Greensboro News Co.

GREENSBORO NEWS CO 135 Greensboro News Company and Greensboro Printing and Graphic Communications Union, Local 319, affiliated with the International Printing and Graphic Communications Union. Cases 11-CA- 10623 and 11-CA-10703 19 September 1985 DECISION AND ORDER BY MEMBERS ZIMMERMAN, HUNTER, AND DENNIS On 29 December 1983 Administrative Law Judge Richard A. Scully issued the attached deci- sion. The Respondent and the General Counsel each filed exceptions and a supporting brief; the Respondent filed a brief in response to the General Counsel's exceptions; and the Charging Party filed a brief in support of the judge's decision. The National Labor Relations Board has delegat- ed its authority in this proceeding to a three- member panel. The Board has considered the decision and the record in light of the exceptions and briefs and has decided to affirm the judge's rulings, findings, 1 and conclusions 2 and to adopt the recommended Order as modified. ORDER The National Labor Relations Board adopts the recommended Order of the administrative law 1 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 2 The judge found that Greene, the Respondent's classified manager, told employee Allen in mid-September 1982 that the Respondent and its employees could not just sit and "talk about financial or family problems if we had a union, that everything would just have to go through proper channels" We conclude, contrary to the judge, that this single statement did not rise to the level of an unlawful threat of changed working condi- tions in the event of unionization Member Zimmerman would find the statement an unlawful threat based on the reasoning set forth by the judge The judge recommended dismissal of the complaint's allegation that the Respondent's assistant advertising director, Moore, engaged in unlaw- ful interrogation by asking employee Lovings if employee Allen spoke to her "about the Union" We conclude, contrary to the judge, that Moore's question to Lovings was coercive and an unlawful interrogation under Sec. 8(a)(1) of the Act In our view there was no legitimate basis or justi- fication for the inquiry and it unlawfully coerced Lovings into revealing whether or not she had engaged in discussion of the Union with another employee. We adopt the judge's conclusion that the Respondent's discharge of employee Roberts violated Sec 8(a)(3) and (I) of the Act We disclaim any reliance, however, on fn 21 of the judge's decision We consider the footnote speculative and unnecessary for resolving the issue of the Re- spondent's motivation in discharging Roberts We likewise find it unnec- essary to rely on the judge's finding that the Respondent's pressroom foreman Patteson contradicted himself in saying that the alleged cut in the roll of paper on the Respondent's unit 3 could have been made by sticking a knife Into the side of the roll, after having previously testified that the cut could have been made only from the top down judge and orders that the Respondent, Greensboro News Company, Greensboro, North Carolina, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Order as modified. 1. Substitute the following for paragraph 1(c). "(c) Interrogating employees concermng the union activity of their fellow employees." 2. Substitute the attached notice for that of the administrative law judge. APPENDIX NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government The National Labor Relations Boird- -has found that we violated the National Labor Relations Act and has ordered us to post and abide by this notice. WE WILL NOT threaten our employees with re- prisals for associating with persons known to be union adherents and/or promoters of employees' protected concerted activities. WE WILL NOT issue warnings to employees be- cause we believe they have engaged in union or other protected concerted activities. WE WILL NOT interrogate our employees con- cerning the union activity of their fellow employ- ees. WE WILL NOT discharge or otherwise discrimi- nate against our employees in regard to hire or tenure of employment, or any term or condition of employment, because of their union or protected concerted activities. WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them by Sec- tion 7 of the Act. WE WILL offer James Roberts immediate and full reinstatement to his former job or, if that job no longer exists, to a substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to his seniority or any other rights or privileges previously enjoyed and WE WILL make him whole for any loss of earnings and other benefits resulting from his discharge, less any net interim earnings, plus interest. WE WILL expunge from our records and files any references to the discharge of James Roberts and the warning issued to Jane Allen on 30 July 1982, and WE WILL notify them in writing that this has been done and that the evidence of the unlaw- ful discharge and warning will not be used as a basis for future personnel actions against them. GREENSBORO NEWS COMPANY 272 NLRB No. 28 136 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD DECISION RICHARD A SCULLY, Administrative Law Judge. On charges filed on October 1 and November 30, 1982, by Greensboro Printing and Graphic Communications Union, Local 319, affiliated with The International Print- ing and Graphic Communications Union (the Union), the Regional Director for Region 11 of the National Labor Relations Board (the Board) issued a complaint and con- solidated complaint on November 1 and December 28, 1982, respectively, alleging that Greensboro News Com- pany (the Respondent) had violated Section 8(a)(1), (3), and (4) of the National Labor Relations Act (the Act). The Respondent has filed timely answers denying that it has committed any violation of the Act. A hearing was held in Greensboro, North Carolina, on January 26, 1983, at which all parties were given full op- portunity to participate, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to present other evidence and argument. Briefs submitted on behalf of the parties have been given due consideration. On the entire record' and from my observation of the demeanor of the witnesses, I make the following FINDINGS OF FACT I. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT The Respondent is a North Carolina corporation en- gaged in the publication and distribution of daily morn- ing and afternoon newspapers at its facilities in Greens- boro, North Carolina. During the 12-month period pre- ceding December 28, 1982, a representative period, the Respondent had a total volume of business in excess of $200,000 and purchased and received materials directly from suppliers located outside the State of North Caroli- na valued in excess of $10,000. The Respondent admits, and I find, that it is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED The Respondent admits, and I find, that the Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES Background The Respondent employs approximately 400 people, about half of whom are represented by the Union and three other labor organizations. The Union has represent- ed the pressmen for many years and, since June 1982, has also represented the building and maintenance depart- ment employees. The Respondent's largest unorganized employee unit is the advertising department, which the Union has been conducting a campaign to organize since early 1982. The Respondent's policy, as expressed in its employee handbook, is that "union membership is not nec- essary" for its employees although it "strive[s] for sound ' The General Counsel's unopposed motion to correct certain errors in the transcript is granted. working relationships with our existing unions." [Empha- sis added.] A. Alleged 8(a)(1) Violations 1. Threats of reprisals Jane Allen has been a salesperson in the Respondent's advertising department since August 1977. She became active in the Union's campaign to organize her depart- ment in early summer of 1982. 2 She signed a union au- thorization card, attended 2 meetings, 1 of which was held at her apartment, and she secured signatures on about 10 cards. She talked with employees about the Union during lunch and breaks and on numerous occa- sions, also had lunch with members of the union organiz- ing committee in the one breakroom used by all employ- ees. Sometimes, Union President James Roberts would join them for lunch in the breakroom July 8, during the afternoon break, Roberts came into the breakroom and sat down and had coffee with Allen and others. According to the testimony of Allen, whom I found to be a credible and convincing witness, as she was leaving the breakroom, Classified Manager Hal Greene joined her on the way back to the advertising department. Greene asked her if she knew Jim Roberts. Allen said that she did, that they had lived nearby while growing up. Greene asked Allen if she knew that Rob- erts was head of the Union and she said yes. Greene then said: "Well, you know it doesen't look good for you to be seen talking to him." Allen did not respond and Greene continued on into his office. When asked by Re- spondent's counsel if he ever made such a statement to Allen, Greene responded: "Not in those words, not at all." On cross-examination Greene said that he might have asked her how she knew Jim, but that he did not tell her she should not associate with Roberts. Based on their demeanor while testifying, and the fact that, as a current employee of the Respondent, Allen would be un- likely to fabricate such an incident, 3 I credit the testimo- ny of Allen over that of Greene and find that Greene did tell Allen it did not look good for her to be seen talking to Roberts. This, coming as it did immediately after Greene's reference to the fact that Roberts was president of the Union, left little doubt but that it was Roberts' union involvement and activities which were objection- able to Greene and the Respondent. The clear implica- tion of Greene's remark was that by associating with Roberts Allen would be regarded as a union sympathizer which would cause her to be looked upon with disfavor by her employer. Accordingly, I find Greene's comment to Allen to be coercive and an infringement on the em- ployee's protected rights in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.4 Jane Allen testified that on the morning of November 28 Hal Greene called her into his office. After Allen sat down, Greene threw a pack of cigarettes he was holding 2 All dates are in 1982 unless otherwise indicated 3 See Gold Standard Enterprises, 234 NLRB 618, 619 (1978), St Anne's Home, 221 NLRB 839 (1975) 4 Lyman Steel Co, 249 NLRB 296, 302 (1980), Cone Mills Corp., 245 NLRB 159, 166 (1979) GREENSBORO NEWS CO 137 down on his desk and told Allen that he wanted her to know that her attitude "stinks" and he wanted to know why. Allen was unaware of what prompted this inquiry and asked if there had been a customer's complaint about her or if her work was unacceptable. Greene replied that it "had nothing to do" with her work and said, "I just have noticed a big change in you since early summer and I personally think that it is probably the people you are associating with." Allen responded that there had been a lot of discord in her department which she did not want to be involved with, but that she was unaware of there being anything wrong with the way she was acting. Greene then asked her if she had ever considered leaving her job. Allen asked if she was being fired and Green said: "No, I don't have any reason to fire you." Allen said she did not plan to leave and Greene said. "Well, if you're all that unhappy about everything that's going on, I really don't know why you would want to stay." Allen said that she liked her job and the people she worked with and, if for no other reason, she wanted to stay until she qualified for the Respondent's pension plan. Greene responded that "attitude was very important in every- thing" and that he was afraid that Allen "was going to end up like Ross Swearingen." According to Allen, Ross Swearingen had been a salesman for the Respondent, who about 2 years previously, during a union organizing campaign, had come out of the manager's office in the advertising department, called for the employees' atten- tion, and announced to them that after 13 to 15 years of employment by the Respondent he had been fired for union activity. Greene's testimony about this incident corroborated that of Allen in some respects. He testified that, at the start of the conversation, he told Allen her job was not in jeopardy and she was not in trouble, but that he thought she seemed depressed and he wanted to know if it had anything to do with her job. He said that he had mentioned Ross Swearingen, whom Green described as someone who started "little games with his attitude to the point where he became depressed at times," and told Allen he "would like to see her gain control of her atti- tude." According to Greene, the change in Allen's atti- tude which concerned him dated back to the summer. I credit the testimony of Allen to the extent that it dif- fers from that of Greene It is undisputed that Allen's job performance had been satisfactory or better prior to the time this conversation occurred. Considering all of the circumstances, including Greene's statement to Allen that her attitude "stinks" and had since about the time she got involved with the Union, his attributing this to the people she associated with after telling Allen that it did not look good for her to be seen associating with union activist Roberts, and Greene's reference to Ross Swearingen, a union supporter whom he also considered to have a bad attitude, I infer that Greene's comments concerning Allen's "attitude" referred to her prounion activities and sympathies.5 5 See Virginia Metalcrafters, 158 NLRB 958 (1966), Winn-Dixie Green- ville, 157 NLRB 657 (1966) Although Greene's testimony suggested he simply wanted to find out why Allen seemed depressed, the credited testimony of Allen establishes that Greene's statements and demeanor during their meeting conveyed that he was unhappy with and critical of Allen's proun- ion "attitude." Notwithstanding the fact that he found no fault with her work, Greene suggested that Allen should leave her job if she was unhappy with the way things were there. This coupled with Greene's reference to Swearingen who had previously been discharged by the Respondent was an unlawful threat of discharge or other reprisal in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act 7 2. Warning to Jane Allen Jane Allen testified that on July 30 she was taken to a conference room by her immediate supervisor, Bobbie Cox, because Advertising Director Rick Spears wanted to talk to her. Spears came in and, after some small talk, told Allen that he had to speak to her because Hal Greene was not there that day Spears told Allen that she had been observed on the previous day by "two per- sons up front soliciting for the Union" Spears told her she had the right to talk during breaks, lunch, and after work, but could not talk with anyone about unions during worktime because it would interfere with the workflow. Spears told her, "If this ever happens again, you will suffer serious consequences." He then told her to return to work. Spears testified that he was told that Allen interrupted the work activity of a typist, Leigh Ann Lovings, short- ly after 5 p m., the office's "heaviest deadline period." According to Spears, the disruption lasted about 5 min- utes and was observed by Vice President of Operations Richard Hendricks and Assistant Advertising Director Gary Moore, both of whom brought it to his attention. In his direct testimony about this incident, Spears made no mention of the fact that Allen had discussed the Union with Lovings and clearly attempted to convey the impression that it was the disruption of work that Allen was warned about and not talking about the Union. However, a note Spears made for his own files states that the reason for the warning was Allen's "soliciting of the Union on company time," specifically, "soliciting Leigh Ann Lovings in the typing area during working hours." The note indicates that Spears explained the Company's policy concerning union solicitation to Allen and told her if "she does it again, more serious conse- quences could result." Further evidence that it was not the conversation between Allen and Lovings, but what the Respondent thought was being discussed that con- cerned it, was provided by the testimony of Lovings and Richard Hendricks. Lovings stated that a few minutes after Allen left Moore came over to her and specifically asked if Allen was talking to her "about the Union." 6 There is no doubt that the Respondent's supervisors including Greene and his supervisor Richard Hendricks were aware of Allen's, union sympathies and that she was active in the Union's organizing cam- paign as evidenced by the warning given Allen on July 30, discussed infra 7 Barnes & Noble Bookstores, 233 NLRB 1326 (1977), Loggins Meat Go, 199 NLRB 291 (1972), Loby's Cafeteria, 187 NLRB 420 (1970) 138 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Lovings said, "Yes," but was not asked anything else about the conversation. Hendricks testified that he was leaving the advertising department and, while standing within arm's length of Allen, he heard her tell Lovings "something to the effect, 'you have a perfect right to belong to a union." Hendricks, who "couldn't believe" what he was hearing, listened in for a minute or so and then went to Gary Moore and told him he had better go tell Allen "to cut that out." The credited testimony of Allen and Lovings (who no longer works for the Respondent and has no interest in the matter) establishes that Allen finished work at 5 p.m. and came into Lovings' work area with another cowork- er who had something to drop off there. Allen, who had talked to Lovings about the Union during a break on the previous day, had been told that Lovings' feelings had been hurt by the way Allen and another employee had spoken to her. Their 2-minute conversation consisted of Allen apologizing to Lovings for the way they had ap- proached her about the Union on the previous day and did not involve any solicitation to join or support the Union. 8 Neither Allen nor Lovings had any recollection of Hendricks being nearby while they were talking. The evidence shows that the Respondent had no rule prohibiting employees from talking while on the job and that employees and supervisors alike engaged in non- work-related conversations while working. There is no evidence that Hendricks or any other supervisor was aware of whether it was Allen or Lovings who initiated this conversation, but only Allen was given a warning. Lovings, who was the one still working and whose work it was that was allegedly disrupted, was not warned or spoken to about the incident by any supervisor except for Moore's inquiry about whether Allen had talked about the Union. Yet for all the Respondent knew, 8 it could have been Lovings who started the conversation. I find that this warning was given to Allen solely because the Respondent believed she was soliciting for the Union and not because of any concern about the disruption of work the conversation caused.' ° 9 Although Allen gave this explanation to Hal Greene a short time after she received the warnings and Greene told her he would speak to the people involved and tell them not to act unless they "knew the whole truth," the warning to Allen has never been rescinded 9 Allen was not asked nor did she tell Moore or Cox anything about the content of her conversation with Lovings before she was given the warning by Moore 1 ° I do not credit Hendncks' testimony about his action upon observ- ing the conversation between Allen and Lovings Although he said he ordered Moore to put a stop to the conversation, because it was in Moore's area of supervision, Moore did not do so He did not approach Lovings until after Allen had left Even then, he did not caution Lovings about neglecting her work, but only asked if Allen had discussed the Union According to Hendricks, when he spoke to Moore and told him what he had overheard, Moore asked if he could talk to Lovings about it and Hendricks said that "she will verify what I heard." From this, I infer that Hendricks and Moore were not so much concerned with Lovings' work being disrupted as they were with the fact that the employees were talking about the Union The testimony of Bobby Cox further confirms this She testified that before Allen was given the warning, Spears told her that the reason was that Allen had been observed talking about the Union with a member of the typing pool According to Cox, there is no prohibition against employees going into other departments and talking about nonwork-related subjects during working time and she has had such conversations herself Even assuming that the Respondent's no-solicitation rule, as explained by Moore to Allen, was in effect, the Respondent had no evidence that Allen had violated it. It made no attempt to ascertain whether Allen was, in fact, soliciting for the Union, but relied on Hendricks' statement of what he allegedly thought he heard Allen say and Lovings' acknowledgement that Allen talked about the Union to establish a violation of the rule. In so doing, it unlawfully equated talking about unions with soliciting for one." Under the circumstances, I find the warning the Respondent issued to Jane Allen to be pre- text designed to intimidate her for supporting the Union without regard to whether she had violated its rules and to be a violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.' 2 3. Interrogation The consolidated complaint, as amended at the start of the hearing, alleges that when Gary Moore asked Leigh Ann Lovings if Jane Allen had talked to her about the Union there was an unlawful interrogation concerning a fellow employee's union activity. I do not believe Moore's single question to Lovings, which did not in- quire Into the substance of what Lovings and Allen had discussed or in any way seek to probe the union prefer- ences of either employee, could be considered coercive or constitute a violation of the Act. Accordingly, I shall recommend that this allegation be dismissed. 4. No-solicitation rule The complaint alleges that the Respondent maintained and enforced a rule prohibiting all solicitations on com- pany property except those approved by management. The rule in question is contained in the Respondent's manual of employee policies, procedures, and benefits and provides: Solicitations—To avoid interruption and disturb- ance, it is general policy not to permit solicitation for the sale of any products, services, chances or contributions on company property. The United Way, as indicated earlier, is an excep- tion to this policy because it supports the principle that giving in one campaign will support the majori- ty of those who need help among the many charita- ble agencies. Other charities may also be worthy of support and all of us have the opportunity to help in their -campaigns which include direct mail and telethons. The Company does not prohibit "passing the hat" if the department head and the Personnel De- partment approve. Therefore, except as noted above, the best policy is don't engage in any solici- tation activity, either as a customer or as a salesper- son. The General Counsel contends that this rule is presump- tively invalid because it is so broad as to prohibit union solicitation during the employees' nonworking time. The " See W.W Grainger, Inc , 229 NLRB 161, 167 (1977). i 2 See CTS Keene, 247 NLRB 1016 (1980) GREENSBORO NEWS CO 139 Respondent contends that this rule did not apply to union solicitations at all and was never enforced to inter- fere with such activity during nonworking meal and breaktimes. Union President James Roberts testified that, in the course of the union campaigns he was involved with, he carried on organizing activities during meal and break periods in the company canteen on a daily basis, solicit- ing for membership and passing out union materials with- out company interference, and that he did not know of any attempt by the Respondent to enforce a rule pre- venting union solicitation on company property. Jane Allen testified that she had solicited about 10 union au- thorization cards from employees on the company prop- erty during lunch and breaks and that she knew she had the right to engage in union activity at lunch and break- times and after work. In issuing the warning to Allen for allegedly violating the company rule concerning union solicitation during working time, Rick Spears did not make reference to the rule in the employees' manual and stated that she had a right to engage in union activity during breaks or lunch or when she was on her own time and not working. It is not clear to what extent, if any, this unwritten rule had been made known to Allen and other employees by the Respondent before Allen was accused of violating it. There is no evidence that the Respondent made any effort to use it to unlawfully re- strict union activity on company property during non- working time or that employees engaged in such activi- ties were in any doubt about their freedom to do so during nonworking time. Considering the language of the rule contained in the employees' manual, the testimony of Roberts, Allen, and Spears, and the lack of any evidence that this rule was ever applied to union activities, I conclude that the rule in the manual was limited to restricting sales and fund- raising activities and was not intended, interpreted, or enforced in connection with union solicitation or other union activities on the Company's property. I, therefore, find that the Respondent's maintenance of the rule in question does not violate the Act 13 5. Threats of changes in working conditions Jane Allen testified that during mid-September, she met with Hal Greene to discuss a higher paying job. During the course of their discussion, Greene stated that he considered Cliff Wilson and Jim Roberts to be friends of his, but that they were "very big on unions." Greene also told her that one thing he did not like about unions was that they could not just sit and "talk about financial or family problems if we had a union, that everything would just have to go through proper channels." Greene testified that he would not have said anything about "going through channels" because he did not use that terminology, but he did not specifically deny having the conversation Allen described. According to Greene, he recalled telling some employees that he personally does not like unions because "they can make it more difficult for employer-employee to communicate." It was his un- 13 See Axe/son, Inc., 257 NLRB 576, 579 (1981), House of Mosaics, 215 NLRB 704, 718 (1974). derstanding that if a union represented employees, they could not go directly to a supervisor to discuss a prob- lem, but would "have to go to someone else before they can go to the manager or supervisor." I credit the testi- mony of Allen concerning Greene's remarks to her, which appear to be an accurate reflection of the sub- stance of Greene's views on employer-employee commu- nication when a union is present. Whether or not Greene used precisely the words "going through channels," the thrust of his comments was that, if a union were present, Allen and other employees could not speak directly to him or other supervisors without the intervention of a third party. The Board has held that any such comment "must be viewed in the context of its own particular cir- cumstances." 4 Coming as it did, during a face-to-face meeting requested by Allen in order to discuss a work- related matter of concern to her, Greene's statement that with a union they "could not just sit in there and talk" implied that direct dealings between employees and man- agement would be prohibited. As such, it constituted a clear threat of loss of a benefit enjoyed by the Respond- ent's employees and violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. 15 B. The Discharge of James Roberts The consolidated complaint alleges that, on September 28, the Respondent discharged James Roberts because of his union and other concerted activities and because he had filed charges with the Board and testified against it at a hearing before the Board in violation of Section 8(a)(3) and (4) of the Act. Under the Board's decision in Wright Line," the Gen- eral Counsel must establish a prima facie case of discrim- ination in violation of Section 8(a)(3) by showing that the affected employee had engaged in protected activity, that the employer was aware of this activity, that the ad- verse action taken by the employer was motivated by union animus, and that it had the effect of encouraging or discouraging membership in a labor organization.17 James Roberts is a journeyman-pressman who was em- ployed by the Respondent for 16 years prior to his dis- charge. Roberts has been the president of the Union since 1979 and had previously held several other union offices. He has been the chief union spokesman in sepa- rate contract negotiations with the Respondent for both the pressmen's unit and the building and maintenance unit, which he had led the Union's successful campaign to organize in the early part of 1982. Roberts also led the Union's campaign to organize the advertising department. In connection with that cam- paign, he filed an unfair labor practice charge with the Board alleging that an advertising department employee named Shirley Shatto had been unlawfully assigned to different duties by the Respondent in order to impede her activity on behalf of the Union. A complaint was 14 Sacramento Clinical Laboratory, 242 NLRB 944 (1974), enf dented in part 623 F 2d 100 (9th Ctr. 1980) 15 Huntington Rubber Corp, 260 NLRB 1008 (1982), Limestone Apparel Corp, 255 NLRB 722 (1981) 16 251 NLRB 1082 (1980) " United Broadcasting Ca, 253 NLRB 697, 703 (1980) 140 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD issued by the Board and a hearing held on September 15, at which Roberts and Shatto appeared as witnesses for the General Counsel. The pressmen's most recent collective-bargaining agreement expired on December 31, 1980. Negotiations have been underway since October 1980, but no new agreement has been reached After the Respondent de- clared an impasse and implemented new work rules in March 1981, the Union put up an informational picket line for about 5 months in 1981 at the plant and also picketed at a golf tournament and a baseball game spon- sored by the Respondent. The parties returned to the bargaining table in June 1981, and the Union has picket- ed at the plant on several occasions since then. Roberts testified credibly that, prior to the time he began organizing in the advertising department, he often went into that department to place ads in the paper or to speak to friends, without incident. In February 1982, shortly after the campaign started, Roberts went to the plant on his day off to pick up his paycheck and while there stopped at the advertising department and spoke briefly with Shiny Shatto. He then went to the press- room where Pressroom Supervisor Lawrence Emery told him that he had just had a phone call from Richard Hendricks and that Roberts was no longer allowed to go into the advertising department Roberts and the union chapel chairmen went directly to Hendricks' office to ask him about this ban and Hendricks told Roberts "you can't be organizing over there while everybody's work- ing." Roberts said that he was not organizing but merely spoke with a friend for a moment Although Hendricks told Roberts that Rick Spears had said he was organiz- ing, he declined Roberts' request that Spears be called in to confront him." Roberts also testified that in January 1982 he had been having discussions with people in the mailroom concerning a possible merger of the mailers and the pressmen to form a single unit. While working on a Saturday night, Roberts had gone into the mailroom in order to get a cup of coffee from a coffee pot kept there, as pressmen often did. On the following Monday morning he was called into Emery's office Emery asked Roberts if he had been in the mailroom on Saturday night. When Roberts said he had been in there to get coffee, Emery asked him who he had talked to. Emery then said he "had a call about an incident down there" and that Roberts was no longer allowed to go into the mailroom Emery would not tell Roberts who had called him or what he had been told and said that the ban ap- plied only to Roberts not to other pressmen When Rob- erts asked if he was being ordered not to enter the mail- room, Emery said he was "suggesting" that he not do so. Subsequently, a notice was posted by the Respondent which stated that no one from the pressroom could go 18 Jane Allen testified without contradiction that on July 14 Roberts came into the department and talked with her in connection with placing an ad Five minutes later, Allen's supervisor, Bobble Cox, who had ob- served their conversation, called Allen on the phone and asked her why Roberts was "always bringing his ads in" When Allen said she did not know, Cox said, "Keep this under your hat, but we've been told to dis- courage people from other departments from coming in all the time" This occurred within a week of the day Hal Greene observed Allen speaking with Roberts in the lunchroom and told her it did not look good for her to be seen talking with Roberts Into the mailroom or any other department. However, when Roberts complained about it, the notice was taken down Roberts credibly testified that in July, during the first negotiating session between the Respondent and the building and maintenance unit, he mentioned to Richard Hendricks that he understood that his name had been "raked over the coals" in several management-produc- tion meetings. Hendricks replied that Roberts "was not the most liked employee in the building" and said that every time Roberts was seen talking to an employee, someone would come and tell Hendricks about it. When the subject of union organizing came up, Hendricks com- mented to Roberts that it was not hard to deal with a union organizer who was on the outside of the building, but it was difficult to deal with one who was in the building every day."" Besides having filed several unfair labor practice charges against the Respondent, Roberts' union activity brought him into conflict with Pressroom Foreman Clay- ton Patteson on several occasions. It was Patteson who discharged Roberts on September 28. Roberts testified that, in 1980, the Union and the Respondent were dis- cussing whether pressroom foremen should be a part of the bargaining unit. He asked the foremen to join him in advising management that they did not feel that they were supervisors as defined by the Act, but all of the foremen declined to do so. About the same time, the foremen began sitting on the management side of the table in grievance proceedings and, at times, caucusing with management during these proceedings. Based on this, and the influence the foremen had with other press- men, Roberts made a ruling that the foremen could no longer address union meetings concerning working con- ditions and contract matters and the ruling was upheld by the membership. Since the rule has been in effect, the foremen have not attended union meetings In the spring of 1981, the Union brought charges against Patteson and Foreman Hudson Owens for allegedly refusing to work overtime at the Union's request but doing so at the re- quest of management. After a trial on these charges, Pat- teson and Owens were fined $50, which they, at first, re- fused to pay. Under union rules, dues are not collected if a fine is not paid and, once dues are not paid for 3 months, a member is suspended from the Union. After 3 months passed, the union treasurer asked Patterson if he was going to pay the fine and he said, "No." Roberts called a meeting of all the pressmen during breaktime to discuss the matter and they went to the superintendent's office and informed Emery and Patteson that none of the pressmen would work as a backup pressrunner with a foreman who had dropped his union card That after- noon the foremen paid their fines and brought their dues up to date. In June 1982, one of the journeyman press- 19 Hendricks denied making this statement Based on their demeanor while testifying, and the corroborating testimony of James Slade who was present at the negotiating session, I credit the testimony of Roberts Although in his testimony Slade apparently confused what Hendricks ac- tually said, it is clear that he did hear Hendricks comment about inside and outside organizers. I find that Hendricks made the remark as attrib- uted to him by Roberts GREENSBORO NEWS CO 141 men had been laid off by the Respondent for economic reasons and Patteson brought an assistant foreman in on his day off to work overtime running a press Roberts asked Patteson to attend a union meeting to discuss this with the pressmen and Patteson refused Consequently, Roberts took the men on Patteson's crew into his office where Roberts told Patteson that he was not taking care of the men in the Union that had taken care of him for many years, that he was being used by management and that he seemed to have forgotten who his friends were On the morning of September 28, Roberts learned that they were "dragging a dead unit," meaning, a press was being run which was not being used to produce a prod- uct The press in question was being run in order to try to identify the source of a noise that had been heard in the press on a previous shift Roberts went to Patteson and informed him that, while he did not object to drag- ging the dead unit in order to identify a problem, work- ing on a dead unit was a violation of the work rules and none of the pressmen would work on it According to Roberts, Patteson got irritated and said he was not "going to order anybody to work on the damn thing" Roberts replied that he did not want to get in a fight about it, he just wanted Patteson to know his position so there would be no misunderstanding later On September 27 Roberts had a discussion with Hen- dricks concerning a grievance he had filed over the Re- spondent's use of building and maintenance employees to relieve guards during their lunchbreaks, which Roberts felt violated the building and maintenance unit's certifica- tion When they were unable to reach an agreement, Roberts told Hendricks that he felt very strongly about the matter and was going to the Labor Board On September 28, Roberts was assigned to work in the reel room on the first of the three levels taken up by the press, where the rolls of paper are loaded into reels and fed up through the floor to the printing units The con- tinuous sheet of paper extending up into the printing unit is called a web A web break occurs when the sheet of paper breaks completely When a web break occurs, any damaged paper must be removed and a new web created by tapering off the leading edge of the paper and attach- ing it to a tape which is drawn up through the printing unit by the crew on the next level As this is done, the person in the reel room turns the roll of paper to keep it slack The testimony of the experienced pressmen and su- pervisors, appearing as witnesses, establishes that web breaks at the Respondent's plant occur unpredictably, sometimes several times in a day, and other times there might not be one for several days 20 A web break can result from any number of causes, including among other things, damage to the paper, too much water on the paper, too much ink, cocked rollers, and trash falling into the web A web could be intentionally broken by striking it with one's hand One of the jobs of the press- men is to remove snags and tears found on the edge of 20 An analysis of the number of breaks occurring during the period of June through December 1982 was submitted and stipulated by the parties following the hearing and is received Into evidence as It Eat' 1 I find that this analysis which was not considered by the Respondent and had no bearing on its decision to discharge Roberts, has no probative value with respect to the Issues before me and I have not given it any weight the paper rolls, which might cause the web to break, by cutting them out with a knife issued to them for that pur- pose Roberts and others had been in the reel room prior to lunch preparing for the press run After lunch, the press was started up and Roberts went back into the reel room As the press started, there was a web break on unit 3 Roberts tapered and slacked the paper roll, it was pulled back into the unit, and the press was started again After running for a short time, the web in unit 3 broke again As it did, Roberts noticed a wad of paper come out of the roll, which he picked up and laid aside Patte- son testified that he went down to the reel room at that point to see what was wrong and saw the wad of paper fall out This, he said, "very likely" could have caused the web break After the press was rewebbed and had run off about 2000 newspapers, the web on unit 3 broke again taking the web on unit 2 with it Roberts testified that he had tapered off one of the units and was working on the second when Patteson came back down to the reel room He finished tapering the second unit and then he and Patteson slacked the two units off As he was slacking his unit he tore out a couple of tears in the edge of the paper with his fingers When his unit was done, Roberts went over to the one Patteson was slacking to finish it but, as it appeared to be about finished, he walked about 10 feet away and picked up a paper he had been reading and began to look it over while waiting for the press to start up again After Patteson left the reel room, Roberts went back over to a point between the two units and to await Patteson's signal from the floor above to turn on the air valves which put tension on the paper The paper was rotating slowly and, as Roberts put his hand on the air valve on unit 3, he noticed a small snag on the edge of the roll which he cut out with his knife He was still standing there awaiting Patteson's signal when Patteson came back into the reel room with Emery and told Roberts the roll of paper had been deliberately cut with a knife and that he was dismissed for deliberately slowing down production Patteson testified that he and Roberts were slacking the two units and Roberts said he would finish unit 2 which Patteson was working on As Patteson turned, he saw a cut in the paper on unit 3 about three-quarters of an inch into the paper from the edge and about a quarter of an inch deep, which he felt had been done with a knife Without speaking to Roberts, Patteson immediate- ly went upstairs to get Emery and brought him back to the reel room Upon returning to the reel room, Patteson saw that the cut in the roll had been repaired, that is, it had been cut off the roll Patteson told Emery that the roll of paper had been cut with a knife and turned to Roberts and told him he was dismissed for deliberately slowing down production Roberts asked Patteson if he had seen him cut the roll of paper and Patteson respond- ed by, again, telling Roberts he was dismissed for delib- erately slowing down production After being discharged, Roberts remained in the press- room for a while and observed two more web breaks on unit 3 Eventually, a security guard came and asked him 142 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD to leave but Roberts said he was waiting to see Hen- dricks who was out of the building at the time When Hendricks returned, Roberts and two other pressmen went to his office and asked him to discuss the discharge Hendricks refused, saying that a dismissal letter was being typed up Roberts asked Hendricks if he wanted to hear his side of the story and Hendricks said no Roberts went back to the pressroom and Emery brought him the dismissal letter Roberts told Emery he would not leave the building in order to protest his firing and Emery said Roberts could meet with Hendricks alone, but none of the other pressmen could be spared to go with him However, a short time later, two pressmen were permit- ted to accompany Roberts to Hendricks' office Roberts asked that Patteson be called in, but Hendricks refused They asked Hendricks to accompany them to the press- room so they could show him what they were talking about, but Hendricks declined, saying that they would have another meeting later Roberts returned to the pressroom, refusing to leave until he was eventually ar- rested and taken to jail for trespassing On the following day, a grievance meeting was held in which Roberts was permitted to tell his side of the story and another meeting was held 2 days later Roberts was given no other reason for being discharged other than that stated in the discharge letter, "deliberately slowing down production" Hendricks testified that he upheld Patteson's decision to discharge Roberts because he "be- lieved" Patteson At the second meeting, the Respond- ent, which had previously taken the position that since the pressmen's unit contract had expired there was no compulsory arbitration of grievances, offered to submit the matter to an arbitrator, but only if the Union agreed not to file an unfair labor practice charge with the Board The Union refused Analysis and Conclusion Even without taking into consideration any of the sub- stantial volume of evidence concerning Roberts' union activities at the Respondent's plant, and accepting Patte- son's testimony at face value, I find it difficult to believe that any reasonable mind would conclude that Roberts' dismissal was justified on the basis of the evidence in the record Roberts had been an exemplary employee for 16 years and was uniformly considered a good pressman even by Patteson, the man who discharged him Notwithstanding this record, Roberts was summarily dismissed for sabo- tage without any meaningful investigation on the Re- spondent's part and without giving Roberts the opportu- nity to explain his actions Patteson's actions upon find- ing what he considered to be a deliberate knife cut in a roll of paper and his conclusion that Roberts had caused the cut are neither reasonable nor logical under the cir- cumstances presented He testified that he saw the knife cut when he "glanced" at the roll on unit 3 for an "in- stant" while turning away from unit 2 Instead of exam- ining the cut more closely, Patteson, who wears eye- glasses at all times while working, immediately left the reel room, returning about 2 minutes later with Emery At that point, he was unable to find any cut in the roll or in the paper in the web, which had been moving at a "slow walk" and he made no attempt to find any of the between 50 and 100 pieces of paper which, according to Patteson, Roberts had cut out of the roll while he was out of the reel room getting Emery Although Patteson testified that he had "no idea" what caused the last web break on unit 3, one obvious possibility would have been the knife cut he saw in the paper on unit 3, which had reached the point where it was entering the web Patteson testified that he knew that the cut he saw was caused by a knife because he had previously seen such cuts which sometimes occurred when wrapping paper was being cut off the paper rolls It is possible that such a knife cut could have been made on the inside of the roll of paper on unit 3 and that it did not become visible until a large amount of paper had run off the roll If that were the case, there would be little basis for concluding that the cut was intentionally made, and even less for concluding that Roberts had done it, when any number of people had handled and had access to this roll of paper Roberts testified that he saw no such cut in the roll of paper when he rewebbed and slacked off unit 3 Even if the cut were there, and he had negligently failed to find it, he was not guilty of deliber- ate sabotage According to Patteson, the only possibility he consid- ered was that Roberts had deliberately cut the roll of paper after the last web break He first testified that he reached this conclusion because the cut was in the center of the roll and could only have been made from the top down However, he later contradicted himself by saying that the cut could have been made by sticking a knife into the side of the roll Patteson's analysis of the situa- tion also assumed that Roberts, having deliberately made a knife cut into the roll of paper, 21 left it in plain sight while Patteson was in the reel room, but then repaired the damage after Patteson had left even though he had given no indication that he had seen the cut Although there was a telephone in the reel room with which he could have called Emery and asked him to come to the reel room, Patteson did not use it When he went to Emery he did not tell him that Roberts had cut the paper but simply asked him to come to the reel room be- cause he had something he wanted to show him It was only after entering the reel room and seeing a cutout in 21 If, in fact, Roberts was seeking to slow production by causing an other web break he appears to have chosen a method that was among the least likely to succeed but the most likely to incriminate him The evi dence is clear that web breaks are often caused by snags in the paper caused when the heavy rolls of paper are laid on their sides on glass, rocks, and other debris found in the boxcars they are shipped in or when they are struck or dropped while being transported in the plant Such snags are commonplace and the Respondent issues knives to its pressmen to cut them out to prevent web breaks A knife cut in a roll of paper, while not unheard of, would certainly be more likely to raise suspicion, if found, than a snag As an experienced pressman, it seems likely that if Roberts wanted to cause a web break he would simulate a snag in the roll, rather than make the knife cut Patteson described At least one expe rienced pressman who testified felt that a three fourths inch smooth cut would not have caused a freak Another testified that a cut or snag is more likely to cause a web break when the paper is moving at high speed than while running slower Thus it would seem that if Roberts were seeeking to cause a web break he would wait until the press reached high speed rather than cutting paper that would go through as the press was starting up r+ GREENSBORO NEWS CO 143 the roll of paper, indicating that a repair had been made, that Patteson first said that he had seen a cut in the roll The action of Emery was no more reasonable Like Pat- teson, he made no effort to find the pieces of paper which had been cut out of the roll by Roberts and would have established that there had been a knife cut 22 and he apparently had no interest in hearing any explanation from Roberts Likewise, Hendricks, although admitting that he was "flabbergasted" by Roberts' discharge, re- fused to meet with him until the dismissal letter had been issued and then refused to discuss the matter with him until the next day When the foregoing facts are considered against the background of Roberts' substantial and continuous union activity at the Respondent's plant, which include enforc- ing the terms of the pressmen's collective-bargaining contract and work rules, organizing in other depart- ments, and filing unfair labor practice charges and testi- fying before the Board and the Respondent's knowledge of these activities, the Respondent's union animus, as demonstrated by the statement concerning unions in its employees' manual, the 8(a)(1) violations found herein and the antiunion comments of its executives Greene and Hendricks, and its precipitous discharge of Roberts, they convince me that the basis for Roberts' discharge was a pretext and he was, in fact, discharged because of union support and activity In similar circumstances, the fact that an employer made no meaningful effort to investigate alleged employ- ee misconduct or to give the employee the opportunity to explain before being discharged has been a significant factor in a finding of discrimination by the Board and the courts 23 It is particularly significant here because, if the roll of paper had been cut with a knife, there should have been a substantial amount of physical evidence available to establish this fact Both Patteson and Emery, who were present in the reel room immediately after the alleged knife cut had been repaired by Roberts, were in a position to pick up the cutouts and preserve them as cor- roborating evidence If the cutouts were not there, it would have established that Roberts had disposed of the evidence Their failure to even look for the cutouts strongly suggests that no such corroborating evidence existed and they knew it Hendricks, too, declined the pressmen's invitation to go to the reel room at a time when the cutouts should have been available As discussed above, even if Patteson's testimony con- cerning this incident is believed, his actions and conclu- sions are not supportable I did not find him to be a be- lievable witness and do not credit his testimony where it conflicts with Roberts, who was a credible and convinc- ing witness It appears that when Patteson came back to the reel room with Emery he had already made up his 22 While Patteson could have felt there was no need for proof of what he had seen, or thought he had seen, I find it incredible that Emery would have made no effort to pick up the corroborating physical evi dence or to determine that the paper that had been cut out of the roll was not on the reel room floor 23 See e g, Synco Corp 234 NLRB 550 (1978) Terminal Services Houston, 229 NLRB 1117 (1977) TIME DC Inc v NLRB, 504 F 2d 294 (5th Cir 1974), NLRB v Ayer Lar Sanitarium, 436 F 2d 45 (9th Cir 1970), US Rubber Co v NLRB 384 F 2d 660 (5th Cir 1967) mind to dismiss Roberts His statement to Roberts—"I hereby dismiss you for deliberately slowing down pro- duction"—which he repeated twice, sounded stilted and rehearsed The knife cut Patteson allegedly saw had not, up to that point, caused any slowdown Inasmuch as Roberts' credible testimony establishes that no knife cut existed, Patteson may very well have been accusing Rob- erts of having caused the prior web break, which Patte- son admitted at the hearing he had "no idea" how it had been caused The Respondent's argument that Patteson was solely responsible for Roberts' discharge and, because he was a union member with prounion sympathies, he must have been motivated by legitimate concerns, is not persuasive There was uncontradicted testimony that the Union had forced Patteson and other foremen who held union cards to choose between management and the Union by asking that they take the position that they were members of the bargaining unit They refused to do so and, shortly thereafter, began sitting with management during griev- ance proceedings which resulted in their being barred from speaking at union meetings Patteson admitted that he attended training sessions, production meetings, and social events which were restricted to management Pat- teson had several clashes with Roberts, in his capacity as union president, over work rules and had had embarrass- ing confrontat.c,—;; in front of his entire crew over his failure to pay a fine assessed against him by the Union, and his giving overtime work to an assistant foreman Pressman Dewey Wells testified credibly about a conver- sation he had with Patteson, a longtime friend, in Sep- tember 1981, in which Patteson, who had just had an angry discussion with Roberts about work rules, pointed to Roberts and told Wells, "he's going to keep on and keep on until he gets it "24 While Patteson discharged Roberts, Hendricks could have overruled this decision The record shows that Hendricks kept close watch on Roberts' actions at the Respondent's plant, unsuccessfully sought to limit Rob- erts' access to other departments and was unhappy with having to deal with an organizer (Roberts) who was inside the plant every day While Hendricks admitted that he was "flabbergasted" at the dismissal of Roberts and had never known Roberts to lie to him, he upheld Patteson's decision, in the absence of any objective evi- dence, because he "believed" him In summary, I find the Respondent's discharge of Rob- erts, an active and successful union activist, who at the time was seeking to organize the Respondent's advertis- ing department, had no reasonable basis and was a pre- text I also infer from this and the other evidence that the real reason for Roberts' discharge was his union ac- tivity Consequently, I find that the discharge of Roberts 24 Patteson denied making this statement I credit the testimony of Wells who is a current employee of the Respondent and unlikely to fabrt cate such a story I find this casts further doubt on Patteson s credibility as a witness Standing alone, this comment coming over a year before Roberts dismissal might be of little significance However the evidence shows that Roberts did keep on and keep on, last confronting Patteson over work rules on the morning of his discharge, and that he eventually did "get it from Patteson 144 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD was discriminatory and in violation of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act. 2 5 There is no way of telling to what extent Roberts' filing charges with the Board and his testimony at a Board hearing entered into his dismissal or Hendricks' decision to uphold it. I doubt that it was a significant factor It appears that Roberts' organizing activities were of far more concern to the Respondent than the unfair labor practice charges he filed with the Board, which Hendricks told Roberts he was not worried about since the only result would be a "slap on the hand." Under the circumstances, I find it unnecessary to determine wheth- er the Respondent also violated Section 8(a)(4) of the Act. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The Respondent, Greensboro News Company, is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 2. The Union is a labor organization within the mean- ing of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3. The Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by (a) threatening employees with reprisals for associat- ing with persons known to be union adherents and/or promoters of employees' protected concerted activities; (b) issuing a warning to employee Jane Allen because it thought she engaged in union or other protected activity; and (c) threatening employees with the loss of benefits because of their support for the Union. 4. The Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act by discharging employee James Roberts because of his support for and activities on behalf of the Union 5. The foregoing unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Sec- tion 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 6. The Respondent did not engage in unfair labor prac- tices alleged in the complaint not specifically found herein. THE REMEDY Having found that the Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices, I shall recommend that it be or- dered to cease and desist therefrom and take certain af- firmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. Having found that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act by discharging James Roberts, I shall recommend that the Respondent be ordered to offer Roberts immediate and full reinstatement to his former position or, if it no longer exists, to a substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to his seniority and other rights and privileges previously enjoyed, and to make him whole for any loss of earnings he may have suffered by reason of the discrimination against him. Backpay shall be computed in the manner prescribed in F. W. Woolworth Co., 90 NLRB 289 (1950), with interest to be paid on the amounts owing in accordance with Florida Steel Corp., 231 NLRB 651 (1977).26 28 Since this is not a "mixed motive" case, Wright Line does not apply 28 See generally Isis Plumbing Co, 138 NLRB 716 (1962) On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on the entire record, I issue the following recommend- ed27 ORDER The Respondent, Greensboro News Company, Greensboro, North Carolina, its officers, agents, succes- sors, and assigns, shall 1. Cease and desist from (a) Threatening employees with reprisals for associat- ing with persons known to be union adherents and/or promoters of employees' protected concerted activities. (b) Issuing warnings to employees because it believes they have engaged in union or other protected concerted activities. (c) Threatening employees with loss of benefits be- cause of their support for the Union or any other labor organization. (d) Discharging, or otherwise discriminating against employees in regard to hire or tenure of employment, or any term or condition of employment because of their union or protected concerted activities. (e) In any like or related manner interfering with, re- straining, or coercing employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action designed to ef- fectuate the policies of the Act. (a) Offer James Roberts immediate and full reinstate- ment to his former position of employment, or if that po- sition no longer exists, to a substantially equivalent posi- tion, 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 discrimination against him in the manner set forth in the remedy section of the decision. (b) 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 analyze the amount of backpay due under the terms of this Order. (c) Expunge from its records and files any references to the discharge of James Roberts and the warning issued to Jane Allen on July 30, 1982, and notify them in writing that this is being done and that the evidence of the unlawful discharge and warning will not be used as a basis for future personnel actions against them." (d) Post at its Greensboro, North Carolina plant copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix." 28 Copies of " 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 28 See Sterling Sugars, 261 NLRB 472 (1982) 29 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 Na- tional Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the Nation- al Labor Relations Board" GREENSBORO NEWS CO 145 the notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 11, 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 (1) Notify the Regional Director in writing within 20 days from the date of this Order what steps the Re- spondent has taken to comply IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the consolidated com- plaint be dismissed insofar as it alleges violations not spe- cifically found herein