Valerie Nursing Home

VALERIE NURSING HOME Valerie Nursing Home and National Union of Hospital & Nursing Home Employees, Local 1199H, Retail, Wholesale & Department Store Union , AFL-CIO. Case 9-CA-6079 January 25, 1972 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS FANNING AND JENKINS On September 20, 1971, Trial Examiner Robert Cohn issued the attached Decision in this proceeding. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions and a sup- porting 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 au- thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. The Board has considered the record and the Trial Examiner's Decision in light of the exceptions and brief, and has decided to affirm the Trial Examiner's rulings, findings, and conclusions' and to adopt his recommended Order.' ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Re- lations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board adopts as its Order the recommended Order of the Trial Examiner and hereby orders that Valerie Nursing Home, Dayton, Ohio, its officers , agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's recommended Order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint be dis- missed insofar as it alleges violations of the Act not found herein. CHAIRMAN MILLER , dissenting in part: I do not believe that a casual request to see notes taken at a Board hearing, standing alone, constitutes coercive interrogation. I therefore dissent from the finding of that particular 8(a)(1) violation. ' The Trial Examiner found, and we agree , that the Respondent's real motive in discharging McGinnis was the latter's protected concerted ac- tivity under Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act Contrary to the implication of our dissenting colleague, we do not find that union activity immunizes an employee, who has characterized the food of a nursing home as "slop," from discharge. The evidence in this case is overwhelming that this incident was not the reason why Respondent discharged McGinnis The NLRA was designed by Congress to protect employees from unlawful discharge This can hardly be accomplished if an employer is free to seize upon a pretext to do indirectly what the law forbids him to do directly ' We hereby correct the following inadvertent error in the Trial Ex- aminer's Decision In paragraph 1(c) of the recommended Order, "Convey- ing to employers " should read "Conveying to employees 195 NLRB No. 6 51 Nor do I believe that a nursing home employee is immunized by her union activity from discipline for characterizing, in the presence of a patient and his wife, the food served by the institution as "slop." I therefore dissent from the 8(a)(3) finding. TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE ROBERT COHN, Trial Examiner: This case, initiated by a charge filed February 9, 1971,' and a complaint issued on March 30, was tried before me on June 2 in Dayton, Ohio. The complaint alleged that Valerie Nursing Home (herein the Respondent or Company) violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended (herein the Act), by discriminatorily discharging one of its employees on or about February 1, and by engaging in other acts and conduct which interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed them in Sec- tion 7 of the Act. Respondent filed an answer in which it generally denied the commission of the unfair labor practices alleged. At the close of the hearing, oral argument was waived. Posthearing briefs were filed with me by counsel for Respondent and by counsel for the General Counsel; counsel for the Charging Party filed a memorandum in which he supported the brief of the latter. Upon the entire record in this case, including my observa- tion of the demeanor of the witnesses while testifying,' and the arguments of counsel, I make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT I JURISDICTION The Respondent is a partnership licensed to operate, and is operating, a proprietary nursing home in Dayton, Ohio, which commenced operations on or about April 1, 1970. It was stipulated by the parties that during the annual period next ensuing, Respondent, in the course and conduct of its operation, received gross revenues in the amount of $304,485.38. On the basis of the foregoing, I find that the operations of Respondent affect commerce within the meaning of the Act, and that the Board would assert jurisdiction over the Re- spondent.3 II THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED National Union of Hospital and Nursing Home Em- ployees, Local 1199H, Retail, Wholesale & Department Store Union, AFL-CIO (herein the Union), is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. III THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Interference, Restraint, and Coercion The Union commenced its organizational drive among the Respondent's employees on or about October 19, 1970. On that day, Union Organizer David Jones came into the kitchen of the Nursing Home and talked to several employees includ- ing Nora McGinnis,' concerning the benefits of joining the ' All dates hereinafter refer to the calendar year 1971, unless otherwise specified Cf Bishop and Malco, Inc. 159 NLRB 1159, 1161 See University Nursing Home, Inc, 168 NLRB 263 At the time in question, she was known as Nora Barker, at the time of the hearing, she had married and had taken the name of McGinnis She will (Cont) 52 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Union. He left a few dozen authorization cards, and McGin- nis took several with her. She signed one of the cards that evening and mailed it to the Union the following morning, and also induced two other employees to sign cards. Thereafter, the Union held meetings for interested em- ployees at the Dayton Inn in Dayton, Ohio, the first such meeting being held on November 30. Subsequent meetings were held on December 7, and 28, 1970, and February 10, 1971, the latter meeting being held at the YMCA in Dayton. Attending these meetings were not only employees of the Respondent, but also of other nursing homes in the area, although the last meeting was solely for the employees of Valerie. Several kitchen employees of Respondent testified that on the day or two following several of the union meetings, Kitchen Supervisor Betty Cody interrogated them concern- ing their presence at the meeting, what was discussed, and who else was there. The interrogations took place separately; however, each employee admitted that she attended the meet- ings but sought to shorten the conversation as much as possi- ble since she did not wish to discuss the matter with Cody. Cody denied questioning the employees concerning the meet- ings.' However, the employee witnesses impressed me as be- ing truthful and candid in their testimony; moreover, Cody admitted that the union activities of the employees were a topic of discussion at the weekly supervisors' meetings and I believe it to be a reasonable inference that she sought the information partly for that purpose. Accordingly, I discredit Cody's denial and find that the interrogations took place substantially as testified to by the employees. Such interroga- tion, without legitimate purpose, clearly constitutes interfer- ence, restraint, and coercion within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1), and I so find.' Prior to February, it had been the practice and policy of the Company to allow the kitchen employees to partake of food left over from the patients' meals such as salads, des- serts, etc. However, during that month, Supervisor Cody announced to the kitchen employees that such practice would be discontinued "until we vote the union out."' I find that this conceded deprivation of employee privileges because of their union activities constitutes a violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. About a week or two after one of the union meetings, employee Opal Campbell observed Supervisor Cody taking down the kitchen employees' work schedule. When Campbell inquired as to the reason therefore, Cody responded that she was doing it pursuant to the direction of the Company's administrator. When Campbell persisted that she could not see anything wrong with having the work schedule posted, Cody responded that she " guess[ed] it's too much like a union." Cody admitted taking the schedule down, and tes- tified that the reason she did so was that she wanted all the employees to be able to perform all duties in the kitchen. That is to say, she wished to be able to transfer any employee to be referred to by that name herein ' She did not, however, deny knowledge of the meetings since the time and place thereof was apparently set forth in union circulars which were distributed in and about the Respondent 's premises prior to the event 6 According to the testimony of Alendia Smith , Cody, on one occasion, named other employees of Respondent who attended the meeting , without indicating how she (Cody) knew of their presence I find such statement to constitute an "impression of surveillance" as that term has evolved in labor law. See Holly Farms Poultry Industries, Inc., 186 NLRB No 36 ' This testimony of employee Campbell was admitted by Cody The petition for the election was filed by the Union on December 8, 1970, the hearing upon such petition was held on January 22 , the Decision and Direc- tion of Election was issued February 19, and the election was held on March 25 See Case 9-RC-8839 any job without the employee being able to retort that the schedule prescribed that she work only at a specific function, such as the steamtable. When asked whether she made the above-quoted statement, Cody testified, "not to my knowl- edge, no." However, for reasons above stated, I am inclined to credit Campbell and therefore find that the reason for the action was related to the Union and was calculated to inter- fere with, restrain, and coerce employees in their Section 7 rights in violation of Section 8(a)(1). The evidence shows that at the time Betty Cody became food service supervisor in October 1970, it was company policy not to allow kitchen employees to utilize dining room facilities for eating purposes. Rather, they were supposed to eat their meals in the "conference room." However, because this room was apparently small, crowded, and smoky, several of the kitchen employees requested that they be allowed to take their meals into the dining room, and this request was granted by Cody. This practice, however, soon gave rise to complaints from the nurses aides. In an apparent effort to reduce the friction which existed between the two groups of employees, Cody announced that kitchen employees would be required to eat their meals and take their breaks in the conference room. The General Counsel argues that such change in policy was in retaliation for the kitchen employees engagement in union activities. However, there is scant evidence in the record to prove that kitchen employees were more active or militant in the union campaign than the nurses aides or, if they were, that the Respondent was aware of it. Moreover, the Em- ployer's action does not seem to be unreasonable on its face, and is not union related by oral testimony as were the other changes discussed above Accordingly, I conclude and find that this allegation of the complaint has not been proven by substantial evidence in the record considered as a whole. As previously noted, the hearing on the Union's petition for an election was held on January 22. Nora McGinnis was subpoenaed (presumably by the Union) to attend the hearing, but was not called upon to testify. She did, however, make notes of the testimony of a company witness respecting the financial condition of the Respondent. Several days later, while at work, Supervisor Cody told McGinnis that she had heard that the latter had taken notes at the hearing and asked what they were. McGinnis replied that they were just some figures. Cody asked if she could see them, but McGinnis declined.' The complaint alleges that such demand (request) constitutes a violation of Section 8(a)(1). It seems clear that one who attends an NLRB hearing under subpoena at the behest of a labor organization is engag- ing in union or concerted activities protected by Section 7. Of course, it is equally plain that not every inquiry concerning such activities is per se coercive within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1). The Board, in Blue Flash Express, stated the standard as follows: In our view the test is whether, under all circum- stances, the interrogation reasonably tends to restrain or interfere with the employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed by the Act.' In my view, the conduct of Cody overstepped the bounds of legitimate inquiry here. Had she merely noted McGinnis' presence at the hearing and inquired what she was doing there, an argument could be made that since McGinnis' con- duct was open and notorious, Cody's remark lacked any semblance of interference and restraint. But to go further and make inquiry of-and demand to see-notes taken at the hearing would seem clearly to impinge upon an employee's ° Credited testimony of McGinnis 109 NLRB 591, 593 VALERIE NURSING HOME freedom to fully participate in a representation hearing, which is an activity zealously guarded by the Board. Accordingly, I find and conclude that the interrogation by Cody of McGinnis' conduct at the NLRB hearing constituted interference, restraint, and coercion of employee rights in violation of Section 8(a)(1). On January 14, Nora McGinnis, along with employees Phyllis Anderson, Julie Neal, and office girl Shirley Hall, was called into the office of supervisor of nurses, Rosalie Dyke. It appears that Dyke called the employees into her office for the purpose of attempting to track down the origin of a rumor that two other employees were slated for dismissal by the Company. However, none of those present volunteered any information about the rumor, but Dyke admonished them about starting rumors and "tattling." Near the end of the discussion, one of the employees, Phyllis Anderson, asked Dyke a question relating to the discussion of union activities on company time. According to the testimony of McGinnis (neither Anderson nor any of the other employees testified), Dyke responded that she did not want any discussion con- cerning the Union on company time, or on the premises. However, on cross-examination, McGinnis testified that Dyke stated that "she didn't want any more gossip and tat- tling and confusion on the job; we were there to work, not gossip." Dyke denied that she used the term "premises" dur- ing the discussion but rather advised the employees that they could discuss anything they wanted to on their own time but not while on duty. She further testified that this was in ac- cordance with instructions from Respondent's administrator Rebbin. Dyke impressed me as an honest and forthright witness and I am inclined to believe that McGinnis read into Dyke's statement a little more than was actually stated. Accordingly, in the absence of any corroboration by any of the other em- ployees present, I find and conclude that the General Counsel did not prove this allegation of the complaint by a preponder- ance of the evidence, and I will therefore recommend that it be dismissed 10 B. The Alleged Discharge of Nora McGinnis This employee commenced work for the Respondent on August 9, 1970, as a kitchen helper and remained in that capacity until she was discharged by Cody on February 1. There is nothing in the record to detract from the conclusion that during the course of her employment she was other than an exemplary employee. Thus Opal Campbell testified that she had never heard Cody or Rebbin criticize McGinnis in her work; rather, she stated that she had heard Cody compli- ment McGinnis on several occasions." The incident which assertedly gave rise to the discharge occurred on Thursday, January 28. It appears that one of the duties of the kitchen helpers was to assist patients at meal times in small ways such as pouring their coffee, moving their food around, etc. McGinnis performed this function for a patient named Peal who was, apparently, a finicky eater and whose wife visited him on frequent occasions bringing him various delicacies from her home. According to the report of Mrs. Peal to Supervisor Cody on the next day, Friday, Janu- ary 29, McGinnis, in the presence of Mr. Peal, referred to the food of the Respondent as "slop." Cody advised Mrs. Peal that she would "check into it." Although Cody, as a super- visor, possessed the authority to hire and fire, she discussed 10 In reaching this conclusion I have also considered that Dyke did not call the meeting for the purpose of importuning the employees to abstain from engaging in union activities, but rather the issue arose because of the question of one of the employees 11 This testimony was not denied by Cody, Rebbin did not testify 53 the matter with Administrator Rebbin.12 She then reached the decision to terminate McGinnis; however, the latter was off on Friday, and Cody was off on Saturday and Sunday. Ac- cordingly, Cody placed a note on McGinnis' timecard on Monday morning to see her before McGinnis clocked in. When McGinnis came in at approximately 11 a.m. that morning, Cody terminated her and advised her that the rea- son for such termination was the report of the family of a patient, as aforesaid. McGinnis asked the name of the family, but Cody refused to tell her." Analysis and Concluding Findings In my view, the General Counsel proved a prima facie case of discrimination by showing that McGinnis was an active participant in the union campaign, that Cody (who made the decision to fire her) was aware thereof and strongly opposed the organizational efforts of the employees, and that, there- after, McGinnis was summarily terminated under circum- stances which raised suspicions as to the "real reason" or "true purpose" therefor." That is to say, as above noted, McGinnis' work record with the Company was concededly good, and not marred by prior warnings or discipline con- cerning her performance. Moreover, the evidence shows that the making of uncomplimentary epithets concerning the food at the Respondent's nursing home was not unknown among the kitchen help. Thus, employee Alendia Smith credibly testified that other employees in the kitchen had from time to time made derogatory remarks concerning the food (particu- larly casserole dishes) and none had ever been reprimanded for making such statements. Indeed, she testified that Cody herself made a defamatory statement concerning some spin- ach in the presence of two visitors in the dining room only 2 weeks after McGinnis' discharge Under these circum- stances, I find it rather incredible that Cody would reach a decision to mete out the most extreme form of discipline, i.e., discharge, to McGinnis on the basis of the one incident that was reported to her without even giving McGinnis an oppor- tunity to present her side of the story. Such conduct has been held to be evidence of discriminatory intent.15 Further doubt is cast upon the proffered reason for the discharge by the uncontradicted testimony of Alendia Smith. She stated that on the day of McGinnis' termination she was a passenger in Cody's car and that the latter had advised her that she had discharged McGinnis. When Smith asked the reason, Cody replied that it was "not on account of her union activities, just the statement that was made by her " However Cody further indicated that " ... it had been brewing for a while " I believe it to be a reasonable inference from that statement that Respondent had considered ridding itself of " She testified that she did this because she was a new supervisor and wanted advice from her superior Testimony of Cody ° See The Radio Officers' Union of the Commercial Telegraphers Union AFL (A. H Bull Steamship Company) v NL R,B, 347 U S 17 Local 357, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America v NL R.B, 365 U S. 667, 675 " Rockingham Sleepwear, Inc, 188 NLRB No 110 See also United States Rubber Company v NLRB, 384 F 2d 660, 662-663 (C A 5), where the court stated "Perhaps most damning is the fact that both [em- ployees] were summarily discharged after reports of their misconduct without being being given any opportunity to explain or give their versions of the incidents " At the hearing, McGinnis denied making the statement attributed to her by Mrs Peal, and the latter was not called as a witness pursuant to directions from her doctor However, I deem it unnecessary to resolve this particular credibility issue since, as indicated, I find substantial evidence of discrimina- tory intent assuming the report was made as testified to by Respondent's witness 54 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD McGinnis because of her union activities for some time, and seized upon the Peal incident as a pretext. Finding the stated motive to be a false one, I am entitled to infer that the real motive " . . is one that the employer desires to conceal- an unlawful motive-at least where, as in this case, the surrounding facts tend to reinforce that infer- ence."" Based upon all of the foregoing, I find and conclude that the termination of McGinnis was in order to discourage membership in a labor organization in violation of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act, and I will recommend an appropriate remedy. IV THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of Respondent, set forth in section III, above, occurring in connection with the Respondent'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 thereof. 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. The Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 2. The Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3. By discriminating against an employee in order to dis- courage union membership among its employees, Respond- ent engaged in, and is engaging in, unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a)(3) and (1) of the Act. 4. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, Respondent has engaged in, and is engaging in, unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. 5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. V. THE REMEDY Having found that the Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices, I will recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. Having found that the Respondent discriminated against Nora McGinnis by terminating her employment because she engaged in union and concerted activities protected by the Act, I will recommend that the Respondent be ordered to offer her immediate reinstatement to her former position or, if that position no longer exists, to a substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to her seniority or other rights and privileges, and make her whole for any loss of earnings she may have suffered by reason of the discrimination against her. Backpay shall be computed in accordance with the for- mula prescribed by the Board in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289, and Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., Inc., 138 NLRB 716. Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law, and the entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, I hereby issue the following recommended:" " Shattuck Denn Mining Corporation v NL R B, 362 F 2d 466, 470 (C A 9) " 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 ORDER Respondent, Valerie Nursing Home, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Discharging or otherwise discriminating against any employee in regard to his hire or tenure of employment, or any term or condition of employment, in order to discourage membership in National Union of Hospital & Nursing Home Employees, Local 1199H, Retail, Wholesale & Department Store Union, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization. (b) Coercively interrogating employees concerning their union membership or union activities. (c) Conveying to employers the impression that union ac- tivities are under surveillance. (d) Altering or changing policies or practices of the Re- spondent respecting employees' work rules, practices or privi- leges because of employees' union membership, activities, or sympathies. (e) In any like or related manner interfering with, restrain- ing, or coercing employees in the exercise of rights guaran- teed them under Section 7 of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action which it is found will effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Offer Nora McGinnis immediate and full reinstatement to her former position or, if that position no longer exists, to a substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to her seniority or other rights and privileges, and make her whole for any loss of pay she may have suffered as a result of the discrimination against her in the manner provided in the section of this Decision entitled "The Remedy." (b) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the Board or its agents, for examination and copying, all payroll records, social security payment records, timecards, person- nel records and reports, and all other records necessary to analyze the amount of backpay due under the terms of this Order. (c) Notify immediately the above-named individual, if presently serving in the Armed Forces of the United States, of the right to full reinstatement, upon application after dis- charge from the Armed Forces, in accordance with the Selec- tive Service Act and the Universal Military Training and Service Act. (d) Reinstate the policy and practice of the Respondent to post work schedules and to allow kitchen employees to par- take of leftover food.1e (e) Post at its Dayton, Ohio, facility copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix."" Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 9, after being duly signed by its authorized representative, shall be posted by Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in con- spicuous places, including all places where notices to em- ployees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be findings, conclusions, 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 1i This provision should not be construed to conflict with any contractual agreement Respondent may make or may have made with the Union con- cerning such matters " 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 OR- DER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD " VALERIE NURSING HOME 55 taken by Respondent to insure that said notices are not al- tered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (f) Notify the Regional Director for Region 9, in writing, within 20 days from the date of the receipt of this Decision, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith.20 IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the allegations of the complaint be dismissed in all respects other than those found to have been sustained in the above findings and conclusions. 30 In the event that this recommended Order is adopted by the Board after exceptions have been filed, this provision shall be modified to read: "Notify the Regional Director for Region 9, in writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith " WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them in Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended. WE WILL offer Nora (Barker) McGinnis immediate and full reinstatement to her former position or, if that positron no longer exists, to a substantially equivalent position without prejudice to any seniority or other rights and privileges previously enjoyed, and make her whole for any loss of pay suffered as a result of the discrimination against her. WE WILL reinstate our policy and practice of posting work schedules for kitchen employees, and of allowing kitchen employees to eat leftover food. APPENDIX NOTICE To EMPLOYEES POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government WE WILL NOT discourage membership in or activities on behalf of National Union of Hospital & Nursing Home Employees, Local 1199H, Retail, Wholesale & Department Store Union, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization, by discharging or otherwise discriminating against our employees in regard to their hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment. WE WILL NOT coercively interrogate our employees respecting their union membership or activities. WE WILL NOT give our employees the impression that their union activities are being spied upon. WE WILL NOT alter or change our policies or practices with respect to employees' work rules or privileges be- cause of employees' membership in or activities on be- half of the above-named Union, or any other labor or- ganization. VALERIE NURSING HOME (Employer) Dated By (Representative) (Title) We will notify immediately the above-named individual, if presently serving in the Armed Forces of the United States, of the right to full reinstatement, upon application after dis- charge from the Armed Forces, in accordance with the Selec- tive Service Act and the Universal Military Training and Service Act. This is an official notice and must not be defaced by any- one. 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, Federal Office Building, Room 2407, 550 Main Street, Cincinnati, Ohio 45202, Telephone 513-684-3686.