Gregg, Gibson, & Gregg

640 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Gregg, Gibson, & Gregg and Local 25, Marine Divi- sion, International Union of Operating Engineers, AFL-CIO. Case 12-CA-4757 June 19, 1970 DECISION AND ORDER BY MEMBERS FANNING, MCCULLOCH, AND JENKINS On April 9, 1970, Trial Examiner Charles W. Schneider issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, granting General Counsel's Motion for Summary Judgment on the ground that there are no unresolved issues requiring a hearing and finding that the Respondent had engaged in and was engag- ing in certain unfair labor practices within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended. The Trial Examiner recommended that the Respondent cease and desist from such unfair labor practices and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Deci- sion. Thereafter, the Respondent 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 Na- tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three- member panel. The Board has considered the Trial Examiner's Decision, the exceptions and brief, and the entire record in this case, and -hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Ex- aminer. ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board adopts as its Order the recom- mended Order of the Trial Examiner and hereby orders that the Respondent, Gregg, Gibson & Gregg, Leesburg, Florida, its officers, agents, suc- cessors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's recommended Order. TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE The Issue CHARLES W. SCHNEIDER, Trial Examiner: The case arises on a Motion for Summary Judgment filed by counsel for the General Counsel on an ad- mitted refusal by the Respondent to bargain with the certified Charging Union, the Respondent con- testing the validity of Board rulings in the represen- tation proceeding in which the Union was certified. The Representation Proceeding' Upon a petition filed in Case 12-RC-3232 under Section 9 of the National Labor Relations Act (29 U.S.C.A. 159) on January 28, 1969, by Local 25, Marine Division, International Union of Operating Engineers, AFL-CIO, herein called the Union, the Union and Gregg, Gibson & Gregg, herein called the Respondent, entered into a Stipulation for Cer- tification Upon Consent Election, which was ap- proved by the Regional Director for Region 12 on February 28, 1969. Pursuant to the stipulation, an election in an ap- propriate bargaining unit, described hereinafter, was held on March 25, 1969, under the direction and supervision of the Regional Director to deter- mine the question of representation. Upon conclu- sion of the election, the parties were furnished a tally of ballots, which showed that of approximately 74 eligible voters, 66 voted, of whom 45 cast bal- lots for the Union, 19 cast ballots against the Union, and 2 ballots were challenged. The chal- lenged ballots were not sufficient in number to af- fect the results of the election. On April 1, 1969, the Employer filed timely ob- jections to the election and the conduct of the elec- tion, alleging, in substance, that the election did not represent a free choice by employees because of certain union conduct in connection with the elec- tion in the nature of material misrepresentations and threats and promises of benefits to employees. In addition the Respondent contended that the Re- gional Director erroneously and unconstitutionally applied Excelsior Underwear Inc., 156 NLRB 1236. In conclusion Respondent requested that the elec- tion be set aside and a rerun election ordered and that a hearing be held on its objections to the elec- tion. On June 16, 1969, the Regional Director issued a Report on Objections to Election and Recommen- dations to the Board. In the report the Regional Director stated that an investigation of the Respon- dent's objections had been conducted during which all parties were afforded opportunity to submit evidence bearing on the issues. After discussion of the evidence, the Regional Director recommended in his report that the Respondent's objections be overruled in their entirety, except for one issue relating to Objection 9; namely, "whether or not I Administrative or official notice is taken of the record in the represen- tation proceeding, Case 12-RC-3232, as the term "record " is defined in Secs 102 68 and 102 69(f) of the Board Rules and Regulations and State- ments of Procedure , Series 8, as amended See LTV Electrosystems, Inc , 166 NLRB 938, enfd 388 F 2d 683 (C A 4, 1968), cert denied 393 U S 843, Golden Age Beverage Company, 167 NLRB 151, enfd 415 F 2d 26 (C A 5, 1969), lntertype Company v Penello, 269 F Supp 573 (D C Va, 1967), lntertype Company v N L R B, 401 F 2d 41 (C A 4, 1968), cert denied 393 U S 1049 (1969), Follett Corporation, 164 NLRB 378, enfd 397 F 2d 91 (C A 7, 1968), and Sec 9 (d) of the National Labor Relations Act 183 NLRB No. 74 GREGG GIBSON & GREGG Petitioner representatives, as alleged, told unit em- ployees that the cost of a union book would be con- ditioned on how the employee voted in the elec- tion, i.e., it would be substantially lower for those who voted for the Union ...." ( Regional Director's report, p. 20.) The Regional Director recommended that the Board direct a hearing on the aforesaid issue. Thereafter on June 30, 1969, the Union, and on July 9, 1969, the Respondent, filed exceptions to the Regional Director's report on objections and briefs in support thereof. The Respondent requested that the Board reverse the action of the Regional Director and hold a hearing on all its ex- ceptions to the Regional Director's report. On October 22, 1969, the Board issued a Deci- sion and Order Directing Hearing, in which it stated that, "The Board has considered the Regional Director's Report and the exceptions of the parties thereto and is of the opinion that there are factual conflicts as to the representations made by peti- tioner regarding the terms upon which union books would be made available ... as alleged in portions of Petitioner's Objection 9." The Board further said that the Respondent's exceptions "raise no other material or substantial issues of fact or law which would warrant reversal of the Regional Director's findings and recommendations .... We hereby adopt the Regional Director's recommendations overruling the remaining objections." (P. 2.) The matter was referred to the Regional Director for the purpose of conducting a hearing. On November 13, 1969, a hearing was held be- fore a duly designated Hearing Officer of the Board for the purpose of receiving evidence to resolve is- sues raised by portions of Employer's Objection 9. On November 20, 1969, the Hearing Officer issued his Report and Recommendation on Objections, in which, after discussing evidence presented during the hearing, he found it "insufficient to raise material or substantial issues affecting the results of the election." Consequently he recommended to the Board that the objection involved be overruled and that the Union be certified. Under date of November 30, 1969, Respondent filed exceptions to the Hearing Officer's report and recommendations, and a brief in support thereof. The Respondent again requested that the election be set aside and a second election held. On January 14, 1970, the Board issued its Sup- plemental Decision and Certification of Represen- tative. The Board stated that it had reviewed the rulings of the Hearing Officer and affirmed them, considered the exceptions, briefs, and the entire record in this case, and adopted the findings, con- clusions, and recommendations of the Hearing Of- 2 To the extent quoted by the Respondent , Sec 102 15 provides After a charge has been filed , if it appears to the regional director that formal proceedings in respect thereto should be instituted , he shall issue and cause to be served on all the other parties a formal complaint in the name of the Board stating the unfair labor practices and contain- ing a notice of hearing before a trial examiner at a place therein fixed 641 ficer. Accordingly, the Board certified the Union as the bargaining representative of the employees in the appropriate unit. The Unfair Labor Practice Case On January 30, 1970, the Union filed the instant unfair labor practice charge alleging that Respon- dent was engaging in unfair labor practices by refusing to bargain with the Union. On February 13, 1970, the Regional Director is- sued a complaint and notice of hearing alleging violations by the Respondent of Section 8(a)(1) and (5) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act, by refusing since on or about January 14, 1970, and specifically on January 27, 1970, to meet and bar- gain with the Union though requested to do so by the Union. On February 18, 1970, Respondent filed its answer and defenses to complaint, in which it de- nied the representative status of the Union, and the commission of unfair labor practices, but admitted all other material factual allegations of the com- plaint. On March 2, 1970, counsel for the General Counsel filed a Motion for Summary Judgment, dated February 26, 1970, on the ground that the Respondent's answer did not raise any newly discovered or previously unavailable evidence requiring hearing. To this motion the Union filed a concurrence dated March 2, 1970. On the same day I issued an Order To Show Cause on the Mo- tion for Summary Judgment returnable March 16, 1970. On March 12, 1970, Respondent filed its Statement in Opposition to the Motion of Counsel for the General Counsel for Summary Judgment. No other responses have been received to the Order To Show Cause. RULING ON MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Quoting paragraph 102.15 of the Board's Rules and Regulations, the Respondent opposes the Mo- tion for Summary Judgment on the ground that "the Board's Rules and Regulations make no provi- sion for the granting of a Summary Judgment in an unfair labor practice proceeding." It is established Board policy, in absence of newly discovered or previously unavailable evidence, or special circumstances, not to permit litigation be- fore a Trial Examiner in an unfair labor practice case of issues which were or could have been litigated in a prior related representation proceed- ing.' This policy is applicable even though no for- mal hearing on objections has been provided by the and at a time not less than 10 days after the service of the complaint Krieger-Ragsdale & Company, Inc, 159 NLRB 490, enfd 379 F 2d 517 (C A 7, 1967), cent denied 389 U S 1041, Macomb Pottery Company v NLRB , 376 F 2d 450 (C A 7, 1967), Hottard Johnson Company, 164 NLRB 801, Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, 163 NLRB 579 See Pittsburgh Plate Glass Company v N L R B, 313 U S 146, 162 (1941), NLRB Rules and Regulations, Secs 102 67(f) and 102 69(c) 642 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL Board. Such a hearing is not a matter of right unless substantial and material issues are raised.4 Respon- dent does not claim to present any newly discovered or previously unavailable evidence or special circumstances. With regard to Respondent's contention that there is no provision in the Board's Rules and Regulations for the granting of summary judgment, it is to be noted that Board orders based on summa- ry judgments have been enforced by the large majority of the U.S. courts of appeals.' The Board has uniformly rejected contentions that there is no authority for summary judgment in, variously, the National Labor Relations Act, the Administrative Prodcedure Act, or the Board's Procedures or Rules.6 I am cited to no case in which a court has refused enforcement of a Board order on the ground that the Board may not use summary judgment procedure. On the contrary, whenever the issue has been raised, the courts have invariably upheld the Board's authority to utilize such procedure where there were no issues requiring an evidential hear- ing.' In several other summary judgment cases the courts, while refusing enforcement of Board orders 4 O K Van and Storage, Inc, 127 NLRB 1537, enfd 297 F 2d 74 (C A 5, 1961) See N L R B v Air Control Products of St Petersburg, inc , 335 F 2d 245, 249 (C A 5, 1964 ) "If there is nothing to hear, then a hearing is a senseless and useless formality " See also N L R B v Bata Shoe Com- pany, Inc , 377 F 2d 821, 826 (C A 4, 1967), cert denied 389 U S 917 "there is no requirement, constitutional or otherwise, that there be a hear- ing in the absence of substantial and material issues crucial to determina- tion of whether NLRB election results are to be accepted for purposes of certification " ' See, for example, the following cases, all decided within the last 4 years ,N L R B v Rexall Chemical Company, 370 F 2d 363 (C A I, 1967), Baumritter Corporation v NLRB, 386 F 2d 117 (CA 1, 1967), NLRB v Union Carbide Caribe, Inc, 423 F 2d 231 (C A 1, 1970), Polymers, Inc v N L R.B, 414 F 2d 999 (C A 2, 1969), cert denied 396 U S. 1010, N L R B v. Olson Bodies, Inc, 420 F 2d 1 187 (C A 2, 1970), N L R B v The Puritan Sportsxear Corp, 385 F 2d 142 (C A 3, 1967), N.L R B v. Certified Testing Laboratories, Inc., 387 F.2d 285 (C A 3, 1967), N L R.B v Neii Enterprise Stone and Lime Company, Inc , 413 F 2d 117 (C A 3, 1969), N L R B v Carolina Natural Gas Corp , 386 F 2d 571 (C A 4, 1967), LTV Electrosystems, Inc v N L R B , 388 F 2d 683 (C A 4, 1968 ), N L'R B v Aerovox Corporation of Myrtle Beach, S C, 390 F 2d 653 (C A 4, 1968), N L R B v Rish Equipment Company, 401 F 2d 597 (C A 4, 1968), N L R B v Union Brothers, Inc, 403 F 2d 883 (C A 4, 1968), NLRB v Aerovox Corp of Myrtle Beach, S C, 409 F 2d 1004 (C A 4, 1969), N.L R B v Hevi-Duty Electric Company, 410 F 2d 757 (CA 4, 1969), NLRB v Nex port Mining Corporation , 417 F.2d 625 (C A 4, 1969), Neuhoff Brothers , Packers, Inc v N L R B, 362 F 2d 611 (C A 5, 1966), cert denied 386 U S 956, Southxestern Portland Cement Co v NLRB , 407 F.2d 131 (C A 5, 1969), cert denied 396 U S 820, N L R B v Caption Drilling Company, 408 F 2d 676 (C A 5, 1969), River- side Press, Inc v N L R B , 415 F 2d 281 (C A 5, 1969), cert. denied 397 U S. 912, N L R B v Golden Age Beverage Company, 415 F 2d 26 (C A 5, 1969), N L R B. v Crest Leather Manufacturing Corporation, 414 F 2d 421 (C A 5, 1969), Pepperell Manufacturing Company v N L R.B , 403 F 2d 520 (CA 5, 1968), cert denied 395 U.S. 922 (1969);, N L.R B v. Singleton Packing Co , 418 F 2d 275 (C A 5, 1969), Frito-Lay, Inc v. N L R.B, 422 F 2d 169 (C A 5, 1970), Amax Aluminum Extrusion Products, Inc v NLRB , 421 F 2d 394 (C A 5, 1970), N.L R B v Ten- nessee Packers , Inc., 379 F 2d 172 (C A 6. 1967), cert denied 389 U S 958, N.L R B v Brush-Moore Nesispapers, Inc, dlbla The Portsmouth Times, 413 F.2d 809 (C.A 6, 1969), cert denied 396 U S 1002, N L R B. v Dean Foods Company, Inc, 421 F 2d 664 (C A 6, 1970), N L R B. v. LABOR RELATIONS BOARD on the merits, specifically upheld or assumed the authority of the Board to issue summary judgments.8 There being no unresolved issues requiring an evidential hearing, summary judgment is ap- propriate and the General Counsel's Motion for Summary Judgment is granted. Upon the basis of the record before me, I make the following further: FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT Respondent is a Florida corporation whose home office is in Leesburg, Florida, where it is engaged in the dredging business. During the past 12 months Respondent purchased and received parts, materials , and sup- plies valued in excess of $50,000 directly from points outside the State of Florida. Respondent, at all times material herein, has been engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. National Survey Service, Inc , 361 F 2d 199 (C A. 7, 1966), Macomb Pot- tery Company v N L R B., supra, N L R B v Krieger-Ragsdale & Company, Inc , 379 F.2d 517 (C A 7, 1967), cert denied 389 U S 1041, Follett Corp v NLRB , 397 F.2d 91 (C A 7, 1968), NLRB. v Holly%ood Brands, Inc, 398 F 2d 294 (C A 7, 1968), N.L R B v Montgomery Ward & Co, Incorporated, 399 F 2d 409 (C.A 7, 1968), N L R B v Red Bird Foods, Inc, 399 F 2d 600 (C A 7, 1968), State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v N L R B , 411 F 2d 356 (C A. 7, 1969), cert denied 396 U S . 832, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co v N L R B , 413 F 2d 947 (C.A 7, 1969), cert denied 396 U.S 958, N.L R B v Wacho Mfg Co, 421 F 2d 848 (C A 7, 1970), N L R B v Aircraft Engineering Corporation , 419 F 2d 1303 (C A 8, 1970), NLRB v E-Z Davies Chevrolet, 395 F 2d 191 (C A 9, 1968), N L R B v Continental Nut Co , 395 F 2d 830 (C A 9, 1968), N.L R B v Red-More Corporation, dlbla Disco Fair, 418 F 2d 490 (C A 9, 1969), Cap Santa Vue, Inc v N L R B , 424 F 2d 883 (C A D C , 1970), N L R B v Mar Salle, Inc, d1bla Mar Salle Convalescent Home, 425 F 2d 566 (C A D C., 1970), Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America [Winfield Mfg Co ] v N L R B , 424 F 2d 818 (C A D C, 1970) 6See, for example, Liquid Carbonic Corporation, 116 NLRB 795, Krieger-Ragsdale & Company, Inc , 159 NLRB 490, E-Z Davies Chevrolet, 161 NLRB 1380, Union Brothers, Inc, 162 NLRB 1505, Reno's Riverside Hotel, Inc, dlbla Riverside Hotel, 163 NLRB 280, Metropolitan Life In- surance Company, 163 NLRB 579, Harry T Campbell Sons' Corporation, 164 NLRB 247, and cases there cited , Red-More Corporation. dlbla Disco Fair, 164 NLRB 638, Ore-Ida Foods, Inc, 164 NLRB 438, Clement-Blythe Companies , 168 NLRB 118, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Com- pany, 169 NLRB 843, Chelsea Clock Company, 170 NLRB 69, Union Car- bide Caribe, Inc, 173 NLRB 931 ' See, for example , the following cases cited in In 5 or 8 Union Carbide Caribe, Inc , Baumruter Corporation, Certiifted Testing Laboratories, Inc , The Puritan Sportssi ear Corp, Carolina Natural Gas Corp, LTV Elec- trosystems, Inc , Aerovox Corp (both cases), Union Brothers, Inc , Clement- Blythe Companies, Caption Drilling Company, Crest Leather Manufacturing Corporation, Frito-Lay, Inc, Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America [ Winfield Mfg Co ], Brush-Moore Neu spapers, Inc, E-Z Davies Chevrolet, Red-More Corporation, dlbla Disco Fair, Mar Salle, Inc, dlbla Mar Salle Convalescent Home ' See, for example , N L R B v Chelsea Clock Company, 411 F 2d 189 (C A I, 1969), N L R B v Clement-Blythe Companies, 415 F 2d 78 (C A 4, 1969), N L R B v Ortronu, Inc , 380 F 2d 737 (C A 5, 1967), National Cash Register Co v NLRB , 415 F 2d 1012 (CA 5, 1969), Monroe Manufacturing Company v N L R B , 403 F 2d 197 (C A 5, 1968) GREGG, GIBSON & GREGG 643 II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION The Union is, and has been at all times material herein, a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES The following employees of Respondent con- stitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collec- tive bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act: All employees of Gregg, Gibson & Gregg, employed on and in connection with the dredge Triton, including maintenance em- ployees and employees working on the dump- ing and diking operations, but excluding all of- fice clerical employees, professional em- ployees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act. On January 14, 1970, the Board certified the Union as the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of the employees in the appropriate unit for the purposes of collective bargaining, and, by virtue of Section 9(a) of the Act, the Union is the exclusive representative of all the employees in the said unit with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other terms and condi- tions of employment. Since on or about November 25, 1969, and con- tinuing to date, and specifically by letter dated November 25, 1969, and various oral requests, the Union requested the Respondent to bargain. Since on or about January 14, 1970, and specifi- cally by letter dated January 27, 1970, the Respon- dent has refused to bargain with the Union as the collective-bargaining representative of said em- ployees. By thus refusing to bargain collectively Respon- dent has engaged in unfair labor practices in viola- tion of Section 8(a)(5) of the Act and has inter- fered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect com- merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. Upon the foregoing findings and conclusions, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, I recommend that the Board issue the following: ORDER A. For the purpose of determining the duration of the certification , the initial year of certification shall be deemed to begin on the date the Respon- dent commences to bargain in good faith with the Union as the recognized exclusive bargaining representative in the appropriate unit.' B. Gregg, Gibson & Gregg, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Refusing to bargain collectively with Local 25, Marine Division, International Union of Operat- ing Engineers, AFL-CIO, as the exclusive collec- tive-bargaining representative of the employees in the following appropriate bargaining unit: All employees of Gregg, Gibson & Gregg, employed on and in connection with dredge Triton, including maintenance employees and employees working on the dumping and diking operations, but excluding all office clerical em- ployees, professional employees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act. (b) Interfering with the efforts of said Union to negotiate for or represent employees as the exclu- sive collective-bargaining representative. 2. Take the following affirmative action which is necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Upon request bargain collectively with Local 25, Marine Division, International Union of Operat- ing Engineers, AFL-CIO, as the exclusive represen- tative of all employees in the appropriate unit with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employ- ment, and other terms and conditions of employ- ment, and embody in a signed agreement any un- derstanding reached. (b) Post at its place of business in Leesburg, Florida, copies of the attached notice marked "Ap- pendix."" Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 12, after being duly signed by Respondent's authorized representa- tive, shall be posted by the Respondent immediate- ly upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by the Respondent for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any. other material. (c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 12, in writing, within 20 days from the receipt of this decision, what steps have been taken to comply herewith." ° The purpose of this provision is to insure that the employees in the ap- propriate unit will be accorded the services of their selected bargaining agent for the period provided by law See Mar-Jac Poultry Company, Inc , 136 NLRB 785, Commerce Company d/bla Lamar Hotel, 140 NLRB 226, 229, enfd 328 F 2d 600 (C A 5, 1964), cert denied 379 U.S 817, Burnett Construction Company, 149 NLRB 1419, 1421, enfd 350 F 2d 57 (C A 10,1965) 10 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 Na- tional 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 " 11 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 12, in writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order , what steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith " 427-258 G-LT - 74 - 42 644 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD APPENDIX NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain collectively with Local 25; Marine Division, International Union of Operating Engineers, AFL-CIO, as the exclusive collective-bargaining representa- tive of all our following employees: All employees employed on and in con- nection with the dredge Triton, including maintenance employees and employees working on the dumping and diking opera- tions, but excluding all office clerical em- ployees, professional employees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act. WE WILL NOT interfere with the efforts of the Union to negotiate for or represent employees as the exclusive collective-bargaining represen- tative. WE WILL bargain collectively with the Union as the exclusive collective-bargaining represen- tative of the employees in the appropriate unit, and if an understanding is reached sign a con- tract with the Union. GREGG, GIBSON & GREGG (Employer) Dated By (Representative ) (Title) This is an official notice and must not be defaced by anyone. This notice must remain posted for 60 consecu- tive days from the date of posting and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. Any questions concerning this notice or com- pliance with its provisions may be directed to the Board's Office, Room 706, Federal Office Building, 500 Zack Street, Tampa, Florida 33602, Telephone 813-228-7227.