Dresser Industries, Inc.

DRESSER INDUSTRIES 819 Dresser-Industries, Inc. and Abel Ferreira. Case 39- CA-2044 28 February 1986 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN DOTSON AND MEMBERS DENNIS AND JOHANSEN On 19 November 1984 Administrative, Law Judge Joel P. Biblowitz issued the attached deci- sion. The Respondent filed exceptions and a sup- porting brief, and the General Counsel filed an an- swering brief. The National Labor Relations Board has delegat- ed its authority in this proceeding to a three- member panel. The Board has considered the decision and the record in light of the exceptions and briefs and has decided to affirm the judge's rulings, findings,1 and conclusions" and to adopt the recommended Order as modified. S I The Respondent suggests that the judge erred in finding an evidentia- ry conflict concerning postings on departmental bulletin boards and in the timeclock areas and by resolving this credibility conflict in favor of the General Counsel's witnesses. The Board's established policy is not to overrule an administrative law judge's credibility resolutions unless the clear preponderence of all the relevant evidence convinces us that they are incorrect. Standard Dry Wall Products, 91 NLRB 544 (1950), enfd 188 F.2d 362 (3d Cit. 1951). We have carefully examined the record and find no basis for reserving the findings 8 The complaint alleges that the Respondent violated Sec. 8(a)(1) of the Act by prohibiting its employees from posting dissident union litera- ture on "employee bulletin boards " Although the Respondent argued that the only boards in issue were the two "all-purpose" ("message center") bulletin boards, the judge found that the complaint allegations encompass not only the all-purpose boards, but also approximately 30 de- partmental bulletin boards, the personnel department bulletin board, and the wooden surfaces on which employee timeclocks are mounted. The Respondent, in addition to filing no exceptions to this finding, thoroughly briefed to the Board its position regarding all posting areas mentioned above. Although it is clear that the judge and the parties appropriately understood the judge's finding of violation to apply to all bulletin boards and posting surfaces in the Respondent's facility, the judge's conclusions of law, remedy, and recommended Order fail to mention the timeclock areas Accordingly, we correct the judge's apparently inadvertent error by amending the conclusions of law, remedy, and recommended Order to include a reference to these areas. 3 The Respondent contends that the judge's recommended Order is too broad in that it would permit employees to post intraumon political liter- ature on all bulletin boards and posting surfaces in the Respondent's facil- ity even in the presence of a uniform and nondiscriminatory posting rule which would preclude such postings The Respondent further argues that to the extent the proposed remedy and Order require the Respondent to permit the posting of intraunion political literature as opposed to prevent- ing the Respondent from discriminatorily refusing to allow its posting, it is unwarranted We find merit in the Respondent's exception to the breadth of the posting requirement recognizing that, as proposed, it would prevent the Respondent from placing legitimate, nondiscimmna- tory restrictions on the use of its bulletin boards and posting areas, Predi- casts, Inc., 270 NLRB 1117 (1984); Gertz, 262 NLRB 985 in. 3 (1982). Ac- cordingly, we will modify the judge's recommended Order to clarify that we are proscribing a discriminatory refusal to allow employees to post intraumon political literature on the Respondent's bulletin board and timeclock surfaces. The attached notice reflects this modification. ORDER The National Labor Relations Board adopts the recommended Order of the administrative law judge as modified below and orders that the Re- spondent, Dresser Industries, Inc., Stratford, Con- necticut, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Order as modi- fied. 1. Substitute the following for paragraph 1(a). "(a) Prohibiting employees, for unlawfully dis- criminatory reasons or in an unlawfully discrimina- tory manner, from posting intraunion political liter- ature on the Respondent's departmental bulletin boards, all-purpose ("message center") bulletin boards, personnel department bulletin board, and in timeclock areas." 2. Substitute the attached notice for that of the administrative law judge. APPENDIX NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES POSTED, BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government The National Labor Relations Board has found that we violated the National Labor Relations Act and has ordered us to post and abide by this notice. Section 7 of the Act gives employees these rights. To organize To form,, join, or assist any union To bargain collectively through representa- tives of their own choice To act together for other mutual aid or pro- tection To choose not to engage in any of these protected concerted activities. WE WILL NOT, for unlawfully discriminatory reasons or in an unlawfully discriminatory manner, prohibit our employees from posting intraunion po- litical literature on, departmental bulletin boards, all-purpose ("message center") bulletin boards, the personnel department bulletin board, or in the time- clock areas. WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce you in the exer- cise of the rights guaranteed you by Section 7 of the Act. DRESSER INDUSTRIES, INC. Stephen T. Fanning Esq. and Rosemary Pye, Esq., for the General Counsel. 278 NLRB No. 116 820 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD William C. Bruce, Esq. (Lynch, Traub, Keefe & Snow), for the Respondent. Abel Ferreira, pro se. DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE JOEL P. BIBLOWITZ, Administrative Law Judge. This case was tried before me in Hartford , Connecticut, on June 4, 1984.1 The complaint and notice of hearing, which issued on April 9, and was based on an unfair labor practice charge and a first amended charged filed on February 15 and March 29 by Abel Ferreira , alleges that Dresser Industries, Inc. (Respondent) about Febru- ary 2, promulgated and maintained a rule prohibiting its employees from posting dissident union literature on em- ployee bulletin boards in order to encourage its employ- ees to support and assist Food, Beverage and Express Drivers, Teamsters Local No . 145, a/w International Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America (Union), and to discourage its employees from engaging in concerted activities for their mutual aid and protection. On the entire record, including my observation of the demeanor of the witnesses and after consideration of the briefs filed by the parties, I. make the following FINDINGS OF FACT 1. JURISDICTION Respondent, a Delaware corporation, with an office and place of business in Stratford, Connecticut, has been engaged in the manufacture and nonretail sale of pressure gauges and temperature instruments. During the calendar year ending December 31, 1983, Respondent purchased and received at its plant products, goods, and materials valued in excess of $50,000 directly from points outside the State of Connecticut. Respondent admits, and I find, that it is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act. IT. LABOR ORGANIZATION STATUS Respondent admits, and I find, that the Union is a labor organization with the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. III. FACTS AND ANALYSIS Respondent has numerous bulletin boards at its plant: there are approximately 30 bulletin boards throughout the departments in the plant, called the departmental bul- letin boards; 2 bulletin boards commonly referred to as the all purpose bulletin boards (these are each actually two boards; one side is a metal board with slots for fixed sized index cards to fit in and the other side is a cork board); 1 in the vicinity of the vending machines in the plant, referred to as the vending machine message center board; and 1 in the vicinity of the "Chem lab," referred i Unless indicated otherwise all dates referred to are for 1984. to as the chem lab bulletin board .2 In addition there is a bulletin board in the vicinity of the personnel department (referred to as the personnel department bulletin board). Notices are sometimes posted by the plant 's timeclocks as well. The parties stipulated that since at least May 15, 1980, the only written rules in effect at Respondent 's plant're- garding the posting of literature were a provision in its collective-bargaining agreement with the Union and a memorandum of understanding with the Union dated June 20, 1977. The contract provision states: The Company will provide bulletin boards in suita- ble places agreed upon to be used solely by the Union for posting notices pertaining only to Union business at the Stratford plant. A copy of these no- tices shall be submitted to the Industrial Relations Manager prior to posting The memorandum of agreement states: Re: Article XX, Sec. 20.1, Bulletin Board In as much as it is impractical to provide suffi- cient bulletin boards solely for use by, the Union, the Co. agrees to allow the Union to post notices on Company bulletin boards (including Dept. bulletin boards). Such notices must be signed by an appro- priate officer of the Local Union, the subject matter of a non-controversial nature , and limited to the fol- lowing: 1. Union Meeting notices 2. Notices of appointments to Union office, in- cluding stewards. 3. Union election notices and notices of results of Union elections. 4. Notices of Union social and recreational af- fairs. As is presently stated in Article XX, Sec. 20.1, "a copy of all these notices shall be submitted to the Industrial Relations manager prior to posting." In addition, William Ridolfi, Respondent's manager of industrial relations, testified that all literature to be posted on the departmental bulletin boards must first be approved by Respondent's personnel department, and the only information allowed would be: [O]rganizational changes, promotions, company sponsored activities, sporting activities that are sponsored by the company, new hires, those items of interest to the employees as it relates to the com- pany's business and that they would have a need to know. Regarding the vending machine message center board and the chem lab bulletin board, Ridolfi testified that 2 Respondent, in its brief, alleges that because the complaint alleges that Respondent prohibited its employees from postmg dissident union lit- erature on "employee bulletin boards," it is only these two bulletin boards that are in issue The testimony, and my interpretation of the ter- minology used, convinces me that Respondent's position in this regard is not warranted. - DRESSER INDUSTRIES both sides of these boards are limited to items for sale or services performed by the employees . The card may con- tain a description of the item or service or contain a pic- ture of the item. He also testified that trips can be adver- tised on these bulletin boards and, in fact, in the past, Re- spondent's personnel department has placed discount cards for, certain amusement parks on these boards. Re- garding the personnel department bulletin board,- Ridolfi testified that Respondent's notices of information to its employees are posted there , as well as information re- garding its compliance with Federal laws and awards that Respondent had received. In addition, Respondent sponsors company golf, tennis, softball, bowling, and vol- leyball teams, and their scores are posted on this bulletin board. The dissemination and policing of all these bulle- tin boards is done by a secretary in the personnel depart- ment, who, once a week, puts up proper posting material and removes all material that is improper or has been up too long. Sympathy cards should 'not be on the depart- mental bulletin boards and he has removed them on many occasions. Ridolfi also testified that postings are not allowed by the timeclock. A number of Respondent's employees, including Fer- reira and David Mack, are also members of Teamsters for a Democratic Union (TDU), an intraunion dissident group. This case developed because of the inability of Ferreira and other TDU supporters to post literature supporting its cause on Respondent's bulletin boards. Ri- dolfi testified that Respondent will not allow the posting of TDU or other dissident literature anywhere in the plant. This came to a head at the end of January when em- ployee Paul Keegan witnessed a union steward removing TDU literature from a bulletin board. At that time he re- quested a meeting with Ridolfi to determine whether the steward's action was proper and a meeting was arranged for Monday, January 30. On that day Irving Nash, Kee- gan's foreman, told him that Ridolfi would see him. Keegan then asked Ferreira, one of the TDU leaders in the plant, if he would take his coffeebreak at that time and go with him to Ridolfi's office; Ferreira agreed and the two went to Ridolfi's office. At that time they were told that the appointment was between Keegan and Ri- dolfi and Ridolfi would not meet with Ferreira at that time, but, if he wished, he could make an appointment to see Ridolfi at a later time . At that time, Ferreira returned to his machine and Keegan went into Ridolfi's office. Also present were Nash, General Foreman Tony Ferrar, and Ernest Porco, the Union's assistance business agent and chief steward. Nothing substantive occurred at this meeting as Keegan said that he wanted Ferreira to be with him and Ridolfi said that the meeting had been set up only with Keegan. When Keegan said that he did not want to meet without Ferreira, .Ridolfi told Keegan that he would contact him and set up a later meeting that would include Ferreira. Pursuant to this conversation, Keegan and Ferreira met with Ridolfi on February 2. Also present were Nash and Ferrar. According to the testimony of Ferreira and Keegan, Keegan told Ridolfi that a union steward had torn TDU literature from a bulletin board in the plant; Ridolfi said that there was nothing he could do about it; 821 it involved union business and he should discuss it with the Union. He also said that the notice was posted with- out permission; whoever posted it should have submitted it to the personnel department for approval. Ridolfi said that as long as fighting was not involved, he was not going to interfere in internal union matters . Ferreira then asked Ridolfi if he could distribute the TDU publication, the Convoy, in the plant and use the bulletin boards. Ri- dolfi asked which bulletin boards he was referring to, and Ferreira said the vending machine message center board and the other bulletin boards in the shop. Ridolfi told him that he would get back to him about that. Fer- reira then gave Ridolfi two documents : a copy of Convoy, with a picture of Ferreira and accompanying article he wrote about unfair labor practice charges he had filed against Respondent , and another .newspaper with an article about a Board case regarding solicitations and the use of bulletin boards. Ridolfi looked over the articles and told Ferreira that he would consider his re- quest and contact him shortly. Ridolfi testified that at this February 2 meeting Fer- reira asked for permission to, post the Convoy article that he wrote; Ridolfi refused this request because "it was not a piece of material that was appropriate or business in nature." Ferreira then asked for permission to post the article on the vending machine message center board or the chem lab bulletin board ; Ridolfi told him that those boards were only for sale items. Ferreira then gave him an article about a Board decision regarding the posting of literature; Ridolfi reviewed the article and said that he would get back to him . Keegan then told Ridolfi that a union steward had torn a TDU article from a plant bulle- tin board and he wanted Ridolfi to do something about it. Ridolfi told him that in such intraunion political dis- putes, Respondent did not take a position unless it leads to fisticuffs. Ridolfi and Ferreira met the next day, February 3; Nash and Ferrar were also present. Ridolfi told him that Respondent would not allow his items to be posted on the bulletin boards. Regarding the distribution of litera- ture to fellow employees, during nonworking time he could distribute literature at the plant gate or , if he had about 6 to 12 copies of the Convoy, he could distribute them to his fellow employees during his lunchbreak or prior to the work shift. Ferreira testified that in about 1981 he posted a 1-by-2 foot notice on about every bulletin board in the plant; the notice announced a trip to Altantic City. He was unsure, "but I might have went in, and asked Personnel for the permission at that time." Previously, about No- vember 1983, he observed a cartoon posted on a bulletin board near where the foremen have an office . The car- toon was a picture of a trailer truck with men in prison behind bars with the caption: "Teamsters going to Dress- er." It was taken down about a month later . In addition, early in 1984 he observed a thank-you card posted by an employee on the departmental bulletin board in his de- partment; it remained posted for about a week. Since February 2 he observed Ridolfi checking the departmen- tal bulletin boards more often than he had done previ- ously. About early February he asked Ridolfi about it 822 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD and Ridolfi said that he often removes items that do not belong on the bulletin boards. Ferreira also testified that prior to February he observed newspaper articles posted over the timeclock that he uses. These articles often re- mained posted for about a week. In addition, the Union and the credit union posted notices of their meetings• at this location. Mack testified that prior to January he had observed numerous items posted on his departmental bulletin board; these included pictures of employees' children, political cartoons, sympathy cards, and, on one occasion, a picture of Martin Luther King, Jr.; these items general- ly remained posted for less than a week. In addition, Mack often posted TDU literature on this bulletin board, but these items only remained posted for 1 day, although he does not know who removed them. During January Mack was told by William Moyer, his foreman (and agent of Respondent), that Neil Priestly, Respondent's general superintendent, said that no TDU-related litera- ture would be allowed on the departmental bulletin board. Since that conversation only company-related lit- erature has been permitted on the departmental bulletin board; one employee posted a sympathy card and was reprimanded for it. The chem lab bulletin board usually contained listings of items for sale or store discount cou- pons for use by the employees. He had seen a posting listing a trip to Las Vegas on the cork portion of the vending machine message center board and the bowling and softball scores for Respondent's sponsored teams on the personnel department bulletin board. On the time- clock that he utilized he had observed sympathy cards. Employee Gerard Slomski testified that prior to Feb- ruary,, he observed Respondent's notices, safety rules, and seniority lists, together with thank-you notes, sympa- thy cards, cartoons, and editorials on his department's bulletin board. He posted a thank-you card on this bulle- tin board in August 1983; it remained posted for about a month. He never asked permission to post it. The sympa- thy cards generally remained posted for a week or two. Since February there have been no personal postings on this bulletin board. In addition, Slomski had observed thank-you cards and sympathy cards, as well'as other no- tices posted' over the timeclock in a different department; they listed trips to the World's Fair and Atlantic City. In addition, he had observed notices for union meetings, which remained until after the meeting, in this location. In his department there is a bulletin board that was painted over; about January 1983 he observed a political cartoon on the wall. It' had a picture of a truck that said "Teamsters" on it and somebody wrote on the bottom of this cartoon, "Teamsters going to jail"; it remained posted for about a week. On the vending machine mes- sage center board he had observed business cards, no- tices of items for sale or rent, notice of a church carni- val, and newspaper editorials, pictures, and cartoons. About 1980 he posted his business , card on ^ the board, without previously asking permission; it remained there about 2 days. He had observed no change in the employ- ment of this board since February. The personnel depart- ment bulletin board was "strictly for company use," al- though its also contained notices listing the scores and standings of Respondent's sponsored`bowling`and softball team. Keegan testified that prior to February the departmen- tal bulletin board where he was employed contained an- nouncements of promotions as well as sympathy cards and thank-you cards; these items remained posted for about -a week. These bulletin boards also contained no- tices of trips to Altantic City, Las Vegas, or Hawaii, which are run by employees of Respondent (the last oc- casion being in 1983); these "items usually remained posted for a month. In addition, during this period, he observed on another departmental, bulletin board seniori- ty lists, the bowling scores of the team sponsored by Re- spondent, and employees sale items. Since February, the use of those bulletin boards had changed; now there was "very little left on the board, other than pertaining to company rules and regulations." Regarding the vending machine message center board he had observed no change in its use from before to after February; this board contained discount tickets for. amusement parks, which are usually available during the summer months; in addition, it contained a notice of a Respondent-spon- sored clothing collection, as well as trips run by employ- ees and notices of items (cars, homes, or animals) for sale. This board also contained information about Re- spondent's sponsored softball and bowling teams. Keegan had also observed postings on the personnel department bulletin board; these included notices of ad- vancement courses available to employees, safety regula- tions in the plant, records of Respondent's sponsored sports teams, items for sale by employees, and trips run by employees. He had observed no change in the use of this board since February. He had also observed postings on the chem lab bulletin board which contained postings similar to that, on the personnel department bulletin board. Items such as sympathy cards remained posted for a short period; notices of trips usually remained posted for a month. In addition, he had observed notices posted on "just about every time clock section." These notices included rules and regulations of Respondent, notices of union meetings, sympathy cards, and thank-you cards. The evidence is clear and uncontradicted that all forms of notices appear on the vending machine message center board and the chew lab bulletin board, principally items or services for sale (sometimes with, accompanying picture), trips being organized, or operated, by employ- ees, and discount tickets to amusement centers. There is a conflict, however, in the testimony regarding notices posted on the departmental bulletin boards and in the vi- cinity of the timeclock; Ridolfi testified that notices are posted on the departmental bulletin boards only with the prior approval of Respondent's personnel department and that notices are not allowed to be posted by the timeclock. The General Counsel's witnesses testified to numerous forms of postings on the departmental bulletin boards (sympathy, cards, thank-you cards, promotions for trips, and pictures) and in the vicinity of the timeclocks (sympathy cards, thank-you cards, and notices of union and credit union meetings).- As I found the General Counsel's witnesses to be frank and open in their answers and credible in their specific testimony regarding post- DRESSER INDUSTRIES ings, I credit their testimony in that regard. In Container Corp., 244 NLRB 318 fn. 2 (1979), the Board held: It is well established that there is no statutory right of employees or a union to use an employer's bulle- tin board. However, it is also well established that when an employer permits, by formal rule or other- wise, employees and a union to post personal and official union notices on its bulletin boards, the em- ployees' and unions right to use the bulletin board receives the protection of the Act to the extent that the employer may not remove notices, or discrimi- nate against an employee who posts notices, which meet the employer's rule or standard but which the employer finds distasteful. In Honeywell, Inc., 262 NLRB 1402 (1982), the em- ployer maintained four types of bulletin boards: compa- ny, employee, departmental, and union bulletin boards, established pursuant to a collective-bargaining agreement with the union representing certain of its employees. All notices on the company bulletin boards required approv- al of the employer's representative, except that employ- ees could post notices of sales, carpools, lost and found articles, and the like without prior approval. The stand- ard used by the employer in determining whether to permit postings on the company or employee bulletin boards was whether the posting was for an organization which was "company sponsored or company approved." The employer refused to permit an employee to post a notice of another labor organization's notice of a meet- ing. Citing Container Corp., supra, the Board stated that although employees and the union have no statutory right to the use of an employer's bulletin boards, when the employer permits its employees to utilize the board for personal postings, sale items, or nonwork-related mat- ters, it may not "validly discriminate against notice of union meetings which employees also posted," citing Ax- elson, Inc., 257 NLRB 567, 579 (1981). The Board also stated that in these cases, "an employer's motivation, no matter how well meant, is irrelevant." In Transcam Lines, 235 NLRB 1163 (1978), the em- ployer maintained a driver's room where its drivers drank coffee, prepared required documentation, and waited for their next trip. There were three bulletin boards in this room: one exclusively for the employer's use, containing notices the employees were required to read; one established by the employer's contract with the union (Teamsters); and a third bulletin board which con- tained notices of items for sale by the employees and also contained religious material. The union had used this room to solicit employees to support its political oper- ation and various other solicitations had occurred in this room. A dissident employee attempted to distribute liter- ature' critical of the union leadership in the room; some of this literature contained strong language and made se- rious accusations against the union leadership. The em- ployer refused to allow this disribution because of the dissension it, could cause and that it would distract the drivers in the room. The administrative law judge found (and was affirmed by the Board) that as the employer al- lowed other solicitation and distribution is this area, and 823 as the literature bore sufficient pertinence to the purpose of the Act to warrant its protection, the employer could not enforce its rule and had to allow the distribution. East Texas Motor Freight, 262 NLRB 868 (1982), is di- rectly on point, save for the fact that the only bulletin board involved there was in the employees' breakroom. In that case, the dissident employee had written to Presi- dent Carter to complain of certain practices by the union and the lack of action by the Department of Labor in the regard. The Department of Justice answered his letter stating that the matter was being referred to the local United States Attorney. The employee posted this letter on the bulletin board. The employer removed the letter and issued him a warning letter for the posting. The em- ployer's position was that this bulletin board was limited to "official union business" and that nothing else was al- lowed on this bulletin board. The evidence established, however, that death notices, flower-collection notices, and thank-you cards were regularly posted on the bulle- tin board. The Board reversed the administrative law judge and found that because the employer allowed other forms of solicitation on the bulletin board, it could not remove dissident material from the board, and that an otherwise legitimate contractual provision regulating the use of the bulletin board was disparately enforced. I therefore find that because Respondent permitted nu- merous forms of notices, or a personal and commercial nature on its bulletin boards throughout the plant, it cannot prohibit the posting of dissident union literature. See East Texas and Transcom, supra. By forbidding the posting of such literature Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. By prohibiting the posting of dissident union litera- ture on its bulletin boards Respondent has interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exer- cise of their rights under Section 7 of the Act, in viola- tion of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. 2. This unfair labor practice affects commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. THE REMEDY Having found that Respondent has engaged in an unfair labor practice in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act, I recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of Act. Because of the nature of this violation and the large size of Respondent's plant, I will recom- mend that Respondent be required to post the notice en- titled "Appendix" on all the department bulletin boards, as well as the cork portion of the vending machine mes- sage center board and the chem lab bulletin board, and the personnel department bulletin board. On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on the entire record, I issue the following recommend- ed3 I If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec 102 46 of the Board's Rules and Regulations, the findings, conclusions, and recommended Continued 824 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ORDER The Respondent, Dresser Industries, Inc., Stratford, Connecticut, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall 1. Cease and desist from (a) Preventing employees from posting intraunion liter- ature on the Respondent's bulletin boards. (b) In any like or related manner interfering with, re- straining, or coercing employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act. Order shall, as provided in Sec. 102.48 of the Rules, be adopted by the Board and all objections to them shall be deemed waived for all pur- poses (a) Post on all the bulletin boards at its Stratford, Con- necticut facility, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix."4 Copies of the notice on forms provided by the Officer in Charge for Subregion 39, after being signed by the Respondent's authorized representative, shall be posted by the Respondent immediately upon re- ceipt and maintained for 60 consecutive days. Reasonable steps shall be taken to ensure that the notices are not al- tered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (b) Notify the Regional Director in writing within 20 days from the date of this Order what steps the Re- spondent has taken to comply. 4 If this Order is enforced by a judgment of a United States court of appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by Order of the Nation- al 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."