Local 1199, Drug, Hospital And Health Care Employees Union, R.W.D.S.U., Afl--Cio

322 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Local 1199, Drug, Hospital and Health Care Em- ployees Union, R.W.D.S.U., AFL-CIO and Lenox Hill Hospital. Case 2-CB-12554 August 25, 1989 DECISION AND ORDER WE WILL on request of Lenox Hill Hospital sign the collective-bargaining agreement. LOCAL 1199, DRUG, HOSPITAL AND HEALTH CARE EMPLOYEES UNION, R.W.D.S.U., AFL-CIO BY MEMBERS CRACRAFT, HIGGINS, AND DEVANEY On June 7, 1989, Administrative Law Judge El- eanor MacDonald issued the attached decision. The Respondent filed exceptions and a supporting brief, and both the General Counsel and the Charg- ing Party filed briefs in response. 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, I and conclusions and to adopt the recommended Order. ORDER The National Labor Relations Board adopts the recommended Order of the administrative law judge and orders that the Respondent, Local 1199, Drug, Hospital and Health Care Employees Union, R.W.D.S.U., AFL-CIO, its officers, agents, succes- sors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Order, except that the attached notice is substi- tuted for that of the administrative law judge. ' The Respondent has excepted to some of the judge's credibility find- ings 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. 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. WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain collectively with Lenox Hill Hospital by refusing to sign the collec- tive-bargaining agreement agreed to between Lenox Hill Hospital and us in May 1988. WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner fail to comply with our obligation to bargain with Lenox Hill Hospital. Marqit Reiner, Esq. and David E. Leach, III, Esq., for the General Counsel. Shailah T Stewart, Esq. (Eisner, Levy, Pollack & Ratner, P. C.), of New York, New York, for the Respondent. Eric Rosenfeld, Esq. (Seyfarth, Shaw, Fairweather & Ger- aldson), of New York, New York, for the Charging Party. DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE ELEANOR MACDONALD, Administrative Law Judge. This case was tried in New York, New York, on March 13, 1988. The complaint alleges that Respondent Union, in violation of Section 8(b)(3) of the Act, has refused to execute the collective-bargaining agreement between Lenox Hill Hospital and Respondent. The Union asserts that a misrepresentation and/or a mistake prevented a meeting of the minds between the parties and that no contract was agreed to. On the entire record, including my observation of the demeanor of the witnesses , and after due consideration of the briefs filed by the parties, I make the following' FINDINGS OF FACT I. JURISDICTION Lenox Hill Hospital, a New York corporation with a facility in New York, New York, is a voluntary not-for- profit hospital. I find that Lenox Hill Hospital is an em- ployer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Sec- tion 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act and that Respondent Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Sec- tion 2(5) of the Act. II. ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Background Lenox Hill Hospital is a member of the League of Voluntary Hospitals and is a party to the most recent collective-bargaining agreement between the League and Respondent Local 1199 for a unit of service and mainte- nance employees.2 The collective-bargaining agreement contains a wage reopener in article X, 3(e), which pro- vides that increases shall be given to employees in "titles where there are recruitment problems." The funds for such increases come from a fund called the "Every Other Weekend Off," or EOWO Fund.3 A supplemental ' Certain errors in the transcript are noted and corrected 2 The unit employees work in the following departments engineering, food service, building service, nursing, X-ray, information services, labo- ratory, and out-patient 8 This EOWO Fund is the escrow account referred to in art . XII,(f) of the collective-bargaining agreement. 296 NLRB No. 41 HOSPITAL EMPLOYEES LOCAL 1199 (LENOX HILL HOSPITAL) agreement between the League and the Union provides that each hospital shall negotiate separately with the Union for the increases to be granted from the EOWO Fund and that unresolved issues shall be determined by a form of expedited interest arbitration .4 The agreement provides that a hospital may implement unilaterally an increase in wages "to enable it to recruit effectively" either prior to or during the negotiations on the use of the EOWO Fund , and that a unilaterally implemented in- crease may not be reduced by a subsequent decision of the interest arbitrator. However, the arbitrator may de- termine that a unilaterally implemented increase is not an "approved" increase; thus, the arbitrator may award cer- tain increases to be paid from the EOWO Fund and may decide that all or part of a unilaterally implemented in- crease is not approved and that its cost shall be borne by the hospital and not charged against EOWO moneys. It is evident that a hospital unilaterally implements in- creases at its peril. The instant case arose from the negotiations between Lenox Hill and the Union pursuant to the wage reopener to determine the use of the EOWO Fund. The negotia- tions took place in 1987 and 1988 , the parties having waived the time limits contained in the supplemental agreement. The negotiations eventually centered on using the EOWO Fund to grant increases to certain employees in the engineering department, which employs handymen, carpenters, painters, locksmiths, maintenance electricians, alteration construction electricians , heating, ventilating, and air-conditioning servicemen, operators, lead opera- tors, and plumbers. There are about 85 engineering de- partment employees; of these, approximately 11 are handymen. Lenox Hill was represented by William Hoffman, di- rector of employment and labor relations . The Union was represented by a number of agents who will be iden- tified below. The union spokesperson with whom we are most concerned in the instant case is Debra King, vice president and director of research, education, and con- tract department of Local 1199. She has held this posi- tion at Local 1199 for the past 2 years and during that time she has coordinated negotiations for all 35 contracts funded by the EOWO escrow account. King stated that she conducted many of the EOWO negotiations herself. According to King, before coming to the Union, she had extensive negotiating experience with other unions. King attended the last two negotiating sessions with Lenox Hill, one in March 1988, and one on April 21, 1988. B. The Negotiations The parties began negotiating in March 1987 .5 At that time, the chief union spokesperson was Betty Hughley, executive vice president of Local 1199 . Hoffman and Hughley discussed the appropriate utilization of the EOWO Fund. From the outset, Lenox Hill maintained that its difficulties in recruiting and retention existed in 4 Each hospital is entitled to a certain share of the EOWO Fund escrow account for its employees. 5 There were approximately 10 negotiating sessions between March 1987 and March 1988. 323 the construction and alteration areas of the engineering department. The Union took the position that it wanted to distribute the EOWO money as a bonus to all unit em- ployees throughout the hospital. Eventually, the Union recognized that the problem of recruitment and retention was evident in the skilled engineering area, but it still wanted to use a certain portion of the funds as a bonus. There was a meeting in March 1988 .6 At this time, the hospital's position was that engineering department em- ployees in construction and alteration should receive a 6- percent increase and other engineering employees should receive 3 percent.' Hoffman told the Union that the ad- ministration had approved a budget including these fig- ures. The next meeting of the parties took place on April 21, 1988, in Hoffman's office. The Union was represented by Executive Vice President Hughley, Area Director Inell King, Vice President Debra King, and some others. Hoffman was there with his assistant . The Union pro- posed an 8-percent across-the-board increase for the en- gineering department employees . Hoffman told the Union that his 6-percent and 3-percent proposal would exceed the amount Lenox Hill would derive from the EOWO Fund, but the Union replied that the proposal was insufficient and that there were morale problems. The Union proposed that instead of implementing Hoff- man's offer retroactive to January 1, 1988, as he had sug- gested, the increase be made effective later and the per- centage increases be raised from 6 percent and 3 percent. Hoffman replied that he would check with his people to see if he could give 6 percent across the board to em- ployees in the engineering department, and that he would get back to the Union. According to Hoffman, about 1 week after this meet- ing, he spoke to Vice President Debra King over the telephone. He told her that administration would not ap- prove a 6-percent across-the-board increase for engineer- ing department employees. Hoffman did not change his offer from the 6 percent and 3 percent he had proposed earlier. King said there would be a membership meeting with the negotiating committee on May 26 , 1988, to dis- cuss the lack of progress in the negotiations, and Hoff- man said he would try to get back to King by that time. Debra King testified that the employee meeting was scheduled for May 12, 1988. I do not find the discrepan- cy significant. It is clear that the meeting took place in May 1988. Hoffman testified that during a later telephone call he proposed to King that there be a 5-percent across-the- board increase for all engineering employees , but King said she still wanted 8 percent across-the-board. She told Hoffman that his 5 -percent across-the-board increase pro- posal was bad because he had previously offered 6 per- cent to the alteration and construction employees but now he was asking them to take only 5 percent. There were several telephone calls back and forth. Ul- timately, Hoffman proposed a 5-percent increase retroac- 6 This meeting was attended by Vice President Debra King for the Union and Hoffman for Lenox Hill. It is not clear who else was there. ' Certain engineering department employees build new construction and alterations, while others perform maintenance 324 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD tive to March 1 , 1988, for the employees in construction and alteration, and a 5-percent increase for maintenance employees effective May 1, 1988. In addition , an electri- cian A would be promoted to electrician B, and the plumbing maintenance mechanic would be promoted to lead mechanic. A 20-percent increase from 1981 would be included in the base rate. Handymen would be ex- cluded from the 5-percent increase but they would re- ceive the 20-percent base rate increase. Hoffman testified that handymen are not skilled and that there is no re- cruitment and retention problem with respect to handy- men. Hoffman testified that this offer was made to Vice President Debra King. He explained to her that the handymen were excluded and said that there was no re- cruitment problem for handymen . Hoffman did not point out that handymen had previously been included in his offer.8 Hoffman testified that King did not ask him whether handymen had ever been included in the pro- posals for EOWO Fund wage increases; he specifically avoided agreeing on cross-examination by counsel for the Union that King inquired about the previous offers relat- ing to handymen. Debra King, on the other hand , testified that when Hoffman gave her the offer and said that handymen were not included, she asked him if handymen "had ever been included in any previous offer ." According to King, Hoffman replied "no" because there were no re- cruitment and retention problems for handymen. When asked whether she meant to testify that Hoffman lied to her by saying that handymen had not been included in any previous offer, King would not say that Hoffman lied, only that there had been a "communication failure." King stated that she would have been very surprised if the handymen had been included in the offer since they were not a "shortage job." She testified that "the pur- pose of the negotiations was to raise salaries in jobs where there were shortages." I find Debra King's testimony very significant. There is an irreconcilable difference between her testimony and that given by Hoffman. The testimony is crucial to the instant case. Hoffman denies that he said handymen had not been included in the prior offers while King implies that Hoffman misled her by saying that handymen had not been included in the previous offers. Yet King would not testify that Hoffman told her an untruth . I conclude that King is not sure what Hoffman actually said to her and she is not sure whether she actually asked the cru- cial question. I conclude that King was under the im- pression that handymen had never been included in the first offers and she thinks that she probably got this im- pression from Hoffman . However, she is not sure enough of her recollection to testify under oath that Hoffman did not tell her the truth during their phone conversa- tion. I conclude that King is not sure that Hoffman actu- ally did mislead her by saying that handymen had never been included in the prior offers . King is an experienced negotiator and has had many years of responsibility at a high level. If she were sure that the spokesperson for the other side had misled her in negotiations by telling an untruth about a crucial fact, she would not fail to testify forthrightly about the lie. Moreover, the probability that Hoffman lied to King is very small . There was no secret among the negotiators on behalf of Local 1199 about the history of negotiations for the EOWO Fund . Several high officials of the Union were very familiar with the negotiations. If Debra King had asked a simple and short question of her colleagues about whether handymen had ever been included in prior offers, she would have been told the facts in an instant . Under these circumstances, Hoffman had nothing to gain from lying and he had a lot to lose should he forfeit the trust of the union negotia- tors. In giving Debra King the offer over the telephone before she went into an employee meeting, Hoffman would assume that she was making notes of everything he told her.9 He would also assume that, in telling the engineering employees of the hospital 's latest offer, King would as a matter of course relate that handymen were excluded . She would then be enlightened immediately by the union officials and unit employees present as to the prior offers made by Lenox Hill which included handy- men along with other engineering employees . I find that Hoffman did not tell Debra King that handymen had not been included in prior offers of wage increases. Thus, he did not mislead her concerning the offer made by Lenox Hill on May 26, 1988. According to Hoffman, after he gave his offer to Debra King on May 26, 1988 , she said she liked it and that she would talk to the engineering department em- ployees. She told Hoffman, "I think we would have a deal." Then, King called Hoffman back and said, "You got a deal." t ° Thereupon, Hoffman sent a memorandum describing the agreement on the EOWO Fund to his su- perior in administration and, on May 31, 1988, he was given approval for the contract . On about June 2 or 3, he notified Debra King that he had obtained approval from administration and he said that he would draw up the agreement for execution . King told Hoffman that she wanted a signing ceremony to take place in his office. The date was set for June 9, 1988. According to Vice President Debra King, she told Hoffman that the employees would not be happy with less than 6 percent but that she could recommend the package to them. King attended the engineering depart- ment employee meeting with Area Director Inell King, the union organizer and the negotiating committee. She presented the offer to the engineering department em- ployees but she did not tell them that it excluded handy- men. King did not think that the exclusion was signifi- cant at the time; she believed that the employee group she was addressing did not include any handymen. She had no detailed knowledge of the bargaining relating to handymen because she had only been at the March and April 1988 negotiations with Lenox Hill and no job titles B In fact, King testified that she did indeed take notes, but they were discarded prior to the instant hearing 8 For instance, there are some handymen in construction and initially 10 Hoffman denied on cross-examination that Debra King had told him they had not been excluded when Hoffman offered 6 percent to construc - that the engineering department employees had voted on the proposal tion employees. and ratified it. HOSPITAL EMPLOYEES LOCAL 1199 (LENOX HILL HOSPITAL) had been discussed at those meetings. According to King, the employees present at the engineering depart- ment meeting voted to accept the hospital's proposal. After Vice President Debra King informed Hoffman that she was ready to arrange a signing of the agreement, King was called on the telephone by a handyman from Lenox Hill who told her he had heard from his supervi- sor that he was not included in the wage increase. The handyman had been at the ratification meeting addressed by King and he was upset. Debra King told him that handymen were not included and that she did not think they had ever been included in the negotiations. Before the scheduled signing ceremony of June 9, the Union notified Hoffman that it would not sign the EOWO wage increase agreement. Vice President Debra King called Hoffman and said that the handymen who had attended the ratification meeting thought that they were included in the wage increase. On June 10, 1988, Hoffman sent the written contract on the EOWO Fund wage increases, which had been signed on behalf of Lenox Hill, to Debra King. He asked that the Union sign the contract. He also gave notice that Lenox Hill was "[P]roceeding to implement without delay the salary increases provided by the agreement." There is no claim made here that the document submit- ted by Hoffman on June 10 did not represent the terms agreed on by Vice President Debra King. After he sent this letter, Hoffman spoke to Debra King. She told him that there were problems with the handymen and that they were upset at being excluded from the wage increase. King told Hoffman that "there was a problem because the handymen had not been ex- cluded by her in the ratification vote when she presented our last offer, and that in fact the handymen had previ- ously been included in negotiations and that the ratifica- tion vote was no good." Debra King asked Hoffman to come up with more money, but Hoffman said they had spent all the money. On June 24, Hoffman spoke with Local 1199 Executive Secretary Eddie Kaye. Kaye said the Union was embarrassed by the exclusion of the handymen and he asked that they be included. King tes- tified that the Union held a second ratification meeting and that she told the employees that, "I had presented the wrong offer to them," because she was "rushed" and "sloppy." I note that Debra King did not testify that she told the employees that Hoffman had misled her about the offer he made. At this meeting, the midterm agree- ment was rejected by the engineering department em- ployees. On July 6, 1988, Hoffman met with Executive Secre- tary Kaye and then with Debra King. They told Hoff- man that the handymen were unhappy, that there was a forthcoming election of union officials, and that they asked for more money for the handymen. Hoffman told the union officials that he would talk to his people. Ac- cording to Debra King, she told Hoffman that "it was just . . . a failure of communications and that I had taken the total blame in terms of the mix up with the ... members. . . . I had made a mistake." On July 7, Hoffman wrote to Debra King that with the prospect of restoring harmonious relations with the Union he would be willing to discuss a salary adjustment 325 for incumbent handymen. The letter stated that while Hoffman appreciated the Union's position he also hoped that King could appreciate the hospital's position. Hoff- man proposed that the Union consider whether it would withdraw certain arbitration and unfair labor practice cases then pending against Lenox Hill in exchange for an adjustment for handymen. Hoffman testified that he pro- posed to set off the savings that would be generated by the Union's withdrawal of the pending cases against an increase for handymen; he would present this possible savings to the administration. But the Union did not re- spond to Hoffman's suggested way out of the dilemma. I t Hoffman testified that when the negotiations began he told the Union that he wanted a final agreement by the Union so that when he presented a proposed contract to his superiors in the Lenox Hill "Administration" it could be approved without further "jockeying" back and forth. Hoffman stated that the Union did not mention anything about ratification at the outset of negotiations. He has participated in about 15 midterm negotiations with the Union before the instant negotiations and he was never told that membership ratification was necessary for a midterm agreement.12 Hoffman also testified that Execu- tive Vice President Hughley told him that the Union was trying to please the entire membership and that the mem- bers would look at the proposal and determine whether it was acceptable. But she did not say that the members would have to agree to the way that the EOWO Fund was distributed. Vice President Debra King testified that she had no authority to enter into a contract with Lenox Hill by herself and that she never told Hoffman she had that authority. I find that Hoffman made the Hospital's offer to Union Vice President Debra King clearly and without ambigui- ty. He said that handymen would not get the 5-percent increase. As explained above, I find that Hoffman did not tell King that handymen had never before been in- cluded in the negotiations and I find that that he did not mislead King. I find that Debra King did not understand the significance of the exclusion of handymen when Hoffman told her about it, and for that reason she did not tell the employees about the exclusion at the ratifica- tion meeting. Nevertheless, there was no ambiguity in the language used by Hoffman and Debra King: both un- derstood that handymen would not get the 5-percent in- crease. t a I find that the employees ratified the midterm contract and that Debra King so informed Hoffman. On June 2 or 3, 1988, Hoffman told Debra King that "Ad- ministration" had approved the contract, and King asked Hoffman to have the contract drawn and asked him to arrange for a signing ceremony. Then, after the employ- ees were made aware of the exclusion of the handymen and complained to the Union about it, the Union refused to sign the contract. It is clear that the union negotiator " After Lenox Hill filed the instant unfair labor practice case, the Union demanded arbitration under the EOWO Fund supplemental agree- ment That demand is pending but it has not been raised as a reason for deferring the instant case 12 Hoffman acknowledged that the other midterm negotiations were not pursuant to written agreement " See Food & Commercial Workers Local 120 (United Employers), 154 NLRB 16, 26 (1965) 326 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD made a mistake and that the Hospital was not at fault and did not mislead the Union. The Union told the Hos- pital that there was a contract; it may not be excused from executing the contract by its later realization that, through the fault of its own agents, it did not understand and did not explain to the employees one of the details of the contract it had just made.14 The Union relies on Waldon, Inc., 282 NLRB 583 (1986), in which the Board found that there was no meeting of the minds concerning the proposed wage scale in the contract. In that case, the company had been losing money and the parties had negotiated for some time about a wage reduction. The company made several consecutive offers for reductions and the union negotia- tor misunderstood the last offer; in transcribing the offer, the union took it down incorrectly so that it amounted to a slight increase. The membership ratified the last pro- posal as erroneously transmitted by its negotiator. The decision in Waldon relies on Apache Powder Co., 223 NLRB 191 (1976). In Apache, the facts showed that the parties had been negotiating for a pension increase. In the company's last offer, its negotiator put down an earli- er date than the date that had been discussed by the par- ties; the mistake had the effect of granting a much larger pension increase than the one under discussion thereto- fore. The mistaken date was contained in the document ratified by the members. The administrative law judge's decision emphasized that the company had made an ob- vious mistake that should have placed a reasonable person on guard; therefore, no meeting of the minds oc- curred. A mistake of one party, which is known to the other, affects the validity of the agreement. The Board upheld the administrative law judge, holding: we agree that rescission for unilateral mistake is, for obvious reasons, a carefully guarded remedy re- served for those instances where the mistake is so obvious as to put the other party on notice of an error. We find that the instant case presents such an unusual instance. In the instant case, the proposal made by Hoffman to Debra King was unambiguous and clear: handymen were excluded from the 5-percent raise. Only the union negoti- ator made a mistake in misinterpreting the import of the plain language used by Hoffman. This was a unilateral mistake but the mistake was not obvious and should not have placed Hoffman on guard that Debra King did not understand his offer. For months, Hoffman had been trying to come up with a proposal that would fit within the EOWO Fund budget; the Union knew this and knew that handymen were not difficult to recruit and retain. Thus, when Hoffman told Debra King that the offer ex- cluded handymen he was explaining how he had come up with a better offer. Hoffman cannot be blamed for not knowing that King was making a mistake . King's mistake resulted from her lack of preparation and not from any obvious cause that should have alerted Hoffman. Indeed, King did not know which employees she was negotiating 14 Electrical Workers Local 938 (Appalachian Power Ca), 200 NLRB 850, 852 (1972), enfd. 496 F.2d 1240 (4th Cir 1974) for and her mistake did not arise from any confusion as to the actual offer made by Lenox Hill. Unlike the situa- tions discussed in Waldon and Apache, rescission would not be appropriate here. The Union should be held to the representations made by its negotiator that the employees agreed to the contract and Lenox Hill should be able to rely on the bargain it made. I find that the Union violated Section 8(b)(3) of the Act by refusing to execute the midterm agreement with Lenox Hill Hospital. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The following employees of Lenox Hill Hospital constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collec- tive bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act: All service and maintenance employees, excluding supervisory, confidential, executive and managerial employees, physicians, dentists, registered nurses, students whose performance of work at Lenox Hill is a part of the educational course of study such stu- dents are pursuing, part-time employees who work a total of one fifth (1/5) of the regular full-time work week or less for the job classifications in which they work, and temporary employees. 2. At all times since June 1985 the Respondent has been the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of the unit and has been recognized as such representative by Lenox Hill in successive collective-bargaining agree- ments the most recent of which is effective by its terms from July 1, 1986, to June 30, 1989. 3. By refusing since June 10, 1988, to execute the mid- term collective-bargaining agreement it reached with Lenox Hill, Respondent has violated Section 8(b)(3) of the Act. THE REMEDY Having found that Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8(b)(3) of the Act, I shall recommend that it be ordered to cease and desist therefrom and to take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on the entire record, I issue the following recommend- edls ORDER The Respondent, Local 1199, Drug, Hospital and Health Care Employees Union , R.W.D.S.U., AFL-CIO, its officers, agents, and representatives, shall 1. Cease and desist from (a) Failing to execute the collective-bargaining agree- ment submitted to it on June 10, 1988. '5 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 HOSPITAL EMPLOYEES LOCAL 1199 (LENOX HILL HOSPITAL) (b) In any like manner refusing to bargain with Lenox Hill Hospital in accordance with the requirements of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act. (a) On request of Lenox Hill Hospital execute forth- with the collective-bargaining agreement reached by the parties and tendered by Lenox Hill on June 10, 1988. (b) Post at its business offices and meeting places copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix."16 16 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 " 327 Copies of the notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 2, after being signed by the Re- spondent's authorized representative, shall be posted by the Respondent immediately upon receipt and maintained for 60 consecutive days in conspicuous places including all places where notices to employees and members are customarily posted . Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to ensure that the notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (c) Sign and return to the Regional Director sufficient copies of the notice for posting by Lenox Hill Hospital, if willing, at all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. (d) Notify the Regional Director in writing within 20 days from the date of this Order what steps the Re- spondent has taken to comply.