Sheet Metal Workers, Local 12

SHEET METAL WORKERS , LOCAL 12 Sheet Metal Workers' International Association, Local Union No. 12, AFL-CIO (Robroy Industries, Inc.) and Mary Sardone. Case 6-CB-2513 July 24, 1973 DECISION AND ORDER By CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS JENKINS AND KENNEDY On March 21, 1973, Administrative Law Judge Thomas S. Wilson issued the attached Decision in this proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent filed exceptions and a brief, and the General Counsel filed cross-ex- ceptions and a brief. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na- tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au- thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. The Board has considered the record and the at- tached Decision in light of the exceptions and briefs I and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings, and conclusions 2 of the Administrative Law Judge and to adopt his recommended Order, as modified herein. ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended , the National Labor Rela- tions Board adopts as its Order the recommended Order of the Administrative Law Judge , as modified below, and hereby orders that Respondent Sheet Met- al Workers' International Association , Local Union No. 12, AFL-CIO, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, its offi- cers, agents, and representatives , shall take the action set forth in said recommended Order , as so modified. 1. Substitute the words "In any other manner" for the words "In any like or related manner" in para- graph 1 (b) of the recommended Order. 2. Substitute the attached notice for that of the Administrative Law Judge. i Respondent's request for oral argument is hereby denied inasmuch as the record, exceptions, and briefs adequately set forth the contentions of the parties. 2 The part of the Decision entitled "The Remedy" is hereby modified to provide that Respondent Union shall make Mary Sardone whole for any loss of pay or other benefits she may have suffered by reason of the unlawful discrimination against her , by paying to her a sum of money equal to that which she would have earned from the date of her demotion on May 22, 1972, to 5 days after the date Respondent notifies the Company and Mary Sardone, in writing, that Respondent has no objections to the employment of Mary Sardone as a P B leader on the first shift and recommends that the Compa- ny reinstate her to her former position as such United Association ofJourney- men and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Industry of the United States and Canada, Local 633, AFL-CIO (Joseph E Tabor, et al), 173 NLRB 1333, Warehouse Union Local 860, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America (Admiral Corporation and Transcontinental Music Corporation), 195 NLRB 68 25 Chairman Miller concurs in the result but relies solely on the Administra- tive Law Judge's findings to the effect that Respondent Union caused Mary Sardone's loss of seniority without having fulfilled its fiduciary duty to in- form her of her obligation to continue to pay dues while on extended sick leave and unable to work, and to notify her of the consequences of such nonpayment Associated Transport, Inc, 156 NLRB 335 and 169 NLRB 1143, enfd sub nom N L R B v Local 182, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, 401 F 2d 509 (C A 2, 1968), cert denied 394 U S 213, Conduction Corpora- tion, 183 NLRB 419 (1970). He would find it unnecessary, therefore, to reach or pass upon the other bases for the Administrative Law Judge's decision The Chairman therefore dissociates himself from his colleagues' adoption of such other bases, such as that portion of the Administrative Law Judge's findings and rationale relating to other allegedly unlawful aspects of the implementation of the checkoff and union-security provisions of the agree- ment between the parties APPENDIX NOTICE TO MEMBERS POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government Pursuant to a Decision and Order of the National Labor Relations Board and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, we hereby notify you that: WE WILL NOT cause or attempt to cause Robroy Industries, Inc., to discriminate against Mary Sardone or any other employee in violation of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act, as amended. WE WILL NOT in any other manner restrain or coerce employees of Robroy Industries, Inc., in the exercise of the rights guaranteed to all em- ployees in Section 7 of the Act, except to the extent such rights may be affected by the proviso of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act. WE WILL notify Robroy Industries, Inc., in writing, that we have no objection to the employ- ment by Robroy of Mary Sardone as a P.B. lead- er on the first shift and will recommend that she be reinstated to that job without loss of benefits or seniority. WE WILL make whole Mary Sardone for any loss of pay or other wages and benefits suffered as a result of the discrimination against her. WE WILL reimburse Mary Sardone for any rein- statement or reinitiation fee she may have paid by reason of our discrimination against her. SHEET METAL WORKERS' INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIA- TION, LOCAL UNION No 12, AFL-CIO (Labor Organization) Dated By (Representative) (Title) 205 NLRB No. 7 26 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 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 Board's Office, 1536 Federal Building, 1000 Liberty Avenue, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15222, Telephone 412-644-2977. DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE THOMAS S. WILSON, Administrative Law Judge: Upon a charge duly filed on October 20, 1972, by Mary Sardone, an individual, hereinafter referred to as the Charging Party, the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board, referred to herein as the General Counsel,I and the Board respectively, by the Regional Director for Region 6 (Pitts- burgh, Pennsylvania), issued its complaint dated December 29, 1972, against Sheet Metal Workers' International Asso- ciation, Local Union No. 12, AFL-CIO, herein referred to as the Union or Respondent. The complaint alleges that Respondent had engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices affecting com- merce within the meaning of Section 8(b)(1)(A) and (2) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Labor Management Relations Act, 1947, as amended, herein referred to as the Act. Respondent duly filed its answer admitting certain allega- tions of the complaint but denying the commission of any unfair labor practices. Pursuant to notice, a hearing thereon was held before me in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, on January 31, 1973. All parties appeared at the hearing, were represented by counsel, and were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to produce and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence material and pertinent to the issues. At the conclusion of the hearing oral argument was waived. Briefs have been received from General Counsel and Respondent on March 5, 1973. Upon the entire record in the case and from my observa- tion of the witnesses, I make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT I BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER The complaint alleged, the answer admitted, and I find that: Robroy Industries, Inc., herein called the Company or Robroy, a Pennsylvania corporation with its principal office located in Verona, Pennsylvania, is engaged in the manu- facture and nonretail sale of electrical conduit and fittings, molded plastic products, and plastic coatings. During the 12-month period immediately preceding the issuance of the complaint, the Company received goods valued in excess of I This term specifically includes the attorney appearing for the General Counsel at the hearing $50,000 directly from points outside the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania for use in its Verona plant. Accordingly, I find that the Company is now, and has been at all times material herein, an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. II THE RESPONDENT Sheet Metal Workers' International Association, Local Union No. 12, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization admitting to membership employees of the Company. III THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. The Facts Mary Sardone began her employment with the Company in 1965. Under the terms of the collective-bargaining agree- ment existing at that time between Respondent and Robroy, Sardone was under obligation to become a member of Re- spondent. At the time of her hire Sardone signed a Respon- dent authorization card and an authorization for the Company to check off her initiation fees and dues to Re- spondent. She has never since revoked this checkoff author- ization. At all material times through the month of February, 1971, Sardone's dues have been deducted from her paycheck by the Company. She commenced her employment as a plasti-bond opera- tor (P.B. operator) but prior to 1971 had become a P.B. leader, a position paying 20 cents per hour more than that of an operator. On February 18, 1971, while on her way to work, Sardone was involved in an automobile accident in which she sus- tained serious injuries preventing her return to work until May 22, 1972. Under the checkoff procedure, Sardone's dues to Re- spondent were paid through the month of March 1971. She paid no dues to Respondent from that date to and including her return to work on May 22, 1972. Although Sardone had been initiated into the Union in 1965, she was reinstated into the Union on October 25, 1967, by Respondent Business Manager Robert G. Ferla after his election to that office in which he unseated the then incompetent business manager. At that reinitiation ceremo- ny, as at the time of her original initiation, Sardone signed papers acknowledging the receipt of a copy of Respondent's constitution and ritual which, in the small print, acknowl- edged that "I have read the same (referring to the constitu- tion and ritual) and am familiar with and am willing to subscribe to all of the provisions and requirements there- of." 2 On April 8, 1971, the Company and Respondent signed a collective-bargaining agreement containing the following union-security clause: ARTICLE II 2 Sardone denied having received the copy of said constitution or of the collective-bargaining agreement at that or any subsequent time until the same were mailed to her in June 1972 from the union office Respondent's testimony was only to the effect that constitution and ritual were "available" at each initiation ceremony. SHEET METAL WORKERS, LOCAL 12 SCC. 1. As a condition of employment all new employ- ees hired for jobs covered in this agreement shall be- come and remain members of the Union on the 61st day following the date of employment. SCC. 2. New employees shall be considered on proba- tion for a period of sixty (60) days after date of hiring. From the date of her accident to the date of her return to work Sardone received no communication, oral or writ- ten, from the Union. In July 1971, Sardone telephoned the union office on two occasions asking to speak to Ferla. On each occasion Ferla was unavailable. The secretary took Sardone's name and promised that Ferla would return her call. Ferla never re- turned the calls. With her doctor's permission Sardone returned to work on May 22, 1972. The Company returned her to her old position as P.B. leader. Employee Dorothy Ostanoski, who had been "acting" P.B. leader during Sardone's absence, was returned to her former position as a P.B. operator. Ferla received information about 10:30 a.m. on May 22 from his shop steward that Sardone had returned to work. Early that afternoon Ferla arrived at the company plant demanding an audience with Sardone. Then in the presence of Company Vice President James Young, Plant Manager Richard Ruszkiewicz and Shop Steward Robert Alston, Ferla told Sardone that she had lost her union membership because she did not pay her dues during her illness and, therefore, would have to become a new employee. Sardone inquired whether Respondent should not have notified her of her dues deliquency and whether there was anything she could do. Ferla answered that due to the length of her illness, not even a withdrawal card from Respondent would have enabled her to maintain her membership and that she had lost her seniority for job bidding and layoff purposes but would retain that seniority for vacation purposes as was done in the case of some 11 other employees who had re- cently been suspended from membership. Promptly thereafter Dorothy Ostanoski was made the P.B. leader in lieu of Sardone without going through the job bidding required under the April 8 collective-bargaining agreement. However Sardone was employed by the Company as a new employee as a P.B. operator on the second shift, i.e., 3 p.m. to I1 p.m. whereas, as the P.B. leader, she had worked on the first or daytime shift. In addition to the change of shifts Sardone's wage rate was reduced by 20 cents per hour. B. Conclusions With a couple of omissions the opening paragraph of Respondent's brief puts the instant case about as succinctly as is possible when it states: The instant case involves the loss of seniority for job bidding and layoff and rehire purposes of the com- plainant, Mary Sardone. This loss of seniority was oc- casioned by Mrs. Sardone's failure to pay her union dues to Sheet Metal Workers' International Associa- tion, Local Union No. 12 while recovering from inju- ries sustained in an automobile accident. The omissions noted above consist of the fact that it was 27 the Union which caused Sardone's loss of seniority plus the fact that Sardone, in addition, lost 20 cents per hour due to her demotion to P.B. operator from her former position of P.B. leader as well as the fact that she was forced, as a new employee, to work the second shift instead of the first shift as she had done prior to her accident. On May 22, upon discovery that Mary Sardone had re- turned to work as the P.B. leader, Ferla demanded that Robroy take action against Sardone because article II, sec- tion 1 of the collective-bargaining agreement required, as a condition of employment, that all new employees must "be- come and remain members of the Union on the 61st day following the date of employment" coupled with the fact that from the date of her accident on February 18, 1971, to the date of her return to employment on May 22, 1972, Sardone had failed to pay her monthly dues to Respondent and hence, according to Ferla and the phraseology of Respondent's consitution and ritual, had lost her "good standing" as a union member and thus, in treating ev- erybody alike, Sardone had lost all her rights as a union member which included her right to her job.' During his appearance on the stand, Ferla bragged about the fact that he went strictly by "the book" but treated all the employees alike. The only trouble with that in the in- stant case is that here Ferla went by the wrong books, to wit, the collective-bargaining agreement and the Union's consti- tution and ritual, whereas he should have gone by the Act. When Sardone was originally hired in 1965, she signed as a part of the employment ritual a document handed her by Robroy personnel department which stated in pertinent part as follows: I, hereby apply for membership with the above- named Local 12, affiliated with the AFL-CIO, and designate the aforesaid union as the sole and exclusive collective bargaining agent pertaining to negotiations of wages, hours, all working conditions, grievances, disputes and all issues relating to my status as an em- ployee and member of the Union. I hereby authorize and direct my employer to check off from my wages, all dues, and initiation fees payable to the above-named Local Union, and to remit the said monies to the aforesaid Local Union. This documents was provided to Robroy by Respondent Union for the purpose of distribution to new hires. Board law presently requires that the two above referred to matters to be handled as completely unrelated items and in separate documents. This document has never since been revoked by Sardone. Under it her dues were checked off and remitted to Respon- dent from the date of her hire to the date of her accident. The evidence in the instant hearing proves that this same 3 However, in his stated efforts to treat Sardone the same as all other employees, Ferla permitted Sardone to retain her seniority for vacation pur- poses because, "due to his efforts," Ferla had gained such a concession from Robroy for 11 other employees who had violated the collective- bargaining agreement by not keeping Robroy informed as required thereby as to their return to work. Sardone had not been guilty of any such contractual viola- lions-only her failure to pay the monthly dues ° As Sardone executed the above agreement more than 6 months prior to the filing of her charge in the instant matter, no unfair labor practice can be based upon this document See Section 10(b) of the Act. 28 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD practice and procedure is still in use at Robroy in the hiring of new employees . As each new employee is going through the hiring process, the Company's personnel office provides that individual with an application for union membership and a checkoff statement authorizing the Company to check off and remit to Respondent that employee 's initiation fees and monthly dues. Article II, section 3 of the collective-bargaining agree- ment signed between Respondent and Robroy on April 8, 1971, provides: Sec. 3 Checkoff. When Robroy Industries receives check off authori- zation for new members , on the first day ofhire they will begin deducting the initiation fee spread out over the next three pay periods. In the event the third pay is the last pay in that particular month, an additional months dues will be deducted so that the new member will be current and his dues paid in advance for the following month. In the event the third deduction occurs during the first pay of a month , only one half will be deducted and the months dues will be deducted from the last pay of that month. No money for individuals will be submitted until the deduction for initiation fee and first month dues com- plete. Union dues deduction and check mailing scheduling will be established for the ensuing year and mailed to the Local Union office on the last calendar month of the year. (underscoring added.) Despite the inartistically placed comma in the first para- graph of said quote, this section obviously provides that the checkoff becomes applicable from the very first day of hire. However, the Act provides that only "on or after the 30th day following the beginning of such employment" is a new employee required to become a union member . Also the Board has held that it is the employee's choice as to how he wants to pay his initiation fee and dues,5 whether by check- off or by cash payment. Obviously article II, section 3 does not comply with those requirements. Nor does the practice of the parties in their employment routine under article II, section 1 of the collec- tive-bargaining agreement in forcing new hires to execute union application and checkoff authorizations comply with the Act. Congress outlawed the closed shop many years ago. The difference between the outlawed closed shop and the em- ployment practices noted above under the instant collec- tive-bargaining agreement is to all intent and purposes negligible. The aforementioned clauses of the collective- bargaining agreement together with the practices thereun- der are thus illegal under the Act Hence Ferla was going by the wrong book. However Ferla testified that the only way a new employee was permitted to pay his initiation fee and dues was by the checkoff. The fact that the employee would get the checked-off 5 International Union of Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers Local 601, AFL-CIO ( Westinghouse Electirc Corporation), 180 NLRB 1062 (1970), N L R B v Campbell Soup Co, 378 F 2d 259 (C A 9, 1967), cert denied 289 U S 900 (1967) monies already withheld from his paycheck in the event he did not successfully complete his probationary period is of no consequence here for the reason that under this contrac- tual arrangement he was not accorded the 30 days "free ride" required in the proviso of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act. So, even assuming arguendo that it was incumbent upon Sardone to have paid her dues in cash during the period she was incapacitated, the Union here cannot rely upon its so- called union-security clause which, although legal on its face, was in fact illegal in practice, to justify the discrimina- tion it caused Robroy to practice upon Sardone on May 22, 1972 General Counsel maintained that Respondent failed in its fidiciary duty to Sardone in not having informed her of her obligation to pay her dues before causing her loss of seniori- ty. Respondent adduced a great deal of testimony indicat- ing that Sardone had signed statements to the effect that she had read through Respondent's constitution and ritual and subscribed thereto, that copies of said constitution and ritu- al were "available" to Sardone for her inspection, and that, at least according to Ferla, a good portion of practically every union meeting was taken up with Ferla's numerous reminders to all present that said constitution and ritual required members to pay their dues whether by checkoff when working or by cash when incapacitated .6 The fact is that admittedly Respondent failed to communicate with Sardone at any time after her accident until the afternoon of May 22. Hence Respondent failed to notify Sardone of the imminence of her becoming suspended or of losing her union membership. In fact Ferla in May 1972, either just before or dust after her suspension from membership, if in fact she was actually suspended by Respondent, failed to return two telephone calls from Sardone which his office had promised that Ferla would do. Good business practices, if not the book, would require that such promises be kept. If kept, such returned calls might well have prevented the present situation. By the book Sardone became a suspended member on May 1, 1971. Neither Sardone nor Robroy were so notified. The suspension, if any, remained a secret to all concerned until the afternoon of May 22, 1972. In this connection it is interesting to note that so far as Robroy was concerned, Sardone remained an employee at the time of her return to work on May 22 because it immediately returned her to her old position as P.B. leader which she held at the time of her accident. Furthermore Sardone's dues have been checked off each month since her employment began in 1965. In her physical condition after her accident Sardone could well have failed to recall, even if interested in that matter under the then existing conditions, the necessity, if such existed, of paying her dues in cash in lieu of the checkoff while she was not working. The evidence here showed that the steward would on occasion call an employee's attention to any existing deficiencies in his dues payments if and when the steward might see that delinquent employee in the plant. However the Union provided no such service for an injured employee who was unable to appear at the plant. Of course Ferla's 6 The trouble with this last was that Steward Alston could not recall if Sardone had attended any union meeting since 1969 SHEET METAL WORKERS, LOCAL 12 29 book provided for no such service so the incapacitated em- ployee received none. Finally Ferla's decision that Sardone had lost her seniori- ty rights due to the nonpayment of her dues is in direct contravention of article XIII, "Security," of the collective- bargaining agreement which fails to provide for any such loss of seniority under the conditions of Sardone' s case. In fact, so far as Robroy was concerned, Sardone was still an employee and a P.B. leader on the morning of May 22, 1972. Hence it is apparent that Respondent caused Robroy to discriminate against Sardone by removing her seniority based upon a union-security clause fair on its face but illegal in practice and upon a checkoff clause which was illegal on its face. This last is so even if we assume that Sardone was in fact hired as a new employee at the Union's request on May 22. Under the checkoff provision of the contract she still lost her statutory 30 days "free ride." Last but not least it is interesting to note that Ferla's alleged strict adherence to the book was such that he had no objections to Sardone's lost P.B. leader's position being filled by another without the bidding for that position re- quired by article XIII, section 3 of the collective-bargaining agreement. So it is that none of the books Ferla purported to go by provided Respondent with any defense to the discrimina- tion which Respondent caused Robroy to inflict upon Mary Sardone on May 22, 1972. By causing such discrimination against Mary Sardone Respondent thereby violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) and (2) 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 Rob- roy described in section I, above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relationship 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 Respondent Union has engaged in certain unfair labor practices, I shall recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative ac- tion designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. Having found that Respondent Union caused the Com- pany to discriminate in regard to hire and tenure of employ- ment of Mary Sardone on May 22, 1972, in violation of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act, I will recommend that Respon- dent Union notify the Company in writing with a copy to Sardone that it has no objections to the employment of Mary Sardone in her former position of P.B. leader and recommend that she be reinstated to that position without loss of seniority or to some such substantial equivalent posi- tion as she might be entitled to with her seniority and that Mary Sardone be employed in such position on the first shift if she so desires. I will also recommend that Respon- dent Union make Mary Sardone whole for any loss of pay or other benefits she may have suffered by reason of the unlawful discrimination against her by paying to her a sum of money equal to that which she would have earned to the date of her reinstatement as a P.B. leader less her interim earnings and in a manner consistent with Board policy as set forth in F.W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289, with interest thereon at 6 percent per annum. Because of the type of unfair labor practices engaged in by Respondent Union, I sense an opposition by Respon- dent to the policies of the Act in general and I deem it necessary to order Respondent to cease and desist from in any manner interfering with the rights guaranteed to em- ployees in Section 7 of the Act. Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record herein I make the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Robroy Industries, Inc., is engaged in commerce with- in the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 2. Respondent Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act and Robert G. Ferla is an agent of Respondent Union within the meaning of Sec- tion 2(13) of the Act. 3. By causing Robroy Industries, Inc., to discriminate against Mary Sardone in regard to the hire and tenure of employment in violation of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act, there- by unlawfully encouraging membership in Respondent Union, Respondent Union has engaged in, and is engaging in, unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(b)(2) and (1)(A) of the Act. 4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law, and the entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, I hereby issue the following recommended: ORDER' Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and conclu- sions of law, and upon the entire record in the case, it is recommended that Respondent Union, its officers, agents, and representatives, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Causing or attempting to cause Robroy Industries, Inc., to discriminate against employees except to the extent permitted by the proviso to Section 8(a)(3) of the Act, as amended. (b) In any like or related manner restraining or coercing employees of the Company in the exercise of their rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act, except to the extent legally permitted by the proviso to Section 8(a)(3) of the Act, as amended. 2. Take the following affirmative action which I find will 7 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 30 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Notify the Company that Respondent has no objec- tions to the employment of Mary Sardone as a P.B. leader on the first shift and recommends that the Company rein- state her to her former position as such and furnish Mary Sardone a copy of such notification to the Company. (b) Make Mary Sardone whole in the manner set forth in the section entitled "The Remedy" above. (c) In the event that Respondent Union has required a reinstatement or reinitiation fee from Mary Sardone in or- der to reestablish her goodstanding in the Union, return such payments to Sardone with interest at 6 percent per annum. (d) Post at its office and place of business copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix." 8 Copies of said no- tice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for Region 6, 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 " shall, after being signed by a representative of Respondent Union, be posted immediately upon receipt thereof and be maintained by it for a period of 60 consecutive days thereaf- ter in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to members are customarily displayed. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent Union to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (e) Additional copies of said appendix shall be signed by a representative of Respondent Union and forthwith re- turned to the Regional Director for Region 6. These notices shall be posted, Robroy Industries, Inc., willing, at places where notices to Robroy employees are customarily posted. (f) Notify the Regional Director for Region 6, in writing, within 20 days from the date of the receipt of this Decision what steps Respondent Union has taken to comply here- with. IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that, unless Respondent Union notifies said Regional Director within 20 days from the date of receipt of this Decision, in writing, that it will comply with the foregoing Decision, the National Labor Relations Board issue an order requiring Respondent Union to take the action aforesaid.