Laborers' INTL. Union Local 1320

LABORERS' INTL. UNION, LOCAL 1320 Laborers' International Union of North America, AFL-CIO, Local Union No. 1320 (Dunbar & Sullivan Dredging Co.) and Tom Kilgore. Case 14-CB-4696 November 25, 1980 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN FANNING AND MlMBI;RS JENKINS AND PENEILO On July 31, 1980, Administrative Law Judge James M. Fitzpatrick issued the attached Decision in this proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent filed ex- ceptions and a supporting brief. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na- tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au- thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. The Board has considered the record and the at- tached Decision in light of the exceptions and brief and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings,' and conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge and to adopt his recommended Order, as modified herein. We agree with the Administrative Law Judge that Respondent violated Section 8(b)(l)(A) and (2) of the Act by causing the layoff of Tom Kilgore and Charlie Storey. We disagree, however, with his finding that Respondent's initial designation of Robert Adams and Paul E. Johnston as job stew- ards on September 17, 1979,2 gave rise to the layoff. We find, for the reasons stated herein, and consistent with the specific allegations contained in the complaint, that Respondent's arbitrary and dis- criminatory conduct on September 20 caused Kil- gore and Storey to be laid off. The pertinent facts are fully set forth in the Ad- ministrative Law Judge's Decision. Briefly, Re- spondent's business manager, Paul J. Johnston, Jr., referred six laborers to the Employer's Metropolis, Illinois, jobsite on September 17.3 Prior to the re- ferral, it had been established that the six would work a single daytime shift during the early stages of the job, and, within a short period of time, the i Respondent 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 credi- bility unless the clear preponderance of all of the relevant evidence con- vinces us that the resolutions are incorrect Standard Dry Wall Products. Inc., 91 NLRB 544 (1950), enfd. 188 F2d 362 (3d Cir. 1951). We have carefully examined the record and find no basis for reversing his findings. We have further considered Respondent's contention that the Administra- tive Law Judge has evidenced a bias against Respondent's position. We have carefully considered the record and the attached Decision and reject these charges. 2 All dates hereinafter are in 1979 3 Respondent is the exclusive source for referral of laborers to the Company's project at Metropolis, Illinois. 253 NLRB No. 58 job would expand to three shifts, with two laborers working each one. Johnston, following standard procedure, first se- lected three stewards: William Ogden, Robert Adams, and his son, Paul Johnston, Nos. 12, 14, and 8, respectively, from the referral list. Then, taking their position on the referral list into ac- count, he selected Tom Kilgore (No. 1), Charlie Storey (No. 3), and Raymond Greer (No. 6). John- ston assigned Odgen to the steward position on the day shift, Adams to the second-shift position, and Johnston to the third. The stewards decided among themselves that Kilgore would work with Ogden, Storey with Adams, and Greer with Johnston. The job, however, did not go to three shifts until Octo- ber 8. Thus, from September 17 to October 8, Ogden was the sole functioning steward on the jobsite. Company Foreman Jack Bailey approached Ogden at the jobsite the morning of September 20 and, unexpectedly, informed him that three labor- ers would be laid off at the end of the day. During the course of the ensuing discussion Bailey agreed that Odgen and Kilgore would remain, since they had been assigned to the day shift. After the conversation with Bailey, Odgen bor- rowed Kilgore's truck, telling him he had union business to attend to. He went to speak to Business Manager Johnston about the impending layoffs. When he told Johnston he wanted to be sure about which three employees to keep on the job, John- ston replied, "It's customary to keep the job stew- ards." Upon returning to work, Ogden proceeded to pass the word to the Company, 4 and explained to Kilgore that he would be among those laid off because Johnston told him the stewards would stay on the job and the others would have to go. Around 2 o'clock that afternoon, Bailey confirmed Ogden's comments to Kilgore, informing Ogden that the Company would keep the three stewards. The Administrative Law Judge found, and we agree, that the circumstances warrant the finding that Respondent effectively selected those to be laid off.5 He correctly found that Respondent's conduct on September 20 was motivated by its desire to maintain employment for two job stew- ards, even though their presence at the jobsite was unnecessary at that time." The Administrative Law Judge mistakenly con- cluded, however, that the critical nexus between 4 After work. Ogden reported to Johnston that Kilgore, Storey, and Greer had been laid off Johnston asked if he had told the Company which men to lay off Ogden replied that he had just told the upervisor it was customary to keep the three stewards 6 See Grovs-Granuie. a Joinl .entur, 229 NLRB 5., 63-i5 {1977) e Busines, Manager Johnston also was eager lo see to it that his son. one of the designated stewards. continued working 475 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Respondent's conduct and the Company's decision to lay off Kilgore and Storey could be traced to the initial September 17 designation of two non- functioning stewards. Adams and Johnston were referred on September 17 in the expectation that the job would shortly break down into three shifts, each of which would require a steward. The com- plaint alleges that Respondent attempted to cause and did cause the Employer to lay off Kilgore and Storey by its actions on September 20. The record shows that the job steward, Ogden, first learned of the impending layoff on the morning of September 20. His first conversation with Foreman Bailey that morning had ended in agreement-Ogden and Kil- gore would remain on the job. However, after con- ferring with Business Manager Johnston, Ogden re- versed course. He informed the Company that it was customary to keep all the job stewards, and he told Kilgore the stewards would stay and that Kil- gore would have to be laid off. Thus, the earlier understanding between Ogden and Bailey was re- vised in favor of retaining the two designated, but nonfunctioning, stewards. Accordingly, we find that Respondent, by its conduct on September 20, violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) and (2) of the Act. AMENDED CONCI.USIONS OF LAW Delete Conclusion of Law 4 and substitute the following: "4. Respondent Union violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) and (2) of the Act by causing the layoff on September 20, 1979, of Tom Kilgore and Char- lie Storey in order to maintain employment for Robert Adams and Paul E. Johnston." ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Re- lations Board adopts as its Order the recommended Order of the Administrative Law Judge, as modi- fied below, and hereby orders that the Respondent, Laborers' International Union of North America, AFL-CIO, Local Union No. 1320, Metropolis, Illi- nois, its officers, agents, and representatives, shall take the action set forth in the said recommended Order, as so modified: 1. Substitute the following for paragraph l(a): "(a) Restraining and coercing employees by at- tempting to cause and causing Dunbar & Sullivan Dredging Co. to discriminate against employees in violation of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act." 2. Substitute the following for paragraph l(b): "(b) Restraining and coercing employees by stat- ing that certain employees designated to be job stewards, but not functioning as such, will retain or have retained their employment because of their status as designated stewards." 3. Substitute the attached notice for that of the Administrative Law Judge. APPENDIX NOTICE To MEMBERS POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government WE WILL NOT restrain or coerce employees by attempting to cause Dunbar & Sullivan Dredging Co., or any other employer, to dis- criminate against employees in violation of Section 8(a)(3) and (I) of the Act. WE WIlt.. NOT restrain and coerce employ- ees by stating that certain employees designat- ed to be job stewards, but not functioning as such, will retain or have retained their em- ployment because of their status as designated stewards. WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner restrain or coerce employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them in Section 7 of the Act. WI: WILL make Tom Kilgore and Charlie Storey whole, with interest, for any losses they may have suffered by our unlawfully causing them to be laid off from the Dunbar & Sullivan Dredging Co. project at Metropolis, Illinois. LABORERS' INTERNATIONAL UNION OF NORTH AMERICA, AFL-CIO, LOCAL UNION No. 1320 DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE JAMES M. FITZPATRICK, Administrative Law Judge: The Union here referred out unneeded extra job stew- ards to a construction job so that when a layoff occurred they were kept on the job in lieu of other laborers who were higher on the union referral list. As set out below, I find the layoffs which resulted were unfair labor prac- tices. This proceeding originated with unfair labor practice charges filed October 2, and amended charges filed No- vember 1, 1979,1 by Tom Kilgore, an individual, against Laborers' International Union of North America, AFL- CIO, Local Union No. 1320 (herein the Union or Re- spondent). Based on these charges a complaint issued November 1, and was later amended, at the hearing, al- leging that Respondent had engaged in unfair labor prac- i All dates herein are in 1979 unless otherwise indicated. 476 LABORERS' INTL. UNION. LOCAL 1320 tices proscribed by the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, when the union steward told a laborer that certain other laborers were being retained on the job be- cause they were union stewards and when the union business manager told the laborer that certain referrals and layoffs were arranged to keep the business manager's son working, both contrary to Section 8(b)(l)(A) of the Act. The complaint further alleges that the Union caused the layoff of Kilgore and Charlie Storey for arbitrary, in- vidious, and discriminatory reasons and because they were not stewards, contrary to the provisions of Section 8(b)(l)(A) ad (2) of the Act. Respondent filed an answer admitting jurisdictional allegations but denying the unfair labor practices alleged. The issues were heard before me at Benton, Illinois, on December 17. Based on the entire record and including my observa- tion of the witnesses and consideration of the brief filed by the General Counsel, I make the following: FINDIN(;S OF FACI I. THE EMP.OYER Dunbar & Sullivan Dredging Co. (herein the Employ- er or Company), is a New York corporation authorized to do business in Illinois and Kentucky where it is en- gaged at various construction sites, including Metropolis, Illinois, in dredging and marine construction. In the year preceding issuance of the complaint, a period representa- tive of its operations, the Company purchased, and caused to be transported to its Illinois construction sites, pipe, rock, and other goods and materials valued over $50,000 which came directly from outside Illinois. During the same period it performed services valued over $50,000 at sites and for enterprises located outside Illinois. It is an employer engaged in commerce. II. THE UNION Respondent is a labor organization. Its principal offi- cial is Paul J. Johnston, Jr., its business manager and fi- nancial secretary. William Ogden is a union member and also a job steward on the project involved in this case. Respondent admits that both Johnston and Ogden are its agents acting on its behalf. Respondent is the exclusive source for referral of la- borers to the Company's project at Metropolis, Illinois. To facilitate such referrals it maintains at the union hall a rotating referral list of employment applicants in the nu- merical order in which the applicants sign the list. As each laborer is referred to a job, the date of referral is noted by his name on the list thereby having the effect of removing that name from the list. As referrals are made, names lower on the list in effect move nearer the top. When a laborer loses his job and again becomes available for employment, he applies for referral by plac- ing his name at the bottom of the list. Announcements of referral are made by Business Man- ager Johnston or his secretary, Clyde Owens. All refer- rals are pursuant to the system noted above except that the laborer designated by the business manager as job steward (normally a longtime member of the Union) may be selected without reference to his position on the list. IL. TIIE Al .IEGI:) UNFAIR lABOR PRACTICES A. Referrals to the Metropolis Job Prior to September 17 Business Manager Johnston held a prejob conference with company officials during which the Company requested that four laborers be re- ferred. After the meeting ended, one of the company su- pervisors asked that six be referred. It was understood that for the first few days all six would be working a single daytime shift doing unloading and other work in preparation for the main part of the job, and that at some later point, when the job was in full swing, ;t would be working three shifts with two laborers on each shift. On September 17 at the union hall, Business Manager Johnston referred six laborers to the Metropolis job. He did this by first selecting three stewards, William Ogden who was No. 12 on the referral list, Robert Ad;lms who was No. 14, and Paul E. Johnston (the business manag- er's son) who was No. 8. He then selected the other three in accordance with their positions on the list, these being Tom Kilgore (the Charging Party) who was No. 1 on the list, Charlie Storey who was No. 3, and Raymond Greer who was No. 6. Business Manager Johnston as- signed a shift to each designated steward, naming Ogden for the day shift. The six laborers then reported to the jobsite where the three stewards decided the shift assignments for the nonstewards, as follows: Kilgore was to work with Ogden, Storey with Adams, and Greer with Steward Johnston. However, beginning September 17 and con- tinuing through September 20, all six worked on the day shift. On September 20 three laborers were laid off. Thereafter the Company continued operating one shift until October 8 when it went to three shifts. When the laborers began to work on September 17, Ogden and Kilgore began working together on a barge tied up at the bank. They unloaded pipe and performed cleanup work, continuing with this assignment until Sep- tember 20. The other laborers all worked at various jobs on the bank and up the hill. B. The Layoffs Early on the morning of September 20, Company Foreman Jack Bailey came to the barge where Ogden and Kilgore were working and informed Ogden as the steward for the day shift that three laborers would be laid off at the end of the day. Ogden responded that he and Kilgore would be the ones to remain on the job inas- much as they were assigned to the day shift while the others were to be on night shifts, and they would have to figure out among themselves who would be laid off. The foreman indicated agreement with that arrangement and left the barge, going up the hill to where the other laborers were working. A short while later he returned to the barge and spoke with Ogden, asking him who would be the night-shift steward. Ogden replied that Adams would be steward for the second shift and Johnston for the third. Bailey went up the hill again. After the conversation with Bailey had concluded, Ogden asked Kilgore for the loan of his pickup truck, in- 477 I)F CISIONS 01; NATIONAL I.AOR RELATIONS BOARD dicating he was getting into some union involvement and was going to talk with Business Agent Johnston. He then left for the union hall in Kilgore's truck. Ogden first went to the union hall, but not finding Business Manager Johnston there, drove to his home where he located Johnston. He informed the business manager of the impending layoff of three men adding that he wanted to be sure which three to keep. Johnston replied that, "It's customary to keep the job stewards." Even though at the hearing the business manager testi- fied that he said "steward" and did not use the plural, I base the foregoing finding on his further testimony that in a pretrial affidavit made approximately I month after the events and 2 months prior to the hearing he used the plural form as found above, followed by the parentheti- cal comment that "the reason I said this was I didn't know when they would start three shifts." He did not satisfactorily explain the discrepancy between his testi- mony at the hearing and that in the affidavit, and in view of this and the parenthetical comment, I do not credit his revised testimony at the hearing. See Alvin J. Barr and Co., Inc., 236 NLRB 242 (1978). Ogden testified that the business manager told him, "We've got to hold the steward," and when Ogden asked, "How about the rest?", Johnston replied, "That's up to them," I do not credit this testimony of Ogden be- cause, upon returning to the jobsite after being away for an hour and a half, he told Kilgore he would have to go, that Johnston had said the stewards would stay on the job and the others would have to go. Ogden told Kil- gore the foreman (Bailey) would talk with the job super- intendent and if four laborers were kept, then Kilgore could remain. If the instructions to Ogden had been to keep one steward, there would have been no question about Kilgore remaining because he was number one on the referral list. Around 2 in the afternoon Bailey again came down to the barge and informed Ogden he was keeping the three stewards. Ogden then asked about Kilgore and Bailey re- plied they would try to call him back when the job start- ed. This apparently meant when the job would be in full swing with three shifts. In mid-afternoon at the end of the workday checks were brought to the jobsite for Kil- gore, Storey and Greer and they were laid off. Later, around 5 O'clock that afternoon, Ogden again called on Business Manager Johnston at his home, re- porting to him who had been laid off. Johnston inquired if he had told the Company which men to lay off. Ogden replied he had not, that he had just told the supervisor it was customary to keep the three stewards. I base this finding on Johnston's testimony at the hearing that he so stated in his pretrial affidavit. See Alvin J. Bart and Co., Inc., supra. Although at the hearing he testified that he asked Ogden if he had told the supervisor what men to lay off and that Ogden said no, when confronted with his affidavit, he indicated his current recollection was somewhat uncertain. Accordingly, I rely on his previous- ly recorded recollection that Ogden reported that he had told the company supervisor it was customary to keep the three stewards. The next morning, September 21, Kilgore, having been laid off, went to the union hall to sign up on the referral list for further work. After the normal time for referrals (7 to 9 a.m.) had passed, he asked Business Manager Johnston why he had been laid off the day before. John- ston explained that stewards stay on the job. He thus ex- pressed his approval of the retention of all three stew- ards, including two extras, who were not needed, there- by necessitating the layoff of Kilgore and Storey. Based on the foregoing, I find that Respondent effect- ed the displacement of Kilgore and Storey by layoff in violation of Section 8(b)(2) and (1)(A) of the Act. Explo, Inc., 235 NLRB 918 (1978); Building Material, Truck Drivers, Chauffeurs and Helpers, Local No. 282, Interna- tional Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehouse- men and Helpers of America (Explo, Inc.), 229 NLRB 347 (1977). It is undisputed that beginning September 17 and until October 8 there was only one functioning steward on the job, Ogden, and only one steward was needed. By designating three stewards prior to the commencement of the work on September 17, Business Manager John- ston was able to determine which three would be re- tained when the expected layoff occurred even though Adams and Snooky Johnston were not then needed, and continued until October 8 to be unneeded, as functioning stewards. But, being labeled stewards, they were pre- ferred over Kilgore and Storey when the expected layoff of September 20 occurred, In the circumstances the con- clusion is warranted, and I find, that the designation of three stewards was made for arbitrary and invidious rea- sons in order to accomplish the discriminations which in fact occurred. This finding is further supported by the foreman's acceptance of Ogden's initial indication that he, Kilgore, and one other would be retained on the job. This proposed resolution of the problem was then re- vised, to the detriment of Kilgore after the foreman con- ferred with the other stewards, again with Ogden, and Ogden consulted the union business manager who de- creed that it was customary to keep the stewards and Ogden passed that word to the Company. These circum- stances warrant the finding that the Union effectively se- lected those to be laid off. See Groves-Granite, 229 NLRB 56, 63-68 (1977). C. The Session at Curley's Corner Following his layoff on September 20, Kilgore re- mained unemployed until October 8 when, through word transmitted to him the day before by Business Manager Johnston, he was recalled to the Company's Metropolis project and again assigned to work days with Ogden. About a week after his layoff and while still unem- ployed, he had occasion to be in a local tavern, known as Curley's Corner, frequented by union members. He had been in the tavern in the morning for a couple of drinks, in midday had gone home for lunch, and returned to the tavern in the afternoon. Around mid-afternoon Business Manager Johnston joined him at the bar. Kil- gore bought him a beer, at the same time ordering him- self a second drink for the afternoon. The two sat to- gether for several hours socializing and taking turns buying each other drinks. Early in their conversation, while they were still on their first drink together, John- ston commented, "Tom, the Local can't stand these law- 47K I.ABORERS' INTL UNION, LOCAL 1320( suits. We've not got the money." At the time, the charge in the present matter had not yet been filed nor served on Respondent but a number of other charges had. I find that Johnston's reference was to these other matters. Kilgore then asked him why he "came to send a list like this." According to Kilgore, Johnston replied, "Tom, me and the office talked it over. That was the only way I could get to my boys. I'm getting too old to keep him up," Johnston's version of what lie said differs but is similar in substance. He testified he said, "I should not come down to the job and have them lay off my son and me have to support him just in order to hold you a job." The essential meaning of these comments is that John- ston, in order to preserve his son's employment, departed from the numerical order on the referral list. This state- ment of favoritism was an admission of his failure to pro- vide fair representation to employees and was itself a violation of Section 8(b)(l)(A) of the Act. Building Mate- rial, Truck Drivei.s, Chauffeurs and Ilelpers, Local o. 282, International Brotherhood of Teamsters. Chauffeurs. Warehousemen and Helpers of America (xplo, Inc. ). supra at 349. IV. THI IFFICIS OF 'I Ht: UNFAIR IABOR PRACTICES UPON COMME RCE The unfair labor practices of Respondent Union set forth in section III, above, occurring in connection with the operations of Dunbar & Sullivan Dredging Co. de- scribed in section I, above, have a close and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the sever- al States and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce. CONCLUSIONS OFi LAW 1. Dunbar & Sullivan Dredging Co. is an employer en- gaged 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. Respondent's business manager, Paul J. Johnston, Jr., and its steward, William Ogden, at all times material to this case were its agents acting on its behalf within the meaning of Sections 2(13) and 8(b) of the Act. 4. Respondent Union, by its Business Manager John- ston, violated Section 8(b)(l)(A) and (2) of the Act by the unnecessary designation on September 17, 1979, of Robert Adams and Paul E. Johnston as job stewards, thereby causing the layoff on September 20, 1979, of Tom Kilgore and Charlie Storey. 5. Respondent Union by its steward Ogden violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act by informing Tom Kilgore on September 20, 1979, that Robert Adams and Paul E. Johnston retained their employment and were not laid off because they were job stewards. 6. Respondent Union by its Business Manager John- ston violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act by in sub- stance telling Kilgore on about October 1, 1979, that job referrals and layoffs had been arranged to keep his son working. 7. These unfair labor practices affect commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. THi R ME)Y Having found that Respondent Union violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) and (2) of the Act. I recommend that it be or- dered to cease and desist from such conduct and take certain affirmative action to remedy its violations. I also recommend that Respondent Union make Tom Kilgore and Charlie Storey whole for any losses suffered by them as a result of Respo:ident's unlawful conduct with interest thereon to be computed in the manner prescribed in /F W. Woolworth Company, 90 NL.RB 289 (1950), and Florida Steel Corporation, 231 NLRB 651 (1977).` 1 fur- ther recommend that Respondent Union be required to post an appropriate notice and make copies thereof avail- able to the employing company. Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law, and the entire record in this case, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act. I hereby issue the following recommended: ORDER : The Respondent Laborers' International Union of North American, AFL-CIO, Local Union No. 132(), Me- tropolis, Illinois, its officers, agents. and representatives, shall: 1. Cease and desist fronm: (a) Restraining and coercing employees by discrimina- torily, arbitrarily, and in violation of the duty of fair rep- resentation appointing unnecessary job stewards thereby attempting to cause and causing Dunbar & Sullivan Dredging Co. to discriminate against other employees in violation of Section 8(a)( 3) of the Act. (b) Restraining and coercing employees ii, violation of its duty of fair representation by informing employees that job stewards who had been appointed unnecessarily retained their employment and were not laid off because they were job stewards. (c) In any like or related manner restraining or coerc- ing employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed them in Section 7 of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Make whole Tom Kilgore and Charlie Storey for losses suffered by them as a result of its unlawful con- duct in the manner set forth in the section of this Deci- sion entitled "The Remedy." (b) Post at its union hall copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix."4 Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 14, after being duly signed by its representative, shall be posted by the Respondent Union immediately upon receipt 2 See, generally, It Plumbing Heating Co., 138 NlRH 716 t1962) 3 In the event no exceplions are filed as provided hb Sec 10)2 46 of the Rules and Regulaions of the National Labor Relations Board, the find- ings, conclusions, and recommended Order herein shall, as provided n Sec. 102 48 of Ihe Rules and Regulations, be adopted by the Board and beconme its findings, conclusions, and ()rder, and all objections thereto shall hbe deemed waived for all purposes 4 In the eent hai this Order i enforced by a Judgmentl of a Uinted States Court of Appeals, he words in the notice reading "Posted h) Order f Ihe Nalional labor Relations Board" hall read "Polsted ursu ant to a Judgnit of the United Slates Cour of Appeals nforcing an Order of the National I abor Relations Hoard " 479 DECISIO)NS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS B()ARD thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to members are customarily posted. Rea- sonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent Union to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or cov- ered by any other material. (c) Forward signed copies of the notice to the Region- al Director for Region 14 for posting by Dunbar & Sulli- van Dredging Co., if willing, at its Metropolis, Illinois, project. (d) Notify the Regional Director for Region 14, in writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps the Respondent Union has taken to comply here- with. 48)