Cameron Iron Works, Inc.

168 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Cameron Iron Works, Inc. and International Brother- hood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, Local Union No. 716. Case 23-CA-3788 November 12, 1971 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS FANNING, JENKINS, AND KENNEDY On June 18, 1971, Trial Examiner Fannie M. Boyls issued the attached Decision in this proceeding. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions and a supporting brief. The Board has considered the record and the Trial Examiner's Decision in light of the exceptions and brief and has decided to affirm the Trial Examiner's rulings, findings, and conclusions and to adopt her recommended Order. The Respondent argues that the result reached by the Trial Examiner is inconsistent with Warner Gear Division of Borg-Warner Corp., 102 NLRB 1223. In that case, because of contractual guarantees, the Trial Examiner found, and the Board affirmed, that "union stewardship necessarily involves taking time out from normal working time for the performance of union functions." In this case, as the Trial Examiner noted, there was no such contractual requirement. The Respondent argues that this is a distinction without a difference, because there existed here a practice of permitting stewards to utilize working time for the, performance of steward functions. In our view, there is a difference, in that a practice, while not to be lightly disregarded, does not necessarily freeze the parties in a rigid mold, to which reasonable exceptions or qualifications may not be made. Unfortunately in this case neither party explored with the other what solutions were available-e.g., whether Baker might have been permitted to perform some union functions during working hours, perhaps more limited in scope and timing than would have been the case with a non- leadman, or whether the Union might even agree to a total restriction of Baker's stewardship duties during work time because of the allegedly demanding nature of the leadman assignment. It is surely not inconceiv- able that some mutually satisfactory arrangement could have been worked out. In the absence of such efforts, we agree with the Trial Examiner that Respondent could not arbitrarily restrict the right of the employees and their Union to be represented by the man they desired to have represent them. While, as indicated in Warner Gear, the employer surely has a legitimate interest in the effective utilization of working time, the employees also have a legitimate statutory interest in the designation of their representatives for purpose of 194 NLRB No. 23 collective bargaining. In Warner, the Examiner concluded that there was no room for seeking an accommodation between these interests because of the contractual commitment. Here we think that room existed, particularly in light of the absence of such a contractual commitment. It will be apparent from this discussion that we feel constrained to give narrow application to the holding of Warner Gear. Employees' statutory rights should not be diluted in the absence of compelling evidence that other considerations require such limitations. Even then, only such limitations as appear to be reasonable and necessary to accommodate those considerations can be permitted. Where the facts, as here, indicate that much less restrictive measures could have preserved the freedom of employees and their union to designate a steward, we are unwilling to find that the Act permits the employer to impose the drastic measure of conditioning Baker's selection upon his acceptance of a demotion. ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board adopts as its Order the recommend- ed Order of the Trial Examiner and hereby orders that the Respondent, Cameron Iron Works, Inc., Houston, Texas, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's recommended Order. MEMBER KENNEDY, dissenting: Contrary to my colleagues, I would not find that in the circumstances of this case Respondent, by requiring its employee Keith B. Baker to resign his position as union steward as a condition to the retention of his position as leadman, interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of their Section 7 rights, in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. Respondent is engaged in the manufacture of forgings, oil tools, mill products, and extrusions. Its facilities consist of the main plant and offices at Katy and Silber Roads, Houston, Texas, and the Cypress plant, located some 12 miles to the west. Respondent has approximately 2,100 hourly paid employees at these two facilities. The Union is the certified collective-bargaining representative of its mainte- nance electricians, numbering up to 100. The rest of the employees are represented by a local of the International Association of Machinists and Aero- space Workers. Maintenance electricians are assigned to both the Katy and the Cypress facilities. Respon- dent has had a long history of amicable collective bargaining with both labor organizations. Baker is employed as a leadman at Respondent's CAMERON IRON WORKS, INC. 169 Cypress plant. Under the terms of Respondent's contract with the Union, leadmen receive 20 cents per hour above the rate of the classification in which they are assigned. The employees at the Cypress facility work on a continuing-shift basis, with the first shift beginning' at 7 a.m. and ending at 3 p.m.; the second shift being from 3 p.m. to 11 p.m.; and the third shift being from 11 p.m. until 7 a.m. Stewards selected and designated by the Union have been- allowed to spend the necessary time on the job investigating com- plaints, adjusting grievances, and conferring with employees and company officials about these matters. Leadmen are assigned to particular crews of employ- ees and are responsible for implementation of work orders. In this capacity, leadmen are charged with substantial authority and control over the employees assigned to them. Baker was employed by the Respondent in January 1968 as a journeyman electrician and in November 1968 became the Union's steward. In April 1969, he was promoted to a leadman. Sometime prior to October 1970, Baker was assigned to the second shift-3 p.m. to 11 p.m. At that particular time no supervisory personnel were assigned to that shift. Since that shift was without supervision, the leadman, Baker, was in charge of the operation. In September 1970, Baker began devoting a sub- stantial amount of working time to the investigation of an unusually large number of grievances which had accumulated. Respondent became seriously con- cerned as to whether Baker could effectively perform as a leadman and at the same time also carry out his duties as union steward. Accordingly, on October 8, 1970, Respondent's Maintenance Superintendent White called Baker into his office and informed him that he would be required to make a-choice between being a leadman and continuing to serve as the union steward. Baker was told that if he elected to continue in his position as leadman he would be required to resign as steward and that if he elected to maintain his steward's position he would be reassigned to the journeyman electrician classification which he for- merly held. As Respondent's Maintenance Superin- tendent White testified, Respondent felt that Baker: ... couldn't adequately cover both jobs. He couldn't do the company a good job as leadman and he couldn't do the company adequate-I mean, the union a good job as union steward .. . to do both jobs, he would have to be available to anybody at anytime, to process their grievances. Or he would also have to be available to the Company at anytime to do his day-to-day work, and to follow through on his job as a leadman. Respondent's Manager of Industrial Relations Fran- zen testified that at the Cypress plant, on the second shift, the responsibilities called for by Baker's job as leadman were incompatible with his duties as union steward: I think it reasonable to reach that conclu- sion, if you think about just simply the geographi- cal area, 1,600 acres, 500 acres for this particular active facility; power stations in one end of the 500 acres, a building in the other end; three-quarters of a mile between the two major buildings; electrical wires and currents going all over the 500 acres and with a leadman by himself with no supervision on the second shift; and is responsible for the journeyman electricians and everything that might come up or is scheduled to be done on this shift. I don't see how he could effectively do both. Respondent does not take the position that none of its leadmen may occupy both a position as a leadman and at the same time as a union steward; it is confining its contentions solely to that of the second shift leadman over the maintenance electricians-the position regularly occupied by Baker. It simply takes the position that Baker's job on the second shift, where there was no supervision present during most of the time, required that Baker devote his full time to his work and that his duties as union steward precluded him from doing that during working hours. Respon- dent has not been charged with a violation of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act, and it is not contended that its action against Baker was motivated by any antiunion considerations. Respondent's Manager of Industrial Relations Franzen testified that there are positions in the Company occupied by leadmen in which it would be both feasible and practical for an employee to serve as a union steward and at the same time be a leadman. While Respondent's conduct in the instant case may appear to be prima facie discriminatory, on closer examination and upon consideration of all attending circumstances I am persuaded that such conduct is not proscribed. Respondent's witnesses testified credibly that the Respondent considered its leadmen very important in its operations and placed great reliance on their performance. In September or October 1970, Respondent talked to its leadmen about rotating them in their positions; the leadmen agreed. At this time, Respondent was actually looking for a supervisor and was testing to see which of its leadmen would best qualify for a supervisory position. Respondent was also of the view that the job of a leadman was a full-time position, and it wanted a full- time man for such a full-time job. Respondent made no effort to prohibit its stewards from handling the Union's business on working time. No hostility was shown by Respondent either to the Umon or to the right of its employees to concerted activity; there was no antipathy to the Union. As found by the Trial Examiner, there was a long and harmonious bargain- 170 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ing relationship with the Union , and a complete absence of union animosity. Respondent's contract with the Union contains no provisions granting its stewards any rights to devote working time to union business . Although it is normally a protected concerted activity to present and handle grievances, an employer may impose reasona- ble rules relating to the prosecution of such matters on working time. In the absence of a contractual agreement permitting the investigation and prosecu- tion of complaints on working time, the rights of employees and of union stewards to undertake such activities may be limited. Russell Packing Co. and Peerless Packing Co., 133 NLRB 194, 196. The Board and the courts have long recognized the right of an employer to make and enforce reasonable rules governing the conduct of its employees on company time, even though these rules may limit the statutory right of employees to engage in union or concerted activities. Terry Poultry Company, 109 NLRB 1097. See also Peyton Packing Co., Inc., 49 NLRB 828, 843, enfd. 142 F.2d 1009 (C.A. 5). As I view this case, it is indistinguishable from Warner Gear Division, Borg-Warner Corporation, 102 NLRB 1223 . In adopting the decision of the Trial Examiner in Warner Gear, supra, the Board reasoned that while the Act protects the right of employees to join unions and to participate in its activities it does not give employees the right to engage in union activities during working time ; such right must arise, if at all, from a contract . In situations where the union's stewardship necessarily involves the utiliza- tion of working time for the performance of union functions and the union steward is denied a promo- tion it becomes necessary to determine whether the denial of the promotion is predicated on animosity toward the union, in which event the Board would find discrimination, or whether it stems from a desire to have employees devote all their production time to their work, in which event the Board would not find discrimination. That the latter alternative might also tend to discourage employees from seeking or holding steward positions was not deemed by the Board to be determinative in that context , unless it also appeared that the company denied promotions because of past union activities during working time-which then would be tantamount to discrimination on the basis of union membership alone. In the instant case, finding no evidence of antiunion animus or discrimination, and in application of the legally and logically sound principles announced in Warner Gear, I would reverse the Trial Examiner and dismiss the complaint. TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE FANNIE M. BoyLs, Trial Examiner: This case, initiated by a charge filed on October 20, 1970, and a complaint issued on January 6, 1971, was tried before me in Houston, Texas, on May 5, 1971. The complaint, as amended at the hearing, alleges that Respondent, Cameron Iron Works, Inc., violated Section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, by requiring an employee , Keith B. Baker, either to accept a demotion from his position as leadman to that of journeyman electrician or to resign his position as union steward.' In its answer Respondent admitted giving Baker this option but denied that its action was in violation of the statute. Upon the entire record and after a careful consideration of the briefs filed by the General Counsel and Respondent, I make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT I. THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT Respondent is a Texas corporation having its principal office and place of business in Houston, Texas, known as the Katy facility, and a facility at Cypress, Texas, where it is engaged in the manufacturing of forgings, oil tools, mill products, and extrusions. The Cypress facility is the only one here involved. During the 12-month period preceding the issuance of the complaint, which is a representative period, Respondent manufactured, sold, and distributed products valued in excess of $50,000 which were shipped from its Houston and Cypress facilities directly to points outside the State of Texas . I find that Respondent is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. U. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, Local Union No. 716 , herein called the Union, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE ALLEGED A. The Issue Presented The sole question presented is whether Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by requiring Union Steward Keith B. Baker to resign his union position or be demoted from his position of leadman to the lesser paying job of journeyman electrician. B. The Undisputed Facts and Conclusionary Findings Respondent's main plant and office, known as the Katy operation, is located in Houston and its other facility, known as the Cypress facility, where Baker works, is about 1 The complaint which had originally described Baker 's union position as that of "union subcommitteeman," was amended at the hearing to describe it correctly as "union steward." CAMERON IRON WORKS, INC. 171 12 miles away. There are about 2,100 hourly paid employees at the two facilities, about 80 to 100 of whom, employed at one or the other of the two facilities, are maintenance electricians represented by the Charging Union. The remainder of the employees are represented by another labor organization. Respondent has had a long history of bargaining and amicable relations with both these labor organizations. The Union has a chief steward and four or five other stewards servicing Respondent's maintenance electricians at the two facilities. All except Baker worked at the Katy facility. Baker was employed by Respondent in January 1968 as a journeyman electrician. In November 1968 he became a union steward. In April 1969 Respondent promoted him to the position of leadman. Respondent voiced no objection to Baker's performance of both leadman and union-steward work until October 8, 1970. On that date, after having first talked to Plant Engineer Kraft about the matter, Mainte- nance Superintendent White called Baker into his office and told him that he, Baker, could not continue to be both a leadman and a union steward and would either have to resign from his union position or be demoted to the position of journeyman electrician, a job which paid 20 cents an hour less than the leadman's job. White told Baker that Respondent did not believe Baker could do a good job for Respondent and also for the Union at the same time. Baker asked for and was given some time in which to make up his mind as to what he should do. About 2 days later Baker informed White that he had decided to keep his"leadman job.2 The Union's contract with Respondent is silent as to whether union stewards shall be permitted to perform their duties as stewards during working hours but Respondent has never objected to this being done and has always paid the stewards for working time spent on investigating and processing grievances. It was the duty of union stewards to investigate alleged violations of the union contract and employee grievances, to attempt an informal resolution of these matters, and, with the assistance of the chief steward, to process grievances through the several steps provided in the contract. Until about September 1970 when two grievances involving the application of seniority provisions of the contract to the transfer and retention of leadmen resulted in an arbitration proceeding, all grievances had been amicably settled without the invocation of the contract's arbitration provisions. The duties of union stewards have not generally consumed much time. As Manager of Industrial Relations Franzen testified, sometimes a year will pass without a grievance being filed. In 1970, however, due largely to a cutback in Respondent's operations in July, a greater number of grievances than usual were filed. Baker met with management 8 or 10 times during 1970 about various grievances and, as steward, he signed the two grievances 2 Baker promptly informed Chief Steward Follett orally of his decision to resign his steward's job and did not thereafter perform any duties as a steward. The Union, however, did not name anyone to replace him until after Thanksgiving when Respondent insisted that Baker give written notice to White of his decision. The Union then named another electrician as acting steward, apparently taking the position that on its books, Baker would remain the union steward pending the outcome of this unfair labor which resulted in the arbitration proceeding. Each of his meetings with management took about 20 or 25 minutes. In addition, of course, he talked to the employees who had grievances and with the chief union steward. Some of these discussions were before or after his shift, especially if they involved employees on shifts other than his own, some were during lunch or break periods and some were during working time. No representative of Respondent ever asked Baker not to talk to employees about their problems during working time or to spend less working time on such matters. Maintenance Superintendent White testified that even during the period of mounting grievances following the cutback in July 1970, he was satisfied with Baker's work as a leadman. Manager Franzen agreed that Respondent had no complaint about Baker's performance of his job as leadman. It is therefore difficult to understand Respon- dent's position that there was something "incompatible" about Baker's performance of the duties of leadman and steward at the same time. Respondent is unwilling to take the position that none of its leadmen may occupy both positions and is confining its contentions solely to that of a second-shift leadman over the maintenance electricians, the position Baker regularly held. Although acknowledging that the latter position is clearly within the bargaining unit of maintenance electricians, Respondent takes an ambiva- lent position with respect to whether Baker is an employee or a supervisor within the meaning of the Act. For this reason a description of his duties, as disclosed by the record, is set forth below. Respondent operates three shifts-the first one from 7 a.m. to 3 p.m., the second one from 3 p.m. to 11 p.m., and the third one from 11 p.m. to 7 a.m. Until October 1970 Baker was on the second shift.3 He worked as a crew with two journeyman electricians, taking care of Respondent's electrical equipment on a 500 acre tract. At one end of this tract was the extrusion plant and at the other end, about three-fourths of a mile away, was the roll mill. A substantial part of the work of the crew was preventive maintenance work. The journeyman electricians working with Baker were skilled and responsible employees and on occasions they as well as the electricians on the third shift had performed their work without a leadman or supervisor being present on the shift. Their supervisors were the electrical foreman and the maintenance superintendent, George F. White, both of whom regularly worked on the first shift. The foreman usually worked about an hour or half hour overtime and the maintenance superintendent about 2 hours overtime each day. The foreman gave written work assignments to Baker who would transmit the assignments to the two journeyman electricians and work with them in executing the orders. The three of them daily inspected the whole electrical distribution system. As leadman, Baker followed up on the job assignments to see that they were performed and requisitioned needed materials. If an emergency should arise when no supervisor practice proceeding. The Union filed charges against Respondent on October 20, 1970. S On that date Baker was transferred for a 2-month period to the first shift where he was leadman over six journeyman electricians This transfer was part of a plan by Respondent to rotate its leadmen for the purpose of evaluating their potentialities for a supervisory position. 172 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD was present, Baker was expected to get in touch with a supervisor by phone to ascertain how the situation should be handled.4 No occasion had ever arisen for Baker to recommend the discipline of any journeyman electrician on his crew, but Maintenance Superintendent White testified that if Baker should ever make such a recommendation, White would independently investigate the matter and would weigh heavily the word of Baker over that of other employees. Neither this or any other evidence in the record warrants the conclusion stated in Respondent's brief that Baker had authority to effectively recommend disciplinary action-one of the indicia of supervisory status. On the basis of all the evidence, I find that Baker was an employee and not a supervisor during all periods relevant herein. Under the statute employees are guaranteed the right to engage in union and other concerted activities for their mutual aid and protection and supervisors are exempted from statutory protection for engaging in such activities. There is no room for the creation of a category of "quasi-supervisors," who are protected in their right to be represented by a union but who may not themselves participate in the role of representing themselves and fellow employees. Baker, like many other highly skilled employees with leadership qualities, may well have been especially valuable to his employer but those same qualities may also have made him the natural choice of employees for leadership in a union representation role. He is just as much protected in the exercise of his Section 7 rights as any other employee and Respondent's demand that he give up his union role as the price of retaining the responsible and higher paying job which he now holds was manifestly an interference with the exercise by Respondent's employees of their Section 7 rights, in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. Respondent argues in its brief that the duties of Baker's job on the second shift, where there is no supervisor present during most of the time, require that he devote his full time to his work and that his duties as union steward preclude him from doing that. The testimony of Respondent's representatives that Baker did in fact satisfactorily perform his work as leadman at all times, even when the peak number of grievances was being filed and processed, appears inconsistent with Respondent's claim that Baker's union duties conflicted with his performance of leadman duties. Nevertheless, if a neglect by Baker of his leadman duties to perform union-steward duties should ever become a problem, there would appear to be no reason why Respondent may not require a curtailment, of the use of working time for the handling of union business. As the Board has many times reiterated, working time is for work, and "in the absence of contractual agreement permitting the investigation and prosecution of complaints on working time, the rights of employees and union stewards to 4 Although Baker was not expressly told that he had authority to bung in employees from other shifts or leadmen from other crafts to help out in emergency situations when management representatives could not be reached, and he apparently never had occasion to do so, Maintenance Superintendent White testified that Baker had authority to do this and that some leadmen in the past had done this. White acknowledged , however, that he would expect a journeyman electrician to do the same thing in an emergency when his leadman and supervisors could not be reached. 5 To like effect ; Terry Poultry Co, 109 NLRB 1097, 1098 (1954), undertake such activities may be limited." (Russell Packing Co., 133 NLRB 192, 196 (1961)).5 Respohdent appears to rely upon the Board's decision in Warner Gear Division, Borg-Warner Corporation, 102 NLRB 1223 (1953) as a precedent for its action in this case. I do not regard that case as controlling here. There the Board held that the employer did not violate Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act by refusing to promote a union steward to a more responsible job which would have required full attention to his duties. But the union contract in the Warner case had expressly provided that union stewards could perform union duties on the employer's time up to a maximum of 5 hours a week without loss of pay and the Board found that the employer was motivated by a business need to have a full-time worker on the job to which it refused to promote the union steward rather than by any antiunion motivation, an element necessary to prove the 8(a)(3) violation alleged. 'Here, the Union's contract, with Respondent does not provide for any use of working time for the handling of union-steward duties. Although in practice Respondent had permitted its own time to be utilized for this purpose, this practice had never presented a problem because there were normally not many grievances presented. Sometimes a whole year would pass without the Union filing any grievance . If Respondent feels it is necessary to change its present practice of permitting working time to be used for the processing of employee grievances in order to assure itself that Baker will not neglect his leadman duties, there is no reason to assume , in view of Respondent's past amicable relations with the Union, that appropriate arrangements cannot be made with the Union to assure Respondent that Baker, while a union steward, will continue to perform his leadman duties satisfactorily. Respondent is not charged with a violation of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act and it is not alleged that its action against Baker was motivated by antiunion considerations, as was alleged in the Warner case. At issue here is only whether Respondent's action tended to interfere with the exercise by employees of their Section 7 rights. It clearly did and was therefore in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act .6 CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. By requiring employee Keith B. Baker to resign his position as union steward as a condition to the retention of his position as leadman, Respondent interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of their Section 7 rights, in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. 2. The aforesaid unfair labor practice affects commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. Northside >aectric Co., 151 NLRB 34, 42 ( 1965). See also NLRB. v. Babcock & Wilcox Co., 351 U.S 105 (1956), 6 The presence of a discriminatory motivation is, of course, not necessary in order to find an interference with employee rights in violation of Sec 8(a)(1), as distinguished from discrimination in violation of Sec 8(a)(3) of the Act. Textile Workers Union v. Darlington Manufacturing Company, 380 U.S. 263, 268-269; Robertshaw Controls Company v. N.L R B., 386 F.2d 377, 383 (C.A. 4), Allegheny Beverage Corporation, 172 NLRB No 65, enfd. 424 F.2d 1366 (C.A 5). CAMERON IRON WORKS, INC. 173 THE REMEDY It having been found that Respondent has violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act, my Recommended Order will require that it cease and desist therefrom, that it notify Baker and the Union that it will no longer require a leadman in Baker's position to relinquish his position as union steward as a condition to the continuation of his job as leadman and that it post appropriate notices. Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law and the entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, I hereby issue the following recommended: 7 ORDER Respondent, Cameron Iron Works, Inc., its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Requiring any employee, as a condition to holding the position of leadman, to resign from or reject the position of union steward. (b) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of their rights guaranteed under Section 7 of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Notify Keith B. Baker and International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, Local Union No. 716, in writing, that it will no longer require Baker or any other employee serving as leadman to resign from or reject the position of union steward as a condition to his occupying the position of leadman. (b) Post at its facilities at Cypress and at Katy copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix." 8 Copies of the notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 23, after being signed by an authorized representa- tive of Respondent, shall be posted by Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, includ- ing all places where notices to employees are customarily 'posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to insure that the notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 23, in writing, within 20 days from the date of the receipt of this Decision, what steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith.9 T 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. 8 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." 9 In the event that this recommended Order is adopted by the Board after exceptions have been filed, this provision shall be modified to read: "Notify the Regional Director for Region 23, in writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith." APPENDIX NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government WE WILL NOT require Keith B. Baker or any other employee occupying the position of leadman to resign from or reject the position of union steward as a condition to his continuation in the position of leadman. WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of their rights guaranteed under Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended. CAMERON IRON WORKS, INC. (Employer) Dated By (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, Dallas- Brazos Building, 1125 Brazos Street, Fourth Floor, Houston, Texas 77002, Telephone 713-226-4296.