Sargent Electric Co.

630 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Sargent Electric Company and Norman J. Kelly and Homer J. Lee International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local Union No. 712, AFL-CIO and Homer J. Lee and Norman J. Kelly. Cases 6-CA-6152, 6-CA-6336, 6-CB-2408, and 6-CB-2418 March 13, 1974 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS FANNING AND PENELLO On September 10, 1973, Administrative Law Judge Paul E. Weil issued the attached Decision in this proceeding. Thereafter, the Respondents each filed exceptions and a supporting brief, and the General Counsel and Charging Party Kelly filed exceptions. 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 attached Decision in light of the exceptions and briefs and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings, and conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge as modified herein. The Administrative Law Judge found, and we agree, that the Respondent Company unlawfully discharged Kelly around June 5, 1972. He ordered the Respondent Company to make Kelly whole for any loss of pay suffered as a result of the discrimina- tion against him but, contrary to the urgings of the General Counsel and Kelly, did not extend backpay liability to the Respondent Union. We agree with the General Counsel and Kelly that, in refusing to do so, the Administrative Law Judge erred. As stated, Kelly's discharge was unlawful. He was not fired for the asserted economic reasons. These were properly found to be mere pretext. Rather, he was discharged for engaging in certain protected union-related activities which had evoked the dis- pleasure of Respondent Union's members on the job, including those who were supervisors, and Rogers, the Respondent Union's steward. Despite the obvi- ous fabricated nature of the pretextual reasons advanced for Kelly's discharge, Rogers nevertheless i The steward had previously unlawfully threatened Kelly that he would no longer cooperate with Kelly because of his unpopular union-related activities Furthermore, we note that, as found by the Administrative Law Judge, Rogers had the extraordinary power to remove employees from the job, a power which he demonstrated to the three dissident employees herein when he refused to permit them to go to work the day they arrived late at the jobsite after visiting the offices of Respondent Union earlier that morning; and later, when one of them was transferred to a different assignment, as he had threatened the day before Given this demonstrated power and authority, Rogers' approval of the discharge assumes the signed the termination form-that is, approved the discharge-without apparently raising any objections and clearly without consulting Kelly about the matter.' Thereafter the Respondent Union's Business Manager Hill refused, when approached by Kelly, to make any fair, impartial investigation of the dis- charge or to press a grievance on Kelly's behalf. Such refusal by Hill, the Administrative Law Judge rightly found, constituted an unlawful refusal by the Respondent Union to accord Kelly fair and proper representation. In view of the foregoing, it seems rather obvious to us that the Respondent Union's failure through its agents to properly represent Kelly was a cause in Kelly's continued loss of pay resulting from his unlawful discharge.2 Consequently, we shall provide that the Respon- dent Union jointly and severally with Respondent Company make Kelly whole for any loss of pay he may have suffered as a result of the discrimination practiced against him in the manner set forth in that section of the Administrative Law Judge's Decision entitled "The Remedy." 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 Administrative Law Judge as modified below and hereby orders that Sargent Electric Company, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, and Interna- tional Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local Union No. 712, AFL-CIO, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, its officers, agents, and representatives, shall take the action set forth in the said recommended Order as so modified: 1. Substitute the following paragraph for para- graph A 2(d) of the recommended Order. "(d) Make whole Homer J. Lee for any loss of earnings he may have suffered as a result of the discrimination against him in the manner set forth in that section of the Administrative Law Judge's Decision entitled "The Remedy," and jointly and severally with the Respondent Union, and in the same manner, make Norman J. Kelly whole for any such loss he may have suffered from his unlawful discharge on or about June 5, 1972." characteristic of an affirmative rather than quiescent act 2 Member Fanning agrees for reasons stated in his concurring opinion in General Truck Drivers, Chauffeurs and Helpers Local No 692, etc (Great Western Unifrerght), 209 NLRB \o. 52. that the Respondent's refusal to properly process a grievance for Kelly because of his union-related activities was unjustifiable and beyond the normal discretion accorded a union in its representative function . Accordingly. Member Fanning finds that Kelly was restrained and coerced within the meaning of Section 8(b)(l)(A) in his right to enjoy the mutual aid and protection of his elected representative guaranteed him under Section 7 of the Act 209 NLRB No. 94 SARGENT ELECTRIC COMPANY 631 2. Add the following paragraph as paragraph B 2(b) and reletter the present paragraph as B 2(c). "(b) Jointly and severally with the Respondent Company make Norman J. Kelly whole for any loss of earnings he may have suffered as a result of his unlawful discharge on or about June 5, 1972, in the manner set forth in that section of the Administrative Law Judge's Decision entitled "The Remedy." 3. Substitute the attached notices for the Admin- istrative Law Judge's notices. APPENDIX A be permitted on the job at any time; and we will take effective measures to enforce these instruc- tions. WE WILL NOT question our employees concern- ing their intraunion activities. WE WILL NOT threaten our employees with retaliation for engaging in intraunion activities. SARGENT ELECTRIC COMPANY (Employer) NOTICE To EMPLOYEES POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government After a trial at which all sides had a chance to give evidence, the National Labor Relations Board has found that we violated the National Labor Relations Act and has ordered us to post this notice and we intend to carry out the Order of the Board and abide by the following: The Act gives all employees these rights: To engage in self-organization To form, join, or help unions To bargain collectively through represent- atives of their choosing To act together for collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection To refrain from any or all of these things. WE WILL NOT do anything that interferes with or restrains or coerces employees with respect to these rights. WE WILL NOT discriminate against our employ- ees for engaging in activities on behalf of the Union or on their own behalf. WE WILL offer to Norman J. Kelly and Homer J. Lee immediate and full reinstatement to their former jobs or, if those jobs are no longer available, to substantially equivalent jobs, without prejudice to any seniority or other rights and privileges previously enjoyed by them. WE WILL make Homer J. Lee whole for any loss of pay suffered as a result of the discrimina- tion against him and, jointly and severally with International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local Union No. 712, AFL-CIO, we will make Norman J. Kelly whole for any such loss he may have suffered as a result of his unlawful dis- charge. WE WILL NOT permit any employees to threaten or assault other employees or exclude them from their jobs because of their intraunion activities and physical assaults upon or threats of physical violence to employees for such purposes will not 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 Board's Office, 1536 Federal Building, 1000 Liberty Avenue, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15222, Telephone 412-644-2977. APPENDIX B NOTICE To MEMBERS POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government After a trial at which all sides had a chance to give evidence, the National Labor Relations Board has found that we violated the National Labor Relations Act and has ordered us to post this notice and we intend to carry out the Order of the Board and abide by the following: The Act gives all employees these rights: To engage in self-organization To form, join, or help unions To bargain collectively through represent- atives of their choosing To act together for collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection To refrain from any or all of these things. WE WILL NOT do anything that restrains or coerces employees with respect to these rights. WE WILL NOT discriminate in our representa- tion of any employee because of his lack of membership in this Union or because he engaged in intraunion activities. WE WILL jointly and severally with Sargent Electric Company make Norman J. Kelly whole for any loss of pay he may have suffered as a 632 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD result of his unlawful discharge on or about June 5, 1972. All employees in any bargaining unit represented by this Union are by law entitled to and will receive from this Union nondiscriminatory representation in the processing of their grievances and otherwise without regard to whether or not they are members of this Union. INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECIRICAL WORKERS, LOCAL UNION No. 712, AFL-CIO (Labor Organization) 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 Board's Office, 1536 Federal Building, 1000 Liberty Avenue, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15222, Telephone 412-644-2977. DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE PAUL E. WEIL, Administrative Law Judge : On June 9, 1972, Homer Lee filed a charge against International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local Union No. 712, AFL-CIO, hereinafter called Respondent Union, alleging that Respondent Union by threats and other acts and conduct restrained and coerced employees of Sargent Electric Company , hereinafter called Respondent Employ- er, in violation of their rights under the Act. This charge was docketed as Case 6-CB-2408. On June 22, 1972, Norman J. Kelly filed a charge (Case 6-CA-6152) against Respondent Employer alleging that he had been discrimi- nated against by Respondent Employer to the encourage- ment or discouragement of membership in a labor organization. On the same day Kelly filed a charge against Respondent Union alleging that it had caused Respondent Employer to discriminate against him and had otherwise engaged in violations of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act (Case 6-CB-2418). On September 25, 1972, Lee filed a charge against Respondent Employer alleging that it constructive- ly discharged him because of his concerted activities and in order to discourage such concerted activities in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act (Case 6-CA-6336). On November 28, 1972, the Regional Director for Region 6 of the National Labor Relations Board, herein- after called the Board, issued a complaint against the Respondent Employer on Case 6-CA-6336, alleging as violative of the Act the discharge of Lee. This complaint was duly answered by Respondent Employer on December 13, 1972. On March 30, 1973, the said Regional Director issued a complaint against the Respondent Employer in Case 6-CA-6152 which was duly answered by Respondent Employer on April 6, 1973. On May 31, 1973, the said Regional Director issued a consolidated complaint on Cases 6-CB-2408 and 6-CB-2418 and on the same day issued an order further consolidating that consolidated case with Cases 6-CA-6152 and 6-CA-6336. The CB complaint was duly answered on June 11 , 1973, by Respondent Union denying, as had Respondent Employer, the commission of any unfair labor practice . On the issues thus joined the matter came on for hearing before me at Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, on July 9 and 10, 1973 . All parties were present or represented by counsel, all had an opportunity to call witnesses, examine and cross-examine them, and to adduce material and relevant evidence . At the close of the hearing all parties waived oral argument. Briefs have been received from all parties and have been duly considered. On the entire record in this matter and in consideration of the briefs, I make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT EMPLOYER Respondent Employer is a Pennsylvania corporation with its principal place of business located in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, engaged in the building and construction industry as an electrical contractor. Respondent Employer annually receives goods and materials valued in excess of $50,000, for use in Pennsylvania, directly from points outside the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Respondent Employer is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. II. THE STATUS OF RESPONDENT UNION Respondent Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. Ill. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Background Respondent Employer is engaged at Shipping Port, Pennsylvania, as a subcontractor in the construction of a nuclear power station . While its work force fluctuates it normally runs somewhere around 200 employees, most of them electricians. All supervisory employees and all stewards on the jobsite are members of Respondent Union. Most of the employees, if not all, have been dispatched by Respondent Union and are either members or "travelers." I At all times relevant hereto the relationship between Respondent Employer and its employees has been gov- erned by a collective-bargaining agreement between Respondent Union and the Western Pennsylvania Chapter 1 Travelers are members of sister unions who are working within Respondent Union's geographical jurisdiction. SARGENT ELECTRIC COMPANY of the National Electrical Contractors Association Incor- porated, Beaver County Division, of which Respondent Employer is a member. On February 28, three employees of Respondent Employer, all travelers, took the day off to attempt to get copies of the Union's contract. One or more of the three prior to that time, had attempted to get a copy of the contract from the shop steward on the jobsite, Rogers, who told them that he could not furnish copies and indeed wished that he himself had one. The three employees, two of whom are the Charging Parties herein, went to the Board's office in Pittsburgh, thence were sent to the offices of the Labor Department in the same building where they were informed that they had a right to the contract. They then went to the offices of the International Vice President Johnson without success, then to the union hall in Beaver, Pennsylvania, where, in the absence of any officials of the Union, they asked two ladies who were clerical employees of the Union for copies. A discussion ensued between Kelly and one of the ladies, Mrs. Holland, who took the position that she could not give them copies and could not see why they felt they had a right to copies since they were not members of the local. From there they went to the Hilton Hotel in Pittsburgh where an AFL-CIO convention was being held. There they met Respondent Business Manager Hill in the lobby accompanied by one Namadam, an International officer. Prior to their arrival at the Hilton, Hill had been informed by his office that an agent of the Labor Board had been attempting to reach him. Hill called the Board agent and was informed of the attempt of the three men to get copies of the contract. He told the Board agent that contracts were available to the men if they asked him for them. When the confrontation took place in the lobby of the Hilton Hotel, according to the testimony of Lee and Kelly, Hill led off the conversation by complaining that they had gotten the "Feds" on him and asked what they wanted. They told him they wanted copies of the contract. After some apparently heated discussion, Hill said he did not have any with him but they could get them the next morning at 8 o'clock at the union office. Hill denied any mention of the "Feds", however he admitted that he had akeady talked to a Federal agent about the problem and that he knew what the men wanted when they accosted him in the lobby of the Hilton. The next morning, as suggested, Lee, Kelly, and Bigler, the third employee, waited on Hill at the union office at 8 a.m. They were kept waiting until 9:30 when Hill came out of his private office, met them in a corridor, and gave them copies of the recently expired contract,2 he also gave them copies of the local bylaws at their request. As they were leaving Hill called Kelly aside and asked him if he did not think he owed Mrs. Holland an apology. Kelly disagreed and said that if an apology was owed, it was owed him by Mrs. Holland. According to his testimony, Hill slapped him on the back and told him to get out of there before he got in trouble. Hill denied the slap or making this statement. I credit Kelly's account. When the three employees left the union office they went 2 Although the contract had recently expired, a new contract was at the printers and was not yet available. The contract had been changed only in 633 immediately to the jobsite where, as they entered, they met Steward Rogers who took them to the change trailer where he had an office. A rather lengthy conversation ensued during the course of which Rogers told the three employees that he was disappointed in their actions, especially Bigler's, and said that the three men had jeopardized his job through their actions with the Department of Labor and everything that had happened the day before. He threatened to, separate Bigler and Lee who had been working together for 9 or 10 months as working partners and indeed the next day Bigler was transferred to another crew. Kelly asked Rogers if the three men were fired. Rogers answered, "No you're not fired but I am not going to cooperate with you guys anymore. The working agreement, you will work by it, it says 8 o'clock and you weren't here at 8 o'clock so you can't work today. It says 8 till 4:30 and since you weren't here you will not work today." The three men left the job and went to Bigler's house where they typed a letter to International Vice President Johnson to request a meeting with him to discuss their problems. Lee testified that one of the reasons that they were seeking a contract was because they had learned that health benefits were available to union members pursuant to the contract and that the travelers had not been given these benefits. He had been told at Local 712 that travelers were not covered by insurance and he wanted to find out where in the contract that was covered. It appears also that the three men had a complaint that travelers were discriminated against in the distribution of overtime and a further complaint that a copy of the referral procedure was not posted in the offices of the local union as required by the contract and that the referral procedure was operated to discriminate against travelers. On March 15 Bigler, Lee, and Kelly sent a formal complaint to IBEW Vice President Johnson charging the local, Hill, and Derbaum, the local president, with specific violations under the IBEW constitution, the local bylaws, and the working agreement, specifically in failing to provide copies of the working agreement and bylaws, failure to advise the three of the existence of the welfare trust fund and the benefits available to them thereunder, failure to maintain a hiring hall procedure as set forth in the contract, discrimination in dispatching travelers, and further discrimination against travelers in the assignment of overtime by assigning it to members who are foremen or employed by other contractors rather than to travelers who are regularly assigned to the job on which the overtime occurs. When Lee was first dispatched to the Shipping Port job he was sent out as a welder because he had done some welding in the past. This is the first job on which Lee had been employed that required certified welders and he failed to pass a certification test. Accordingly, he was put on other work. On March 7, Foreman Stickle sent him to take another welding test and this time he passed it. On March 17, Stickle transferred Lee to a job welding in an enclosed shop. Although Lee testified that he had no preference for the wage scales, according to Hill's testimony 634 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD welding he apparently made no complaint on being transferred to the welding job by Stickle. A few days after the three travelers received copies of the working agreement, Lee asked Steward Rogers how to go about paying the one-quarter of one percent that it speaks of in the working agreement to make the insurance effective.3 Rogers answered that Lee had a copy of the working agreement and that would tell him how to do it. On March 24, Stickle took Lee into a storage room where he directed him to straighten up some-boxes and put the room in order. On this occasion he told Lee that he was sorry that he had helped Lee with the welding test and that he had told the Company that Lee was a good man, he went on to say that Lee "f-d the local, f- d himself, but f-d himself the most" and said, "you will be sorrier before this thing is over, mark my word you will be sorry." On April 5 a meeting or hearing was held before IBEW Vice President Johnson on the charges filed by the travelers. In order to attend the hearing they left the jobsite at noon. Just before they left Foreman Stickle told Lee that he did not know how Lee ever got involved in the matter because he had always figured that Lee was a pretty nice guy and then said that when he was driving down the street in his Chevy and a Cadillac pulled up beside him he did not feel that he should have that car. Lee answered that if he drove down the street in an old car and a new Cadillac pulled up beside him, if he paid for the new car he should have it and that is the way he felt about his insurance. That was the end of the conversation. As a result of the hearing or meeting before Johnson the charges were withdrawn by the three employees and a "statement of clarification" was signed by Hill and Derbaum. The document states that agreements are available from the business agent on request from a "qualified journeyman," that notification of an individual's qualification for benefits under the welfare fund is acknowledged to be a responsibility of the trustees, that referral of applicants for employment shall be in accord- ance with the procedures outlined in the agreement, and that construction overtime shall be equally distributed among the journeymen on the job insofar as is practical and a list will be posted on the job. The next day, April 6, Lee walked into the fabricating shop where he was regularly employed and found several people standing in the shop, including one Bobby Namadam, the son of International Representative Mike Namadam who had been present at the confrontation in the lobby of the Hilton Hotel (supra). Foreman Stickle was also present. As Lee walked in, Namadam said, "So you've got the balls to come back here today. If you stay on this job I'm going to break your f-g head." Lee said, "Maybe I had better leave"; Namadam said, "Well maybe you better." Lee backed out the door and started to leave the jobsite when he ran into Kelly. He told Kelly what had happened and Kelly took him to the office of Steward Rogers where he found Rogers and Earl Long, his assistant. Lee told Rogers what had happened and Rogers 3 The working agreement provides that all electrical contractors pay into the trust fund a sum equal to 6 percent of the weekly gross electrical payroll and then provides Paragraph (3) All employees hereby agree to pay in to such Trust Fund called Business Manager Hill by telephone. He put Lee on the telephone with Hill who said that he could guarantee that Lee would have no more problems with Namadam, but he could not guarantee it with everyone else and for Lee's safety he felt that he should ask him if he wanted to transfer from the job. Lee said that he would think it over and returned the telephone to Rogers, who talked to Hill. After he hung up, Kelly told Rogers that Lee had no way to get home so he was going to take him home and he did so and returned to the jobsite. When Kelly returned to the jobsite he went to his work area and told his foreman where he had been and the foreman acknowledged that the steward had told him and said that Kelly should proceed to work. According to Hill's testimony, during this conversation he offered to transfer Lee to another employer and Lee said he would think it over. On April 10, the following Monday, Lee went back to the job. Fearing to go on the jobsite alone, he had made arrangements over the weekend to meet with Kelly at the entrance and Kelly accompanied him to Roger's office. Lee told Rogers that he didn't want to transfer off the job but he was afraid to work in the fabricating shop and would like a transfer to one of the crews in the field. According to Lee's testimony, Rogers answered that he would speak to Hill about a transfer and could not give him an answer right away .4 Lee told Rogers that he would not stay on the job while they were reaching a decision and asked Rogers to give Kelly the answer, yes or no, when a decision was reached. The next day Kelly asked Rogers if a decision had been reached with regard to Lee's transfer and Rogers said that, due to the fact that the employer had spent so much money on Lee with the welding test, they felt he should stay in the fabricating shop. He asked Kelly to relate this to Homer Lee and Kelly did so. Lee never returned to the job, nor did he further seek a transfer or a new dispatch from the Respondent Union, or the employer. Norman J. Kelly testified that, after the filing of the charges by the three travelers, most of his fellow employees stopped talking to him, other than the necessary communi- cation having to do with the work and that Foreman Rich Leonard continuously watched him although he was not in a supervisory capacity over Kelly. Kelly went to his foreman, John Bender, and asked him if he was aware of the way the men and Foreman Leonard had been treating him. Bender answered that he had noticed a lot of things like that himself. Kelly then asked Bender if he was satisfied with the way Kelly was working, saying that he would be glad to change if Bender was having any problems with him. Bender answered that Kelly's work was satisfactory and that he should keep on working as he had been doing. Kelly asked Bender if he would tell the steward that Kelly wanted to speak to him on the matter and later in the afternoon Earl Long came to Kelly's workplace. Kelly asked Long if he was aware of how a sum equal to one-fourth of one percent of their weekly electrical gross wages, together with the required reporting forms to the office of the public member on or before the 14th day following each payroll date. 4 According to Kelly's testimony, Rogers said he would have to check with Gill, the general foreman SARGENT ELECTRIC COMPANY 635 Bigler, Lee, and Kelly had been treated since they filed charges and Long said that he was not aware of that, whereupon Kelly related some incidents to Long and told Long that he thought that the Union should protect the three men. A few days later Kelly went with Bigler, an apprentice he was working with, and Steward Rogers to talk to General Foreman Gill about a complaint that Bigler had concern- ing some trouble with a fellow employee. Gill asked Bigler and Kelly why they had filed charges against the Union and said that when he had traveled he didn't go into other local unions stirring up trouble, but always did in Rome as the Romans do. Bigler asked Gill if he was dissatisfied and wanted to fire Bigler and Kelly. Gill said he had no problem with either one of them, he had no bad reports, he just wanted to know why they were trying to start trouble in the Union. On the first or second day of June, Foreman Bender left, apparently on vacation, and his place was taken by a new foreman, Ken Herman. Kelly worked under Herman's supervision for 3 days. On the fourth workday, Herman came to him early in the morning and told him to get his tools and lunchbox and come with him. As they walked out of the jobsite, Herman told Kelly he was firing him and Kelly asked why. Herman said, "Because I don't like you." They walked into the office of General Foreman Gill. Assistant Steward Long was in the office and had a termination slip that had already been signed by Steward Rogers. Long asked Kelly to sign the termination slip. Kelly read the termination slip and said he didn't go along with the reasons for the termination and asked him if Rogers did so. Long said, "Evidently, because he had signed it." Kelly asked to talk to Rogers, but Long said that he was not available, whereupon, Kelly refused to sign the termination slip and asked if anyone from the Company was going to sign it. Herman said he would be glad to sign the slip and did so. Long then put Kelly into a truck with his tools and took him out of the jobsite. The termination slip gave as a reason for termination "Unsatisfactory work. Leaving work area without permis- sion." Kelly went immediately to the union hall to inform Hill that he had been terminated. Hill asked him what he didn't go along with and Kelly told him that he thought his work was satisfactory and he did not understand the part about leaving the work area without permission because nobody had explained it to him. He asked to file a grievance but Hill told him that there was no grievance committee set up and there was no way to file a grievance; he said that the only grievances they had were in connection with the referral system, but that he would check into the matter and explain it the next day to Kelly if he returned to the union hall. The following day Kelly returned and met with Hill. Hill had a typewritten list with some five items on it which he said were the reasons given to him on his visit to the jobsite for the discharge. One of the five referred to an occasion in December or early January when the job steward saw Kelly in the parking lot 10 or 15 minutes before quitting time. Hill augmented this by saying that Kelly had been absent quite a bit. Kelly pointed out that the only rule on the bulletin board about absenteeism was that the foreman was to be notified in advance and if the absent employee did not call in within 3 days he would be terminated; since he had not been out for 3 days at any time he had not broken this rule. Kelly also pointed out that he was one of a number of employees who had left early on the occasion in December and that they had been admonished by the shop steward in a group. Another item mentioned by Business Agent Hill was that on some particular day he had been caught looking at the overtime list in the steward's office. Kelly pointed out that on several occasions when he passed by the steward's office on business he had stopped and looked at the overtime list to make sure that it was being kept up in accordance with the agreement which resulted from the April 5 meeting. In fact he said the overtime list had not been kept up in accordance with the agreement. On one occasion the steward had not been in the office and another employee, whose name he could not remember, had come in and found him looking at the overtime list. "As far as unsatisfactory work goes," Hill said, "that is entirely up to the foreman whether he is satisfied or whether you satisfy him or not." Hill did not ask Kelly whether he had ever been warned by the foreman or whether his work was unsatisfactory. Kelly asked again about filing a grievance and Hill again pointed out that there was no grievance committee and told Kelly that if he did not like the way Hill had decided, that is to say to accept the discharge without further activity on his behalf, Kelly could go to see Mr. Johnson and he added, "you know where his office is, I'm sure." On this point Kelly left Hill's office. According to the testimony of Business Agent Hill between the first and second visit of Kelly to his office after the discharge, he investigated the discharge. He did not recall whether he investigated by telephone or on the job, but thought that he had spoken to Kelly's immediate foreman, Herman, Area Foreman Tamporante, General Foreman Gill, and Steward Rogers. He could recall no part of his conversation with Herman but stated that Tampo- rante or Gill had given as the reason for discharge that Kelly was away from his job too much and that some of the work he did had to be ripped out. He did not know and there is no evidence who prepared the termination form or made the decision to discharge Kelly. The form was signed by Herman but only after Kelly was given the form and asked if anybody from management was going to sign it.5 Respondent Employer called no witnesses other than Hill. Accordingly, there is no evidence on the record concerning the alleged reasons for discharge other than that adduced in examination and cross-examination of Kelly. Discussion and Conclusions The General Counsel contends that the admonition to Kelly on February 29 at the union hall to get out of the 5 Although I am certainly not qualified as an examiner of questioned documents, it does not appear that the handwriting on the termination form is that of Herman 636 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD union hall before he ended up with his "ass in a sling" was a threat relating to Kelly's protected concerted activity, bearing the implication that Kelly could expect bodily injury if he, Bigler, and Lee persisted in their activities, and constituted therefore an independent violation of Section 8(b)(1)(A)• I reject this contention. While I find that Kelly, Bigler, and Lee were engaged in protected concerted activities in their attempt to get copies of the contract, which ostensibly governed their employment, and to achieve for themselves benefits guaranteed either in the contract or in the Union's working rules, it is not all that clear that this threat of Hill to Kelly concerned his activities in that regard, rather than his disagreement with the office employee, the subject then under discussion between Hill and Kelly. Although it is clear that considerable animosity against all three of the dissidents existed in Hill's mind, this particular threat does not appear to be related to Kelly's protected concerted activities. Accordingly, I shall recommend the complaint be dismissed with regard this threat. The General Counsel contends that Steward Rogers' statements to Lee, Kelly, and Bigler on their return to the jobsite after getting copies of the contract from Hill constituted threats and coercion. Rogers complained that the actions of the three men had placed his job in jeopardy and told them that they could not expect any cooperation from him as long as they were left on the job. No question is raised that Rogers made these statements, or that, in addition, his threat to use Bigler's relationship with his foreman as a weapon and to separate Lee and Bigler, which was accomplished the next day, reveals Rogers' animosity to the three men. Surely this animosity did not result entirely from their attempt to get the contracts but rather resulted from their more basic attempt to get the health and welfare benefits theretofore available only to members of Respondent Local and to get what they deemed to be their fair share of overtime. Respondent Union contends that Rogers' statements are not coercive but that, in fact, they amounted to nothing but an assurance on Rogers' part that they would be given all the protection of the contract, even as the other employees. A determination of whether Rogers' statements have a coercive impact must be founded at least in part on a consideration of Rogers' specific place in the scheme of things on this jobsite. Rogers, as the union steward on this large job, was the only union "presence" on the job. The job itself was unusual if not unique in that the relationship between the Union and the Employer is very close. All representatives of Respondent Employer are members of the local and indeed Respondent Employer's brief seems to take the position that its supervisors, even General Foreman Gill, are not so much representatives of Respon- dent Employer as union members. Business Agent Hill, the only witness called by either Respondent, testified that shop stewards had the authority to remove employees from the job for breach of Respondent Employer's rules, and no grievance procedure even existed on the job, although the contract which purportedly covered the job provided for the establishment of a grievance committee. The testimony of Hill, as well as the facts adduced in the hearing, reveals that the only means by which an employee can grieve is through intraunion charges against union officers or fellow members. Under all of these circumstances the job steward, the Union's eyes. ears, and mouth on the jobsite, has extraordinary power which was amply demonstrated to the three dissident employees by Rogers in his refusal to permit them to go to work because they had been held up by Hill at the union office so long that they did not get to the jobsite by 10 o'clock. Lee's testimony that other employees came to work at least that late and were permitted to go to work stands unrebutted on the record. This refusal on Rogers' part to permit the three men to go to work on February 29 clearly demonstrated not only the power Rogers had, but the propensity of Rogers to use it in protection of his position, vis-a-vis the Union and the Employer. A further demonstration by Rogers of his power and authority is revealed in the immediate transfer of Bigler on the following day as Rogers had threatened. Given the demonstrated power and authority of Rogers on the job, his propensity to use that power defensively and his threat that the three men could not expect any cooperation from him as long as they were left on the job, I agree with the General Counsel that the coercive nature of that statement is patent and that the threat violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act. Also, as the General Counsel contends, Rogers' threat of reprisal by using the relationship of Bigler and his foreman as a weapon left the three employees no doubt that their working conditions could be changed by Rogers because of their engagement in protected concerted activities. This too violates Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act and I so find. B. The Lee Incident After Lee and his two fellow employees filed their charges and the charges were resolved, Namadam, the son of the International representative, in the presence of Foreman Stickle, who unquestionably is a supervisor, threatened to break Lee's head if he remained on the job, Lee backed out of the fabrication shop where the incident took place and went to Steward Rogers' office to report the incident. While he was in the office Stickle entered, saw him, and left without speaking. Lee talked to Hill by telephone and Hill told him that he could control Namadam but that he had better leave the job because Hill could not guarantee to protect him against all the other union members.6 Respondent Employer takes the attitude that it had no duty with regard to Lee inasmuch as this was an intraunion matter. This, of course, is not quite what the Board has enunciated the law to be. An employer has an affirmative duty to safeguard his employees from union or antiunion groups of employees.7 In the instant situation, Stickle did nothing to safeguard Lee, on the contrary, by his silence, he appears to have acquiesced in the threat of Namadam. h Hill's acknowledgment that Lee had reason to be concerned with the reading the charges aloud at a membership meeting At a subsequent reaction of the members of Respondent Union reveals the seriousness with meeting, according to Hill's testimony , he warned the membership against which the Union viewed the charges filed by the three dissidents. The the direct action contemplated by Namadam. animosity of all the members was apparently aroused by Hill's action in 7 Newton Brothers Lumber Company, 103 NLRB 564 SARGENT ELECTRIC COMPANY 637 Indeed, little more could be expected of Stickle who, theretofore, had warned Lee that he would be sorry for filing those charges in such terms that, as the General Counsel urges, his statements constitute no less than a threat of retaliation. The knowledge of Supervisor Stickle must be imputed to Respondent. The record does not reveal whether he ever informed higher supervision of the threat by Namadam to Lee. At any rate, Lee was never at any time afforded any assurance by Respondent Employer that it would in any way attempt to protect him. His departure from the job under these circumstances appears to be an exercise in good judgment. Respondent Employer argues that it cannot be charged with an unfair labor practice in this situation because Lee never attempted to go to any official of Respondent Employer over the head of the top officials to be found on the jobsite, all of whom are members of Respondent Union. The Respondent Employer cannot disclaim responsibility for the job by the expedient of having no supervision on the job who were not union members. An employer's supervisors remain agents of the employer and their knowledge and actions are imputable to an employer, whether or not they are members of the union, and if the employer chooses to permit them to use their supervisory authority in furtherance of their union aims, it is no less responsible for the results of their actions. The actions called for here would appear to include assurances to Lee that his safety would be insured and admonitions to his fellow employees that he was not be attacked on thejob. Neither was forthcoming. Under all the circumstances of Lee's departure from the job, I conclude that he is the victim of a constructive discharge which violates Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act, and I so find. Finally, Respondent Employer contends that Lee, for reasons of his own, abandoned any right to his job at Shipping Port, relying on his testimony on cross-examina- tion that by April 15 he decided he did not want to go back to the Beaver job or work out of the Beaver local. However, by April 15, and to the present day as far as the record reveals, no one has ever made any attempt to assure Lee that he would be protected from retaliation by members of Respondent Union on any jobsite. Indeed the only information he had on that score was Hill's statement to him that he could not guarantee to protect him. Respondent Employer has not shown that it has yet offered protection to Lee if he were to return to the Shipping Port jobsite. Under the circumstances, his testimony scarcely adds up to the conclusion reached by Respondent Employer "that he just did not want to work out of the Beaver local." C. The Discharge of Kelly Kelly continued in Respondent's employ after Lee's departure met with "the cold shoulder" on the part of his fellow employees and worked under the continuing surveillance of Foreman Rich Leonard . His own foreman, John Bender, acknowledged that he had noticed Kelly's problems and told Kelly that he was satisfied with Kelly's work and that he should keep on working as he had been doing. Gill, the general foreman , asked by Bigler and Kelly if he was dissatisfied and wanted to fire them, said that he had no problem with either one of them, he had no bad reports. He just wanted to know why they were trying to start trouble with the Union. However, immediately upon Foreman Bender's departure, the new foreman, Ken Herman, after only 3 days of supervision over Kelly, discharged him and told him that the reason was that he did not like Kelly. We find Respondent's alleged reasons for the discharge in three different places. In its answer, Respondent Employer states that Kelly was discharged for failure to properly conduct the work required of him, for failure to obey company rules and regulations, and for creating disturbances and loss of work productivity on the job. The termination form states that he was discharged for unsatisfactory work and for leaving the work area without permission and the explanation allegedly given to Business Agent Hill referred to an occasion in December or January when Steward Rogers admonished Kelly and a group of other employees for leaving early; another occasion in the very recent past when Kelly had been caught looking at the overtime list in the steward's office; another that he had been absent quite a bit and that he left the work area; and, finally, that his work was unsatisfactory. I credit Kelly's testimony that Bender and Gill both told him that his work was satisfactory and that he should continue working as he had been doing so. These statements were both made after the harassment of the three travelers commenced on April 5. Among the reasons given for Kelly's discharge is the incident of December or January which is not shown ever to have come to the attention of the Employer, prior to the hearing. Much was made by Respondents of the absenteeism of Kelly. However, Kelly testified without contradiction that other employees were absent more than he and there is no showing that any absenteeism took place during the last 2 months of his employment. The occasions on which he left his job were the three occasions where he accompanied other employees to talk either to the steward or to supervision. This is not normally considered leaving the job and there is no evidence that Respondent Employer had any rule forbidding employees to talk to the shop stewards or to their supervision. Equally, there is no evidence that Kelly was ever criticized for leavingliis job prior to his discharge. As far as the alleged poor work is concerned the only evidence on the record is that of Kelly who said that he did not perform any poor work and that none of the "tray" that he installed or fabricated had to be pulled down. He stated further that he was never criticized for his work. Business Manager Hill testified that one of the reasons given for their discharge was that tray that Kelly had installed had been taken down, however he could not recall who had informed him of this and could not recall whether he had even talked to Kelly's immediate foreman who would be most likely to know of such information. I do not credit his hearsay testimony against Kelly's assertion. If indeed Kelly's work had been lacking both Respondent Union and Respondent Employer had available the supervisory personnel who could have so testified, but none were called. Accordingly, I credit Kelly's assertion that he was unaware of any work that had 638 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD not been adequately performed and that he was unaware of any of his work that had been torn down. The one reason given by Respondent Employer for the discharge that rings true is that Kelly caused too much trouble. The trouble he caused, however, was with the Union and more specifically with the shop steward and the business representative of the Union against whom he had filed charges, and both of whom revealed to him their dislike and displeasure with his activities. Clearly these activities, taken in concert with Lee and Bigler with the end of requiring the business agent and the shop steward to refrain from discriminatory activities against travelers, are protected concerted activities within the meaning of the Act. The Respondent Employer cannot validly discharge an employee for filing charges against the Union. Any disturbances on the job that resulted from the charges were not shown to have been caused by Kelly but rather to have been directed at Kelly, Lee, and Bigler. I consider that the reasons advanced by Respondent Employer are pretextual and indeed Respondents made no effort to support them before me. The fact that Respondent Employer advanced pretextual reasons gives rise to an inference that the real reason for the discharge is an invalid one. I have no hesitation in finding that the real reason for the discharge of Kelly was the animosity directed against him by his fellow employees and by the supervisors, all of whom were members of the Union, because of his union activities. Accordingly, I find that Respondent Employer is guilty of a violation of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act in discharging Kelly because of his intraunion activities. The General Counsel contends that Respondent Union, by its failure to afford fair representation to Kelly in his grievance stemming from his discharge, violated Section 8(b)(2) and 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act, relying on the Board's decision in Hughes Tool Company, 147 NLRB 1573. The background of the allegation has been spelled out above. The hostility by Hill and Rogers to the three dissident travelers is clear. When Kelly met with Hill asking the reasons for the discharge, Kelly told him the reasons given to him and expressed his disagreement with them, whereupon Hill said he would check into it and "explain it" the next day. As the General Counsel points out, Kelly was not looking for explanations, he wanted representation. Hill's choice of words was, I think, a clue to his reaction to Kelly's discharge; i.e., he was prepared only to explain the discharge to Kelly, not to attempt to fight it on Kelly's behalf. The following day after an "investiga- tion" Hill had a typewritten list of reasons allegedly given to him by the Respondent Employer for the discharge. However, his answers under cross-examination as to how this list was compiled were so unsatisfactory as to leave doubt whether Hill in fact had conducted any investigation other than to talk with Rogers who shared Hill's antipathy to Kelly. One of the reasons on the list, the reprimand in January by Rogers, must have been obtained from Rogers as there is no indication that it was ever reported to Respondent Employer. Hill did not talk to Herman or if he did so had no recollection of what Herman said. Hill did not inquire whether Kelly had been warned or whether other employ- ees were treated the same way for the same alleged infractions. When Kelly insisted on filing a grievance Hill told him that there was no grievance procedure, that there was no grievance committee, and that the only way he could file a grievance would be to file intraunion charges against Hill, Rogers, or some other union member. Presumably only if the intraunion charges ultimately led to a directive from the International Union to Hill to follow a grievance procedure would a grievance procedure then be instituted. There is no provision for written grievance to be filed, the contract provides that grievances should be adjusted by the duly selected representatives of both parties who, if they are unable to agree within 48 hours, shall refer them to a joint conference committee. According to the testimony of Hill, a joint conference committee has never been selected. It would appear therefore that no grievance ever remained unresolved between Hill and whomever he negotiated with, presumably General Foreman Gill. It is apparent that the so-called investigation conducted by Hill was no more than a fiction. Indeed Hill testified that he continued the investigation after he had informed Kelly that he would do nothing for him; it appears that the investigation was undertaken solely to put together enough reasons for the discharge to enable Respondents to defend themselves in the event charges were filed . It is perhaps naive to expect justice to ensue from a situation such as this where the employee had offended both the representa- tives of his union and the representatives of management who were members of the Union by his actions to claim his share of the benefits of union membership. There was no neutral party to whom Kelly could appeal; it was in the best interests of the Employer to maintain a good relationship with the Union ; and the union members and agents were Kelly's real adversary in this matter. I consider that the conduct of Hill with relation to the discharge of Kelly was arbitrary and invidious, it amounted to nothing more than a refusal to grieve on Kelly's part and resulted in Hill throwing the weight of the Union in support of the Employer against Kelly, who, I have found above, had good reason to grieve. Accordingly, I find that the Union, by its failure even to consider supporting Kelly in his grievance, violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act. I have found above that Supervisor Stickle threatened Lee with reprisal because of his participation in filing the internal union charges. I find that the threat is violative of Section 8(a)(I) of the Act. The General Counsel would have me find that the questioning by General Foreman Gill of Kelly and Bigler of why they filed charges and why they were trying to cause trouble constituted an interroga- tion in violation of Section 8(axl) of the Act. I conclude that the General Counsel's position is well taken. Although it seems that Gill's curiosity about the reason for Kelly's filing of the charges would be more appropriately attribut- ed to his union membership than to his supervisory status, as Respondent Employer points out, the impact of such interrogation on an employee would normally be no less coercive. It appears that Gill is the highest ranking supervisor of Respondent Employer on the jobsite. Kelly and Bigler had gone to him in an attempt to seek some measure of reassurance and protection from the activities of their fellow employees and from their supervisors. To be SARGENT ELECTRIC COMPANY 639 met, as they were, with the question why they had filed charges and the admonishment that they should conform to the customs of the local is quite as coercive as any interrogation can be . I find that Gill's questioning and remarks constitute a violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. IV. THE. EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR L&BOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of Respondents set forth in section III, above, occurring in connection with Respondent Employ- er's operations 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 thereof. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Respondent Employer is an employer engaged in commerce within 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. 3. By discharging Homer J. Lee and Norman J. Kelly because of their concerted protected activities, Respondent Employer has violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act. 4. By threatening and interrogating employees about their intraunion activities and by the discharge of the employees set forth above, Respondent Employer has interfered with, restrained, and coerced employees in the exercise of their rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. 5. By arbitrarily and invidiously failing to support Norman J. Kelly in the handling of a grievance stemming from his discharge, by threatening the withdrawal of representation by the Union because of employees engag- ing in intraunion activity, and by threatening to cause the Employer to take reprisals against employees because of their protected activities, Respondent Union is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act. 6. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. THE REMEDY Having found that Respondents have engaged in certain unfair labor practices I recommend that they cease and desist therefrom and that they take certain affirmative action which is necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act. Having found that Respondent Employer unlawfully discharged Homer J. Lee and Norman J. Kelly, its employees, I recommend that Respondent Employer reinstate them and make them whole for any loss of pay they may have suffered as a result of the discrimination against them, by making payment to them of the sum of money equal to that they would have earned but for the 8 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 reccmmended Order herein shall, as provided in Sec. discrimination in accordance with the principles enunciat- ed by the Board in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289 and Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716. The General Counsel requests that by way of remedy Respondent Union should be ordered to reimburse Kelly in the manner set forth in the Board orders in Port Drum Company, 180 NLRB 590, and Local 485, International Union of Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers, AFL-CIO (Automotive Plating Corp.), 183 NLRB 1286, and that the liability of Respondents should be joint and several. This is not the case that was set forth in Port Drum and Automotive Plating. Here there is no evidence that the Union caused the discharges and the discriminatees will be made whole by Respondent Employer. While the basic dispute does not necessarily concern Respondent Employer, it is responsible for the actions taken by its supervisors even though they are motivated by intraunion considerations. Accordingly, I reject the argument of the General Counsel and provide as to the Union only a cease-and-desist order. Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law, and the entire record in this proceed- ing, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, I hereby issue the following recommended: ORDERS A. Respondent Employer, Sargent Electric Company, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Discharging or otherwise discriminating against any of its employees to discourage them from engaging in intraunion activities. (b) Threatening or interrogating its employees about their intraunion activities. (c) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of their Section 7 rights to organize and bargain collectively or to refrain from such activities. 2. Take the following affirmative action: (a) Offer Norman J. Kelly and Homer J. Lee full reinstatement to their former jobs, dismissing, if necessary, employees subsequently hired to replace them, and if such former jobs no longer exist reinstate them to substantially equivalent jobs, without prejudice to their seniority and other rights and privileges. (b) Advise and admonish its employees and its supervi- sors that Respondent will not permit employees to be threatened or assaulted by other employees or other persons on the jobsite. (c) Advise Homer J. Lee that upon his return to the Shipping Port jobsite Respondent Employer will undertake to protect him against threats and assaults by other employees. (d) Make whole Homer J. Lee and Norman J. Kelly for their lost earnings in the manner set forth above in the section of this Decision entitled "The Remedy." (e) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the Board or its agents, for examination and copying, all 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. 640 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD payroll records, social security payment records, timecards, personnel records and reports, and all other records necessary to analyze the amount of backpay due under the terms of this recommended Order. (f) Post at its jobsite at Shipping Port, Pennsylvania, copies of the attached notices marked "Appendix A"9 and "Appendix B." Copies of Appendix A, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 6, after being duly signed by an authorized representative of the Respondent Employer and copies of Appendix B after being duly signed by an authorized representative of Respondent Union shall be posted by Respondent Employer immedi- ately 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 Employer to see that the notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (g) Notify the Regional Director for Region 6, in writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith. B. Respondent Union, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local Union No. 712, AFL-CIO, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, its officers, agents, and repre- sentatives, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Restraining and coercing employees of Sargent Electric Company in the exercise of their right to engage in intraunion activities, including filing of charges against the officers of Respondent Union. (b) Refusing and refraining from giving employees good- faith representation in grievances filed by said employees against Sargent Electric Company. (c) Otherwise restraining or coercing employees of Sargent Electric Company in any other manner in the exercise of their Section 7 rights to organize and bargain collectively or to refrain'from such activities. 2. Take the following affirmative action: (a) Post at its business office, meeting halls, or other places where it customanly posts notices copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix B." 10 Copies of said notice on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 6, shall, after being -duly signed by an authorized representative of Respondent Union, be posted by Respon- dent Union immediately upon receipt thereof and be maintained for 60 consecutive days thereafter. Additional copies of said Appendix B shall be duly signed by an authorized representative of Respondent Union and furnished to the said Regional Director for transmission to Respondent Employer for posting by Respondent Employ- er in accordance with the Order directed to Respondent Employer above. (b) Notify the Regional Director for Region 6, in writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith. 9 In the event that the Board's Order is enforced by a Judgment of a to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of United States Court of Appeals , the words in the notice reading "Posted by the National Labor Relations Board " Order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursuant 10 See fn 9, supra