Chassis Maintenance, Inc.

CHASSIS MAINTENANCE Chassis Maintenance, Inc. and Sheet Metal Work- ers' International Assoication , Local Union No. 355 of Northern California. Cases 32-CA-8370, 32-CA-8526, and 32-CA-8723 June 22, 1988 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN STEPHENS AND MEMBERS JOHANSEN AND CRACRAFT On December 23, 1987, Administrative Law Judge Richard J. Boyce issued the attached deci- sion. The General Counsel filed limited exceptions and a supporting brief, and the Charging Party filed an exception. 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 brief and has decided to affirm the judge's rulings, findings, and conclusions and to adopt the recommended Remedy' and Order as modified.2 AMENDED REMEDY Insert the following as the last paragraph in the remedy section of the judge's decision.3 "Having found that the Respondent unlawfully discontinued contractually required contributions into the Union's health care plan since about Janu- ary 1986, we shall order it to pay into the health care plan all contributions which have not been paid and which would have been paid absent the Respondent's unlawful discontinuance of such con- tributions. We shall also provide for interest on backpay owing the employees under the judge's limited monetary remedy for the Respondent's fail- ure to bargain with the Union over the effects of the termination of its Oakland operations." i Any reference to "this decision" in the remedy section of the judge's decision should be interpreted as referring to the "Board's decision " 2 The General Counsel requests a visitatonal clause authorizing the Board, for compliance purposes, to obtain discovery from the Respond- ent under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure subject to the supervision of the United States court of appeals enforcing this Order Under the cir- cumstances of this case, we find it unnecessary to include such a clause Accordingly, we deny the General Counsel's request See Cherokee Marine Terminal, 287 NLRB 1080 (1988) 8 Any interest or other additional amounts with respect to these contri- butions shall be calculated in the manner set forth in Merriweather Optical Co., 240 NLRB 1213 (1979) Although in the remedy section of his decision the judge does not dis- cuss the Respondent 's withholding of required health care plan contribu- tions or the unlawful layoffs of employee Miguel Dimas, he has provided appropriate provisions for remedying those violations in his recommend- ed Order In adopting those portions of the judge's recommended Order, backpay owing any employees as a result of the Respondent's failure to make contributions to the health care plan shall be computed in the manner prescribed in Ogle Protection Service, 183 NLRB 682 (1970), while the backpay owing to Dimas shall be computed in the manner prescribed in F W Woolworth Co, 90 NLRB 289 (1950) 289 ORDER The National Labor Relations Board adopts the recommended Order of the administrative law judge as modified below and orders that the Re- spondent, Chassis Maintenance, Inc., Oakland, Cali- fornia, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Order as modi- fied. 1. Substitute the following for paragraph 2(b). "(b) Pay with interest the unit employees on the payroll when the Respondent terminated its Oak- land operation in the manner set forth in the remedy portion of this decision." 2. Add the following as paragraph 2(c) and re- number the remaining paragraphs. "(c) Pay in to the Union's health care plan those contributions it has failed to pay as required by the September 1, 1985, to August 31, 1986 collective- bargaining agreement with the Union." 3. 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 fail and refuse to bargain collec- tively with Sheet Metal Workers' International As- sociation, Local Union No. 355 of Northern Cali- fornia concerning the effects on the employees in the appropriate unit below of our decision to close our operation in Oakland, California. The unit is: All production, warehouse, maintenance, mate- rial handling, and truck-driver employees at our operation in Oakland, California, excluding office clerical employees, timekeepers, admin- istrative and professional employees, technical employees, guards, and supervisors. 289 NLRB No. 35 290 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD WE WILL NOT fail and refuse, during the term of a collective-bargaining contract between us and the Union covering employees in the above unit, to recognize the Union as the exclusive representative of those employees, to honor the terms of such contract (including those requiring contributions to the Sheet Metal Workers' of Northern California Health Care Plan and prescribing procedures to be followed when hiring and laying off employees), and to enter into the negotiation of a successor contract when timely requested by the Union to do so. WE WILL NOT make inducements to employees to withdraw their support of a labor organization with whom we have a collective-bargaining con- tract by telling them that we do not want another contract and that their benefits will be the same without a contract or without a union. WE WILL NOT tell employees we will give them more work only if they achieve the withdrawal of unfair labor practice charges against us that have been filed on their behalf with the National Labor Relations Board. WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act. WE WILL, on request, bargain collectively with the Union concerning the effects on the employees in the above unit of our decision to close our oper- ation in Oakland, California, and WE WILL reduce to writing any agreement resulting from such bar- gaining. WE WILL pay, with interest, the unit employees on the payroll when we terminated our Oakland operation in the manner required by the National Labor Relations Board. WE WILL pay into the Union's health care plan those contributions we have failed to pay as re- quired by the collective-bargaining agreement cov- ering our unit employees. WE WILL make whole our unit employees, with interest, for any monetary loss occasioned by our unlawful withholding of contributions to the above health care plan. WE WILL make Miguel Dimas whole, with inter- est, for any losses of wages and benefits he suffered because of our disregard of his seniority and other contractually bestowed rights in connection with our two layoffs of him in August 1986. CHASSIS MAINTENANCE, INC. Elaine Climpson, Esq., for the General Counsel. Mark Santos, Business Manager, of Oakland, California, for the Union.' DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE RICHARD J. BOYCE, Administrative Law Judge. This consolidated matter was tried in Oakland, California, on 15 September 1987.2 The consolidated complaint in Cases 32-CA-8370 and 32-CA-8526, based on charges filed by Sheet Metal Workers' International Association, Local Union No. 355 of Northern California (Union)3 al- leges that Chassis Maintenance, Inc. (Respondent) violat- ed Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the National Labor Rela- tions Act as follows.4 (a) In March 1986, ceasing to make fringe benefit con- tributions as required by its contract with the Union. (b) Since about 16 June 1986, ignoring the Union's re- quests that they undertake the negotiation of a successor contract. (c) In July 1986, failing to submit a "report of hire" form to the Union as prescribed by the contract. (d) In August 1986, twice laying off unit employee Miguel Dimas without observing contractually specified procedures; and its conduct in totality, withdrawing rec- ognition from the Union. The same complaint alleges that Respondent addition- ally violated Section 8(a)(1) by the following: (a) In June, July, and/or August 1986, through Oper- ation Manager Hisidro Carralez, telling an employee that it would not negotiate or sign a new contract with the Union, and that it would maintain existing benefits with- out need for the Union. (b) In November or December 1986, through Hisidro Carralez, threatening to deny work to an employee be- cause the Union had filed an unfair labor practice charge on his behalf. The complaint in Case 32-CA-8723, also based on a charge filed by the Union, 5 alleges that Respondent vio- lated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) by the following. ' Respondent , although formally answering the two complaints, did not appear at the trial Attorney David Rosenfeld , of San Francisco, California, entered an appearance for the Union after the hearing. 2 This manner of setting forth dates comports with the wishes of the Board 3 The charge in Case 32-CA-8370 was filed on 10 September 1986. The charge in Case 32-CA-8526 was filed on 17 November 1986 and amended on 21 January 1987 The consolidated complaint issued on 27 January 1987 4 Sec 8(a)(5) prohibits an employer from "refus [ing] to bargain collec- tively with the representatives of his employees , subject to the provisions of section 9(a) " Sec 9(a) states in relevant part Representatives designated or selected for the purposes of collective bargaining by the majority of the employees in a unit appropriate for such purposes shall be the exclusive representatives of all the em- ployees in such unit for the purposes of collective bargaining in re- spect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment , or other condi- tions of employment . Sec 8(a)(1) prohibits an employer from "interfer[ing] with, restrain[ing], or coerc[ing] employees in the exercise of the rights guaran- teed in section 7" of the Act Sec 7 guarantees employees "the right to self-organization, to form, join or assist labor organizations, and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargain- ing or other mutual aid or protection " S The charge in Case 32-CA-8723 was filed on 19 February 1987 and the complaint issued on 24 March An order consolidating all matters for trial also issued on 24 March CHASSIS MAINTENANCE (a) In November or December 1986, terminating its Oakland operation without notifying the Union and giving it an opportunity to negotiate concerning the ef- fects of that action on unit employees. (b) Since about 12 February 1987, ignoring the Union's request that they bargain over those effects. 1. JURISDICTION Respondent, a California corporation, maintains and repairs oceangoing equipment, chassis , and containers. One of its facilities, until late 1986, was in Oakland. In 1986, it admittedly realized revenues exceeding $50,000 from customers meeting the Board's direct inflow or out- flow jurisdictional standards. I conclude that Respondent is an employer engaged in and affecting commerce within Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act. II. LABOR ORGANIZATION Respondent admits in one answer and denies in the other that the Union is a labor organization within Sec- tion 2(5) of the Act. The record establishes that the Union is an organiza- tion in which employees participate and which deals with employers concerning the terms and conditions of employment of employees it represents. I conclude, therefore, that it is a labor organization under Section 2(5). III. THE ALLEGED MISCONDUCT A. Background Respondent came into existence in the summer of 1985. On 9 September of that year it and the Union en- tered into a labor contract to run from 1 September through 31 August 1986. The unit, as defined in the con- tract, included "all production, warehouse, maintenance, material handling and truck-driver employees," and ex- cluded "office clerical employees, timekeepers, adminis- trative and professional employees, technical employees, guards and supervisors."6 B. The Incidents in Issue 1. Facts a. The allegedly unlawful cessation of contributions Article XIII of the contract required that Respondent "pay the sum of one dollar nine cents ($1.09) per hour for each hour worked into the Sheet Metal Workers' of Northern California Health Care Plan." The contribu- tions were due "on or before the tenth (10th) day of the month following the month in which the work was per- formed," and were deemed delinquent "if not paid by the twenty-fifth (25th) day of the month." After complying with the contract for hours worked through December 1985, Respondent stopped making contributions. Mark Santos, the Union's business manag- 6 The complaints allege, the answers admit, and I conclude that this is an appropriate unit 291 er, called Respondent President John Carralez about this in early 1986. Admitting the delinquency, Carralez said Respondent was "having some financial problems, but it the delinquency] would be taken care of." Respondent, however, never did cure the delinquency or resume compliance. Respondent's answer to this allegation admits that it stopped making contributions before the contract expira- tion date. b. The allegedly unlawful disregard of the Union's requests to negotiate Anticipating the 31 August expiration of the contract, Santos informed Respondent by letter dated 16 June 1986 that the Union "wish[ed] to reopen [the] agreement in its entirety for negotiations" and would be contacting Respondent "in the near future in regard to setting up a meeting for the purpose of entering into negotiations." Santos thereafter attempted to reach John Carralez by telephone several times. He was told in each instance by Respondent's secretary, Julie,' that Carralez was not "in." Santos left word that he wished to "set up negotia- tions meetings" and asked that Carralez call him back. On 6 August, none of his calls having been returned, Santos hand-delivered to Julie a copy of the Union's pro- posals, together with a proposed agreement "to extend the current bargaining agreement thru September 14, 1986." Santos told Julie at the time that he "would like to have John [Carralez] call [him], because [he] wanted to set up some negotiations," and she said she would pass on the materials and that message. On 8 August, still receiving no word from Respond- ent, Santos hand-delivered this letter to Carralez: Dear John: I am presenting the following dates to you for the upcoming negotiations. August 13th, 14th, 15th, 20th and 21st, at your convenience, I will meet at any time with you. If you have any questions, please feel free to call. On delivering the letter, Santos spoke with Carralez' brother Hisidro, Respondent's operation manager. Hisi- dro reported that John would be out of town until 11 August. Santos said he would "appreciate" John's calling on his return "so we can line up some of those negotia- tion sessions." Hisidro replied that he would convey the message. On 13 and 14 August, after still no word from John, Santos tried twice to telephone him. Julie told him both times that John was not in, and Santos asked that she "have John call [him] back to set up some meetings." Santos also said in the second call that he was about to go to Chicago for a convention, and that Carralez should call Arnold Sales, another union representative, in his ab- sence. On 21 or 22 August, Santos called Sales from Chicago. When told that Carralez had not called, Santos directed ° Julie is John Carralez' daughter 292 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Sales to refer the matter to the Union 's attorney, who filed the first of the charges on 10 September. Neither Carralez nor anyone else on behalf of Re- spondent ever responded to Santos ' efforts to initiate ne- gotiations. Respondent's answer to this allegation admits that it has refused to bargain with the Union since about 16 June 1986 . The same answer admits that Respondent withdrew recognition from the Union. c. The allegedly unlawful failure to submit a "Report of Hire" form Article III, section 3, of the contract stated in part: In order for the parties to complete their obligations under the agreement , the employer shall direct the new employee to the office of the Union with a REPORT OF HIRE FORM. The Union will then dispatch the employee with two (2) copies of an INTRODUCTORY CARD, one (1) copy going to the Company and the other to the Shop Steward having jurisdiction. In the summer of 1986, Respondent hired Larry Field to perform unit work without complying with this provi- sion. Santos, when first seeing Field on the job , told Hi- sidro Carralez to have him "go down to the union hall and clear." Carralez did not comply. Field apparently was the only unit employee hired during the contract's 1-year term.8 d. The allegedly unlawful failure to observe contractually prescribed procedures anent the layoffs of Miguel Dimas Article XVI, section l(b)(1), of the contract stated: "In the event that work becomes slack and the Company deems it necessary to reduce the working force, the last employee hired shall be the first employee laid off „ Section l(b)(2)(B) of the same article stated: "Employ- ees will have to option to [accept] the lower classifica- tion (rate of pay) or take layoff until they are called back at that classification." Section 3 of this article stated: "When employees are laid off for lack of work, the Union shall be notified in writing of the names of all employees laid off and the date such layoff occurred." In early August 1986, returning to his job after a week's illness, unit employee Miguel Dimas was told by Hisidro Carralez that work was "slow" and that he should stay home "for another week." Field and Mark Bocage, both less senior than Dimas, worked during his resulting layoff. About 2 weeks later, Dimas was laid off again. Hisidro explained to him this time that work was slow; that "it wasn't good for the Company to have to pay [Dimas] $10 per hour just to be connecting lights in the chassis"; and that Respondent was "going to let Mark [Bocage] 8 Two other unit employees, Miguel Dimas and Mark Hocage, had been hired previously work, because he was only getting paid $5." Field also stayed on. Beyond laying Dimas off out of seniority, Respondent failed to give him the option of accepting a lower rate of pay in lieu of layoff. It also failed to notify the Union of the layoffs. e. The allegedly unlawful remarks by Hisidro Carralez in the summer of 1986 Hisidro Carralez, as mentioned, was operation manag- er at Respondent's Oakland facility. The answer to the complaint containing this allegation admits that he was a supervisor and an agent of Respondent at relevant times. Carralez had several conversations with Dimas in May-June 1986 regarding the Union. Carralez stated var- iously: (a) That the union contract was soon to expire and John Carralez "doesn't want to have another con- tract with the Union"; (b) that "it would be okay even without a contract, because the benefits would be the same, just as if the Union was there"; and (c) that John Carralez' reason for not wanting to negotiate with the Union was that "the Union promised a lot of things and then didn't carry them out." f. The allegedly unlawful remarks by Hisidro Carralez in November-December 1986 The charge in Case 32-CA-8526 alleges that Respond- ent "discriminated in regard to . . . Dimas' tenure of em- ployment . . . ." Shortly after the 17 November filing of this charge, Hisisdro Carralez made a telephone call to Dimas, telling him that Respondent "wouldn't give [him] any more work" if he was "fighting with" Respondent. Carralez explained that he had "a letter" from the NLRB with Dimas' name on it, then declared that Re- spondent "would give [him] more work" if he "went to the Union and they withdrew all the charges," but other- wise "would not give [him] more work." Dimas was not on the payroll at the time, having been laid off in August. g. The allegedly unlawful failure to give the Union an opportunity to negotiate concerning the effects on unit employees of the termination of the Oakland operation About the end of 1986, Santos heard from Dimas' wife, an employee of the Union, that Respondent had closed its Oakland facility. Santos consequently visited the site early January 1987, finding that the trailer office and all the equipment were gone and, indeed, that only the sign remained. Santos thereupon sent this letter, dated 12 February, to John Carralez at Respondent's ad- dress in Long Beach, California: We request that you sit down and negotiate the effects of the plant closure located at 1170 5th Street, Oakland, CA 94607. I will be waiting for your reply. Respondent did not reply. Nor did it ever communi- cate with the Union concerning the termination of the Oakland operation. CHASSIS MAINTENANCE Respondent's answer to this allegation admits that it terminated its Oakland operation in November or De- cember 1986 "without prior notice to the Union and without having afforded the Union an opportunity to ne- gotiate and bargain . . . concerning . . . the effects of such acts and conduct." The answer further admits, by its silence, that Respondent "has failed and refused to meet and bargain . . . with regard to the effects of" that termination since 12 February 1987. 2. Conclusions a. The alleged violations of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) The foregoing recitation of facts, in combination with the noted admissions by Respondent in its answers, estab- lishes beyond doubt that it quietly and unilaterally repu- diated its bargaining obligation and underlying contract months before contract expiration; and that, as a con- comitant of that repuidation, it: (a) Stopped making contributions to the Sheet Metal Workers' of Northern California Health Care Plan as prescribed by the contract. (b) Flouted the Union's entreaties that it enter into the negotiation of a successor contract. (c) Failed to direct new hire Field to the Union with a report of hire form as required by the contract. (d) Ignored seniority and otherwise overlooked con- tractually mandated procedures in connection with the layoffs of Dimas in August 1986. (e) Failed to give the Union an opportunity to negoti- tate over the effects on unit employees of its termination of the Oakland operation. I conclude that, by its repudiation of its bargaining ob- ligation and underlying contract without any stated, let alone proper, justification, and by each of the itemized concomitants thereof, Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1). b. The alleged additional violations of Section 8(a)(1) I conclude that Respondent made an improper induce- ment to Dimas to discard the Union, violating Section 8(a)(1), when Hisidro Carralez told him in May or June 1986 that Respondent did not "want another contract with the Union" and that, even without a contract, his benefits "would be the same, just as if the Union was there." I conclude that Respondent, by Hisidro Carralez, also violated Section 8(a)(1) in November or December 1986 by telling Dimas that Respondent "would give [him] more work" only if he "went to the Union and they withdrew all the charges," thus conditioning employ- ment on the surrender of rights under the Act. IV. REMEDY I shall recommend that Respondent cease and desist from that conduct found to be unlawful, and that it take certain affirmative action to effectuate the policies of the Act. Regarding Respondent's unlawful failure to give the Union an opportunity to bargain over the effects of its termination of the Oakland operation, a bargaining order 293 alone would not provide an adequate remedy. To impart to Respondent some incentive to enter into meaningful bargaining, and to make the affected employees whole for losses they may have suffered as a result of its prior failure to do so, I will impose a limited monetary sanc- tion along lines of St. Marys Foundry Co., 284 NLRB 221 (1987); Garwood-Detroit Truck Equipment, 274 NLRB 113, 116 (1985); and Transmarine Corp., 170 NLRB 389, 390 (1968). Thus, Respondent shall pay a wage equivalent to each unit employee on the payroll when operations ceased, based on his/her normal pay rates at the time of cessa- tion, from 5 days after the date of this decision until the occurrence of the earliest of the following conditions: (1) the date Respondent bargains to agreement with Union on those subjects pertaining to the effects of the cessa- tion on its unit employees; (2) a bona fide impasse in bar- gaining; (3) the failure of the Union to request bargaining within 5 days of this decision, or to commence negotia- tions within 5 days of Respondent's notice of its readi- ness to bargain; or (4) the subsequent failure of the Union to bargain in good faith. In no event, however, shall any employee's entitlement exceed the amount he/she would have earned as wages from the date of cessation to the time the employee secured equivalent employment elsewhere, or the date on which Respond- ent should offer to bargain, whichever occurs first; pro- vided further that in no event shall that entitlement be less than the employee would have earned for a 2-week period at the aforesaid normal pay rate when last in Re- spondent's employ. On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on the entire record, I issue the following recommend- ed9 ORDER The Respondent, Chassis Maintenance, Inc., Oakland, Claifornia, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall 1. Cease and desist from (a) Failing and refusing to bargain collectively with Sheet Metal Workers' International Association, Local Union No. 355 of Northern California (Union) concern- ing the effects on the employees in the appropriate unit below of its decision to close its operation in Oakland, California. The unit is: All production, warehouse, maintenance, material handling, and truck-driver employees at Respond- ent's operation in Oakland, California, exlcuding office clerical employees, timekeepers, administra- tive and professional employees , technical employ- ees, guards, and supervisors. (b) Failing and refusing, during the term of a collec- tive-bargaining contract between it and the Union cover- 9 If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the Board's Rules and Regulations , the findings, conclusions , and recommended 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. 294 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ing employees in the above unit, to recognize the Union as the exclusive representative of those employees, to honor the terms of such contract (including those requir- ing contributions to the Sheet Metal Workers' of North- ern California Health Care Plan and prescribing proce- dures to be followed when hiring and laying off employ- ees), and to enter into the negotiation of a successor con- tract when timely requested by the Union to do so. (c) Making inducements to employees to withdraw their support of labor organization with whom it has a collective-bargaining contract by telling them that Re- spondent does not want another contract and that their benefits will be the same without a contract or without a union. (d) Telling employees it will give them more work only if they achieve the withdrawal of unfair labor prac- tice charges against Respondent that have been filed on their behalf with the National Labor Relations Board. (e) 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. (a) On request, bargain collectively with the Union concerning the effects on the employees in the above unit of Respondent's decision to close its operation in Oakland, California; and reduce to writing any agree- ment resulting from such bargaining. (b) Pay the unit employees on the payroll when Re- spondent terminated its Oakland operation in the manner set forth in the Remedy portion of this decision. (c) Make the unit employees whole, with interest, for any monetary loss occasioned by Respondent's unlawful withholding of contributions to the above health care plan. 10 (d) Make Miguel Dimas whole, with interest, for any loss of wages and benefits he suffered because of Re- spondent's disregard of his seniority and other contrac- tually bestowed rights in connection with his two layoffs in August 1986. (e) Preserve and, on request, make available to the Board or its agents for examination and copying all pay- roll records, social security payment records, timecards, personnel records and reports, and all other records nec- essary or useful to analyze the amounts owing under the terms of this Order. (f) Mail copies of the attached notice, marked "Appen- dix," 11 in both English and Spanish, to the Union, to Miguel Dimas, and to all unit employees on the payroll when Respondent terminated its Oakland operation. Copies of the notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 32, after being duly singed by Re- spondent's authorized representative, shall be mailed im- mediately upon receipt thereof as herein directed. (g) Notify the Regional Director in writing within 20 days from the date of this Order what steps it has taken to comply. 10 Interest, where specified, shall be computed in accordance with New Horizons for the Retarded, 283 NLRB 1173 (1987) Under New Horizons, interest is computed at the "short-term Federal rate" for the underpay- ment of taxes as set out in the 1986 amendment to 26 U S.C. § 6621. In- terest accrued before 1 January 1987 (the effective date of the amend- ment) shall be computed as in Florida Steel Corp., 231 NLRB 651 (1977). 11 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."