Sheboygan Chair Co.

In the Matter of SHEBOYGAN CHAIR COMPANY and FURNITURE WORK- ERs & FINISHERS , LOCAL 133-B, OF THE UPHOLSTERERS INTERNATIONAL UNION OF NORTH AMERICA (A. F. OF L.) Case No. C-1841-5.-Decided July 21, 1941 Jurisdiction : furniture manufacturing industry. Unfair Labor Practices Discrimination: employee discharged because of his complaint at union meeting concerning wages and working conditions. Remedial Orders: reinstatement and back pay awarded; back pay not awarded between date of Intermediate Report to date of Order in view of Trial Exam- iner's recommendation that complaint be dismissed. Mr. Frederick P. Mett, for the Board. Bassuener, Humke & Poole, by Mr. H. S. Hwm,ke and Mr. Paul L: Axel, of Sheboygan, Wis., for the respondent. Mr. David Rabinovitz, of Sheboygan, Wis., for the Union. Mr. Raymond J. Compton, of counsel to the Board. DECISION AND ORDER STATEMENT OF THE CASE Upon charges and amended charges duly filed by Furniture Work- ers & Finishers, Local 133-B, of the Upholsterers International Union of North America (A. F. of L.), herein called the Union, the National Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board, by the Regional .Di- rector for the Twelfth Region (Milwaukee, Wisconsin), issued its complaint dated December 10, 1940, against Sheboygan Chair Com- pany, Sheboygan, Wisconsin, herein called the respondent, alleging that the respondent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8 (1) and (3) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called the Act. Copies of the complaint, accom- panied by notices of hearing, were duly served upon the respondent and the Union. With respect to the unfair labor practices, the complaint alleged in substance: (1) that on or about May 4, 1940, the respondent dis- 33 N. L. R. B., No. 125. 710 SHEBOYGAN CHAIR COMPANY 711 charged and thereafter refused to reinstate William Moegenburg be- cause of his membership in and activities on behalf of the Union; and (2) that by the afore-mentioned acts, the respondent interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. On December 21, 1940, the respondent filed its answer to the com- plaint, denying that it had engaged in the unfair labor practices alleged therein, and alleging affirmatively that Moegenburg was dis- charged because of neglect in the performance of his necessary duties. Pursuant to notice,•and notices of postponement, a hearing was held at Sheboygan, Wisconsin, from February 17 to 19, 1941, inclusive, before James C. Batten, the Trial Examiner duly designated by the Chief Trial Examiner. The Board and the respondent were repre- sented by counsel and participated in the hearing. Full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce ,evidence bearing on the issues was afforded all parties. At the close of the hearing, counsel for the Board moved to conform the pleadings to the proof. The motion was granted. The Trial Examiner re- served ruling on a motion by the respondent to dismiss the complaint, which he granted in his, Intermediate Report. At the close of the hearing, the parties presented oral argument, and the respondent filed a brief with the Trial Examiner. The Trial Examiner thereafter filed his Intermediate Report, dated March 22, 1941, copies of which were duly served upon the parties, in which he found that the respondent had not engaged in the alleged unfair labor practices and recommended that the complaint be dis- missed. Thereafter the Union filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and a brief in support of its exceptions but did not request oral argument. On May 15, 1941, the respondent filed a brief in reply to the exceptions filed by the Union. The Board has considered the briefs and the exceptions to the Intermediate Report and, in so far as the exceptions are inconsistent with the findings, conclusions, and order set forth below, finds them to be without merit. Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following : FINDINGS OF FACT I. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT Sheboygan Chair Company, a Wisconsin corporation, has its office and principal place of business at Sheboygan, Wisconsin, where it is engaged in the manufacture and sale of chairs and tables. In recent years the respondent annually has purchased raw materials valued at between. approximately .$110;000, 'and $120,000, of which over 40 per cent were shipped from points outside the State of Wisconsin. 712 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD The respondent's yearly sales of manufactured products amount in value to approximately $350,000, of which approximately 85 per cent are shipped to States other than Wisconsin. The respondent employs approximately 200 employees, 160 of which are engaged in production, work. II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED Furniture Workers & Finishers, Local 133-B, of the Upholsterers Intern ational Union of North America, affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, is a labor organization admitting to membership employees'of the respondent. III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Background of the unfair labor practices After two unsuccessful attempts to organize the respondent's em- ployees in 1934 and 1937, the Union conducted a third organizational campaign in the fall of 1939. On March 15, 1940, a consent election held by the Board resulted in a majority vote for the Union. There- after the respondent negotiated with the Union concerning the terms of a proposed contract. During the late spring of 1940 these negotia- tions were terminated without the parties arriving at an agreement. B. The discriminatory discharge William Moegenburg started working as a yardman in the respond- ent's plant in May 1933. He continued in this capacity for a period of 5 months, at which time the entire yard crew was laid off. Shortly after Moegenburg's lay-off he applied to the respondent for a position as fireman . He started firing in February 1934, working continuously until May 3, 1940, when he was discharged. Except for 2 or 3 weeks- prior to his discharge, Moegenburg worked on one of the night shifts. Sometime in April,1940, the shifts of the firemen were rearranged so that Moegenburg worked 8 hours a day, from 12 midnight to 8 a. in. on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday, and 12 hours a day,, 12 midnight to 12 noon, on Friday and Saturday. Moegenburg joined the Union in 1934 but discontinued his membership after 1937. He again joined the Union following the consent election of March 15,. 1940. A day or two before the election John Nelson, engineer at the re -spondent's plant and imediate superior over the firemen, separately informed the three firemen , Moegenburg, Frank Yankovich, and Palmer E. Twist, that there was going to be an election and that all of them were entitled to vote. Moegenburg testified that in reply -he- SHEBOYGAN CHAIR COMPANY 713 told Nelson that he did not know if he would vote or not and that Nelson then said to him, "You used to be a strong union man before and you know what that got you." Nelson denied making this re- mark, and stated that he did not know that Moegenburg had ever belonged to the Union. The Trial Examiner credited Nelson's testi- mony. We find that Nelson did not make the remark above attributed to him by Moegenburg. Shortly after the election, the Union held a meeting at which Moe- genburg was the only fireman to attend. When asked by the union organizers what wages and working conditions were desired by the firemen, Moegenburg stated that the firemen worked 7 days a week and that he would like 1 -day off, or, if possible, a 5-day week and a wage'rate of 60 cents an hour as was in effect at a local tannery. Moe- genburg was the only one of the three firemen who joined the Union and attended the union meeting. Herman Burbach, international representative of the Union, testi- fied that thereafter during negotiations with the respondent relative 1 o a proposed contract, he informed Harry T. McNeill, president and director of labor relations of the respondent, that their firemen were working 7 days a week allegedly in violation of State law, and that one of the firemen had requested a wage increase which would corre- spond favorably to those paid by the local tannery and other firms in the vicinity. McNeill testified that he did not remember all the terms and conditions of employment requested for the firemen by the Union, but that he did remember a discussion as to the firemen working 7 days a week. He further testified that after meeting with the union repre- sentatives he investigated the working hours of the firemen, and that Hamilton, plant superintendent, was instructed to have the firemen arrange their schedule so that each man could have 1 day off in 7, or if the firemen preferred, to hire an extra fireman with a corresponding reduction in their wages. Hamilton testified that Braasch, secretary- treasurer of the respondent who was present during the foregoing ne- gotiations with the Union, informed him of the complaint concerning the working hours of the firemen and told him to discuss the rearrange- ment of such hours with Nelson, the engineer. Hamilton testified that he saw Nelson that same day and that he also talked to Moegen- burg. Moegenburg testified that,, as he and Twist were talking to Nelson concerning the proposed change in hours, Hamilton came into the engine room and "bawled me out for squawking to other people and not coming to him." Hamilton admitted that he told Moegen- burg "that if he had any complaints to make 'or any beefing to do that-he should come to me about it, meaning that I had. heard these rumors in the factory." There is no evidence, however, that Moegen- burg had complained to anyone concerning either wages or hours 714 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD other than at the union meeting. We are unable to agree with the conclusion of the Trial Examiner that Hamilton's remark was in no way related to Moegenburg's statement at the union meeting. In view of all the evidence, we are convinced that Hamilton was referring to Moegenburg's wage and hour requests at the union meeting, and we find that Hamilton's remark was intended as a reprimand to Moe- genburg for complaining to the Union rather than coming to Hamil- ton with his grievances and to discourage union activity. On May 3, 1940, Moegenburg was working on the shift from 12 midnight to 12 noon. When Nelson, the chief engineer, arrived at the plant that morning, he removed the caps from the tubes of one of the boilers not then in use and instructed Moegenburg to clean them. When Moegenburg finished his shift at 12 noon, he had cleaned only a few of the caps. The following day, Moegenburg returned to the plant to obtain his pay check, and was told by Nelson that he was discharged because the day before he had not finished cleaning the boiler caps as instructed. Regarding Moegenburg's failure to clean the caps, Nelson testified that on May 3 he came to work before 8 a. m. and at 8: 30 had removed 18 caps from the boiler tubes, washed them, and set them out to dry. His testimony regarding the incident continues as follows : Then I said to Bill, I said, "Bill, you clean those caps." He said, "Yes, I know how to clean the caps." I said, "I know you do, but I'll show you, anyhow," so he came over there and I showed him. Then I went away. I went back in the engine room. That was about a few minutes after 9 o'clock. I happened to look up at the gauge and I saw that the steam was going down. Then I looked at Bill and I saw that he was cleaning the caps a little bit. Then I said to Bill, I said, "Don't forget the steam." He said, "No, I won't." I said, "It is going down." He said, "I'll fire up." So then I went back in the engine room and I looked over the engine, filled up the oil can, filled the crank pins, looked at the pressure, then I started the pump. That was about ten minutes to 10. So then I looked at the pump, and different things, because I wanted to see how long it would take him; so then I went to the boiler room, and Bill was standing there firing up. There was no wood there at that time. SHEBOYGAN CHAQ+R COMPANY 715• Q. There was no what? A. No wood around there at that time. So I went up on top of the platform and I said, "Bill, keep the pressure up to 115 pounds, keep it at 115 pounds so you won't have too much pressure here." He said, "All right." So then all of a sudden the wood started coming up; and I got about nine tubes done, that's about a half a row, then I went to the engine room again to see how everything was going; and ... and I looked over the engine, felt the bars and the crank pins to see that the oil was all right, looked at the time, then I walked back out into the boiler room again. - In the meantime when I was turbining, I could notice that there was one load of crooked wood come out there, one load of wood from the ripsaw from the east end, that a load of wood come in from the ripsaw, two loads of shavings, two wheelbarrow loads of blocks come out in the time I was turbining. So I got through at 11 o'clock with my turbining, and I says to Bill, I says, "Bill, I'm through with my job" He said, "Yes, and I got through shoveling in the wood, too." So I said, "Yes, now you can go back to your cap cleaning." He didn't say nothing, and I walked back in, the engine room. That was a little after 11 o'clock. So I shut my pump off and went around the engine again, and I was going to walk back in the boiler room when Bill came in there and wanted some first aid. I forget what it was. It must have been a mashed finger, or something, maybe a cut on his finger; and that took me some time. By that time I had to go back to work, so I went back in the boiler room to see what Bill was doing. It was then about 11: 30, so I come around in between the boilers, because I wanted to see where the caps were. Apparently he cleaned some of the caps; so I went back in the engine room again because I had a new man coining, and I wanted to know how the oil was, and to show him; so I showed him where the oil was. By the time I got through showing him where the oil was, it was about a quarter to 12. So I walked around the engine once more to see that everything was 0. K. again , and I put a little oil in the boxes, and before I knew it, why, it was 12 o'clock. So then I blew the whistle at 12 o'clock, then I sat down to eat my dinner. I heard Bill washing up in the washroom. I was still eating my dinner when Bill come along, and he says, "Well. 716 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD I'm going to get some sleep now," and he turned to me and laughed and walked out.' Moegenburg testified 'that after Nelson instructed him to clean the caps nothing more was said about them that morning, and that when he was able to return to work on them after 11 o'clock, he did not have time to finish the job before 12 o'clock because he was forced to stop every so often to "smash up some coal" and fire the boiler. Nelson further testified that when Yankovich, the fireman whose shift followed Moegenburg's, came to work that day at 12 o'clock, he came running into the engine room and said, "Come out here for a minute. I want to show you something," and that when he ' went into the boiler room Yankovich said, "Look here, see what Bill left me this time, all the caps to clean. 'Why didn't he clean them him- self?' Nelson stated that he then told Yankovich to leave the caps until he showed them to Hamilton, plant superintendent, and that at 1 o'clock he called Hamilton to see them. Yankovich, however, did not testify that he complained to Nelson. He testified that when he came to work he saw five or six caps cleaned, and that he asked Moe- genburg if that was "all the caps you cleaned." Yankovich then testified : So,I didn't say nothing else. I knew that somebody have to clean, them, so I put my boiler in shape for the afternoon run, and I blew the flues, blowed the boiler down, put water in the heater, then I know that somebody have to done that work, so then I start after I get the boiler all ready. So,then Mr. Nelson come there after he is through eating din- ner; he come there to the fire hold and he said "How many caps is there that was cleaned by Bill?" And I,said, "Five, and I clean two already." So then we quit until 1 o'clock, so then the superintendent.. . At 1 o'clock Mr. Nelson call Mr. Hamilton, and Mr. Hamilton come with Nelson together to see the work over, and Hamilton, he saythat he see that man don't care for the work. Ire credit the foregoing testimony of Yankovich, and find that Nelson first approached Yankovich with reference to MoegeDburg's' failure to clean the caps. It'wks the customary practice for the firemen on the day shift to clean the boiler caps, and prior to May 3 Moegenburg,.who worked -on the night shift,' had cleaned them only three or four times. It appears that the last occasion on which Moegenburg had -cleaned the I Italics supplied. SHEBOYGAN CHADR CO'MP'ANY 717 caps was in 1937 when Yankovich was injured and Moegenburg re- placed him on the shift from 4 p. in. to midnight. Nelson testified that 2 or 3 weeks prior to May 3, Palmer Twist, the third and oldest fireman in point of service, had told him that Moegenburg had said that "he wasn't going to clean the capsi that it wasn't the fireman's job and nobody can make him clean those caps, either," and that on May 3 he finally had an opportunity to see whether or not Moegenburg would refuse to clean the caps. Twist, however, testified that all he had ever heard Moegenburg say was that "it wasn't the fireman's job" to clean the caps. There is no showing that Moegenburg refused to clean the caps or that he was instructed to work overtime in order to complete cleaning them, and Nelson's own account of the incident, -as set forth above, reveals that Moegenburg was busy most of the morning, and that he was unable to resume cleaning the caps until 11 o'clock. Thereafter, according to Moegenburg's uncontradicted -testimony, he was again interrupted by his firing duties and did not .have time to finish the caps before the end of his shift. In view of all the evidence and particularly Nelson's admission that he took the op- portunity on May 3 to verify Moegenburg's alleged statement that he -would not clean the caps, his close observation of Moegenburg there- after, and his undue precaution in establishing proof of Moegenburg's -failure to clean the caps by instructing Yankovich not to finish clean- ing them until he had summoned Hamilton, we find that Nelson had endeavored to create the appearance of dereliction in Moegenburg's performance of the duties assigned to him as part of a preconceived .plan to utilize the incident as an ostensible basis for his discharge. The respondent also contends that, while Moegenburg's refusal to clean the caps was the immediate cause of his discharge, consideration was also given to Moegenburg's failure properly to perform his other duties, principally by not burning his share of the wood shavings .and trimmings in firing the boiler. Yankovich testified that Moegen- .burg would burn coal and leave most of the shavings and trimmings, :which were more difficult to handle, for Yankovich to burn. Yanko- -vich further testified that on one occ.,ision-he came to work and found the shavings scattered over 'the, boiler-room floor, and that he had learned from Kuether, the ; night ; watchman, that Moegenburg had told Kuether that he had scattered the shavings to as to make addi- tional work for Yankovich. Nelson also testified that when Yanko- -vich^.reported the inciderit^ he likewise talked to Kuether about it. Kuether, who is no longer employed by the respondent, did not testify. Moegenburg denied that he had intentionally scattered the shavings, and offered the explanation that "more than once" the blowers had scattered the shavings on the boiler-room floor. In view of Moegen- burg's denial and the failure of Kuether to testify, we do not believe 718 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD that the evidence is sufficient to support a finding that Moegenburg deliberately scattered the shavings on the occasion in question, as testified to by Nelson and Yankovich. Yankovich admitted on cross- examination that except for the shavings question, he had no trouble with Moegenburg during his employment. Twist, the other fireman, testified that Moegenburg did not burn as many shavings as he should, and that while he and Moegenburg "used to have a few spats now and then . . . just little arguments, for the last couple of years we didn't even have them. We worked right along. Things went right along." Moreover, although Nelson testi- fied that for 5 years he had received complaints from the other firemen concerning Moegenburg's failure to burn his share of shavings, and that Moegenburg and the other night firemen were "always arguing about the shavings question," he admitted that it was "not a very seri- ous problem." Nelson further admitted that, upon investigation, the complaints by the firemen concerning Moegenburg sometimes were merited and that at other times they were not. Nelson also testified that he had complained to Hamilton only once about Moegenburg not burning his share of the shavings, and that was about 3 or 4 months prior to his discharge. Hamilton testified that on that occasion he did not talk to Moegenburg, but told Nelson that "the best thing for him to do was to talk with the man: and to, straighten him out on it." The events immediately preceding lpegenbur;'s discharge; as set forth above, convincingly show that he was dismissed because of his. complaint at the union meeting, and not because of his alleged ineffi- ciency or deliberate refusal to perform the duties assigned to him., Although the respondent asserts that Moegenburg's failure to burn his share of the shavings was 'a source of complaint for over 5 years, it admittedly caused no serious problem. It is significant that only after Moegenburg had presented demands at the union meeting with regard to the wages and working conditions of the firemen did his alleged deficiencies attract the serious attention of the respondent. Immediately thereafter the plant superintendent reprimanded him- for "squawking to other people." This expression of hostility to- wards Moegenburg's union activity, coupled with the baiting tactics employed, by Nelson with respect to the carp=cleaning incident and the respondent's lack of serious regard for Moegenburg's failure to burn his share of the shavings, convince us that the respondent utilized Moegenburg's failure to clean the caps and his other alleged deficien- cies as a pretext for discharging him because of his complaint at the union meeting. We find that the respondent, by discharging William Moegenburg .on May 4, 1940, and thereafter refusing to reinstate him, discriminated in regard to his hire and tenure of employment, thereby discouraging SHEBOYGAN CHAIR COMPANY 719 membership in a labor organization and interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LAF-)R PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE We find that the activities of the respondent set forth in Section 111 B above, occurring in connection with the operations of the re- spondent described in Section I above, have a close, intimate, and sub- stantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce. V. THE REMEDY We have found that the respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices. We will, therefore , order the respondent to cease and desist therefrom and to take certain affirmative action which we find will effectuate the policies of the Act.2 We have found that the respondent discriminatorily discharged and thereafter refused to reinstate William Moegenburg because of his membership and activity in the Union. We shall , therefore, order the respondent to offer Moegenburg immediate reinstatement to his former or a substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to his seniority and other rights and privileges. We will also order the respondent to make him whole for any loss of pay he has suffered by reason of the respondent's discrimination . Since, however, the Trial Examiner did not recommend that Moegenburg be reinstated , we shall order the respondent to pay him a sum of money equal only to the amount he normally would have earned as wages from the date of his discharge to March 22 , 1941 , the date of the Intermediate Report, and from the date of this Order to the offer of reinstatement , less his net earnings 3 during said periods 4 2 See National Labor Relations Board v. Entwistle Manufacturing Company (C. C. A 4), decided June 10, 1941 , enforcing as modified Matter of Entwistle Manufacturing Company and Textile Workers Union of America, 23 N. L R . B. 1058. i By "net earnings" is meant earnings less-expenses, such as for transportation, room, and board, incurred by an employee in connection with obtaining work and working else- where than for the respondent , which would not have been incurred but for his unlawful discharge and the consequent necessity of his seeking employment elsewhere . See Matter of Crossett Lumber Company and United Brotherhood- of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Lumber and Sawmill Workers Union, Local 6590, 8 N. L. R . B 440. Monies received for work performed upon Federal , State, county , municipal, or other work-relief projects shall be considered as earnings. See Republic Steel Corporation v. N. L. R. B., 311 U. S. 7. 4 See Matter of E. R. Haffelfinger Co., Inc., and United Wall Paper Crafts of North America, Local No. 6, 1 N. L. R. B. 700. 720 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following : CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1.' Furniture Workers & Finishers, Local 133-B, of the Upholsterers International Union of North America, affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, is a labor organization, within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act. 2. By discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employ- ment of William Moegenburg, thereby discouraging membership in Furniture Workers & Finishers, Local 133-B, of the Upholsterers International Union of North America, affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, the respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices, within the meaning of Section 8 (3) of the Act. 3. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the re- spondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices, within the meaning of Section 8 (1) of the Act. 4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce, within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. ORDER Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and conclusions of law, and pursuant to Section 10 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the re- spondent, Sheboygan Chair Company, Sheboygan, Wisconsin, and its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall : 1. Cease and desist from : (a) Discouraging membership in Furniture Workers & Finishers, Local 133-B, of the Upholsterers International Union of North Amer- ica, affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, or any other labor organization of its employees, by discriminating in regard to their hire and tenure of employment or any terms or conditions of employment; (b) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through rep- resentatives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted activi- ties for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, as guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. SHEBOYGAN CHAIR COMPANY 721 2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will effectuate the policies of the Act : (a) Offer to William Moegenburg immediate and full reinstatement to his former or substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to his seniority and other rights and privileges; ' (b) Make whole said William Moegenburg for any loss of pay he may have suffered by reason of the respondent's discrimination against him by payment to him of a sum of money equal to that which he would normally have received as wages from the date of his discharge to March 22, 1941, and from the date of this Order to the date of the offer of reinstatement, less his earnings during said periods; (c) Immediately post notices to its employees in conspicuous places throughout its plant, and maintain such notices for a period of at least sixty (60) days from the date of posting, stating (1) that the respondent will not engage in the conduct from which it is ordered to, cease and desist in paragraphs 1 (a) and (b) of this Order; (2) that it will take the affirmative action set forth in paragraphs 2 (a) and (b) of this Order; and (3) that its employees are free to become or remain members of Furniture Workers & Finishers, Local 133-B, of the Up- holsterers International Union of North America, affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, and that it will not discriminate against any employee because of membership or activity in said labor organization ; (d) Notify the Regional Director for the Twelfth Region in writ- ing within ten (10) days from the date of this Order what steps the respondent has taken to comply herewith.