Standard Tank Cleaning Corp.

STANDARD TANK CLEANING CORP. 873 Standard Tank Cleaning Corporation and Oil Sales and Processing Company and Paul Bass. Cases 29-CA-2388 and 29-CA-2443 June 22, 1972 DECISION AND ORDER BY MEMBERS JENKINS, KENNEDY, AND PENELLO On February 23, 1972, Trial Examiner Herzel H. E. Plaine issued the attached Decision in this proceed- ing. Thereafter, Respondent filed exceptions and a supporting brief, and the General Counsel filed limited exceptions, a supporting brief, and a brief in support of parts of the Trial Examiner's Decision. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board has delegated its authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. The Board has considered the record and the Trial Examiner's Decision in light of the exceptions and briefs and has decided to affirm the Trial Examiner's rulings, findings, and conclusions and to adopt his recommended Order, as modified herein. The Trial Examiner found, and we agree, that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1), (3), and (4) of the Act by refusing to reemploy Paul Bass, a discharged employee, because of his activities on behalf of the Union, and because he filed unfair labor practice charges with the Board against Respondent. While the Trial Examiner made factual findings that during an April 23, 1971,' conversation with Bass, Respondent's General Manager Berman accused him of having tried to organize the nonunion men and stated that if he took Bass back that he (Berman) was not going to have Bass organize the place, he made no findings that such conduct independently violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.2 We find merit in the General Counsel's exceptions to this omission by the Trial Examiner. Accordingly, we find such statements constituted unlawful interroga- tion; a warning to refrain from union activity, an offer of reemployment conditioned upon the aban- donment of Section 7 rights, and a threat of reprisal if Bass was active on behalf of the Union, all in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act and further evidencing the union animus and discriminatory motivation which resulted in Respondent's refusal to reemploy Bass. Accordingly, we shall modify the Order and notice. 2. The Trial Examiner recommended that Re- spondent be ordered to reimburse Bass for wages lost from April 23, 1971, the date of the discriminatory refusal to reemploy, until June 29, 1971, the day on which Bass was notified to report to work. General Counsel has excepted to backpay being tolled as of June 29. The record reveals that around 10 a.m. on June 29, Bass received Respondent's letter addressed to him at Carle Place, New York, telling him to report for work at 8 a.m. that morning at Bayonne, New Jersey. Bass immediately telephoned Berman, telling him that he had just received the letter, that he would start for the jobsite later, but that it would be impossible to arrive at the job until sometime in the afternoon. Berman did not tell him to come in that day. Bass then asked if he could start on the following day (Friday). Berman said no because it was a day for which Respondent would have to pay Bass time and a half. When Berman refused to allow Bass to start on Monday, July 5, on grounds it was a double time day, he asked Bass if he would come in on Tuesday, July 6. Bass agreed and began work on that day. Thus, as Bass did not receive the report for work notice until near midday on June 29, he was clearly entitled to a reasonable period of time to report to work. As he was prevented by Respondent from reporting to work until July 6, we shall extend the backpay period to that date and amend the Order and notice accordingly .3 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 as herein amended and hereby orders that Respondent, Standard Tank Cleaning Corporation, and Oil Sales and Processing Company, Staten Island, New York, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns shall take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's recommended Order, as modified below: 1. Insert the following as paragraph 1(a) of the Trial Examiner's recommended Order and renumber the subsequent paragraphs accordingly: "(a) Interrogating, threatening, or warning its employees about their union activities and condition- ing their employment on the abandonment of union activities." 2. In paragraph 2(a) substitute the date July 6, 1971, for the date June 29, 1971. 3. Substitute the attached notice for-the Trial Examiner's notice. All dates are in 1971 2 Berman admitted having asked Bass, "what's the idea of the business with the union here" and " . what are you doing with the union9" 3 Member Kennedy agrees with his colleagues that Respondent 's failure to hire Bass on May 11, 1971. violated Sec 8(a)(4) of the Act Accordingly, he would begin the backpay period on that date rather than April 23, 1971 197 NLRB No. 143 874 NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government The National Labor Relations Board having found, after a trial, that we violated the National Labor Relations Act: WE WILL NOT interrogate and threaten or warn you about your union activities. Nor will we condition your employment on your abandoning union activities. WE WILL NOT fail or refuse to hire or rehire you because of your union sympathies, or because you engage in union activities, or because you recruit other employees to become members of the Union, or because you have filed charges against us under the National Labor Relations Act. ' 1 WE WILL NOT, in any like manner, discriminate against you to discourage your membership in a labor union or interfere with your right to join, assist, or be represented by, a labor union, or interfere with your other rights of self-organiza- tion and mutual aid guaranteed by Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act. Since the Board found that we failed to reemploy Paul Bass in the period April 23-July 6, 1971, because of his union activity, and because he filed charges against us under the National Labor Rela- tions Act, WE WILL give him backpay with interest for that period of time. APPENDIX DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD STANDARD TANK CLEANING CORPORATION AND OIL SALES AND PROCESSING COMPANY (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 compli- ance with its provisions may be directed to the I The first charge, of May 10, had alleged a discriminatory discharge of Bass on January I and refusal to reemploy him, in violation of Sec 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act The Regional Director, on investigation, refused to issue a complaint on the discharge portion of the charge but processed a complaint, in Case 2388, on the failure-to-reemploy aspect Letter to Bass June 30, 1971, Exh R-1 The action of the Regional Director was affirmed Board's Office, 16 Court Street, Fourth Floor, Brooklyn, N. Y. 11241, Telephone 212-596-3535. TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION HERZEL H. E. PLAINE, Trial Examiner: The question presented was whether Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1), (3), and (4) of the National Labor Relations Act (the Act) by failing to reemploy the Charging Party (Bass) in the period April 23-June 29, 1971, because of his union activities on behalf of Respondent's nonunion employees and because he filed a charge with the Board against Respondent on his own behalf. Bass was an employee of Respondent, skilled in the handling of ships, who was discharged on January 1, 1971, allegedly for failing to report for duty. His job had been pier "foreman" at Bayonne, New Jersey, assisting in the cleaning out of oil and gas residues from tankers and from the tanks of other ships engaged in the coastal traffic. On April 23, 1971, he was told by Respondent that he would be reemployed, not in his former job, but on the barge Peter Frank, a boat specially outfitted for the cleaning of oil and gas residues from ship tanks. Bass accepted, but nevertheless was not put to work until July 6, 1971. Respondent variously claimed that it was not ready to use Bass, or that the barge was not ready for him, until the end of June 1971, and that anyway it assumed that he had renounced his interest in the new job by filing a Board charge against Respondent on May 10, alleging, among other things, that he had been discriminatorily fired from his formerjob with Respondent. The case was tried in Brooklyn, New York, October 18-19, 1971, resting on a charge filed May 10, 1971, in Case 2388 and a charge filed June 29, 1971, in Case 2443.i Only Respondent has filed a brief. Upon the entire record of the case, including my observation of the witnesses and consideration of Respon- dent's brief, I make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. JURISDICTION Standard Tank Cleaning Corporation (Standard Tank) is a corporation with its principal office and place of business on Staten Island, New York, and its piers in New Jersey, and is engaged in the business of cleaning the tanks and performing other services for oceangoing ships, tankers, and barges, engaged principally in the coastal trade of the United States. The business performed by Standard Tank includes the operation of boats and barges performing the cleaning and other services. Standard Tank is owned and controlled by Mr. Nathan Berman and Mrs. Evelyn Frank (brother and sister), who are the secretary and president, respectively, of the corporation and provide the active management on a daily as well as overall basis, according to their testimony. by the General Counsel on August 10, 1971, Exh R-2 The second charge, of June 29, underlying Case 2443, alleged that in violation of Sec. 8(a)(4), since on or about May 12, Respondent refused to rehire Bass because he filed the first charge of May 10 Both aspects of the refusal to reemploy are embraced in the consolidated amended complaint STANDARD TANK CLEANING CORP. 875 Oil Sales and Processing Company (Oil Sales) is a corporation, with its offices and piers at the same locations as Standard Tank, also wholly owned, controlled, offi- cered, and managed by Mr. Berman and Mrs. Frank. Oil Sales is engaged principally in the business of supplying labor for ship tank cleaning services to Standard Tank and to approximately 18 other corporations wholly owned and controlled by Berman and Frank, as well as to some nonowned and noncontrolled companies, variously en- gaged in shipping in interstate commerce, ship cleaning and repairing, and related enterprises. The labor supplied by Oil Sales to Standard Tank is in addition to labor directly employed by Standard Tank. Notwithstanding the separate incorporations of Standard Tank and Oil Sales, both constitute a single employer within the meaning of the Act. In addition to the common ownership, control, officers, directors, pier facilities, and offices enjoyed by both corporations and provided by Berman and Frank, the testimony of Berman and Frank made it clear that Berman is the general manager for the two companies (and others of the family owned group of companies) and is in charge of labor relations for both, including having the final if not initial say on the hiring and firing of the employees of both corporations. More- over, the operations of both corporations are interrelated in the physical performance of jobs, and by the daily decisions and direction of General Manager Berman in the work to be done, the equipment to be moved or used, and the interchange of employees. Under the tests for "single employer" developed by the Board, 21st Annual Report NLRB (1956), p. 14-15, restated and approved in Sakrete of Northern California v. N.L.R.B., 332 F.2d 902, 905-908 (C.A. 9, 1964), cert. denied 379 U.S. 961, and by the Supreme Court in Radio and Television Broadcast Technicians Local Union 1264 v. Broadcast Service of Mobile, 380 U.S. 255, 256 (1965), the question is whether the two enterprises are sufficiently integrated to consider the business of both together in applying the standards of the Act. The principal factors weighed in deciding that sufficient integration exists include the extent of (1) interrelation of operations, (2) centralized control of labor relations, (3) common management, and (4) common ownership or financial control. While none of the factors has been held to be controlling, stress has been laid upon the first three factors to show operational integration, particularly centralized control of labor relations. Id. Here, all four factors are present, as summarized above, and the domination and control of Berman and Frank is so complete as to constitute both corporations a single enterprise, in applying the standards of the Act, N.L.R.B. v. Deena Artware, 361 U.S. 398, 402 (1960). Respondent in its pleading and at trial admitted that Standard Tank derived revenues in excess of $200,000 per annum from services performed for ships and ship companies operating in interstate commerce. While Re- spondent made no similar concession respecting Oil Sales, it made no attempt by offer of evidence, or argument in its brief, to dispute jurisdiction. Nonetheless, from Respon- dent's status as a single employer, comprising Standard Tank and Oil Sales, it follows that Respondent is well within the Board's statutory and dollar amount jurisdic- tion, and is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. Additionally it was admitted at trial that Local 1277, Ship Maintenance Workers, International Longshoremen's Association, AFL-CIO (the Union), of which the Charging Party Paul Bass is a member, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. II. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. The Failure to Reemploy Paul Bass In its ship tank cleaning and related operations, Respondent uses both unionmen and nonunionmen. Paul Bass was and is a unionman, a member of Local 1277, ILA. In his 1969-1970 job for Respondent, Bass worked on the pier providing equipment, steam, and other aids for the men who did the actual cleaning of the tanks of the ships docked at the pier. These men are known as butterworthers (who use machines for their part of the cleaning opera- tions) and muckers (who use shovels for their part of the work). According to President Evelyn Frank, Oil Sales generally supplied the working force for the cleaning operations and, according to Secretary and General Manager Nathan Berman, while Oil Sales had some unionmen on its payroll (five boilermen of Local 68, Operating Engineers), about seven of Oil Sales regular employees plus the muckers were not unionized. President Frank, who was in charge of the books, testified that, although Bass technically worked for Oil Sales, he was paid by Standard Tank because he wanted to keep his union status and his ILA union had a contract with Standard Tank. Prior to his discharge on January 1, 1971, Bass had engaged in union activity, principally talking to the nonunion employees of Oil Sales about joining the Union. President Frank and General Manager Berman both testified they had heard of Bass' organizing efforts. Both Frank and Berman asserted at trial that they would have welcomed a union since it would help them to get men when needed, particularly the muckers, who do hard, dirty physical labor. But there was no communication of this thought to Bass at the time, indeed neither Berman nor Frank gave any direct indication to Bass that they knew he was attempting to organize for the Union until the question of rehiring him in April 1971 arose. Bass was fired by President Evelyn Frank on January 1, 1971, allegedly for not reporting for scheduled work. Mrs. Frank, while conceding that all of the hiring was done by her brother, General Manager Berman, claimed she had rightfully fired Bass. At trial her brother agreed. (Of course, this issue was not involved in the case, see In. 1, supra.) Thereafter, Bass did not get to see General Manager Berman until April 23, 1971, after intercession by Union Agent Collazo. After some parrying about why he was fired, Berman told Bass that he had another job for him, not his former job on the pier at Bayonne, but on the Peter Frank, a barge, belonging to Standard Tank, specially equipped for ship tank cleaning operations. Bass agreed to the job, with the understanding on his part that he was to start the following week. 876 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD At trial, the matter of when the job was to start became the subject of dispute. On the one hand, according to Bass, General Manager Berman told him in the conversation (on Monday, April 23) that the barge, Peter Frank, was in drydock, it should come out the next Monday or Tuesday and Berman would call him in. In corroboration, John McCole, Bass' brother-in-law, who was also present, testified that Berman said the barge, Peter Frank, was in drydock, that he would call Bass in 5 or 6 or 7 days at home and Bass would be back working next week. On the other hand, General Manager Berman offered several versions of what he said to Bass. He first testified, on direct, that he told Bass he would put him on the Peter Frank but not now, it depended on the business coming in and the inspection period, and that he would call Bass and let him know when he (Berman) would be ready for Bass to get the barge ready for the shipyard. (From Berman's rambling explanation at trial this could have meant ready for drydock or ready for Coast Guard inspection, at two different dates in late June and late July, but it was clear that he did not communicate this to Bass on April 23, whether or not he actually spoke of Bass getting the barge ready for the shipyard.) Later in his direct testimony, Berman varied what he first said on direct by conceding that, when he talked to Bass on April 23, he said maybe we'd start the cleaning (of the barge) next week, explaining (for the record, not to Bass) that it takes 6 weeks to get the barge ready (for drydock or inspection), but that work kept coming in and interfered with getting the barge cleaned up and ready (for drydock or inspection). However, on cross- examination, Berman conceded that in his affidavit to the Board given on June 2 (about 5 weeks after the rehire interview with Bass), he had told Bass that the Peter Frank would be ready in about 1 week and he would call Bass. Moreover, whereas Berman claimed at trial that he called Bass twice between April 23 and May II to tell Bass that he (Berman) was not ready for Bass, because he was not ready to prepare the boat for drydock, Berman conceded he said in his affidavit that he called Bass once, a few days or a week after April 23, and told him the barge was not ready because Berman did not have enough men for a crew. Berman's earlier testimony (of June 2) gives credence to the testimony of Bass. Clearly Berman was telling contradictory stories in and out of court, and he was not telling Bass the true situation in the April 23-May I1 period, if his testimony in court were to be believed. I find the explanation for this deception in other conduct and testimony of General Manager Berman. Bass, supported by McCole, had testified that in the rehiring discussion of April 23 Berman accused Bass of having tried to organize the nonunionmen and stated that if he took Bass back he was not going to have Bass organize the place. Berman admitted that after offering Bass the job (indeed, giving it to him, said Berman), he (Berman) mentioned the matter of the Union, saying "I hear you're trying to organize the men," and, "what is the idea of this business with the Union here?" (Berman claimed he added, "Why don't you ask me, I'd help you do it"; but I do not credit the addition.) Bass admitted, but played down, his role in the attempted organizing, when replying to Berman , claiming that the employees came to him for help in getting into the Union. As the discussion progressed , Bass told Berman he was going to give him a week and if he was not put back to work he'd take his case to the Labor Board . According to Bass, Berman said not to worry and they shook hands. As already indicated , Berman called Bass at least once before May I 1 (Bass said he got only one call, and Berman provided self-contradictory testimony as to whether it was once or twice) putting off the start of his job on the barge, Peter Frank. On May 10, Bass filed a charge with the Board (Exh. GC- I(a)), accusing Respondent of both discriminatorily discharging him on January 1 and discnm- inatorily refusing to reemploy him thereafter, in violation of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act. Respondent received a copy of the charge on May 11, and by General Manager Berman's own admission treated the May 10 charge as a renunciation by Bass of the new job agreed upon on April 23. I assumed , said Berman, that Bass was now "suing for his first job . . . If he wanted the second job he should have called me." None of these assumptions were commu- nicated to Bass, notwithstanding Berman had committed himself to Bass (at least three times , according to his own testimony) to call Bass to report to work. Moreover, testified General Manager Berman , he still was not ready to put Bass on the job on May 11. Indeed, Berman did not develop the readiness until June 28, 7 weeks later, when he learned of the second charge (Exh. GC-1(g)) being filed with the Board by Bass, accusing Respondent of failing and refusing to reemploy him, in violation of Section 8(a)(4) of the Act, because Bass had filed the charge of May 10 with the Board. At that point, Berman sent Bass the notice to report to work (Exh. GC-2). By mutual agreement, Bass reported on July 6, 1971, and has worked for Respondent since then. Of General Manager Berman I have used the phrase, "did not develop the readiness" to put Bass back to work, because it was evident from the total testimony that there was work for Bass on the Peter Frank at all times from April 23 and that only the subjective reactions of Berman kept Bass off the job. President Frank testified that there was maintenance work to be done on the Peter Frank every day, if her brother Nathan Berman wanted it done, it could have been 40 hours a week from 8 to 4 daily, but she said it was her brother's judgment not hers when to do it. Berman testified he was not ready for Bass between May 10 and June 28, and that it was hypothetical that there was work to be done because there was not work "that I wanted him to do." He was not ready for Bass , continued Berman, because he (Berman) didn't have time for the Peter Frank, he was more concerned with another boat, the tanker, Allan Martin, that needed repair after a breakdown on May 22, and the Peter Frank could wait since it didn't function continuously through the year, said ' Berman. However, the barge, Peter Frank, was in operation on cleaning jobs that had started before April 23 and continued thereafter until interrupted by the necessity in early July to do the cleanup and repairs of the barge itself for its periodic Coast Guard inspection that took place in August. The job Berman offered Bass on April 23 was to engage in the ship tank cleaning operations performed with the barge, Peter Frank, and that was the job on which STANDARD TANK CLEANING CORP. 877 Berman ultimately put him to work. Helping with the cleanup of the barge for inspection was incidental to the job and was not the job itself, as Berman attempted to portray at trial as his reason for not being ready for Bass. Additionally, Berman suggested that a further cause for the delay in putting Bass on the job was the need for a period of training for Bass; but Berman's other testimony made it obvious that this was training by learning on the job as to the location and handling of certain valves and pumps and other devices-Bass learned by doing, said Berman. Moreover, as Berman further testified, Bass was skilled in the handling of boats and that was why he was hired and, of course, he had several years experience in Respondent's tank cleaning operations. Of the job itself, Bass testified that, apart from taking part in the vacuuming work of the Peter Frank, he spent a large part of his time in painting and scraping and working on repairs and other work for Respondent at other locations as well as on the barge. an order for backpay for the period in which he was discriminatorily denied reemployment by Respondent, namely, April 23-June 29, 1971. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. By discriminatorily failing and refusing to reemploy Paul Bass in the period April 23-June 29, 1971, because of and to discourage his union organizing activity and to discourage union affiliation by Respondent's nonunion employees, and because Bass filed charges with the Board against Respondent, Respondent engaged in unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8(a)(1), (3), and (4) of the Act. 2. The described unfair labor practices affect com- merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. THE REMEDY B. The 8(a)(1), (3), and (4) Findings Respondent's conduct toward Bass between April 23 and June 29, 1971,2 in telling him he was going back to work and not putting him back to work can be explained only as a form of retaliation against, and discouragement of, an employee who had admitted to the employer that he had gotten into the employer's labor relations with other employees by trying to organize them for the Union and who had the temerity to file charges with the Board in an attempt to vindicate his right under the Act to have engaged in union activity free from employer recrimina- tion. Whatever the Respondent said about the availability of the job in the April 23-June 29 period, and the proof indicated that the job was available, it is unmistakable, from Respondent's admission, that on May 11, when it learned that employee Bass had filed his first charge against Respondent with the Board, Respondent unilater- ally and without notice to Bass decided not to put him back to work, notwithstanding its earlier postponed engagement to do so. Respondent did not change this decision and call Bass to work until it appeared, at the end of June, that legal action on his charges was imminent. The failure and refusal of Respondent to reemploy Bass after April 23, 1971, was because of and to discourage his organizing activities on behalf of the Union, putting Respondent in violation of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act. The misconduct was further compounded by Respon- dent failing and refusing to reemploy Bass after May i1 because he filed a charge with the Board against Respon- dent, putting Respondent in violation of Section 8(a)(4) of the Act. N.L.R.B. v. Vacuum Platers, Inc., 374 F.2d 866, 867 (C.A. 7, 1967), also involving violations of all three subsections of the Act on a failure to reemploy; and see, Iowa Beef Packers, Inc. v. N.L.R.B., 331 F.2d 176, 184-185 (C.A. 8, 1964), on the 8(a)(4) violation for refusal to hire. Because Respondent has since terminated the unlawful refusal to reemploy Bass on June 29, 1971, there is no need for an order reinstating Bass to his job, but he is entitled to 29 2 It was stipulated that Bass received the notice to report to work June 3 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, It will be recommended that the Respondent: (1) Cease and desist from its unfair labor practices; (2) Give employee Bass backpay for the period April 23-June 29, 1971, with interest at 6 percent per annum, as provided in Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716 (1962); and (3) Post the notices provided for herein. Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law, and the entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, there is hereby issued the following recommended:3 ORDER Respondent, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Failing or refusing to hire or rehire employees because of their union sympathies, or engagement in union activity or recruitment of other employees to become members of the Union, or because they filed charges under the Act. (b) Discouraging membership of its employees in a union or other labor organization by failing or refusing to hire or rehire employees sympathetic to a union, or who engage in union activities, or otherwise discriminating against them as to their tenure and conditions of employment, or in like 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 which is necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Make employee Paul Bass whole, in the manner set forth in the section of this Decision entitled "The Remedy," for any loss of earnings he may have suffered as a result of the failure to reemploy him in the period April 23-June 29, 1971. (b) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the Board and its agents, for examination and copying, all payroll records, social security payment records, timecards, conclusions, recommendations, and 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 878 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD personnel records and reports, and all other records necessary to ascertain the backpay due under the terms of this Order. (c) Post in its establishment at Staten Island, New York, and Bayonne, New Jersey, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix "4 Immediately upon receipt of copies of said notice, on forms to be provided by the Regional Director for Region 29 (Brooklyn, New York), the Respondent shall cause the copies to be signed by one of its authorized representatives and posted, the posted copies to be maintained for a period of 60 consecutive days thereafter in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (d) Notify the Regional Director of Region 29, in writing, within 20 days from the date of the receipt of this Decision, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply therewith 5 4 In the event that the Board's Order is enforced by a Judgment of a 5 In the event that the recommended Order is adopted by the Board after United States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by exceptions have been filed, this provision shall be modified to read "Notify Order of the National Labor Relations Board " shall be changed to read the Regional Director of Region 29 , in writing, within 20 days from the date "Posted pursuant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals of this Order , what steps Respondent has taken to comply therewith" enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board "