Loomis Armored Car Service, Inc.

256 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Loomis Armored Car Service, Inc. and Donald R. Perreira. Case 37-CA-1147 December 14, 1976 DECISION AND ORDER BY MEMBERS FANNING, PENELLO, AND WALTHER On May 21, 1976, Administrative Law Judge James T. Rasbury issued the attached Decision in this proceeding. Thereafter, the General Counsel filed exceptions and a supporting brief, and the Respon- dent filed an answering brief. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board has delegated its 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 and to adopt his recommended Order. 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 and hereby orders that the Respondent, Loomis Armored Car Service, Inc., Honolulu, Hawaii, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the said recommended Order. ' The General Counsel has excepted to certain credibility findings made by the Administrative Law Judge. It is the Board's established policy not to overrule an Administrative Law Judge's resolutions with respect to credibili- ty unless the clear preponderance of all of the relevant evidence convinces us that the resolutions are incorrect Standard Dry Wall Products, Inc., 91 NLRB 544 (1950), enfd 188 F.2d 362 (CA. 3, 1951) We have carefully examined the record and find no basis for reversing his findings. DECISION employee Donald R. Perreira in violation of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act; the complaint contained three specific allegations of 8(a)(l) violations of the Act involving interrogation and threats.2 Respondent's answer filed November 18 and stipulations received at the hearing acknowledged all procedural allegations and the fact of Donald R. Perreira's discharge, but denied the commission of any unfair labor practices. The parties were given full opportunity at the hearing to introduce relevant evidence, examine and cross-examine witnesses, and argue orally. Helpful written briefs were received from the General Counsel and Respondent. Upon the entire record3 and from my observation of the demeanor of the witnesses, I hereby make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. JURISDICTION Respondent is now, and has been at all times material herein, a Nevada corporation with a place of business located at Honolulu, Hawaii, where it is engaged in the business of furnishing protective security services. During the past year Respondent, in the course and conduct of its business operations, provided protective services valued in excess of $50,000 to employers at facilities located outside the State of Hawaii. In the course and conduct of its business operations Respondent provides protective and security services for employers, each of whom meets the Board's jurisdictional standards. On the basis of these admitted facts, I find that Respondent is, and at all times material herein has been, an employer engaged in com- merce and in operations affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION The parties stipulated, and I find, that Service Employees International Union, Local 556, hereinafter called the SEIU, is, and at all times material herein has been, a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. It was alleged, and I also find, that the State Armored Car Guards and Watchmen's Association is, and at all times material hereto has been, a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.4 STATEMENT OF THE CASE JAMES T. RASBURY, Administrative Law Judge: This case was heard in Honolulu, Hawaii, on February 3, 5, and 6, 1976.1 The charge was filed by Donald R. Perreira on August 1 and a copy thereof was served on Respondent on the same date. Complaint was issued on November 11 and served on Respondent alleging the unlawful discharge of i The relevant facts in this case occurred during the calendar year 1975 and unless otherwise indicated all dates hereinafter shall refer to the year 1975. 2 At the hearing the complaint was amended to include two additional alleged acts of 8(a)(1) violations involving interrogation and impression of surveillance of the employees' protected activity. 3 General Counsel moved to correct the transcript and no objection having been filed by Respondent the motion is herewith granted. 4 In Case 37-RC-2142, involving the Loomis Armored Car Service, Inc, 227 NLRB No. 49 III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES The Evidence 1. Background On July 18 Stanley Kamita, the manager of the Hawaiian operations,5 posted a notice announcing that the company telephone would in the future only be available to employ- the Regional Director found the petitioner, State Armored Car Guards and Watchmen's Association to be an organization existing for the purpose of dealing with employers concerning employee grievances, wages, hours, working conditions, and other conditions of employment. See G C Exh. 3. Pursuant to the petition jurisdiction was asserted and an election was conducted by the Board. 5 Respondent's answer admitted that Stanley Kannta, Ehgio Reyes, and Melville Vincent were supervisors and agents of Respondent LOOMIS ARMORED CAR SERVICE 257 ees for emergency calls. The notice also indicated arrange- ments were being -made for the immediate installation of a pay telephone that would be available for the use of the employees. _ This notice apparently sparked some notes of discontent among some of the employees and, according to the testimony of Donald Perreira, a group of five to seven employees6 were discussing the notice when the idea of forming or joining a union was mentioned. On Sunday, July 20, Perreira contacted Larry AhNee, an SEIU representative, and arranged to meet with him on Monday afternoon. Meanwhile, Perreira prepared a list (see G.C. Exh. 5 and Resp. Exh. E) of employee complaints and, according to his own testimony, discussed them with his fellow employees prior to the meeting with AhNee sched- uled for Monday afternoon. Employees Ribeiro, Asato, and Perreira went to see AhNee and together discussed some of their complaints and in turn learned something about the organization and functions of a union.? A second meeting with AhNee was arranged for Thursday evening, July 24. Meanwhile, according to Perreira, an employee named Carpenter told him that "some people were up in the locker room and that they were discussing union, something about union, and that the supervisor was around, and that the best I can recall he said Mr. Reyes had been in the locker room at that time." Because of this vague and rather uncertain development, Perreira, Asato, and Dalere decided that they had better talk to Reyes and Vincent about their complaints.8 A meeting was set for-the following day and was attended by Perreira, Ribeiro, Dalere, and Asato as well as Supervi- sor Reyes. Vincent was apparently busy in the upstairs office working with Kamita and did not attend. The list of grievances as prepared by Perreira provided the basis for the discussion and comments were made by all. However, there is no 'disagreement that, of the employees, Perreira spoke most frequently. At some point Reyes indicated to the employees that he could not give definitive answers to all their "gripes," and he would have to talk to Stan and Mel (Stan Kamita and Mel Vincent).9 Before the meeting broke up the employees asked Reyes, and Reyes promised, not to reveal the identity of the complaining employees. Reyes testified that he kept his promise. Just about the time the meeting was coming to a close Mel Vincent and Stan Kamita came downstairs. There is conflict as to whether Kamita actually came into the room or was in a position to see all of the employees, but I conclude that he could have seen the employees as they departed. -Whether he made a mental note of who the employees were is problematical. 6 Perreira named Dalere, Ribeiro, Kahele, Asato, and Chu besides himself. 7 The record is not clear as to whether the limitations spelled out in the Act [Sec. 9(bX3) j,,regarding separation of security guard bargaining units and other rank-and-file bargaining units were explained to the employees herein involved. - 8 Just why an immediate meeting with their supervisors to discuss the list of complaints became so urgent merely because the employees most concerned were fearful the Employer was aware of some union discussion on the part of the "some employees" was never explained. However, these were unsophisticated employees, totally unfamiliar with the implications of a collective-bargaining labor-management relationship. There is also a serious conflict as to whether the Union was mentioned at this employee complaint discussion. Perreira testified that when he handed the list of complaints to Reyes, he said, "we have some problems in the company and that some of us have gathered some union information and that we would like to have these problems solved without further going into a union' or anything of that sort." Ribeiro similarly testified. Reyes testified that he had no recollection of any mention of the Union at any time during the meeting. Mel Vincent denied hearing any comment, after he entered the room, regarding the Union and particularly a comment by Perreira to the effect, "If we go " union, Mel, you and Joe ain't going to be on the road." That evening Ribeiro and Perreira met with AhNee at a bar and had further talk about what SEIU could do. 2. The 'discharge of Perreira Nothing of significance happened thereafter until Per- reira was discharged on Tuesday, July 29, although General Counsel contends that, because Kamita walked through the operations office about 7 a.m. on July 28 and said: "Come on, you guys, let's get moving," it is indicative of a change in management attitude. I regard this incident as proof of nothing except that Kamita did see Perreira on July 28. Perreira testified that on the evening of July 28, his wife cut his hair. Mrs. Perreira confirmed his testimony. Both testified that the hair length - as reflected by General Counsel's Exhibits 6a-6d (pictures taken shortly after the discharge) was exactly as Mrs. Perreira had cut the hair on the evening of July 28. On the following morning, as Perreira sought to, go to work, he was met by Stan Kamita in the turret room and told that he would not be permitted to go into the locker room, that he was fired because of long hair. Perreira protested, according to his testimony, that his hair had just been cut and that, if necessary, he would have it cut shorter. The discharge conversation between Kamita and Perreira was partially heard and observed by Nakamura, the turret man.io Nakamura testified that he recalled Perreira coming to work about 6:30 a.m. and that Kamita met him in the turret room. At first he paid no particular attention, but then Nakamura observed Perreira putting his hand to his hair and heard him say "If my hair is too long I could go home and have a hair-cut again tonight." Nakamura testified that he heard Kamita tell I Perreira that he was fired, and then Perreira walked out, Nakamura further testified that Perreira's hair was longer at the time that he was discharged than is reflected in the pictures represented by General Counsel's Exhibits 6a through 6d. 9 There is a minor conflict as to whether Reyes did or did not tell the employees that he would have to discuss their complaints with Kamita. I regard Reyes as a credible witness and whether he did or did not make the comment is of no real significance. Kamita was the manager , and any reasonable person should have known that Reyes would have to consult with his boss. io The turret man operated the. electrical instrument panel which controlled the entrances and exits by means of electrically operated doors. The turret man allowed only recognized or properly identified employees to enter. 258 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Analysis-the discharge allegation I find the discharge of Donald R. Perreira not to have been in violation of the National Labor Relations Act-for the following reasons. The Respondent-Loomis Armored Car Service, Inc.-had a published rule requiring employ- ees' hair to be "neatly trimmed and must not extend below 1/2" above the collar at the neckline." (See G.C_ Exh. 2.) The United States Supreme Court has recently held that such rules for police are justified by the need for "discipline esprit de corps, and uniformity."" Prescribed reasonable "appearance codes" for employees whose duties include meeting the public have generally been held to be within an employer's right and not in violation of the law.12 The General Counsel's argument has two aspects: (a) Perreira's hair length was within the regulations and (b) regardless of the regulations the reason given for discharge was a pretext to conceal the real motivating factor. I have not been persuaded that the General Counsel is right on either score. While Perreira presented a neat and well-groomed appearance at the hearing (and the pictures are representa- tive), nevertheless the pictures were taken when he was wearing a T-shirt. A dress shirt collar would extend approximately 2 inches higher and I have serious doubt that the hair as pictured would be another 1/2 inch above a dress shirt collar.13 Moreover, and of greater influence in my decision than the objective reasoning just set forth, is my opinion that the testimony of Perreira and his wife was contrived. I reached this conclusion based on the credited testimony of Nakamura whom I am convinced would not have lied to protect an employer or anyone else. He was straightforward and honest; he was candid and frank; I was impressed that he is a man of integrity; and he was sure Perreira's hair was longer at the time of discharge than that reflected in the pictures (G.C. Exhs. 6a-6d). I must conclude that Perreira's wife (contrary to her testimony) further trimmed his hair after the discharge and before the pictures were taken. I have serious doubts that Respondent had knowledge of any union activity on the part of the employees.14 The hearsay testimony 15 of Perreira regarding a vague report from an employee named Cleveland who failed to testify is much too veiled and indefinite to constitute employer knowledge. Whether or not the Union was ever mentioned at the'July 24 employee meeting is seriously disputed. In any event, Reyes was asked and promised not to reveal the names of the complaining employees and I believe, as he testified, he kept that promise. Why would he have said anything about a union being mentioned at the employee meeting, if in fact it was? While there exists some probabili- 11 Kelley, Suffolk County Police Dept. v Johnson, etc, 96 S. Ct. 1440 (1976). 12 Gerald Brent Fagan v. National Cash Register Company, 481 F.2d 1115 (C.A.D C., 1973). 13 I have said approximately 2 inches because the precise measurement will vary with the cut of the dress shirt as well as the cut of the T-shirt. No evidence in this area was presented at the hearing. 14 This is not to preclude or eliminate the concerted activity, which is equally protected, and of course Respondent, through Supervisor Reyes, did have knowledge of the employees' complaints. 15 To which Respondent properly objected. 16 Nor do I regard the sentence, "He has been guilty of other past ty of knowledge, I am not prepared to infer union knowledge on the part of Respondent based on the evidence contained in this record. Turning to the motive for the discharge, I find that Perreira was discharged because he persisted in maintain- ing his hair at lengths greater than that allowed by the dompany rules in spite of warnings-both oral and written. Perreira acknowledged that about 2 years before the discharge Reyes had spoken to him about having his hair cut-which he took in a joking manner but did get his hair cut. While denying any further oral warnings, Perreira stated in his affidavit given to the Board agent, "the usual practice has been that Reyes or Kamita would mention that we should get our hair cut and we would say that we were waiting for payday and then we would get our hair cut." While this is, a generalization, nevertheless it tends to indicate to me that he (Perreira, and others as well) had received other oral warnings even though he may have regarded them lightly. Perreira also acknowledged that he had received a written warning from Kamita some 6 months to a year prior to his termination which stated: "Last warning, this is your final warning, get a haircut." The wording used by Kamita is clearly indicative that earlier warnings had been given Perreira. The evidence regarding the reason given for termination is not disputed. Kamita's testimony and that of Perreira's regarding the termination conversation is not materially different. The reason for discharge was failure to abide by company rules regarding hair length. The written notifica- tion to the home office (Resp. Exh. A) was clear and unequivocal as to why Perreira was discharged.16 The issue here as in all termination cases is the true purpose or real motive for the discharge. If Perreira was in fact discharged because of his union activities or because of protected concerted activities, it makes no difference that there may also have been a legitimate reason for firing him.17 Conversely, if his discharge was not discriminatorily motivated, it is immaterial whether the discharge was arbitrary, unfair, or unreasonable. The Act does not give the Board any control whatsoever over an employer's policies, including his policies concerning tenure of employ- ment. An employer may hire and fire at will for any reason whatsoever, or for no reason, so long as the motivation is not violative of the Act.18 The General Counsel has failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the discharge of Donald R. Perreira was motivated for reasons violative of either Section 8(a)(3) or (1) of the Act.19 I shall recommend dismissal of the complaint in this regard. violations," as diffusing Respondent's reason for the discharge, but merely supportive of the drastic action in this instance It's a fact of life that an individual with a "clean" record is more likely to be given consideration than one whose record is slightly "muddy." 17 Local 152, of/w International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs and Helpers of America [American Compressed Steel] v. NL.RB, 343 F.2d 307 (C.A.D.C., 1965). 15 N.L.R.B. v. Ace Comb Co., 342 F.2d 841 (C.A. 8, 1965); N.L.R.B. v. T.A. McGahey, Sr., et al., d/b/a Columbus Marble Works, 233 F.2d 406 (C.A. 5, 1956), and cases there cited. 19 Falstaff Brewing Corporation, 128 NLRB 294 (1960), enfd. as modified 301 F.2d 216 (C.A 8, 1962) LOOMIS ARMORED CAR SERVICE 259 3. The alleged violations of Section 8(a)(1) Including the amendments permitted at the hearing, there were five actions by Respondent alleged to be violative of Section 8(a)(1). These consisted of. (1) interro- gation of employee Almeida on August 15 and employee Yamada on August 18 by Stan Kamita; (2) threats by Kamita on August 15 that if employees voted for the Union, personnel would be laid off; (3) threats by Kamita that relations with employees would deteriorate if the Union was selected ; (4) interrogation by Kamita on December 17 of employees regarding their union or protected concerted activities; and (5) Kamita creating an impression of surveillance on December 17. Kamita stated that around August 7 he received a letter from AhNee, the SEIU representative, which indicated that a group of employees were interested in being represented by him and he would like to discuss the matter with Mr. Kamita. Kamita testified this was his first knowledge of any union interest or activity among the employees. A represen- tation petition (Case 37-RC-2142) was filed on August 15 on behalf of State Armored Car Guards and Watchmen's Association by Donald R. Perreira, president (G.C. Exh. 7). In mid-August, at just about the same time the R case petition was- filed, Kamita learned of Respondent's loss of the public schools' contract representing loss of revenue of $100;000 per school year. The loss of this contract necessi- tated the elimination of two full-time routes. As a conse- quence, Kamita talked to some of the employees, including Ribeiro and Ahuna, explaining to them that loss of the schools' contract would cause their layoff because they were the two youngest employees in seniority.20 They were given a choice of remaining as part -time employees with the hope or expectation that if business improved they would be returned to full-time status. Kamita testified that he spoke to employee Ahneida on the telephone after the schools' contract was lost. Almeida was a full-time employee who was off work on sick leave and, according to Kamita, he (Almeida) called to ascertain if he would be affected by the loss of the schools' contract. Kamita advised him that because of his seniority he would not be affected. Other than polite, irrelevant conversation regarding his health, Kamita denied that anything else was discussed during this telephone conversation. According to the testimony ofAlmeida, Kamita inquired if Ahneida had heard about the Union, did he intend to go along with it, and why? Almeida further stated that Kamita told him "if the Company went union and then the wages or the cost might be increased and if that occurred, that the Company might lose more business and might have to lay off more employees." Almeida had difficulty fixing the time of the conversation and acknowledged that he was under the care of a doctor and a psychiatrist and was taking muscle relaxers and pain killers at the time of the conversa- tion. Employee Yamada testified that on August 18 in the operations room Kamita asked him if he "had heard anything about union being formed." " When Yamada responded "Yes," Kamita then asked Yamada if he supported it. Kamita testified relative to this conversation that he asked Yamada if he had heard of the union petition being filed, and that he (Kamita) made a comment about "how could anyone elect a loudmouth like Perreira." To which Yamada responded that he used to belong to an electrical union where none of the bosses were seen or heard . Kamita denied he asked Yamada about the Union. Ribeiro testified that on December 17, the day following the election, Kamita called in the early morning and asked him if he could come over and talk tohim. Kamita arrived at Ribeiro's house about 8:15 a.m. and there expressed concern to Ribeiro because he (Kamita) had heard some of the boys were blaming Ribeiro for the election loss and that he was not going to stand for any threats or force being used. As part of this testimony , Ribeiro also said: "and then he also stated that he heard rumors that everything that he talked to me about, all the conversations we had, I went back and told Mr. Perreira everything he told me, and I asked him how, and he said he had ways of finding out " Ribeiro testified the word "union" was never mentioned in this conversation. Kamita testified that he received a telephone call from an employee informing him that Perreira was on his way down to the company area to beat up Ribeiro . Because of this, Kamita testified that he called Ribeiro on December 17 and asked if he could speak to him . Kamita went to Ribeiro's home and there, according to his testimony, he told Ribeiro of what he had learned regarding the threat "and so I told Ribeiro, you know, whether a man is union or nonunion, I am not going to stand for any threats like that, and I asked would he be willing to voluntarily talk to one of the company- attorneys, and he said he would." According to Kamita he told Ribeiro he would contact the attorney and arrange a time and then advise Ribeiro. When questioned as to what he (Kamita) expected Ribeiro to talk to the company attorney about, Kamita replied: A. Anything that he wanted to regarding threats or anything of that nature. I didn't instruct him on what to talk about, but I felt that a threat was very important, a serious thing to be made. Q. Did you think that may have been-that his threats may have been associated with the union activity? A. I am not sure. All I was told from the previous event was that Donald [Perreira ] was threatening to go down and beat him up. Analysis The above-recited evidence comprises the material and relevant testimony regarding the alleged 8(a)(l) violations. A resolution of these allegations turns entirely on the question of discerning from all of the evidence whose testimony most accurately reflects the truth. As to the alleged telephone conversation between Kamita and Almeida I am of the opinion that Kamita's version is the more accurate and I am not convinced that Kamita 20 General Counsel stated at the hearing that Kamita's conversations with Ribeiro and Ahuna were not alleged as violations of the Act 260 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD questioned Almeida about the Union. Almeida appeared confused and mixed-up as to when the incident had occurred; his demeanor left a great deal to be desired. Almeida initiated the conversation, not Kamita; Almeida acknowledged that he was taking medication and was under the treatment of a doctor and a psychiatrist at the time of the conversation. I shall recommend that the allegations relating to interrogation of Almeida on August 15 and the allegation of threats of layoffs if the Company went union be dismissed. The testimony as related by Yamada and Kamita regarding the August 15 conversation in the operations room is not greatly dissimilar. Kamita contends he merely asked if Yamada knew the election petition had been fled. Yamada contends Kamita asked him if he knew the Union was forming and did he supportit. Both agreed that Kamita said something about Perreira being a loudmouth. I was impressed with the apparent sincerity and general demeanor of Yamada. I believe his version of just what was done and said on August 18 to be the more accurate. Kamita's uncomplimentary remark about Perreira-who had recently been fired-occurring in close proximity to his inquiry about the Union was bound to have had a coercive effect tending to interfere with Yamada's Section 7 rights. This is not to say that Kamita was not a credible witness; in most instances I believe Kamita's testimony to be accurate, but in this regard I credit Yamada and shall recommend that Respondent take appropriate action to remedy this act of interrogation and interference. I do not credit Ribeiro's version of the conversation that allegedly occurred on December 17 at his home. I believe Kamita went to Ribeiro's home solely in the interest of trying to offer Ribeiro assurances of protection from physical violence. There was no need for Kamita to reveal to Ribeiro the names of employees that might bring bits of gossip to him. Supervisors do not work in a vacuum and employees do like to talk. I find it impossible to believe that Ribeiro thought Respondent was engaging in surveillance of employees' activities merely because Kamita failed to reveal the source of a piece of employee gossip, if in fact he did. Kamita denied that such a' comment was , made during his conversation with Ribeiro on December 17. Conse- quently I shall recommend that the alleged acts of mterro- gation and creating an impression of surveillance by Respondent on December 17 be dismissed. IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE UPON COMMERCE The activities of Respondent as set forth in section III, above, occurring in connection with the operations de- scribed 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. 21 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. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The Respondent, Loomis Armored Car Service, Inc., is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 2. The Service Employees International Union, Local 256, and the State Armored Car Guards and Watchmen's Association are, and at all times material hereto have been, labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3. Respondent by the acts of its supervisor and agent, Stanley Kamita, did on or about August 18, 1975, question an employee regarding his interest and activity regarding the Union and did thereby violate Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. 4. All other allegations of the complaint that Respon- dent has violated Section 8(a)(3) and/or (1) of the Act have not been sustained by a preponderance of the evidence and are to be dismissed. THE REMEDY In order to effectuate the policies of the Act, I fmd it is necessary, and recommend, that Respondent be ordered to cease and desist from the unfair labor practice found herein, and from interfering with, restraining , or coercing its employees in any like manner. I shall order that the usual notice be posted. 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: ORDER21 The Respondent, Loomis Armored Car Service, Inc., Honolulu, Hawaii, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Interrogating or questioning employees regarding their interest in or activities concerning a labor organiza- tion. _ (b) In any like manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of any right guaranteed by the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action: (a) Post at its place of business in Honolulu, Hawaii, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix." 22 Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 20, after being duly signed by a representative of Respondent, , shall be posted immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained for 60 consecutive days thereaf- ter, in conspicuous places, where the usual employee notices are posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. 22 In the event that the Board's Order is enforced by a Judgement of a United States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted' by Order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board." LOOMIS ARMORED CAR SERVICE 261 (b) Notify the Regional Director for Region 20, in writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps have been taken to comply herewith. IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the complaint be dismissed insofar as it alleges violations of the Act not specifically found herein. APPENDIX NOTICE To EMPLOYEES POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government The National Labor Relations Act gives all employees these rights: To engage in self-organization To form,join, or help unions To bargain collectively through a representa- tive of their own choosing To act together for collective bargaining or other aid or protection To refrain from any or all of these things. WE WILL NOT do anything that interferes with these rights. WE WILL NOT unlawfully question or interrogate our employees regarding their interest in or activities on behalf of a labor organization. WE WILL NOT in any like manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of any right guaranteed by the National Labor Relations Act. Loomis ARMORED CAR SERVICE, INC.