Invalex Sales Co., Inc.

INVALEX SALES Co., INC. 773 Invalex Sales Co., Inc., and Invalid Walker and Wheel Chair Co. and Chauffeurs, Salesdrivers & Helpers Union Local 572, affil- iated with International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America . Case No. 21-CA-6009d. May 21, 1965 DECISION AND ORDER On January 25, 1965, Trial Examiner Martin S. Bennett issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent had engaged in certain unfair labor practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Decision. He also found that Respondent had not engaged in other unfair labor practices and recommended dismissal of these allegations. Thereafter, the General Counsel filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's decision and a supporting brief. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel [Members Fanning, Brown, and Jenkins]. The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Decision, the exceptions and the supporting brief, and the entire record in this case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner.' ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board hereby adopts as its Order the Recommended Order of the Trial Examiner and orders that Respondent, Invalex Sales Co., Inc., and Invalid Walker and Wheel Chair Co., Long Beach, California, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's Recom- mended Order. 1 Inasmuch as we are adopting the Trial Examiner 's decision to credit Thompson as against Creasy with respect to their conversation in April 1964, we find it unnecessary to pass upon the Trial Examiner's finding that even Creasy's version of Thompson's statements does not support a finding of unlawful interrogation. We are also adopting the Trial Examiner's recommendation to dismiss the complaint to the extent it alleges that Amos was unlawfully discharged . We find that Amos' walk- ing o8 the job without permission precipitated his discharge and that no union activity or any other protected activity was a motivating factor. In reaching this conclusion we assumed for purposes of this case that Amos' activity on behalf of a general wage increase was protected under Section 7 of the Act. 152 NLRB No. 78. 774 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE This matter was heard before Trial Examiner Martin S. Bennett at Los Angeles,. California, on October 21 and 22, 1964. The complaint 1 alleges that Respondent, Invalex Sales Co., Inc., and Invalid Walker and Wheel Chair Co., had engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act. Briefs have been submitted by the General Counsel and Respondent. Upon the entire record in the case, and from my observation of the witnesses, I make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT I JURISDICTIONAL FINDINGS Invalex Sales Co., Inc., and Invalid Walker and Wheel Chair Co. are California corporations operating an integrated business enterprise at Long Beach, California, where they are engaged in the manufacture, sale, and distribution of hospital sup- plies. During 1963, Invalex Sales Co., Inc., manufactured products valued in excess of $500,000, of which products valued in excess of $50,000 were shipped directly to points outside the State of California. During the same period, Invalid Walker and Wheel Chair Co. purchased and received products valued in excess of $50,000 which were shipped to it directly from points outside the State of California. I find that the operations of Respondent affect commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. H. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED Chauffeurs, Salesdrivers & Helpers Union Local 572, affiliated with Internationar Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. The issues; introduction In Case No. 21-RC-8922, an election was conducted by the Board among the approximately 25 or 26 employees of Respondent on April 17, 1964, and the Union lost. The General Counsel contends that Respondent engaged in various acts viola- tive of Section 8 (a)( 1 ) of the Act during the preelection period and, further, that it discharged James Amos on June 9, 1964, because of his union and concerted activities. Respondent admits the discharge of Amos on this date, but assigns misconduct and violation of plant rules as the reasons for the discharge. There is no evidence of any prior unfair labor practice history on the part of Respondent. B. Interference, restraint, and coercion Clyde Creasy, then an assembler for Respondent, testified that about 1 week before the election of April 17, 1964, President Lee Thompson called him into his office, asked why the men wanted a union, and also asked if Creasy knew who had started the union movement; Creasy replied in the negative. According to Thompson, and I so find, he called Creasy into his office on this occasion, stated that he had learned the Union was petitioning for an election, and asked if management's attitude toward the employees was "wrong." 2 'Issued September 16, 1964, and based upon charges filed June 15, July 9, and Sep- tember 9, 1964. 2 Creasy left the employ of Respondent on June 19, 1964, prior to his testimony herein. In connection with the discharge of Amos, treated below, Respondent streseec its claim that Creasy was a rank-and-file employee and not an assistant foreman. I credit this and find that Creasy, who voted In the election and was paid the same wage as another assembler, was not a supervisor, although as an employee of long tenure he functioned occasionally as leadman While James Amos, whose discharge Is discussed below, re- ferred to Creasy as "assistant foreman" it is Clear th'it he was not Indeed, Creasy admitted to Vice President Gerry Thompson, about 2 months after Amos' discharge, that he had not considered himself an assistant manager and had not told Amos that he, Creasy, was assistant foreman. I therefore do not credit Creasy's testimony that he was assistant foreman and had been so designated by Thompson. INVALEX SALES CO., INC. 775 The General Counsel relies upon other testimony by Creasy that, approximately several days later, Thompson told him that if the men had come to him he would have endeavored to help them find "a good union" but that his hands were tied. He added that "Whoever started it better make sure what he was doing ." While this equivocal statement lends itself to the interpretation that a threat was uttered, it equally permits the view that the speaker was expressing the hope that the leader of the union move- ment was knowledgeable in this area and was able to distinguish between effective or ineffective , large or small, and affiliated or nonaffiliated labor organizations, or was familiar with unions. Stated otherwise , it does not, on a preponderance of the evi- dence, contain a threat of reprisal for engaging in union activities , Likewise, even on the face of Creasy's testimony, I see no basis for concluding that the previous isolated act of interrogation was coercive under Section 8 (a)(1) of the Act. Shortly before the election , Thompson spoke with employee Kirk Tillman . He told Tillman that he did not care how he voted in the election , that he wanted him to hear both sides, and that ". . . we would take a loss in both wages and other benefits if the Union got in. He said that the profit sharing plan would be gone ..." 3 While the evidence would appear to be on the skimpy side, it demonstrates a threat on the part of President Tillman that union organization would cause economic detri- ment to employees . I accordingly find that this threat was coercive and that Respond- ent has thereby engaged in conduct violative of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. See N.L.R.B. v. J. Weingarten, Inc., 339 F. 2d 498 (C.A. 5). Cf. The J. S. Dillon & Sons Stores Co., Inc. v. N L.R .B., 338 F. 2d 395 (C.A. 10). C. The discharge of James A mos James Amos, a shipping clerk for approximately 14 months, was discharged on June 11, 1964, the decision having been made about 5 p in. on June 9. The General Counsel contends that Amos was discharged because of his union and concerted activities and that Respondent utilized certain conduct by Amos on June 9 as a pre- text to cover its true motive. Respondent basically relies upon the circumstance that Amos clocked out early at 12:30 p.m. on June 9, allegedly because of illness, and because he had not cleared this with an appropriate representative of management. It has also adduced evidence that Amos, although not appearing ill, left early, consistent with his intent expressed that morning, to avail himself of unutilized sick leave. Indeed, Amos admittedly told his coworker, James Morford, that very morn- ing that he intended to go to the office and quit Respondent's employ. Similarly, he admittedly told coworker Merle McCormick, about 12.15 p.m. that day, substantially that "I have some sick leave coming, I think I will be sick this afternoon." 4 Amos, on leaving the plant shortly after 12:30 p.m., claimed that he looked into Foreman Claude McCormick's office before departing; that McCormick was not there; and that he therefore told Creasy he was leaving. It would seem that he did not wait for McCormick or inquire as to his whereabouts. McCormick was positive that he was in his office from 12:10 to 12.45 p.m. on that day and that he well remembered this because it was a matter of current concern at the time. As Amos left the plant, he observed Vice President Thompson alighting from his car, but said nothing to him about getting permission to leave, testifying, "I didn't think it was necessary" because he had previously spoken with Creasy. Amos admitted that there was a well-known rule in the plant forbidding departure "without permission of supervision." The record also shows that General Manager Venable was on the premises and that he can readily be reached by means of an intercom system. Turning initially to the union activities of Amos, it is undisputed that during the period preceding the April 17 election he advocated union representation to some employees, distributed six union cards, and obtained two signed cards from employees Merle and John McCormick. Precisely how long prior to the election this activity took place is not disclosed . It is also undisputed that management, in the persons of Foreman McCormick and Vice President Gerry Thompson, believed Amos to be in 3 This finding is based upon Tillman's affidavit , which Tillman , although not recalling the conversation, admitted to be correct Thompson did not recall this conversation and I find that the adopted affidavit of Tillman, a witness who displayed reluctance to give testimony adverse to his employer, merits credence herein 4 McCormick, Creasy, and Amos were together on June 9 during the 12 to 12 30 lunch period. According to McCormick, Creasy announced that he had some unused sick leave and would utilize it to visit Las Vegas According to Creasy, it was McCormick who stated that he, McCormick, had some unused sick leave. Both agree, however, that Amos then spoke up and stated that he also had some sick leave. He further stated, according to Creasy, "I think I will start mine today" 776 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD favor of union representation. President Lee Thompson, father of Gerry Thompson, whose earlier conduct has been described above, was not involved in the decision to discharge Amos and indeed was out of the city at the time. Amos did not report for work on June 10 and, contrary to a plant rule, did not call in, admitting that he could have arranged to do so. Nor did he report for work on June 11. At 10:30 or 11 a.m. on June 11, he telephoned Foreman Claude McCormick and, as he testified, "Told him that I would try to be in the next day." According to McCormick, Amos stated, "I can't come in today, but I will be in tomorrow." McCormick then informed him that he was discharged. Around noon on June 11, Amos' health having improved most rapidly, he went to the plant to argue about his discharge. It is undisputed that the decision to discharge him was made late in the afternoon of June 9 because of his conduct that day and not because of his failure to call in on June 10 and 11, although the latter conduct would have constituted recognized grounds for discharge. There is no evidence that he received any medical attention and the nature of his ailment is not revealed. It is readily apparent that Amos' union activities were remote with relation to the time of his discharge, for they took place at an undisclosed time prior to the April election, presumably at least some weeks earlier. And there being no evidence that he or anyone else, for that matter, engaged in any union activities subsequent to the Union's defeat in the election, the inference is warranted that the topic of union representation had become dormant. See Generac Corp., 149 NLRB 980. However, Amos testified that in a conversation with Foreman McCormick after his return to the plant on June 11, McCormick said that there were various reasons why Amos had been discharged; that Amos had lost interest in his job; that there had been short shipments; and that "I had helped instigate a union there." McCormick claimed that he told Amos, "When a man just walks off the job I have no alternative but to let you go." Amos disputed this and McCormick repeated the reason, adding, "Besides you are not satisfied anyway. You and I would be much better off if you were somewhere where you were better satisfied " Amos repeatedly maintained that he was satisfied and McCormick responded that such was not the case. McCormick added, ". . . you have been for and against everything around here. . . You were for the Union, you were for this meeting we had . You are against the work you have to do out there. You are against everything." Amos insisted that he was satisfied with his work and McCormick again repeated that he had no alternative but to discharge him because he had walked off the job Amos then claimed that McCormick was discharging him "because of the union." McCor- mick replied, "No, I didn't say that, and that's not the reason." At that point, General Manager Warren Venable entered the room and spoke to Amos who replied that he did not want to talk with Venable. On cross-examination, McCormick was asked, "You said one of the reasons you gave him on the day he was fired, as an excuse for not being satisfied was that he was for the union and for the meeting, among other things')" and replied in the affirmative. In fact, Amos was not satisfied with working conditions in the plant, as appears below. And, as is readily apparent, although contending at 10:30 or 11 a.m. on June 11 that he could not get in that day, but would make an effort to get himself to work on June 12, he was able to make an appearance at the plant at noon on June I1 when he learned that events had taken a turn to his disadvantage. Accordingly, I credit the testimony of McCormick as to this conversation. Furthermore, a literal reading of the testimony of McCormick does not warrant the conclusion that it was an admission that the union activities of Amos played a part in the decision to dis- charge him. It rather was McCormick's opinion that one of the reasons or factors demonstrating Amos' dissatisfaction was his earlier union activities, particularly so in view of McCormick's testimony that he denied, in the same conversation, that Amos' union activities were the reason for his discharge. This presents for consideration the other facet of the General Counsel's argument, viz, that Amos was discharged for engaging in concerted activities. The record discloses the following. Amos testified that on three or four occasions between April and the first of June, he spoke with Foreman McCormick; 5 that he also spoke on three or four occasions during the same period with President Thompson; and that the topic uniformly was his request that a pay raise be given. He specifically urged that the workday be reduced from 9 to 8 hours with daily earnings unchanged. It is clear that his request was applicable to all personnel. 5 Amos testified that In this first talk he used the word "we" to reflect coworkers "I was associated with there " There is no evidence that this reflects anything more than his self-appointed advocacy. INVALEX SALES CO., INC. 777 On the first occasion, according to Amos, Foreman McCormick told him that Respondent was considering a change to the 8-hour day; as will appear, this did take place. Amos further testified that about 1 week before his discharge he visited President Thompson in the latter's office. Vice President Gerry Thompson was present and it would seem that this was his last contact of this type with Thompson. He told Thompson that he was seeking an 8-hour day and a pay raise.6 Thompson replied that if Amos wanted to earn more money he should turn to some other type of work because the shipping department was one of the lower paid departments in the industry and he, therefore, could not make the earnings he desired with Respond- ent. He offered to help Amos find another job, stating that he had similarly helped other employees in the past. Thompson testified that after Amos stated he wanted to earn more money, he, Thompson, explained that this was impossible in Respondent's employ. Thompson suggested that he take some courses and go into the Buildings Trades and also offered to consider him for another position in the plant. Amos only replied that he wished to earn more money. Gerry Thompson , who placed the talk in May, cor- roborated his father. He testified that his father told Amos that he would be happy to try to locate him elsewhere in a higher paying position if Amos could qualify. As is readily apparent, all versions are substantially similar except in one respect- Amos testifying that President Thompson referred to him as a "good" employee, whereas both Thompsons are silent in this respect. The record also discloses that Respondent took favorable action in the area of the wage increase, substantially as sought by Amos. Foreman McCormick, the only witness questioned on the matter, testified that in May or June there was a meeting of all the employees, that a general discussion [apparently about working conditions] took place, and that on this occasion Amos spoke up in favor of an 8-hour day. On June 5 or 6 Respondent reached a decision to grant a plantwide wage increase and this was announced to the employees on June 11. Indeed, an exhibit offered in evidence by Respondent reflects these wage increases and Amos was one of those named in the list of employees so rewarded. Also disclosed is the amount of the wage increase which is approximately that advocated by Amos. The question immediately is posed whether Amos was engaged in "... concerted activities for ... mutual aid or protection...." within the meaning of Section 7 and therefore acquired the protection of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.7 The problem is, so far as this record discloses, that Amos was a self-appointed representative of his fellow employees . There is not a scintilla of evidence that he had as much as one conversation with a coworker on the topic of a pay raise as a result of which his activities might be regarded as a concerted activity. The deci- sions apparently regard this as a must. See Mushroom Transportation Company, Inc. v. N.L.R.B., 330 F. 2d 683 (C.A. 3), where the court points out the requirement of an "object of initiating or inducing or preparing for group action or that it had some relation to group action in the interest of the employees." '[Emphasis supplied.] See also N.L.R.B. v. Ryder Tank Lines, Inc., 310 F. 2d 233 (CA. 4); N.L.R.B. v. Gibbs Corporation, 284 F. 2d 403 (C.A. 5); and N.L.R.B. v. Westinghouse Electric Corporation (Ansonia Plant), 179 F. 8d 507 (C.A. 6). While it may not take much , at least some concerted planning or action seems to be required. See International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union, AFL-CIO (Walls Manufacturing Company) v. N.L R.B., 299 F. 2d 144 (C.A.D.C.); Salt River Valley Water Users' Association v. N.L.R.B., 206 F 2d 325 (C.A. 9); and Tanner Motor Livery, Ltd., 148 NLRB 1402. Indeed, in Ryder, the court referred to one con- versation as "not worthy to be dignified as concerted activity." It is obvious that Amos sought the increase for all employees, but I am not aware that this has been considered a "concerted" activity. Webster's Third New Interna- tional Dictionary Unabridged (1963) defines "concerted" as "mutually contrived or planned; agreed on; performed in unison; done together." Its predecessor, the Second, also defines the word as "mutually contrived or planned; agreed on, as con- certed schemes or signals." Similarly the noun "concert" is defined in the Second, to the extent here relevant, as follows: "Agreement in a design or plan; union formed by mutual communication of opinions and views; accordance in a scheme; harmony; simultaneous action." As an example, it quotes from Swift "All these discontents, how ruinous soever, have arisen from the want of a due communication and concert." 6 Amos apparently made the identical statement to both McCormick and Thompson in his numerous contacts with them. 7 While Section 9(a) grants an employee the right to present grievances , this is a proviso creating an exception to the right of a union to be the "exclusive" representative of all the employees . Moreover, Section '8(a) (1) is specifically linked to Section 7 of the Act. 778 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD I believe that the absence of any evidence that Amos acted in concert with his coworkers, and indeed his own testimony warrants the conclusion that he was a self-appointed advocate albeit in a worthy cause, is diapositive of the General Coun- sel's position herein. And while he did speak in front of coworkers on one occasion, there is no evidence that he was their spokesman.8 In view of the foregoing considerations, I deem it unnecessary to treat fully with the facts surrounding the actual discharge. True, some of Respondent's assigned ,reasons for the discharge appear to be afterthoughts to bolster the basic assigned reason for the discharge; namely, Amos' early departure from work on June 9 without permission from management. On the other hand, the evidence surrounding his departure that day lends support to Respondent's contention that he was not ill and that his departure was planned, and so stated by him, in order to avail himself of unused sick leave. His rapid recovery in approximately 1 hour on June 11 would also so indicate. In addition, he agreed with his coworker, Morford, that on the morning of June 9 he told Morford that he intended to quit Respondent's employ. And, as noted, he admittedly told coworker Merle McCormick at 12:15 p.m. that he intended to be ill that day and Vice President Thompson was so advised that afternoon. Moreover, Respondent had previously decided to grant the wage increase sought by Amos and he was among the recipients who, of course, included both those who had voted for the Union as well as those who had opposed it in April. This hardly supports the General Counsel's theory as to Respondent's pretextual motivation. Therefore, in view of the foregoing considerations, I shall recommend that this allegation of the complaint be dismissed. IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of Respondent set forth in section III, above, and occurring in con- nection with its operations set forth 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 thereof. V. THE REMEDY Having found that Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices, I shall recom- mend that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record in the case, I make the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Invalex Sales Co., Inc., and Invalid Walker and Wheel Chair Co. is an employer within the meaning of Section 2(2) of the Act. 2. Chauffeurs, Salesdrivers & Helpers Union Local 572, affiliated with Interna- tional Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of Amer- ica, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3. By threatening employees with the loss of economic benefits in the event of unionization, Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a)( I) of the Act. 4. The aforesaid unfair labor practice is an unfair labor practice affecting com- merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 5. Respondent has not otherwise engaged in unfair labor practices. RECOMMENDED ORDER Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, and pur- suant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended , it is recom- mended that Respondent , Invalex Sales Co., Inc., and Invalid Walker and Wheel Chair Co , Long Beach, California, its officers , agents, successors, and assigns, shall- 'In Bonded Armored Carrier, Inc, 147 NLRB 100, the Board found it violation of Section 8(a) (1) In not dissimilar circumstances However, I am not certain from the quoted testimony therein whether the Board found a violation because the employer thought the dischargee was engiamg in a concerted activity or whether he was in fact so engaged While in a Section 8(a)(3) situation an emplo}er is equally guilty of com- mitting an unfair labor practice because the discharge Is based upon an erroneous belief that one is engaged in union activities, a different criterion appears to exist here Stated otherwise, In the present Issue, the concerted activities must exist. INVALEX SALES CO., INC. 779 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Threatening employees with loss of economic benefits in the event of unionization. (b) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing ,employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to form labor organiza- tions, to join or assist Chauffeurs, Salesdrivers & Helpers Union Local 572, affiliated with International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Help- ers of America, or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively through repre- sentatives of their own choosing, to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, and to refrain from any or all such activities, except to the extent that such right may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as authorized in Section 8(a)(3) of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action which is deemed necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Post at its plant at Long Beach, California, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix." 9 Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for Region 21, shall, after being duly signed by Respondent, be posted by it immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained for a period of 60 consecu- tive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (b) Notify the Regional Director for Region 21, in writing, within 20 days from the date of receipt of this Decision, what steps it has taken to comply herewith.10 G In the event that this Recommended Order be adopted by the Board, the words "a Decision and Order" shall be substituted for the words "the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner" in the notice In the further event that the Board's Order be enforced by a decree of a United States Court of Appeals, the words "a Decree of the United States Court of Appeals, Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the words "a Decision and Order" iu In the event that this Recommended Order be adopted by the Board, this provision shall be modified to read "Notify said Regional Director, in writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith " APPENDIX NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner or the National Labor Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Rela- tions Act, as amended, we hereby notify you that: WE WILL NOT threaten employees with loss of economic benefits in the event of unionization. WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of their right to form labor organizations, to join or assist Chauffeurs, Salesdrivers & Helpers Union Local 572, affiliated with International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Help- ers of America, or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, and to refrain from any or all such activities, except to the extent that such right may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as authorized in Section 8(a) (3) of the Act. INVALEX SALES CO., INC., AND INVALID WALKER AND WHEEL CHAIR CO., Employer. Dated------------------- By------------------------------------------- (Representative) (Title) This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting, and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. Employees may communicate with the Board's Regional Office, 849 South Broad- way, Los Angeles, California, Telephone No 688-5204, if they have any questions concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions.