Colders Furniture

COLDERS FURNITURE Henry Colder Co, Inc d/b/a Colders Furniture and Steven Wasechek Case 30-CA-9854 February 9, 1989 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN STEVENS AND MEMBERS CRACRAFT AND HIGGINS On August 18, 1988, Administrative Law Judge Marion C Ladwig issued the attached decision The Respondent filed exceptions and a supporting brief and the General Counsel filed an answering brief to the exceptions 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,' and conclusions and to adopt the recommended Order as modified 2 ORDER The National Labor Relations Board adopts the recommended Order of the administrative law judge as modified below and orders that the Re- spondent, Henry Colder Co, Inc, d/b/a Colders Furniture, West Allis, Wisconsin, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Order as modified 1 Substitute the following for paragraph 1(b) "(b) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees in the ex- ercise of the rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act " 2 Substitute the attached notice for that of the administrative law judge ' The Respondent has excepted to some of the judge s credibility find mgs The Board s established policy is not to overrule an administrative law judge s credibility resolutions unless the clear preponderance 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 Cir 1951) We have carefully examined the record and find no basis for reversing the findings Further we find without merit the Respondents contention in Its ex cepttons that the judge s decision demonstrated bias against the Respond ent After a careful examination of the entire record we are satisfied that this allegation is without ment There is no basis for finding that bias and partiality existed 2 We shall modify the judge s narrow cease and-desist language in par 1(b) of his recommended Order to conform to that traditionally used by the Board APPENDIX NOTICE To EMPLOYEES POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government 941 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 WE WILL NOT discharge or otherwise discrimi- nate against any of you for engaging in protected concerted activity 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 WE WILL offer Steven Wasechek immediate and full reinstatement to his former job or, if that job no longer exists, to a substantially equivalent posi- tion, without prejudice to his seniority or any other rights or privileges previously enjoyed and WE WILL make him whole for any loss of earnings or other benefits resulting from his discharge, less any net interim earnings, plus interest WE WILL notify him that we have removed from our files any reference to his discharge and that the discharge will not be used against him in any way HENRY COLDER CO, INC D/B/A COLDERS FURNITURE Gerald McKinney Esq, for the General Counsel Fred G Groiss Esq (Quarles & Brady), of Milwaukee, Wisconsin for the Respondent STATEMENT OF THE CASE MARION C LADWIG, Administrative Law Judge This case was tried in Milwaukee Wisconsin on May 4 1988 The charge was filed December 2, 1987,1 and the coin plaint was issued January 28, 1988 The Company s commission furniture salesmen were working a 9 1/2 hour day, extending from 10 am to 9 30 p m with 2 hours off for lunch Since February or March they had been required to report at 9 45 a in for a sales meeting When a new sales manager in October advanced the starting time to 9 30 a in and later required them to come in at 9 a in for a training meeting and at 8 a in for a special meeting-without any compensation before 10 a in -there was much complaining of hardship and unfairness Steven Wasechek, one of the top sales men, was the most outspoken and led the protests On November 4 when he took the complaint about the 8 am meeting to the vice president, the Company dis charged him purportedly because he (like others) failed to clock out for lunch that day ' All dates are in 1987 unless otherwise indicated 292 NLRB No 103 942 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD The primary issue is whether the Company, the Re- spondent, unlawfully discharged Wasechek for engaging in protected concerted activity in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act. On the entire record,2 including my observation of the demeanor of the witnesses, and after considering the briefs filed by the General Counsel and the Company, I make the following FINDINGS OF FACT 1. JURISDICTION The Company, a corporation, sells furniture and appli- ances at retail at its West Allis, Wisconsin store where it annually derives over $500,000 in gross revenues ad re- ceives goods valued over $50,000 directly from outside the State. The Company 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. II. BACKGROUND A. The Concerted Activity 1. Protesting 9:30 a.m. starting time The Company's approximately 35 furniture sales repre- sentatives were "paid on a straight commission basis" (Tr. 16-17). They were assigned to work 9-1/2 hours a day, extending from 10 a.m. to 9:30 p.m., with 2 hours off for lunch (Tr. 116-117, 240). Beginning in February or March they were required to attend a sales meeting at 9:45 a.m. (Tr. 117). About the second week in October a new sales manag- er, James Wilke, announced at one of the 9:45 sales meetings that the salespeople were required to arrive by 9:30 a.m., a half hour before the 10 o'clock store opening (Tr. 118-119, 186-187, 222, 242). This required them to be present 10 hours a day over a 12-hour period (from 9:30 a.m. to 9:30 p.m.), with the 2-hour lunchbreak. On October 20, in a memo to each of them (announcing "Ef- fective October 21, 1987 all salespeople should punch in and out when arriving and when leaving the store" for lunch), Vice President Robert Felker added: "Please re- member, all salespeople are to arrive at least one-half hour before store opening" (R. Exh. 1). I discredit, as a fabrication, Wilke's denial that he made any change in the starting time and his claim that "As far as I know, that was always the policy" that the "people were sup- posed to be there at 9:30" (Tr. 19). Employee grumbling and complaining immediately began when Sales Manager Wilke announced the 9:30 a.m. starting time at the sales meeting . Salesman Steven Wasechek was the most outspoken. Wasechek (who im- pressed me most favorably as an honest, forthright wit- ness) credibly testified (Tr. 118-120): Q. What if anything occurred after this an- nouncement was made by Mr. Wilke? 2 Excluding the proposed correction at Tr. 140, the General Counsel's unopposed motion to correct the transcript, dated June 7, 1988, is grant- ed and received in evidence as G.C. Exh. 3. A. We said that we didn't like the earlier starting time and we didn't feel it was necessary. I specifi- cally asked Mr. Wilke why we had to come in 15 minutes earlier than we were doing in the past . .. . Then I asked him what about the responsibilities we have and the long hours we are working, and he said this is just the way it is going to be. I contin- ued to pursue him as far as whose responsibility I was for the change . . . and why this change as a whole, when what we were doing in the past was working fine. I was asking him what was wrong with the past system, why do we need more than 15 minutes. Mr. Wilke became upset and pointed his finger at me and said, "If you have got a problem with this, Steve, you can take it up with me later." I left it at that. [Emphasis added.] A number of other people were speaking up. In fact, the more I spoke up, the more other people would speak up along. . . . I was speaking up lead- ing this discussion with Mr. Wilke and then others were pitching in, putting in their points on how they felt about the situation. There was so much coming out that [Wilke] became upset and kind of shut me down and pointed the finger at me. Other employees confirmed that Wasechek was the most outspoken and that Wilke reacted angrily (Tr. 189- 190, 222, 242-243). Wilke, although denying that he an- nounced any change in the starting time, testified (Tr. 30-31) that several employees spoke up when he "re- minded" the employees in October about the 9:30 a.m. starting time. He named three of the complainers, but omitted Wasechek's name. I discredit, as another fabrica- tion, Wilke's claim, "I don't recall" that Wasechek ever voiced any protest concerning this policy. (By his de- meanor on the stand, Wilke appeared willing to fabricate any testimony that might help the Company's cause.) In Salisbury Hotel, 283 NLRB 685, 687 (1987), the Board found that "the employees were engaged in a con- certed effort to convince the [employer] to change its lunch hour policy" when, as the office manager testified, "everybody balked" at the new policy and was "all up in arms" and the "employees complained among themselves and most, including [the discharged employee], brought the complaint directly" to the manager. As the Board held, the discharged employee's "complaints to other employees, as well as her individual complaints to the [Employer], were part of that concerted effort." I there- fore find that salesman Wasechek and other employees were engaged in concerted activity when they com- plained to Sales Manager Wilke at the sales meeting about the 9:30 a.m. starting time. In the Board's language in Meyers Industries, 268 NLRB 493, 497 (1984) (Meyers I), Wasechek's activity was "engaged in with . . . other employees, and not solely by and on behalf of the em- ployee himself' and was therefore "concerted." Moreover, Wasechek's use of the pronoun "we" in his protests at the meeting clearly apprised Wilke that Wase- chek was speaking not solely on his own behalf but also on behalf of other employees. As held in Meyers Indus- COLDERS FURNITURE tries, 281 NLRB 882 (1986) (Meyers If), our definition of concerted activity in Meyers I encompasses those cir cumstances" of individual employees bringing truly group complaints to the attention of management 2 Protesting 9 a m training meeting The concerted protest continued at a sales meeting in late October when Sales Manager Wilke announced a training meeting with May & Company representative on November 4 at 9 am (Tr 22) There was much grum bling and several of the employees spoke up in protest They said they felt the past training procedure was very effective, dividing the salesmen into two groups and starting the first training meeting around 10 am, during store hours (Tr 121-124, 189-190, 244) Wasechek was the most outspoken (Tr 190) As he credibly testified (Tr 124-125) I started asking Mr Wilke what about our personal responsibilities and the long hours we were working, and the strain that this is putting on us And for what reason did we have to have it at 9 in the morn ing when the other system had worked very effec tively I said, Who is responsible for this change, and why do we have to have the change? Were you part of the change? Did you create the change?' He said, 'No " [Salesman] Bob Raffel asked him a number of questions on this and we were bombard ing him very hard with questions Other people were jumping in on this and asking him different questions as far as the responsibility and the un necessanness of it , and why it had to be so much earlier, and the long hours we were working [Em phasis added ] When Wilke was asked on the stand if there were `any complaints registered about that announcement by anyone he answered, There may have been I don't recall anybody in particular ' I discredit the denial Again Wasechek was taking a leading role in the em ployees protected concerted activity 3 Protesting 8 a in special meeting On November 4, when the Company announced a meeting at 8 a in -on the salesmen s own time, 2 hours before the store opening-Wasechek went further in leading the protests taking the group complaint to the vice president After the 9 am May & Company training meeting that morning, Sales Manager Wilke placed a memo (signed by Vice President Felker) in the salesmen s lunchroom -mailboxes announcing the early meeting The memo required all the salespeople to attend the 8 am meeting either on Monday or Tuesday of the next week (November 9 or 10) whether they were scheduled to be off those days or not (Tr 22-23, 134 ) Wasechek and seven other salesmen were off both days (Tr 132-133 R Exh 3) The memo did not disclose the purpose of the special meeting (The meeting was being called to intro duce a new credit card program (Tr 47) ) 943 Some of the employees became very upset and began gathering in the lunchroom area around 11 or 11 30 a in (Tr 131-132, 191-192, 246-249) When Wasechek read his copy of the memo, as he credibly testified (Tr 135- 136) Many of [the salesmen] were holding copies of the memos and talking about how they felt , that this was getting to be ridiculous We are starting at 9 30, 9, and now 8, and people were talking about how it was affecting their lives There was no explanation whatsoever to this, and people were very upset A number of people in that area were complain ing Dietrich, a fellow salesperson, was saying she felt that this is getting ridiculous and she had some personal problems with it herself, with the starting times changing earlier and earlier Then I heard somebody say, Somebody has got to do something about this ' I thought it was Thea [Dietrich], but it could have been somebody else I decided I was going to go to Mr Wilke and find out what this thing was all about Salesperson Dietrich credibly testified (Tr 247-248) The salespeople that were in there were talking about it, what were we going to do about this Not only this, but about the early starting times, the [May & Company] mattress meeting, and the con tinual short notices for meetings, et cetera And then we said something has to be done about this We have to do something Wasechek left the lunchroom and approached Sales Manager Wilke who was standing alone near the end of the sales counter Wasechek credibly testified (Tr 136- 137, 139) I had the memo in my hand and I said , Why does this have to be this way? He said, Do you want to tell Mr Felker that? And I said, 'I don't know I just want to know why this has got to be this way " He said, All right, let s go He started es corting me to Mr Felker s office [Upon arriving outside the office] Mr Wilke said to me, Are you sure you want to go through with this?" I said, We [emphasis added] just want to know why this has got to be this way " He said Well, then maybe you shouldn t work here then, Steve if that is the way you feel I said, "Are you threatening to fire me?' And he didn't respond Wilke acknowledged his awareness that Wasechek was speaking also for other employees by recalling (Tr 39, 58) that Wasechek asked, ` Why do we [emphasis added] have to have this meeting?" 944 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Salesman Robert Raffel, with salesman Craig Reicher, had been walking behind Wasechek and overheard both the conversation near the sales counter and the conversa tion outside Vice President Felker s office (Tr 192-195, 200-201) On the way to the office Reicher told Wilke that 'I had prior commitments, that I was going to go deer hunting with my father,' and Wilke responded that it could be worked out after everything was over with' (Tr 216) Outside the office Raffel told Wilke, I would like to talk to [Felker] also, ' and Wilke answered, Don't worry, you will get your turn (Tr 195) Raffel, however, did not follow through and take the complaint to the vice president (Tr 206) When Wilke and Wasechek entered Vice President Felker's office, where family members were gathering for lunch, Wilke told Felker that Wasechek had 'a prob lem coming in at this 8 am meeting, and he doesn't think he should have to come in to this meeting " In the discussion that followed, Wasechek explained that we were working very long hours and I felt that it was un necessary and there should be some kind of explanation as far as why we are all required to come in at 8 in the morning' (emphasis added) Wasechek then said, I have got a couple of kids at home that I have to babysit for, and that is causing me some personal problems He then repeated that we [emphasis added] wanted to know why this had to be this way ' (Tr 139-140) (Wilke admitted that Wasechek alluded to the group complaint by testify ing that Felker asked what was the problem and Wa sechek answered that He felt the people worked long hours, much less coming in for an early meeting (em phasis added) (Tr 45) ) Vice President Felker responded that this was a spe cial meeting, that the people coming to the meeting were from out of town and that the meeting could be sched uled only at that time (Tr 181, 265) Wasechek said I can see your point" (Tr 180) Felker testified that Wase chek told him There is no way I am coming in to a meeting for those two days (Tr 89) Later however when asked if Wasechek said he would or would not come to the 8 am meeting Felker testified, He didn t say (Tr 91) Wasechek credibly testified that he never said he would not attend the meeting (Tr 157) (By his demeanor on the stand Felker, like Wilke, appeared will ing to fabricate any testimony that might help the Com pany s cause ) Outside Vice President Felker s office after the confer ence there were about 10 salesmen waiting (Tr 48) As salesman Raffel credibily described the scene (Tr 197- 199) At that point I would say that things were the most out of control as I have ever seen them in that store It started with people airing their complaints Q To who? A To Jim Wilke about, You are making us come in early for training You are making us come in early for these meetings You moved up our starting time Everybody was talking to him at once The customers at this point were being ignored Finally Wilke said there were supposed to be two people at the greet station If you are not supposed to be greeting, then break it up Wasechek and the others re turned to work (Tr 141 ) The Company was fully aware that Wasechek and the other salesmen were engaged in protected concerted ac tivity that morning, bringing the group complaint to its attention Wasechek referred to the complaint of other employees as well as himself when telling Sales Manager Wilke, before entering Vice President Felker s office, that 'we wanted to know why this had to be this way" (emphasis added) In the conference with Felker, Wase chek again made this clear by explaining we were work ing very long hours and I felt that it was unnecessary and there should be some kind of an explanation as far as why we are all required to come in at 8 in the morning" (emphasis added) (I discredit Felker s claim (Tr 98) that he did not believe Wasechek was protesting on behalf of anyone else) Then outside Felker s office, following the office conference, the employees were engaged in a concerted effort to convince" (Salisbury Hotel, above, 283 NLRB at 687) the Company to change its early re porting policy Their complaints confirmed the fact that Wasechek s protests to Felker were part of that con certed effort I discredit Vice President Felker s denial that he was aware of Wasechek's earlier complaints about any early morning meetings He did admit (Tr 84, 92-93) that before making the decision on November 4 to discharge Wasechek, he met with Sales Manager Wilke (who, as found, was fully aware of Wasechek s concerted activity at the two October sales meetings and the concerted complaint of other salemen outside Felker s door after the office conference that morning) Felker also admitted that before Wasechek s discharge he was aware of a problem that other salespeople were having with the 8 a in meeting But when asked how he found this out, he claimed-after a long pause- I don t recall specifically (Tr 95) (He appeared to be seeking a plausible answer rather than candidly admitting what happened ) B Wasechek s Summary Discharge Salesman Wasechek worked the rest of the day on No vember 4 after leaving Vice President Felker s office about noon Then about 9 25 p in Sales Manager Wilke handed him a message to see Wilke in his office before leaving There, as Wasechek credbily testified (Tr 143), Wilke said Sorry, Steve, we got to let you go Nothing per sonal " I said , What do you mean, you got to let me go? What are you talking about? And he said, Sorry, you are terminated I said Why am I being terminated? And he said, You didn t punch out for lunch did you? I said 'No I didn't A lot of people don't " He said, Sorry Steve that is the way it is COLDERS FURNITURE 945 Wilke testified that Felker had told him we were going to have to let Steve go that night, giving as a reason That Steve had left that day [for lunch] and had not punched back in (Tr 52-53) Wilke recalled that when he mentioned the timeclock violation Wasechek asked, Isn't this kind of a drastic decision for punching a timeclock later or not punching it? Wilke claimed that he also gave Wasechek two other reasons for the dis charge the other discussion that day concerning the future meeting' and `the incident with the customer in September" (Tr 54-55 ) Wasechek had been employed since September 1985 and was one of the Company s top salesmen In 1986 his commission earnings were $40,000 and in 1987, before his November 4 discharge, he had already earned over $44,000 (Tr 113-115, 171 ) It is undisputed, as Wase chek expressed his belief at the trial, that he was about 7 out of the 35 salesmen (Tr 184) He had never been given any oral or written warnings (Tr 115), and about 2 weeks before his discharge Wilke had told him he was a very good employee and a very good producer (Tr 145) Why would the Company want to discharge such a valuable employee in this summary fashion As found, Wasechek and other salesmen were engaged in protected concerted activity twice at sales meetings in October and again on November 4 when they brought the group complaint about the early reporting policy to the Company s attention Wasechek was leading the em ployees in making the complaint on all three occasions Sales Manager Wilke revealed his displeasure toward Wasechek s leadership role at the first October incident when he angrily pointed his finger at Wasechek and said 'If you have got a problem with this, Steve, you can take it up with me later During the third incident on November 4, after giving Wasechek permission to take the complaint to Vice President Felker, Wilke made what Wasechek considered to be an implied threat of discharge As discussed above, Wilke asked, `Are you sure you want to go through with this? When Wase chek responded, We just want to know why this has got to be this way" Wilke stated that maybe you shouldn t work here then, Steve, if that is the way you feel After weighing all the evidence I find that the General Counsel has made a prima facie showing sufficient to support the inference that Wasechek s protected concert ed activity was a motivating factor in the Company s de cision to discharge him Wright Line 251 NLRB 1083, 1089 (1980) and abusive manner in front of customers in his con frontation with Mr Wilke on the sales floor later that morning (when Wilke gave Wasechek permission to take the 8 a in meeting complaint to Felker) Concerning (1), the September incident involved an irate customers putting on a scene in the store to get his money back from Wasechek, who had no authority to make a refund (Tr 149, 152-155, 163-166) After the incident, as Wasechek credibly testified, Wilke gave him instructions on how to handle such an irate customer (Tr 165), but did not tell him he had done anything wrong (Tr 154) and did not give him any kind of warning whatsoever Although Wilke initially claimed (Tr 49) that he warned Wasechek about his conduct, he later admitted that he neither orally told Wasechek that this is a warning' (Tr 64) nor wrote him up in any formal disciplinary manner' (Tr 51) I find that this mci dent is clearly a mere pretext for the discharge Concerning (2), Felker conceded (Tr 100) that Wase chek s conduct at the 9 a in May & Company training meeting on November 4 was Not as serious" as his con duct in the September incident (for which Wasechek re ceived neither an oral nor a written warning) The sup plier s sales representative, accompanied by the supplier s president, was demonstrating its mattresses to the furni ture salesmen All the salemen were sitting on or leaning against the displayed mattresses except Wasechek, who lay back with his hands behind his head, watching the demonstration He sat up when Wilke told him to and Wilke said nothing to him about it after the meeting (Tr 127-130, 157, 161-163) I agree with the General Coun sel that this was nothing more than a momentary indis cretion at worst ' and a transparent pretext for the dis charge Concerning (3), there was no loud and abusive con duct on Wasechek's part before noon on November 4 when he asked Wilke about the 8 a m meeting and Wilke gave his permission to talk to Felker about it as discussed above Even Wilke s conflicting account (Tr 39-43, 69-70) does not support Felker's claim If there had been this purported misconduct on that occasion Wilke undoubtedly would have reported it to Felker in the office conference where it was not mentioned I find that this purported reason for the discharge is a pure afterthought Having rejected these defenses, I find that the Compa ny has failed to carry its burden to demonstrate that it would have discharged Wasechek in the absence of the protected conduct Wright Line, above, 251 NLRB at 1089 C The Company's Shifting Defenses By the time of trial the Company had shifted positions and developed the defense that neither the timeclock vio lation nor Wasechek s taking the complaint to Vice President Felker on November 4 was a reason for the discharge Instead, Felker claimed (Tr 99-101) that he decided to discharge Wasechek for three reasons (1) his confronta tion with a customer in front of the sales counter in Sep tember (2) his disrespect shown to a major supplier at the training meeting on November 4 and (3) his loud CONCLUSIONS OF LAW By discharging Steven Wasechek on November 4, 1987, for engaging in protected concerted activity, the Company engaged in an unfair labor practice affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act REMEDY Having found that the Respondent has engaged in an unfair labor practice, I find that it must be ordered to 946 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD cease and desist and to take certain affirmative action de- signed to effectuate the policies of the Act. The Respondent having unlawfully discharged an em- ployee, it must offer him reinstatement and make him whole for any loss of earnings and other benefits, com- puted on a quarterly basis from date of discharge to date of proper offer of reinstatement, less any net interim earnings, as prescribed in F. W. Woolworth Co., 90 NLRB 289 (1950), plus interest as computed in New Ho- rizons for the Retarded, 283 NLRB 1173 (1987). On these fmdings of fact and conclusions of law and on the entire record, I issue the following recommend- ed3 ORDER The Respondent, Henry Colder Co., Inc. d/b/a Colders Furniture, West Allis, Wisconsin, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall 1. Cease and desist from (a) Discharging or otherwise discriminating against any employee for engaging in protected concerted activi- ty. (b) In any like or related manner 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) Offer Steven Wasechek immediate and full rein- statement to his former job or, if the job longer exists, to a substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to his seniority or any other rights or privileges previously enjoyed, and make him whole for any loss of earnings and other benefits suffered as a result of the unlawful dis- charge, in the manner set forth in the remedy section of the decision. (b) Remove from its files any reference to the unlawful discharge and notify the employee in writing that this has been done and that the discharge will not be used against him in any way. (c) 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 to ananlyze the amount of backpay due under the terms of this Order. (d) Post at its facility in West Allis, Wisconsin, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix."4 Copies of the notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 30, after being signed by the Respondent's authorized representative, shall be posted by the Re- spondent immediately upon receipt and maintained for 60 consecutive days in conspicuous places including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respond- ent to ensure that the notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (e) Notify the Regional Director in writing within 20 days from the date of this Order what steps the Re- spondent has taken to comply. 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. 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."