Houston Typographical Union

592 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Houston Typographical Union No 87 and Houston Shop ping News Company, d/b/a Naylor Type and Mats Case 23-CB-995 May 20, 1970 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS BROWN AND JENKINS On February 24, 1970, Trial Examiner Thomas S Wilson issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceed ing, finding that the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices and recom mending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Decision Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the Decision 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 con nection with this case to a three-member panel The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Exam- iner made at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed The rulings are hereby affirmed The Board has considered the Trial Examiner's Decision, the exceptions, and the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommen- dations of the Trial Examiner with the following modi- fications The Trial Examiner found that the Respondent restrained and coerced the Employer in violation of Section 8(b)(1)(B) of the Act by fining Superintendent William Browning for allegedly failing to adhere to the collective-bargaining agreement in bypassing Foreman Jones and hiring a nonunion man as assistant foreman We agree Stripped to its essentials, this is a situation where Respondent took such action so as to render Superintendent Browning, a representative of the Employer, more amenable to its interpretation of how the contract should be applied, i e , selection of the assistant foreman by the foreman rather than by the superintendent and of a union rather than a nonunion member, thus depriving the Employer of the effective representation that it is entitled to under the Act ' ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Rela- tions Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board hereby adopts as its Order the Recommended Order of the Trial Examiner, as modified herein, and orders that the Respondent, Houston Typographical Union No 87, Houston, Texas, its officers, agents, and representatives, shall take the action set forth in ' We find it unnecessary to decide whether as found by the Trial Examiner the foregoing conduct also violates Sec 8(b)(I)(A) of the Act the Trial Examiner s Recommended Order, as so mod- ified Delete from the first paragraph of the attached Appen- dix that part which reads "and abide by its terms" and substitute therefor "and we intend to carry out the Order of the Board, and abide by the following " TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE THOMAS S WILSON, Trial Examiner Upon a charge duly filed on October 9, 1969, by Houston Shopping News Company, d/b/a Naylor Type and Mats, herein referred to as the Company or the Charging Party, the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board, herein referred to as the General Counsel' and the Board, respectively, by the Regional Director for Region 23, Houston, Texas, issued its complaint dated November 3, 1969, against Houston Typographical Union No 87, hereinafter referred to as the Respondent The complaint alleged that Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8(b)(1)(A) and (B) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Labor Management Relations Act, 1947, as amended, herein referred to as the Act Respondent duly filed its answer admitting certain allegations of the complaint but denying the commission of any unfair labor practices Pursuant to notice a hearing thereon was held before me in Houston Texas, on December 8, 1969 All parties appeared at the hearing, were represented by Counsel, and were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to prod- uce and cross examine witnesses, and to introduce evi dence material and pertinent to the issues At the conclu lion of the hearing, oral argument was waived Briefs were received from General Counsel on January 14, 1970, and a document labeled "Reply of Respondent to Memorandum of the General Counsel to the Trial Examiner" on January 19, 1970 Although received after the required filing date this Reply" brief has been considered Upon the entire record in the case and from my observation of the witnesses I make the following FINDINGS OF FACT I THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY The complaint alleged, the answer admitted, and I therefore find Houston Shopping News Company, d/b/a Naylor Type and Mats, is, and has been at all times material herein, a corporation duly organized under and existing by the virtue of the laws of the State of Texas At all times material herein the Company has maintained its principal office and place of business at 2520 Robin ' This term specifically includes the attorney appearing for the General Counsel at the hearing 182 NLRB No 91 HOUSTON TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION Hood, Houston, Texas, and is, and has been at all times material herein, engaged in the manufacture, proc- essing , sale, and distribution of printed reproduction proofs and related materials. During the preceding calen- dar year, the Company, in the course and conduct of its business operations; purchased, transferred, and received at its Houston, Texas, plant, goods and mate- rials valued in excess of $50,000 directly from States of the United States other than the State of Texas Accordingly, I find that the Company is now, and has been at all times material herein, engaged in com- merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act It. THE RESPONDENT Houston Typographical Union No. 87 is a labor organi- zation admitting to membership employees of the Compa- ny 111. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. The Facts The parties hereto, Respondent and the Company, were parties to a collective-bargaining agreement cover- ing the composing room employees.of the Company which was dated July 1, 1967, and which expired by its terms on August 31, 1969. This contract contained, inter a/ia, the following provisions: FOREMEN Sec. 2. The operation, authority and control of each composing room shall be vested exclusively in the, Office through its representative, the foreman, who shall be a journeyman. In the absence (off days, sickness, vacation or leave of absence) of the foreman, he may designate and post who will be foreman during his absence and such designated person shall be vested with the full authority granted by this agreement to the foreman. The foreman may also designate and post an assistant to represent him as acting foreman on each shift in any 24- hour period during which the foreman has been on duty, and who shall have full authority of the foreman except that he may reprimand but may not discharge employees or change Office rules. Nothing in this section shall interfere' with instruc- tions being given by others for the proper execution of a job, when such instructions are deemed neces- sary by the foreman. Sec. 2(a) At the discretion of the Employer through its representative, the foreman and/or assistant foremen, supervisory'personne'l in addition to foremen and assistants may be designated for the purpose of assigning work to journeymen and issuing instructions necessary for the proper execu- tion of the composing room work. Such supervisory personnel, when designated by the Employer through its representatives, the foreman and/or 593 assistant foremen, shall have all°the authority vested in the foreman and/or assistant foremen except that of discharge or changing office rules. Sec 3(a) The foreman shall hire all employees for composing room operations. Applications for work must be made to the foreman, who as the representative of the Employer is the only person having the authority to employ journeymen in the composing room. A journeyman is defined as About May 1969 Theodore DeFelice, president of the Company, appointed William E. Browning the com- pany plant superintendent. Prior thereto Browning for the past 3 or 4 years had been the acting plant superin- tendent. For most of that period Foreman John Jones had been the foreman of the composing room under Browning. As of July 1969, John Henley was the night or assistant foreman for the night shift, appointed to that position by Foreman John Jones All the above- named individuals, except DeFelice, were members of Local 87. A few weeks prior to July 21, 1969,2 Browning became dissatisfied with Henley as assistant or night foreman and began looking around for another person to assume that position.' Browning and Jones discussed the matter at which time the name of Earl Browning," a cousin of Browning and a nonmember of Respondent, was casually mentioned for the position by Browning. Jones voiced no opposition. Earl was a journeyman. but was not a member of Respondent, as was known by Browning. Despite , the articles of the contract quoted above Jones acknowledged in his testimony that, as a' practical matter, he exercised the contractual power to hire and fire and to appoint only after consultation with Browning and/or DeFelice On July 14 Foreman Jones went on a week's vacation after appointing one Zarelli to substitute for him as foreman. There is no showing of any consultations between Zarelli and Browning and/or DeFelice over the evening assistant foremanship. On July 21 Jones returned to work and was informed by Browning that Earl was to be the evening or assistant foreman beginning that evening. Jones so instructed Henley who returned to a production job and Earl took over the position of evening or assistant foreman on July 21. Earl worked as assistant foreman on July 21 but notified the Company early on July 22 that he did not wish to retain the job. On July 22 Henley was reinstated as assistant foreman and has remained such ever since. On August 5 Respondent received the following: Charges are hereby preferred against Bill Brown- ing, Superintendent of Naylor Type & Mats, for 2 All dates herein are in the year 1969 unless otherwise specified Although it is unimportant, Browning testified that he had called the union hall for an assistant foreman This the Union denies ' Hereinafter Earl Browning will be referred to as Earl in order to distinguish him from Plant Superintendent William Browning 594 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD conduct unbecoming a union member and failure to observe provisions of the contract in that on July 21, 1969, he usurped the power and duties of the foreman and hired a non -union man and appointed him assistant foreman in charge of the night shift Bill Browing [sic] later that same day refused permission for the chairman to use the office telephone to call the president of the local Respectfully submitted, /s/ E DOUGLAS AUSTIN E DOUGLAS AUSTIN 124493 On August 6, the following letter dated August 6 with a copy of the above charge attached was mailed by Respondent to Browning Dear Mr Browning I am enclosing a copy of charges filed against you by E Douglas Austin These charges will be read at the regular meeting of HTU No 87 Sunday August 10 , at which time you will be given and [sic] opportunity to explain your position, if you desire The meeting will be held at 1 30 p in at 1815 Walker Avenue Fraternally yours, LEROY WILLIAMS SECRETARY HTU No 87 The Union held a meeting on August 10 Browning was not present The charges were read and discussed and then the president referred the matter to the Union's disciplinary committee The disciplinary committee was scheduled to meet on September 24 Twice before that time Rayner went to Browning to urge him to appear in person before the committee Browning failed to appear at the Septem- ber 25 meeting but did send the following letter by personal messenger In answer to the charges preferred against me by Mr Austin-I believe them unfair and I think his conduct as a member of the Union should be questioned He with others refused to work the shift assigned to him He kept other men from working and caused quite a stink I do not want to file charges against Mr Austin-I don't believe he can afford a fine any more than I can I carry a not at the trade card I also know all about the right to work law I expect the union to furnish us with the help we need Respectfully submitted /S/ WILLIAM E BROWNING At the Meeting on September 25 the disciplinary committee voted to fine Browning I day's pay This decision was affirmed by the membership at the next regular union meeting (which was attended by some of the Employer ' s employees) despite the vocal opposition of several union members E Douglas Austin, who originated the charge against Browning against the advice of some union officials, vocally defended his charges on the floor Finally the meeting voted to fine Browning I day's pay By letter dated October 6 the Union notified Browning of this action as follows At a regular meeting of Houston Typographical Union No 87 on September 14, 1969, you were found guilty of charges filed against you by Douglas Austin and assessed a penalty of one day's pay- $30 90 This amount will be added to your next dues payment , unless paid beforehand Although the Union billed Browning for the amount of this fine, the fine has never been paid Nor to the date of the hearing has the Union taken any further steps to collect the fine Browning remains a member of the Union in good standing B Analysis and Conclusions Respondent and General Counsel view this case from the standpoint of whether or not Earl is a supervisor or one who is a representative for the purposes of collective bargaining or for the adjustment of griev- ances ' the General Counsel contends that Earl, as night foreman , is a supervisor or "representative" and he is within the meaning of Section 8(b)(1)(B) and there fore any attempt by the Respondent to unduly influence an employer in the employer ' s choice of or control over his representative amounts to a violation of Section 8(b)(1)(B) Respondent meets General Counsel only at the threshhold and contends solely that Earl is not a representative of the Employer within the meaning of Section 8(b)(1)(B) of the Act On the basis of the credited testimony of Superintendent Browning it is clear that the night foreman position at the Employer's place of business possesses sufficient indicia of a supervi- sor under Section 2(11) of the Act Furthermore, the night foreman 's responsibilities include the adjustment of grievances and thus Earl, as night foreman was a supervisor or representative of the Employer within Section 8(b)(1)(B) of the Act It is more manifest and I also find that Superintendent Browning was a supervisor or representative of the Employer entitled to protection of Section 8(b)(1)(B) There is no evidence that Earl left his position as night foreman involuntarily The nub of the case is whether the Employer's authority to choose its represent- atives was divested by the contract between the parties HOUSTON TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION If the Employer's authority was not divested then union discipline against Browning for hiring a nonunion man and appointing him as "assistant foreman in charge of the night shift" would be a violation of Section 8(b)(1)(B). A union may not strike an employer to obtain a clause in the contract requiring foremen to become members of the union, for to do so the union restrains and coerces the employer by limiting his choice of foremen to union members.5 However, if the union does not require foremen-members to hire members only or does not discipline foremen-members for hiring nonmembers, a contract requiring union membership for foremen does not violate Section 8(b)(2)." "An employer must be free of pressure in choosing his repre- sentatives for collective bargaining."' In Respondent's view the instant case involves disci- pline of a supervisor-member, Browning, for violation of the contract by usurping the power of the foremen in the hiring of the assistant foreman, Earl. The contract in question is subject to more than one interpretation on the issue and Respondent and General Counsel have both argued persuasively in support of their respective conflicting interpretations. In the San Francisco Mailers' case" the union disciplined the employer's supervisors for violations of the collective-bargaining contract. The Board found a violation of Section 8(b)(1)(B). The rela- tionship affected was one between the employer and the union as the dispute was an outgrowth of the collec- tive-bargaining contract as in the instant case. The Board stated "The relationship between the Union and its members appears to have been of only secondary impor- tance, used as a convenient and . . . powerful tool to affect the employer-union relationship, i.e., to compel the Employer's foremen to take pro-union positions in interpreting the collective-bargaining agreement." Such a purpose violates the statutory policy of Section 8(b)(1)(B) of allowing the employer an unimpeded choice of representatives for collective bargaining and settle- ment of grievances. To allow discipline of a supervisor for alleged violations of the contract deprives the employ- er of the loyalty and agressive representation by his supervisor that the employer is entitled to by Section 8(b)(1)(B). Even though the supervisor does not handle grievances, because of his position he would be a natural possible future choice of the employer to handle griev- ances which is sufficient to bring him within the protec- tion of Section 8(b)(l)(B).11 A union may not use its internal rules to boycott an employer who did not have a contract with the union since such dispute is not an intraunion matter and thus discipline of a supervisor- member for working for an employer who was not International Typographical Union v N L R B [Hanerhill Gazette] 278 F 2d 6 (C A 1, 1960), affd by equally divided court 365 U S 705(1%1) N.L.RB v News Syndicate Co, Inc, 365 US 695,699(1961) Portland Stereotypers Union No 48 (Journal Publishing Co) 137 NLRB 782, 787 (1962) " San Francisco-Oakland Mailers' Union No 18 (Northwest Publica- tions), 172 NLRB No 252 (1969) Toledo Locals 15-P and 272, Lithographers (Toledo Blade Company), 175 NLRB No 173 (1969) 595 signatory to a contract with the union violates Section 8(b)(1)(B)."' In another A. S. Horner case" the union disciplined a supervisor-member for urging the employ- ees to vote "no" in an upcoming union election among his employer's employees and for hiring nonunion employees prior to the election. The discipline was held to be violative of Section 8(b)(1)(B) because the union was attempting by such discipline to compel the employer to select a superintendent more amenable to the union's position. The fine levied against the superin- tendent in Horner for hiring nonunion employees was held to be an attempt to cause the company superintend- ent to discriminate against nonunion applicants which is prohibited by Section 8(a)(3) and thus a violation of Section 8(b)(1)(A) and (2). In General Metal Products12 a union was held to have violated Section 8(b)(1)(B) by firing a working foreman who was a member of the union for violating the contract by working prior to the beginning of the workday and for using men of other crafts to assist him in doing the work. Since the disciplinary action was connected with the foreman's supervisory functions and since the fine was leveled at the foreman for violation of the contract and constitution, the union was held to be attempting to cause the foreman to substitute the union's determination of the meaning of the collec- tive-bargaining contract for the employer's, thus coercing the employer's choice of representatives for collective bargaining or handling of grievance. It is clear that Respondent fined or disciplined Brown- ing for alleged failure to adhere to the contract in bypassing Foreman Jones and hiring a nonunion man as assistant foreman. These were the charges that Brown- ing was found guilty of in the Union's letter of October 6. Such action by the Union was aimed at rendering Browning more amenable to their interpretation of the contract provision in dispute in this case thus depriving the employer of effective representation in violation of Section 8(b)(1)(B) of the Act. By attempting to cause Browning to discriminate against the nonunion assistant foreman, Earl, and by engaging in such discipline in the presence of employees of the Employer, the Respondent also violated Section 8(b)(1)(A). The parties' collective-bargaining agreement contains extensive provisions for arbitration of grievances arising under the contract by the Joint Standing Committee. In the instant case Respondent chose to proceed unilater- ally to resolve the dispute under the contract by disciplin- ing Browning instead of utilizing the contractual provi- sions. Respondent cannot now be heard to complain that the Board resolve the dispute. The substitution of unilateral action in form of discipline of Browning by Respondent forecloses at this late date resort to the arbitration provisions of the contract. Such contractu- al defense does not divest the Board of jurisdiction." New Mexico District Council of Carpenters (A S Horner), 177 NLRB No 76 (1969) " New Mexico District Council of Carpenters, 176 NLRB No 105 (1969) 2 Sheet Metal Workers', Local 49, 178 NLRB No 24 (1969) " Mastro Plastics Corp v N L R B, 350 U S 270, cf N L R B (Cont ) 596 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD `Neither party ^ has` sought to invoke arbitration of the dispute. Furthermore,' as the Respondent's purpose here was to compel Browning to adopt a prounion position regarding the,interpretation of the contract, it is unneces- sary for the Trial Examiner to resort to an interpretation of the contract or to resolve or reconcile the conflicting and ambiguous language of section 2, 2(a),, and 3(a) of the contract for, even if Respondent's interpretation be correct, it has utilized an improper means to enforce those provisions.14 ' Assuming , as Respondent contends , that Earl was not a supervisor ' or representative compels no different result . The issue here is discipline of Browning as, repre- sentative of the Employer , not Earl . The subject matter of the discipline was alleged violation of the contract as' it was in San ' Francisco-Oakland Mailers ', supra. and whether or'not Earl was 'a supervisor or representa- tive in noway affects •the, result . It is the discipline of Browning (which was made known to the employees), clearly a representative of the Employer , for giving to the contract an interpretation more advantageous to the Employer that we are concerned with. I find such conduct by Respondent to violate Section 8 (b)(1)(B) and 8(b)(l)(A). The parties hereto' will no doubt consider this case to have been "an exercise in utter futility"-which, except for the rescission of the fine, it is. The decision here is, however, in scrupulous accord with Board law which appears to be premised'upon the rather speculative future effects of the union action involved upon the individual affected if and when at some future date he becomes the Employer's "representative for the pur- poses of collective bargaining. or the adjustment of griev- ances," neither of -which is involved here. That then is the basis of the instant decision. Under that theory an interpretation of the contract provisions quoted supra becomes immaterial., Therefore, although both parties here apparently anticipated such interpretation here, none has been made. For such an interpretation the parties will have to utilize the arbitration provisions of their agreement-which probably should have been done in the first place 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 Charging Party's operations described in section I, above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relationship 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. Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record in the case, I make the following: v C & C Plywood Corporation, 385 U S 421, Internatu,nal Harvester Company, 138 NLRB 923 (1962) " San Francisco-Oakland Mailers' Union, supra C & C Plywood requires no other result for in that case, unlike here, there was no arbitration clause That case is inapplicable here CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Respondent is a labor organization within the mean- ing of Sections 2(5) and 8(b) of the Act. 2. The Employer,'is an employer within the meaning of Sections 2(2) and 8(b)(1)(B) of the Act: 3. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 4. By restraining and ' coercing the Employer in the selection of its representatives for the purposes of collec- tive bargaining or the'adjustment of grievances Respond- ent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(b)(1)(B) of ,the Act. 5. By attempting to cause the Employer to discrimi- nate against the nonunion assistant foreman, Earl Brown- ing, in the presence of employees of the Employer, the Respondent violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act. 6. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce -within the meaning of Sec- tion 2(6) and (7) of the Act. THE REMEDY Having found that Respondent has violated Section 8(b)(1)(B) and 8(b)(l)(A) of the Act I shall recommend that it cease and desist from restraining or coercing the Employer or any employer `with whom it has a collective-bargaining agreement in.the manner charged herein. Additionally, I find that the coercive effect herein can be removed only if Respondent is required to rescind the fine imposed against Browning. The debilitating effects on the employees will be remedied by the posting of the notice as prescribed below. RECOMMENDED ORDER Upon the basis of,the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law and upon the entire record in this case, I recommend that the Respondent, its officers, agents, and representatives, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) In any manner restraining or coercing Houston Shopping News Company, d/b/a Naylor Type and Mats, in the selection of representatives chosen for the purpos- es of collective bargaining or the adjustment of griev- ances. (b) Refraining or refusing to use the means provided by its collective-bargaining agreement for the adjustment of grievances and disputes thereunder in order to restrain or coerce the Employer in the selection of its representa- tives for the purposes of collective bargaining or the adjustment of grievances. 2. Take the following affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Rescind the fine levied against William E. Brown- ing and excise all record thereof from its files. (b) Post at offices of the Charging Party, the employer willing, as well as at Respondent's meeting place, copies HOUSTON TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION of the notice attached hereto marked "Appendix "'' Copies of said notice , on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 23 , Houston , Texas, after being duly signed by Respondent ' s authorized representative, shall be posted by Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to members of Respondent and employees of the Charging Party are customarily posted and be main- tained as posted for the duration of the contract with the Charging Party, but in no event for less than 60 consecutive days from the date of posting Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered , defaced , or covered by any other material (c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 23, in writing , within 20 days from the receipt of this Decision, what steps have been taken to comply herewith " ' In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Section 102 46 of the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board the findings conclusions recommendations and Recommended Order herein shall as provided in Section 102 48 of the Rules and Regulations be adopted by the Board and become its findings conclusions and order and all objections thereto shall be deemed waived for all purposes In the event that the Board s Order is enforced by a Judgment of a United States Court of Appeals the words in the notice reading Posted by Order of the National Labor Relations Board shall be changed to read Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board " In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board this provision shall be modified to read Notify the Regional Director for Region 23 in writing within 10 days from the date of this Order what steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith APPENDIX NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES AND MEMBERS POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government After a hearing in which both sides had the opportunity 597 to present their evidence , the National Labor Relations Board has found that we violated the law and has ordered us to post this notice and abide by its terms WE WILL NOT in any manner restrain or coerce the aforesaid Employer , Houston Shopping News Company , d/b/a Naylor Type and Mats, in the selection of representatives he may choose for the purposes of collective bargaining and the adjustment of grievances or disputes under the contract WE WILL NOT cite superintendents or representa- tives of Houston Shopping News Company, d/ b/a Naylor Type and Mats before our trial board nor require them to answer for decisions made by them as to the meaning or application of any collective-bargaining agreement to which we are a party where such an agreement contains provi sions for the adjustment of grievances and disputes WE have rescinded and have notified William E Browning that the fine imposed has been rescind- ed and all reference thereto has been expunged from our records Dated By HOUSTON TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION No 87 (Labor Organization) (Representative) (Title) This is an official notice and must not be defaced by anyone 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 Any questions concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions may be directed to the Board 's Office, 6617 Federal Office Building, 515 Rusk Avenue , Houston, Texas 77002, Telephone 713-226-4296