McLain Fire Brick Co.

DECISIONS AND ORDERS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD In the Matter of MCLAIN FIRE BRICK COMPANY and UNITED BRICK CLAY WORKERS OF AMERICA, AFFILIATED WITH THE AMERICAN FED- ERATION OF LABOR Case No. C-1919.-Decided October 10, 1941 Jurisdiction : fire brick and clay products manufacturing industry. Unfair Labor Practices. Interference, Restraint, and Coercion : discriminatory enforcement of company rule forbidding union activity on company property while permitting similar activity by company-dominated union, held to constitute interference, restraint, and coercion. Company-Doncinated Union: failure of employer to announce publicly and unequivocally to employees upon enactment of Act that it was severing all connection with labor organization established by Company prior to Act held to violate Section 8 (2) of Act. Remedial Orders: disestablishment of dominated organization ordered. Mr. Harry Brownstein, for the Board. Reed, Smith, Shaw cC McClay , by Mr. John C. Bane, Jr., and Mr. Seward H. French, of Pittsburgh, Pa., for the respondent. Mr. Robert A. Wilson, of Washington, D. C., for the Union. M. Charles W. Schneider , of counsel to the Board. DECISION AND ORDER STATEMENT OF THE CASE Upon an amended charge duly filed on May 6, 1941,1 by United Brick & Clay Workers of America, affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, herein called the Union, the National Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board, by the Regional Director for the Sixth Region (Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania), issued its com- plaint dated May 8, 1941, against McLain Fire Brick Company, ?The original charge was filed on July 29, 1940. 36 N. L. R. B., No. 1. 1 433118-42-vol. 36--2 2 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, 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 (2) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor Rela- tions Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called the Act. Copies of the com- plaint, accompanied by notice of hearing, were duly served upon the respondent, the Union, and the Plan of Employee Representation, herein called the Plan. With respect to the unfair labor practices, the complaint alleged in substance that on and after July 5, 1935, the respondent, at its six plants, dominated and interfered with the formation and admin- istration of a labor organization known as'the Plan, and contributed financial and other support thereto; that certain of its officials made statements to the employees in which they discouraged membership and activities in behalf of the Union and encouraged membership in the Plan; and that by such and other acts and conduct the respondent interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. On May 22, 1941, the respondent filed its answer admitting certain allegations as to the nature of its business, but denying the alleged unfair labor practices. Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held on May 26, 27, 28, and 29, 1941, at - Beaver, Pennsylvania, before Howard Myers, the Trial Examiner duly designated by the Chief Trial Examiner. The Board and the respondent were represented by counsel and participated in the hearing.2 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 opening of the hearing, counsel for the Board moved to amend paragraph 4 of the complaint to include the names of three additional officials of the respondent as having made statements and committed certain acts which discouraged mem- bership in the Union and encouraged membership in the Plan. The respondent moved to amend its answer to include a denial of this new matter. Both motions were granted without objection. At the close of the hearing, counsel for the Board moved to conform the complaint to the proof and counsel for the respondent moved to conform the answer to the proof. Both motions were granted with- out objection. At the close of the hearing, the respondent's counsel moved to dismiss the complaint. The Trial Examiner reserved ruling upon the motion, and thereafter denied it in his Intermediate Report. During the course of the hearing the Trial Examiner made several 2 A represent ative of the Plan appeared at the hearing , but entered no formal appearance and took no part in the proceedings. The Union was not . represented at the hearing but Appeared by o: unsel at the oral argument. McLAIN FIRE BRICK COMPANY 3 rulings on objections to the admission of evidence. The Board has reviewed. the rulings of the Trial Examiner and finds that no prejudicial errors were committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. On June 25, 1941, the Trial Examiner filed an Intermediate Report, copies of which were duly served upon the parties, in' which he found that the respondent had engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (1) and (2) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act and recommended that it cease and desist therefrom, and take certain affirmative remedial action. On August 5, 1941, the respondent filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report. Pursuant to notice duly served upon the parties, a hearing for the purpose of oral argument was held before the Board in Wash- ington, D. C., on August 26, 1941. The respondent and the Union were represented by counsel and participated in the argument. . The Board has considered the exceptions filed by the respondent to the Intermediate Report and, except in so far as they are consistent 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 McLain Fire Brick Company. is a Delaware corporation having its principal executive office in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. It is en- gaged in the manufacture, sale, and distribution of fire brick, clay products, and related commodities. It owns and operates six plants located at Merrill Station and St. Charles, Pennsylvania, and at Wellsville, Irondale, and New Salisbury, Ohio.3 It' ships to and through States other than those in which its products are produced more than ' 50 per cent of the bricks manufactured. The bricks so transported aggregate more than 500,000 per month, and their value averages in excess of $25 per thousand bricks. On February 15, .1941, the respondent had a total of 562 production employees at its six plants. II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED United Brick & Clay Workers . of America, affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, is a labor organization admitting to membership employees of the respondent. Plan of Employee Representation is an unaffiliated labor organi- zation admitting to membership only employees of the respondent. The Champion and the Buckeye plants are located at Wellsville, Ohio. 4 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Domination of and interference with the Plan, and support thereto . In-June 1933 a meeting of the employees of the respondent's Dando, or Merrill Station, plant was held for the purpose of forming an "inside union." 4 The meeting was held in the yard of the plant on a Sunday afternoon. About 75 employees attended. George W. Dando, for the past three years the respondent's vice president, for many years prior to that its general superintendent, and throughout this period in charge of its labor relations, testified that he talked with the men and told them that they might form an "inside union" if they- so desired, and that he would be glad to give them any assistance he could. Pursuant to this suggestion an organization was formed. No election was held among the employees to de- termine whether they wanted the organization. Dando and other of the respondent's officials thereupon proceeded to draft bylaws for a labor organization, to which the name "Plan of Employee Representation" was attached. This Plan was immediately put into effect at the Dando plant and, between June and August 1933, at all the respondent's other plants except the Champion plant, with- out modification or ratification by the employees.5 Thus, within 2 months, the identical plan of organization was inaugurated at 5 plants, 2 of them seventy-five miles apart, under similar circum- stances. Dando and other of the respondent's officials drafted the bylaws. The respondent had them multigraphed. The supply was retained by Dando and a copy given by him to each representative. There was no distribution to employees generally. Most of the em- ployee-witnesses, other than representatives, stated that they had never seen the bylaws. Although the Plan was inaugurated sepa- rately at all plants, the technique of organization was the same in all cases. Dando's explanation of the genesis of the- Plan ,•is one of spon- taneous generation." That thesis is not corroborated by any of the witnesses, even the respondent's. The evidence clearly shows that 4 Events occurring prior to July 5, 1935, the effective date of the Act, are considered- in order to evaluate the respondent's conduct since that date , and not, as the basis for any findings of unfair labor practices . See National Labor Relations Board v . Pennsylvania Greyhound Lines, Inc., at al.j 303 U . S. 261 , rev'g 91 F. ( 2d) 178 (C. C. A. 3), and enf'g Matter of Pennsylvania Greyhound Lines, Inc., et al., and Local Division No. 1063 of the Amalagamated Association of Street, Electric Railway and Motor Coach Employees of America, 1 N. L. R. B. 1. c The Plan was put into effect at the Champion plant in 1935 , likewise without modifica- tion or ratification. 6 Dando testified that the employees "got to thinking about" unionization , that there was "quite a sentiment in the air that we should have representation ," that various em- ployees suggested meeting with him, and that the Sunday gathering resulted therefrom. MCLAIN FIRE BRICK COMPANY Jr the plan was, in fact, the respondent's own creation. Five witnesses 7 testified that they first heard of the Plan when instructions to elect representatives came from the supervisors, or from Dando himself, or that "word reached us to elect representatives" or that "it was just presented to us." The organizational meeting at the Dando plant was mainly festive in character. There was no leadership other than Dando's. The employees offered no program. Under the Plan no provision was made for formal membership, for the collection of dues, or for the holding of meetings of employees. Accurately speaking, there was, as Dando testified, no "member- ship" at all. All persons in the respondent's employ for 60 days or more were permitted to participate in the Plan. Each plant was divided into departments and the qualified employees of each de- partment would, once a year, elect a coworker as representative of their department. The representative held office for a year unless he resigned or was removed.8 Although the bylaws did not of them- selves impose any restrictions as to the eligibility of representatives such a restriction existed de facto-it being generally assumed by the men that representatives were required to be employees of the re- spondent, and of the particular department they represented. As soon as the Plan was put into effect at a particular plant the qualified employees thereat elected their representatives who im- mediately met with Dando, and received from him a copy of the aforementioned bylaws.9 The representatives of each plant there- after met with Dando once a month for the discussion of grievances and working conditions.1° The Plan did not enter into any contract with the respondent regarding wages, hours, or working conditions 11 Dando testified that no such agreement was ever requested ,by the organization. ' All from different plants, one no longer an employee , and another not a member of the Union: $ Despite its informal structure , it is clear that the Plan is a labor organization-within the meaning of the Act . Section 2 ( 5) of the Act defines the term "labor organization" to mean "any organization of any kind . . . or employee representation committee or plan, in which employees participate and which exists for the purpose , in whole or in part, of dealing with employers concerning grievances , labor disputes , wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, or conditions of work." See Matter of Phillips Petroleum Company and Oil Workers International Union, Local No. 309, 24 N . L. It. B.. No. 23. Moreover, the respondent admitted in its . answer that the plan was a labor organization within the meaning of the Act. 8 The respondent also-purchased and paid for about 30 Fabrikoid covers in which the bylaws were placed . The covers cost approximately 50 to 60 cents each . The respondent likewise supplied the ballot boxes used at the elections. 11 Each summer Dando took a month 's vacation during which time the representatives did not meet with the management . Most of the meetings were held after working hours. 11 Dando testified that changes were sometimes made in wage rates or working condi- tions as a result of grievances presented by the representatives , and that some of these changes were entered into a "Code Book ," which was the property of the respondent. He asserted , however, that though the provisions of the Code Book were unilateral in char- acter, the respondent considered ' itself bound by them. 6 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD The passage of the Act in 1935 brought no substantial change in the Plan or in its activities.12 Dando testified that immediately after the passage of the Act he informed the representatives and the employees as be met them about the plants, that the law no longer allowed the respondent to participate in the Plan, or have anything to do with it. He stated that he further informed the representatives that they could no longer use the company offices for meetings, and that he destroyed the surplus copies of the bylaws in his possession. He testified that he believed these actions were taken on July 6, 1935.13 No claim was made, however, nor was there any evidence, that the employees as a whole were informed that the respondent could no longer have any- thing to do with the Plan. The respondent called a number of employee-witnesses, none of whom testified that he had ever been informed of the termination of the respondent's connection with the Plan. It is evident from the record and we find that the employees regarded the relations between the Plan and the respondent as unchanged by the Act. No. change was made in the procedure of electing representatives or the presentation of grievances. The same representatives continued in office throughout 1935, and Dando continued to meet with them under the same conditions as in the past. The elections of representatives continued to be held on company property with the knowledge of Dando and the supervisors, and on a number of occasions during working hours and in the presence of the foremen. No general notice of the respondent's alleged disconnec- tion with the Plan was given. No attempt was made to obtain the re- turn of the copies of the bylaws in the possession of the representatives. The Plan was still functioning at the time of the hearing as it had from its inception. Only one change ever occurred and' that was temporary. In the spring of 1937 the respondent, in order to avoid a strike, abandoned the Plan at the Irondale plant without notice to the representatives or the employees, and entered into a.contract with the Union for its members at Irondale, which was agreed upon by both parties, but which the respondent refused to sign.'' The Plan re- mained dormant at Irondale until December 193'9, when, Dando testi- fied, it was revived upon petition of about '50 employees. The summary abandonment of the Plan, without notice to the representa- tives or employees, is a significant indication of respondent's interest in, and proprietary attitude toward, the organization. sa Dando testified that after the passage of the Act the Plan was changed in some slight details, but that he could not recall any specific change. The record is clear that, except fora temporary suspension at Irondale (see post), no material change took place, and the Plan functioned after the passage of the Act as it did prior thereto. 13 The Act was approved on July 5, 1935. 14 The record does not disclose the reason for the refusal. McLAIN FIRE BRICK COMPANY 7 In sum, the respondent originated the Plan and set up its struc- ture. No election was ever held to determine whether the .employees desired the organization. After inauguration at the Dando plant the Plan was extended almost immediately to four other plants,. and within 2 years to the sixth, similarly. without vote of the employees concerned. The respondent permitted elections of representatives to be held on company time and property. The employees were limited in their choice of representatives. No general meetings of the partic- ipants were provided for or held. All Plan expenses, as Dando testi- fied, were met by the respondent. Although such conduct was not illegal at the time of formation of the Plan, upon passage of the Act',• compliance therewith required that the respondent declare publicly and unequivocally to its employees that it was severing all connection with and disestablishing the Plan, in order that there be no doubts in the minds of the men as to the respondent's absolute neutrality respect- ing the form of employee organization.'-' This the respondent has not done. Moreover, the respondent engaged in further acts of inter- ference, support, and domination, since the effective date of the Act. The Plan was formed, existed, and functioned only by reason of the respondent's control, participation, financial support, and sufferance. It was stipulated at the hearing that 425 of the respondent's 635 employees would testify, if called, that they were satisfied with the Plan and felt free to join any labor organization of their choice. Upon the entire record we find that such testimony does not warrant a finding that the respondent has not unlawfully sponsored the Plan.16 The respondent's exceptions also call attention to the purported ad- vantages the employees derived from the Plan. That ' also is not material '17 since the record discloses interference with, and: support and domination of the Plan. We find that the respondent, by the above-described course of con- duct, and by the conduct set forth below, dominated and interfered with the formation and administration of the Plan, and contributed support thereto, and has also thereby interfered with, restrained and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. 15 Cf. Westinghouse Electric d Manufacturing Company v. National Labor Relations Board, 112 F. (2d) 657 (C. C. A. 2), aff'd, 312 U. S. 660; Western Union Telegraph Company v. National Labor Relations Board, 113 F. (2d) 992 (C. C. A. 2). 16 National Labor Relations Board v. Newport News Shipbuilding and Dry Dock Com- pany, 308 U. S. 241 ; National Labor Relations Board v. Brown Paper Mill Company, 108 F. (2d) 867 (C. C. A. 5), cert. den. 310 U. S. 651; Bethlehem Steel Company v. National Labor Relations Board, 120 F. (2d) 641 (C. A. for D. C.) ; Matter of M. A. Hanna Company, agent, Hanna Iron Ore Company of Delaware, Hanna Iroh Ore Company (Mich.), Homer Ore Company (Mich.), The American Boston Mining Company (Mich.) and Steel Workers Organizing Committee, affiliated with the Committee for Industrial Organization. 21 N. L. R. B. 962. 11 National Labor Relations Board v. Newport News Shipbuilding and Dry- Dock Company, supra. 8 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD B. Interference, restraint, and coercion Peter Popovich, an employee at the Dando plant, testified that on Easter Sunday 1940, he had a conversation with Dando during which the latter accused him of soliciting for the Union on company property in violation of the respondent's rule; that he told Dando that he was not soliciting on company property, but that he had been visiting several of the employees who lived in the company houses, and that while there he had discussed the Union with these employees; that Dando told him he was free to talk to the men in their homes on what- ever subject he wished but that employees were not allowed to discuss unions on company property; and that Dando also said that if the Union was successful in organizing the employees the respondent would raise the rents for the company houses and the occupants thereof would have to buy their gas and electricity directly from a public utility.1' Dando admitted that a conversation took place, and that he forbade Popovich to solicit for the Union on company property, but denied that he stated that the respondent would raise the rents of the company houses, or would compel the occupants thereof to purchase their gas and electricity directly from the utility company if the Union organized the plant. Upon the entire record, we accept, as did the Trial Examiner, Popovich's version of the conversation with Dando. In connection with Dando's reprimand of Popovich because of the latter's alleged solicitation for the Union on company property, the record discloses that Plan elections were openly discussed and held on company time and property with the knowledge, and occasional pres- ence and participation of supervisors;19 and that other topics were also freely discussed during working hours. It is evident, and we find, that Dando's prohibition against discussing unions on company property was not motivated by a desire to maintain discipline, but was directed against the Union and was intended to discourage membership therein. Under similar circumstances we have held that the promulgation and effectuation of a rule forbidding union activities is violative of the 'e The respondent furnishes electricity and evidently gas, as well, to the company houses, for which it bills the occupants. Although the respondent introduced evidence to show that its charges for electricity were no cheaper than those of the Duquesne Light Com- pany, Dando subsequently admitted that he had been under the impression that the respondent had been furnishing electricity to the houses at rates cheaper than those of the Duquesne Light Company. 10 Although Dando testified that these occurrences were contrary to his instructions he admitted that he knew that such instructions were being ignored, but he did nothing about it. In this connection it may be noted that two of the respondent's employee wit- nesses, Duncan and Gamble, testified that they received no instructions forbidding meetings on company time or property, although Duncan did have a vague recollection of having heard that meetings should not be held on the property. McLAIN FIRE BRICK COMPANY 9 Act.20 The respondent states in its exceptions that the rule could not be enforced except by suspensions or discharges "either of which actions would have resulted in accusations of violations of the National Labor Relations Act." That defense is without merit. The respond- ent had no hesitation in enforcing the rule as against the Union by reprimanding Popovich, while condoning violations by the Plan. We find that by Dando's statements to Popovich and by its alleged rule concerning union activity, the respondent has interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of the respondent set forth in Section III above, occurring in connection with the operations of the respondent de- scribed in Section I above, have a close, intimate, and substantial 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 Having found that the respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices within Section 8 (1) and (2) of the Act, we must order the respondent, pursuant to the mandate of Section 10 (c), to cease and desist therefrom. We also predicate our cease and desist order upon the following findings : The respondent, as has been noted, has dominated and interfered with the administration of the Plan for a long period of time and has-engaged in-other interference;',restraint, and coercion. This long-continued and never-disavowed illegal sponsorship and support not only violates Section 8 (1) and (2) of the Act, but reveals a purpose to defeat the basic rights of self- organization and collective bargaining which the Act was designed to protect. The exercise of those rights was greatly impeded, if not altogether, prevented, by the barrier which the Plan presented to bona fide self-organization on the part of the respondent's employees; by the same token, the Plan necessarily interfered with the right of the employees to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing. Because of the respondent's long-continued unlawful conduct and its underlying purpose, we are convinced that respondent may seek to accomplish its unlawful purpose by unfair labor prat= 20 See Matter of Botany Worsted Mills and Textile Workers Organizing Committee, 4 N. L. R. B. 292, enf'd as mod. N. L. R. B. v. Botany Worsted Mills, 106 F. ( 2d) 263 (C. C. A. 3). 10 DECISIONS OF 'NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD tices other than those in which it has engaged and that the danger of -the commission of such related unfair labor practices in the future "is'to be anticipated from the course of [the respondent's] conduct in the past." 21 The preventive purpose of the Act will be thwarted unless the terms of our order are coextensive with the threat. In order, therefore, to make effective the interdependent guarantees of Section 7, to prevent a recurrence of unfair labor practices, and thereby to minimize industrial strife which burdens and obstructs commerce'22 and .thus to effectuate the policies of the Act, we shall order that the respondent cease and desist from in any manner infringing the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. We shall also order the respond- ent to take certain affirmative action, which we find necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act. We have found that the respondent has dominated and interfered with the Plan and has contributed support thereto. We further find that the effects and consequences of the respondent's domination, interference with, and support of the Plan, as well as the continued recognition of. the Plan as the bargaining representative of its em- ployees, constitute a continuing obstacle to the free exercise - by its employees of their right to self-organization and to bargain collec- tively through representatives of their own choosing. Accordingly we will order that the respondent disestablish and withdraw all recog- nition from the Plan as the representative of any of its employees for the purpose of dealing with it concerning grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, or other. conditions of employment. Nothing herein, however, shall be taken to require the respondent to vary those wage, hour, and other substantive features of its relations with its employees, which the respondent may have established during the existence of the Plan. Upon the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following : CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. United Brick & Clay Workers of America, affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, and Plan of Employee Representa- National Labor Relations Board v. Express Publishing 'Company, 312 U. S. 426. 12 National Labor Relations Board v . Pennsylvania Greyhound Lines, Inc. et at. 303 U. S. 261, 266 . The Report of the United States Senate Committee on Education and Labor on the National Labor Relations Bill stated, 77th Con.g., 1st Sess., Sen. Rep. No. 573: Practically 70 per cent of the employer -promoted unions have sprung up since the passage of Section 7 (a) of the National Industrial Recovery Act. The testimony before , the Committee has indicated that the active entry of some employers into a vigorous competitive race for the organization of workers is not conducive to peace in industry. It is the wish of the committee to prevent in so far as possible the perpetuation of bitterness or strife. McLAIN FIRE BRICK COMPANY 11 tion, are labor organizations- within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act." 2. ` By dominating and interfering with the administration of Plan of Employee Representation and'by contributing support thereto, the respondent has engaged in and'is engaging in unfair labor practices, within the meaning of Section 'S (2) 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 respondent 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 foregoing 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 McLain Fire Brick Company., and its officers, agents, succes- sors, and assigns, shall : 1. Cease and desist from : (a) Dominating or interfering with the administration of Plan of Employee Representation or any other labor organization of its em- ployees, and from contributing support to it or any other labor organization of its employees; (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 activ- ities or other mutual aid or protection as guaranteed in Section 7 of the.Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board, finds necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Withdraw all recognition from Plan of Employee Representa- tion at its Dando, Clarion, Champion, Buckeye, Irondale, and Colonial plants as the representative of any of its employees for the purpose of dealing with the respondent concerning grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, or other conditions of employment, and completely disestablish said Plan of Employee Representation as such representative ; (b) Post immediately in conspicuous places throughout its Dando, Clarion, Champion, Buckeye, Irondale, and Colonial plants and main- tain for a period of at least sixty (60) consecutive days from the date of posting, notices stating (1) that the respondent will not engage in 12 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD the conduct from which it is ordered to cease and desist in paragraphs 1 (a) and (b) of this Order; and (2) that the respondent will take the affirmative action set forth, in paragraph 2 (a) of this Order; (c) Notify the..Regional Director for the Sixth. Region in writing within ten (10) days from the date of this Order what steps the respondent has taken to comply herewith.