United States Postal Service

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 29, 1988

288 N.L.R.B. 864 (N.L.R.B. 1988)

864 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
United States Postal Service and Ralph Bell. Case
32-CA-4640(P)
April 29 1988
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS JOHANSEN, BABSON, AND
CRACRAFT
On April 21, 1983, Administrative Law Judge
Russell L. Stevens issued the attached decision.
The Respondent filed exceptions and a supporting
brief, the General Counsel and the Charging Party
filed limited exceptions and supporting briefs, and
the Charging Party filed an answering brief, as did
the Intervenors.'
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, 2 and
conclusions and to adopt the recommended Order
as modified.3
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board adopts the
recommended Order of the administrative law
judge as modified below and orders that the Re-
spondent, United States Postal Service, Fremont,
California, its officers, agents, successors, and as-
signs, shall take the action set forth in the Order as
modified.
1. Substitute the following for paragraph 1(a).
"(a) Violating Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by re-
fusing to permit the Union's representative to
confer with the Respondent's employees prior to
an investigatory interview and by refusing to
permit the Union's representative to participate in
the interview."
2. Substitute the following for paragraph 2(a).
"(a) Post at its Mission San Jose Post Office
copies of the attached notice marked 'Appendix.'"
Copies of the notice, on forms provided by the Re-
gional Director for Region 32, after being signed
On January 17, 1985, the Board granted the motions to intervene
submitted by the American Postal Workers Union and the National Asso-
ciation of Letter Carriers. The Intervenors filed a joint brief.
2 The judge stated incorrectly in his findings that the Respondent is an
employer withm the meaning of the Act. We find instead, as the judge
stated in his conclusions of law, that the Respondent is subject to our ju-
risdiction by virtue of Sec. 1209 of the Postal Reorganization Act, 39
U.S.C. § 1209.
3 The Charging Party and the General Counsel except to the judge's
recommended Order in that it refers only to Sharon Wall rather than to
employees generally We agree and modify the Order accordingly We
have also modified the recommended Order to narrow the scope of the
notice-posting requirement to apply only to the post office where the
unfair labor practice occurred, in accordance with established Board
policy
by the Respondent's authorized representative,
shall be posted by the Respondent immediately
upon receipt and maintained for 60 consecutive
days in conspicuous places including all places
where notices to employees are customarily posted.
Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent
to ensure that the notices are not altered, defaced,
or covered by any other material."
3. 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 Board has found
that we violated the National Labor Relations Act
and has ordered us to post and abide by this notice.
WE WILL NOT violate Section 8(a)(1) of the Act
by refusing to permit the Union's representative to
confer with our employees prior to an investiga-
tory interview and by refusing to permit the
Union's representative to participate in the inter-
view.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner
interfere with, restrain, or coerce you in the exer-
cise of the rights guaranteed you by Section 7 of
the Act.
UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE
Ariel L. Sotolongo, Esq., for the General Counsel.
John H. Arbuckle (Western Regional General Counsel), of
San Bruno, California, for the Respondent.
Mary H. Mocine, Esq., of Oakland, California, for the
Charging Party.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
RUSSELL L. STEVENS, Administrative Law Judge. This
case was tried in Oakland, California, on February 28,
1983. The complaint,' issued September 17, 1982, is
based on a charge filed July 2, 1982, by Ralph Bell, an
individual. The complaint alleges that United States
Postal Service (Respondent) violated Section 8(a)(1) of
the National Labor Relations Act (the Act).
All parties were given full opportunity to participate,
to introduce relevant evidence, to examine and cross-ex-
amine witnesses, to argue orally, and to file briefs. Briefs,
which have been carefully considered, were filed on
behalf of the General Counsel, Respondent, and the
Charging Party.
1 As amended at trial, to make minor changes.
288 NLRB No. 93
POSTAL SERVICE 865
On the entire record, and from my Observation of the
witnesses and their demeanor, I make the following
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. JURISDICTION
The Postal Reorganization Act 2 provides, inter alia,
that the United States - Postal Service shall be subject to
the provisions of the National Labor Relations Act, to
the extent not inconsistent with provisions of the Postal
Reorganization Act.
I find that Respondent is an employer engaged in com-
merce within the meaning of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The East Bay Area Local, American Postal Workers
Union, AFL-CIO (the Union) is, and at all times materi-
al has been, a labor organization within the meaning of
Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
Background
The Respondent's 3 facility involved in this controver-
sy is located in Fremont, California, and is referred to as
Mission San Jose Post Office.
The current bargaining agreement between the parties,
effective July 21, 1981, to July 20, 1984, provides in arti-
cle 17.3, inter alia:
The steward, chief steward or other Union repre-
sentative properly certified in accordance with Sec-
tion 2 above may request and shall obtain access
through the appropriate supervisor to review the
documents, files and other records necessary for
processing a grievance or determining if a grievance
exists and shall have the right to interview the ag-
grieved employee(s) supervisors and witnesses
during working hours. Such requests shall not be
unreasonably denied.
. . . .
If an employee requests a steward or Union repre-
sentative to be present during the course of an inter-
rogation by the Inspection Service, such request
will be granted. All polygraph tests will continue to
be on a voluntary basis.
Investigation of possible violations of Federal law
within the Postal Service is within the authority of the
chief postal inspector, whose office is in Washington and
who reports to the postmaster general. The western
region of the inspection service encompasses 11 western
States, including Alaska and Hawaii. The western region
has three divisions, with headquarters in Seattle, San
Francisco, and Los Angeles. Each division has domiciles
at various locations. Postal inspectors are not under the
supervision or direction of postal supervisors or manag-
3 39 U.S.C. § 1209.
3 This background summary is based on stipulations of counsel and on
credited testimony and evidence not in dispute.
ers. The San Francisco division of inspectors and all
other inspection divisions have responsibility for audits,
internal crimes, fraud, and external crimes. Inspectors do
not recommend or participate in any disciplinary action.
Events involved in this case were under the supervision
of Onyx Richard Metz, assistant regional chief inspector
responsible for criminal investigations within the western
region, who reports to the regional (western) chief in-
spector. Mark Aasmundstad and Robert Isaac are postal
inspectors4 assigned to the San Francisco inspection divi-
sion and were involved in events discussed.
Sharon Wall, a member of the Union, has worked for
Respondent approximately 15 years and at times relevant
was a postal clerk at the Mission San Jose Post Office.
Prior to November 1981 Wall's accounts for cash and
stamps occasionally were in error and, on one occasion,
her wages were garnished for an account shortage. In
addition, Respondent has received complaints from cus-
tomers allegedly because they had been short changed
by Wall. Respondent instituted an investigation of Wall's
work conduct and on October 28 Wall was given an in-
vestigatory "test," she was issued $650 worth of stamps
that were not reflected in any of the documentation that
customarily accompanies the transfer of stamps to clerks'
accounts. Normal procedure requires that any discrepan-
cy such as that involved in the "test" be reported, but
Wall failed to make such a report. On November 16,
Aasmundstad and Isaac interviewed Wall concerning the
extra stamps and the apparent discrepancy, but she stated
that she always counts stamps transferred to her and im-
mediately reports any discrepancies. The matter was not
pursued further and the extra stamps were left with Wall
pending further developments. Wall thereafter was ob-
served intermittently, but she was not further inter-
viewed or audited until April 5, 1982.
At approximately 9:30 or 10 a.m. on April 5, Aas-
mundstad and Isaac called Wall into an office for an
interview and, before going in, Wall asked to have Ralph
Bell, a postal clerk who was the union steward, present.
Bell was summoned and the four individuals went into
the office. Aasumndstad asked Wall some preliminary
questions of a general background nature, such as birth
date and education, and then advised her of her rights
under the Miranda opinion of the United States Supreme
Court. 5 Aasmundstad read the Miranda rights to Wall
from a standard governmental form, gave Wall a copy to
read along with him, and asked her to sign the form,
which she declined to do. Aasmundstad explained the
reason for the investigation, which involved the extra
stamps earlier delivered to Wall on October 28, as de-
scribed above. Bell then asked that he be given an op-
portunity to talk privately with Wall before the inter-
view commenced and Aasmundstad denied that request6
4 Respondent admits that Aasmundstad and Isaac are its agents within
the meaning of the Act.
5 Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U S. 436 (1966).
6 This chronology of events is from the testimony of Aasmundstad. All
four individuals testified somewhat differently concerning the chronology
up to this point in the interview, but those differences do not affect any
finding or conclusion, and Aasmundstad's version is accepted as accurate.
Isaac took notes of the interview, but did not participate in the ques-
tioning of Wall.
866 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Aasmundstad then interviewed Wall relative to the sub-
stance of the Postal Service's concern about what ap-
peared to be her wrongdoing. Wall denied taking any
Postal Service stamps or money for her own use and
denied knowledge of receiving extra stamps that she did
not report as a discrepancy in her account. During the
latter portion of the interview, Aasmundstad asked Wall
if she would submit to a polygraph test and Wall agreed.
Bell objected, however, and said he wanted to check
into that matter with the Union's attorney before Wall
took the test. Bell had a private telephone conversation
and after a few minutes reported to Aasmundated that
Wall was not to take the test. The interview continued
another 30 or 40 minutes until approximately 12:30 p.m.,
after which Aasmundstad, Isaac, Wall, and Ellen Wil-
liams, who then took Bell's place, went to the post office
in order to audit Wall's account. Thereafter, Aasmund-
stad and Isaac signed an investigative report dated April
9, 1982, 7 and sent it to the Fremont Postmaster. No rec-
ommendation was made. The report states, inter alia,
"Wall's accountability was audited April 5, 1982, by In-
spector Isaac and was within tolerance."
Issues
The principal issue is whether Respondent violated
Wall's Section 7 rights as enunciated in Weingarten 8 and
later cases flowing therefrom. That issue primarily de-
pends on whether Respondent unlawfully precluded Bell
from talking privately with Wall prior to the interview
of April 5 and whether Bell was precluded from partici-
pating in the interview.
A. The Preinterview Matter
The fact that Bell was denied by Aasmundstad an op-
portunity to talk privately with Wall prior to Wall's
interview with Aasmundstad and Isaac, is not in dispute.
Weingarten rights are brought into play if an employ-
ee, when required to undergo an interview, has a reason-
able belief that discipline may result therefrom, and re-
quest representation. Wall requested Bell's participation
in the interview. The circumstances show that Wall's
"aprehension," to which she testified, was reasonable.9
Earlier she had been given an interview and her account
had been audited. Aasmundstad and Isaac were postal in-
spectors, not postal managers. Her interview was a pri-
vate one and it clearly involved a matter that could lead
to discipline. Although inspectors only report to postal
authorities and do not make recommendations relative to
discipline, their reports can be, and are, used as a basis
for disciplining employees. Further, criminal charges
may result from the reports. Because reports are based,
at least in part, on interviews with suspected employees,
it is clear that the interview with Wall was a factfinding
interview, not an interview to announce disciplinary
measures. Wall testified that she did not anticipate disci-
pline when she first went into the interview because she
felt she had done nothing wrong, but that, approximately
7 G C. Exh 1
8 NLRB v. 1 Weingarten, 420 U.S. 251 (1975)
9 Roy H. Park Broadcasting, 255 NLRB 229, 232 (1981); General Elec-
tric Ca, 240 NLRB 479, 481 (1979).
halfway through the meeting when Aasmundstad ac-
cused her of stealing, she became apprenhensive of disci-
pline. However, whether Wall actually believed that dis-
cipline or criminal charges could, or would, result from
the interview is irrelevant, because it was objectively ap-
parent that such results could follow from the interview.
This same factual circumstance was present in Weingar-
ten, where the employee was said not to be "afraid of
her job," and the respondent's argument there was re-
jected by the administrative law judge, with concurrence
by the Board and, subsequently, by the United States Su-
preme Court.
Respondent contends that its denial of Bell's request
for a preinterview meeting with Wall was lawful and
proper, based on section 2.19 of the postal inspection
confidential field manual that precludes such pre inter-
view meetings and on the requirements of safety, preser-
vation of evidence, and security prior to and during such
interviews.
But for circumstances involved, i.e., the fact that
Wall's interview involved a criminal investigation by the
Postal Service rather that an employer-employee meeting
concerning work conditions or employer-employee rela-
tionships, legal principles would not be in dispute. The
right of employees to such a preinterview meeting was
discussed at length and firmly entrenched in Board law,
in Climax." The fact that court enforcement was denied
in Climax is not considered controlling because there the
court stated, inter alia:
Thus, we do believe that Weingarten requires that
the employer set investigatory interviews at such a
future time and place that the employee will be pro-
vided the opportunity to consult with his represent-
ative in advance thereof on his own time."
Here, no such opportunity was afforded Bell and Wall.
To the contrary, Aasmundstad testified, albeit impliedly,
that a preinterview meeting between Bell and Wall inten-
tionally was precluded by, inter alia, not setting the time
of interview in advance and thereby giving Bell and
Wall an opportunity to suppress or fabricate evidence. In
any event, Climax described the right of employees to
preinterview consultation with their representative and
that right has not been rescinded or modified.
Respondent argues, however, that the Climax rule is
inappropriate in criminal investigatory interviews such as
the one involved, and should not be applied in such cir-
cumstances. Aside from the fact that this administrative
law judge has no authority to avoid Board law by
making exceptions thereto, the Board has stated and,
thereby implicitly has precluded, the exception sought
that Weingarten rights are not subservient to Federal
criminal proceedings, even when Miranda rights have
been accorded those accused of violations of law."
10 Climax Molybdenum Ca, 227 NLRB 1189 (1977), ea. denied 584
F.2d 360 (10th Cm 1978)
11 1d at 365.
12 Postal Services, 254 NLRB 703 (1981); Postal Service, 241 NLRB 141
(1979).
POSTAL SERVICE 867
Further, the Board specifically has denied requests for
the exception sought. In Pacific Telephone," in which an
employee allegedly had engaged in theft of property, the
Board stated:
. . • that the Weingarten right is ineffective without
prior consultation since the representative is pre-
cluded from performing his envisioned role as a
knowledgeable representative. Prior consultation,
and the "knowledge" which resulted therefrom, en-
ables the representative to "assist the employer by
eliciting favorable facts and save the employer pro-
duction time by getting to the bottom of the inci-
dent." (420 U.S. at 263.) At the same time it enables
the representative to counsel and assist the employ-
ee who may be "too fearful or inarticulate to relate
accurately the incident being investigated." (Id.) As
the Board stated in Climax, "knowledge is a better
basis than ignorance for the successful carrying on
of labor-management relations." Also the represent-
ative can provide the "aid for protection" which
the employee seeks.
Respondent has added one argument to its arguments
in earlier cases on this subject, and contends that the
dangers of preinvestigatory interview consultations re-
sulting in possible flight collusion, and personal safety to
interviewees and other persons, resulted in the promulga-
tion several years ago of regulation 2.19 mentioned
above. However, that regulation was not introduced into
evidence, or reviewed in camera, and is not before this
administrative law judge. On the state of this record it
cannot be concluded that the regulation, whatever it may
state, supersedes Board law on this subject. Further,
there is no evidence of any threat by Wall or Bell to, or
of any reasonable belief by, Respondent that Wall or Bell
would flee, collude, conceal evidence, or otherwise inter-
fere with any criminal investigation or proceeding.
It is found that failure of Respondent to permit a re-
quested preiaterview consultation between Bell and Wall
violated Wall's Section 7 rights as enunciated in Weingar-
ten and subsequent cases, as alleged in the complaint.
B. The Interview
Board law on the extent of the right of an employee's
representative to participate in an interview with the em-
ployer if discipline is anticipated is summarized in
Texaco, Inc.," in which the Board stated, inter
We have recently addressed this issue in South-
western Bell Telephone Company, 251 NLRB No. 61
(1980). There we held that the Court in Weingarten
intended to strike a balance between the right of an
employer to investigate the conduct of its employ-
ees at a personal interview, and the role of the re-
presentaive present at such an interview. While we
noted the Court's admonition that the presence of a
representative "need not transform the interview
" Pacific Telephone & Telegraph Co., 262 NLRB 1048 (1982). See also
an earlier case that embodies the same reasoning, Illinois Bell Telephone
Co., 221 NLRB 989 (1975)
14 251 NLRB 633 (1980)
into an adversary contest," we nevertheless recog-
nize that the Court limited the employer's right to
regulate the role of the representative at the inter-
view. In short, such regulation cannot exceed that
which is necessary to ensure the "reasonable pre-
vention of such a collective-bargaining or adversary
confrontation with the statutory representative." In
Southwestern Bell the employer also demanded the
silence of the union's representative at the outset of
the interview. We held that in so doing the employ-
er had gone beyond the bounds of regulation rea-
sonably necessary to avoid such a confrontation
with the statutory representative. Accordingly, in
agreement with the Administrative Law Judge, we
likewise hold here that Respondent violated Section
8(a)(1) of the Act by denying to Deutsch the assist-
ance of his union representative.
Permissible extent of participation of representatives in
interviews thus is seen to lie somewhere between manda-
tory silence and adversarial confrontation. Respondent
contends in this case that Bell did not participate within
the meaning of Board law but, rather, that he engaged in
confrontation to the extent that he interfered with Re-
spondent's right to conduct an orderly interview.
Aasmundstad testified that after he talked briefly with
Wall about the interview to be conducted:
I also made a brief presentation to Mr. Bell, the
union steward. I told him that he was there at Ms.
Wall's request and that his duties or job were to
apraise her of any situation regarding her employ-
ment with the Postal Service, her job rights. I asked
Mr. Bell if he was an attorney. He said he was not.
And I suggested to him that he should try and re-
frain from giving legal advice because it could
cause bad advice to be given.
Soon thereafter, as Aasmundstad was getting started in
the interview, Bell "started out by really asking me ques-
tions, Wall, did you talk to the other clerks, did you
count all the credits, did you review the security your-
self." Aasmudstad answered those questions and, because
he felt that Bell was interrupting him in order to divert
him from Wall, he asked Bell to refrain from interrupting
and to permit Wall to answer the questions directed to
her. Between 15 and 30 minutes later, when Aasmund-
stad's interrogation approached a sensitive area, Bell
again commenced to interrupt him with challenging
questions, and Aasmundstad again asked Bell not to in-
terrupt, and "told him that if he continued to do that, I
would have to ask him to leave the interview because I
felt he was impeding my questioning of Mrs. Wall." Ten
or fifteen minutes later, when Aasmundstad asked Wall if
she would take a polygraph test, Bell said, "Wait a
minute, sit down you're not going to take the polygraph,
don't take the polygraph, or words to that effect." Aas-
mundstad then ordered Bell out of the room because he
was impeding an official investigation and Bell apolo-
gized. Bell assured Aasmundstad he would not interrupt
again, whereon Bell was allowed to stay in the room and
they further discussed a possible polygraph test, at the
868 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
close of the interview, Bell apologized for interrupting
Aasmundstad, and the apology was accepted. Aasmund-
stad denied ever telling Bell that he had to sit silently
and not speak during the interview.
Isaac generally corroborated Aasmundstad.
Bell testified that Aasmundstad was rude and hostile in
his questioning of Wall, and sometimes profane, and deri-
sive of her answers. On one occasion Bell "took a stand
for [Wall's] credibility," and challenged Aasmundstad's
intimation that Wall was a dishonest employee. Bell testi-
fied:
At about that time I was asked to—well, I was
told I was interfering with the investigation and
that any further conduct such as that I would be
kicked out. And I said, well, I'm just representing
my client and that—them Mr. Aasmundstad then re-
plied well, my job is just to sit there and take notes.
That's it.
. . . .
And then about that time, I said, well, I'm just
trying to represent my client. And he said, he kind
of like got really mad and raised his finger over his
shoulder like an umpire does or someone, and said,
now, get out of here. And he stood up and I stood
up. And I started to walk towards the door and I
said something to the effect that I believe that this
should be handled in a more professional manner or
something like that. And he kind of like—the tone
of the conversation changed a great deal at that
time and the next thing I know is I'm sitting down
and he asked me to sit back down again and the in-
vestigation proceeded at that time, after he had ac-
tually told me to leave.
Bell denied that he interrupted Aasmundstad on several
occasions and stated that, toward the end of the meeting,
he and Aasmundstad argued about Wall possibly taking a
polygraph test.
Wall characterized the interview somewhat differently
from Bell. She testified that Aasmundstad was very
friendly until they reached the point at which she would
not admit to being a thief, whereon Aasmundstad "start-
ed getting irritated about it." He talked in a loud voice
and became profane, but his profanity appeared to be di-
rected toward Bell. Wall stated:
Well, at one point he spoke up and asked could
he say something in my behalf, or he just wanted to
say something. And he said yes, and Ralph got
about two sentences out and he told him he would
have to shut up and stop interfering and just take
notes.
Aasmundstad told Bell that if he did not stop interfering,
he would have to leave the room. Wall testified that
Aasmundstad was threatening on several occasions, and
insisted that she had to remain for the interview, even
though she wanted to leave.
Discussion
None of the four accounts of the interview seemed to-
tally reliable. However, some facts seem quite clear,
based on the testimony of all four witnesses to the meet-
ing. (a) Aasmundstad was completely in charge of the
interview, and his manner was accusatory, hostile, suspi-
cious, and sometimes profane. 15 (b) Aasmundstad twice
threatened to eject Bell from the interview and threat-
ened to see that disciplinary or retaliatory action may be
taken against Wall. (c) Bell attempted to defend Wall, or
to protect her, on only three occasions, and each time,
Aasmundstad quickly silenced him
It is apparent that Aasmundstad did not want any
interruption of his questioning of Wall, and that he ex-
pected Bell to be a witness, rather than a participant, in
the interview. He denied telling Bell to sit quietly and
only take notes, but that denial is given little credence in
view of his full control of, and his demeanor during, the
interview. Possibly he did not tell Bell in so many words
to be quiet and only take notes, but it is clear that such
conduct was his desire. Bell's interruptions did not
appear to be those of an obstructionist. Rather, they ap-
peared to be reactions to Aasmundstad's accusations that
Wall had engaged in unlawful conduct, and to apparent
pressure on Wall (the polygraph test). It seems that Bell
was trying to participate, and to assist and protect Wall,
but that he was frustrated in that attempt by Aasmund-
stad's insistence on complete and exclusive control of the
entire proceeding. Bell's efforts in Wall's behalf seem to
have been low key and conciliatory—he even apologized
on two occasions for his interruptions. Because he spoke
up on only three occasions, and each time was accused
of interrupting the interview, a logical inquiry is—could
he say anything without such an accusation? It appears
that he could not.
It is found that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of
the Act, as alleged in the complaint, by denying the right
of Bell to participate in Wall's interview.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1.The National Labor Relations Board has jurisdiction
over this matter by virtue of section 1209 of the Postal
Reorganization Act.
2. The East Bay Area Local, American Postal Work-
ers Union, AFL-CIO is a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by
refusing to permit the Union's representative to confer
with Respondent's employee Sharon Wall prior to an in-
vestigatory interview; and by refusing to permit the
Union's representative to participate in the interview.
THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1)
of the Act, it will be recommended that Respondent be
ordered to cease and desist therefrom, and to take certain
affirmative action necessary to effectuate the policies of
the Act.
15 Aasmundstad acknowledged that he made profane statements.
POSTAL SERVICE 869
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and
on the entire record, I issue the following recommend-
edl"
ORDER
The Respondent, United States Postal Service, Fre-
mont, California, its officers, agents, successors, and as-
signs, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Violating Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by refusing to
permit the Union's representative to confer with Re-
spondent's employee Sharon Wall prior to an investiga-
tory interview; and by refusing to permit the Union's
representative to participate in Ile interview.
(b) In any like or related manner restraining or coerc-
ing employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed
them by Section 7 of the Act.
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 he deemed waived for all pur-
poses.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to
effectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Post at its place of business in 32, copies of the at-
tached notice marked "Appendix."" Copies of the
notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for
Region 32, after being signed by the Respondent's au-
thorized representative, shall be posted by the Respond-
ent immediately upon receipt and maintained for 60 con-
secutive days in conspicuous places including all places
where notices to employees are customarily posted. Rea-
sonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to ensure
that the notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by
any other material.
(b) Notify the Regional Director in writing within 20
days from the date of this Order what steps the Re-
spondent has taken to comply.
17 If this Order is enforced by a judgment of a United States court of
appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by Order of the Nation-
al Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of
the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National
Labor Relations Board."