proviso in Section 8(b)(1)(A) to Section 8(b)(1)(B) as well, it is essential to conclude that the Board has already pronounced its policy and view.26 Accordingly, in view of the foregoing I find that by and through the separate acts of discipline imposed against Robert Dixon, Earl Dixon, and Ernest Fingerlos, as alleged in the complaint, Respondent violated Section 8(b)(1)(B) of the Act. IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of the Respondent set forth in section III, above, occurring in connection with the operations of The Journal, 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 Having found that the Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8(b)(1)(B) 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. Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and the entire record in this case, I make the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. San Francisco Typographical Union No. 21, Interna- tional Typographical Union, AFL-CIO, is a labor organi- zation within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 2. California Newspapers, Inc., d/b/a San Rafael Independent Journal has been at all times material herein an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6) and (7) of the Act. 3. By restraining and coercing California Newspapers, Inc., d/b/a San Rafael Independent Journal in the selection of representatives for the adjustment of griev- ances, the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(b)(IXB) of the Act. 4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law, S Horner, Inc.), supra; San Francisco-Oakland Mailers' Union No 18, International Typographical Union, supra. 25 See N L.R.B. v. Allis-Chalmers, 388 U.S. 175; Machinists Lodge No 405 [Boeing Co J, 185 NLRB No 23; Local 4186, United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO (McGraw Edison Company, etc.), 181 NLRB No 162 26 San Francisco-Oakland Mailers' Union No 18, International Typographical Union, supra, Toledo Locals Nos 15-P and 272 of the Lithographers and Photoengravers International Union, AFL-CIO (The Toledo Blade Company, Inc), supra; New Mexico District Council of Carpenters and Joiners of America; United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America (A.S. Horner, Inc), supra. and the entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, I hereby issue the following recommended: 27 ORDER Respondent, San Francisco Typographical Union No. 21, International Typographical Union, AFL-CIO, its officers, agents, and representatives, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) In any manner restraining or coercing California Newspapers, Inc., d/b/a San Rafael Independent Journal in the selection of representatives for the purposes of collective bargaining or the adjustment of grievances. (b) Fining or otherwise disciplining Supervisors Robert and Earl Dixon and Ernest Fingerlos because of their conduct and performance of work as the selected representatives of California Newspapers, Inc., d/b/a San Rafael Independent Journal for the purposes of collective bargaining or the adjustment of grievances. 2. Take the following affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Rescind any fines, suspensions, expulsions, or other disciplinary acts that may have been taken against Robert and Earl Dixon and Ernest Fingerlos, and excise and expunge all records or other evidence in the files of Respondent resulting from charges and proceedings brought against Robert and Earl Dixon and Ernest Fingerlos because of their working for the California Newspapers, Inc., d/b/a San Rafael Independent Journal during the course of the strike called by the Respondent. (b) Advise the said Robert and Earl Dixon and Ernest Fingerlos, in writing, that Respondent has taken the aforesaid action in compliance with paragraph 2(a) above and that it will cease and desist from the actions forbidden in paragraphs 1(a) and (b) of this Order. (c) Post at its office and at all meeting halls copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix B."28 Copies of said notice, on forms to be provided by the Regional Director for Region 20, shall be duly signed and posted by an authorized representative of Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and shall be maintained, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to members are customarily posted for 60 consecutive days thereafter. Reasonable steps shall be taken to insure that the notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (d) Mail or deliver to the Regional Director for Region 20 signed copies of said notice for posting by the Company, the Company willing. (e) Notify the Regional Director for Region 20, in 27 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the findings, conclusions, and recommended Order herein shall, as provided in Sec. 102 48 of the Rules and Regulations, be adopted by the Board and become its findings, conclusions, and Order, and all objections thereto shall be deemed waived for all purposes. 28 In the event that the Board's Order is enforced by a Judgment of a United States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by Order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall be changed to read "Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board." SAN FRANCISCO TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION 329 writing, within 20 days from the date of the receipt of this Decision, what steps have been taken to comply herewith 29 29 In the event that this recommended Order is adopted by the Board from the date of this Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to after exceptions have been filed , this provision shall be modified to read ' comply herewith " "Notify the Regional Director for Region 20, in writing , within 20 days