Waterfront Guard Assoc., Local 1852

WATERFRONT GUARD ASSOC., LOCAL 1852 513 Waterfront Guard Association, Local 1852, Independ- ent Watchmen's Association of the Port of Balti- more and Amstar Corporation. Case 5-CB-1323 March 8, 1974 DECISION AND ORDER BY MEMBERS JENKINS, KENNEDY, AND PENELLO On November 29, 1973, Administrative Law Judge Ivar H. Peterson issued the attached Decision in this proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent filed exceptions and a supporting brief and the General Counsel and the Charging Party filed briefs supporting 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 authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. The Board has considered the record and the attached Decision in light of the exceptions and briefs and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings, and conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge and to adopt his recommended Order. ORDER including the Respondent Union. From January 1, 1970, through December 31, 1972, the Association and the Respondent were parties to a collective-bargaining agree- ment covering the employees employed by members of the Association for the performance of guard work. This contract contained a valid union-security clause, providing that as a condition of employment such employees should become members of Respondent Union. The contract in effect at the time of the hearing between the Association and the Respondent covering guard work is effective from January I, 1973, to December 31, 1975. The complaint alleged that Amstar, although a member of the Associa- tion, has at no time delegated any authority to the Association to represent it in negotiations with the Respondent Union concerning the employment conditions of guards employed by Pinkerton at Amstar's refinery. The complaint also alleged that since about October 5, 1972, the Respondent Union had demanded that Amstar recognize it as the collective-bargaining representative of the guards employed by Pinkerton at Amstar's refinery and has attempted to extend the union-security clause in the association agreement to cover Pinkerton employees. In its answer, the Respondent alleged that the Association had authority to enter into a collective-bargaining agreement on behalf of Amstar and did so. On or about October 10 counsel for all parties filed briefs with me, which have been carefully considered. Upon the entire record in the case, including my observation of the witnesses, I make the following: Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board adopts as its Order the recommend- ed Order of the Administrative Law Judge and hereby orders that the Respondent, Waterfront Guard Association, Local 1852, Independent Watch- men's Association of the Port of Baltimore, its officers, agents, and representatives, shall take the action set forth in the said recommended Order. DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE IvAR H. PETERSON, Administrative Law Judge: I heard this case in Baltimore, Maryland, on July 12, 23 and August 22, 1973, based upon the complaint issued by the Acting Regional Director for Region 5 under date of June 7, 1973, which in tum was based upon a charge filed November 27, 1972, by Amstar Corporation. Briefly stated, the complaint alleged that since about September 1, 1960, Amstar had contracted with Pinkerton, Inc., herein called Pinkerton, for guard services at Amstar's Baltimore sugar refinery. Pinkerton's employees, who performed the guard services, had at no time selected the Respondent or any other labor organization as their collective-bargaining representative. Steamship Trade Association of Baltimore, Inc., herein called the Association, is an association of employers which employ members of the Respondent Union and exists, in part, for the purpose of engaging in collective bargaining with various labor organizations, 209 NLRB No. 87 FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT Amstar, a Delaware corporation, is engaged in the manufacture and sale of refined cane sugar and syrup at its Baltimore facility. It employs approximately 540 pro- duction and maintenance employees and 22 longshoremen, who are represented in separate bargaining units by Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butcher Workmen of North America and International Longshoremen 's Associ- ation, AFL-CIO, respectively. The record is clear that during the 12 months preceding issuance of the complaint Amstar sold and shipped products valued at in excess of $50,000 to points directly outside the State of Maryland. I find that Amstar is an employer as defined in Section 2(2) of the Act and is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. I further find that the Respondent is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. II. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Background In addition to its own employees, Amstar has since 1960 contracted with Pinkerton for the supply of guard services at the Baltimore facility. At the time of the hearing, there were approximately nine full-time guards and three part- time guards, all employed by Pinkerton and assigned to the Amstar refinery. Since 1960, no other guards except Pinkerton guards have been utilized by Amstar and at no time has any Pinkerton employee at that facility been 514 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD represented by the Respondent or any other labor organization. In 1922, when Amstar began its Baltimore operations, it hired its own employees to perform guard or watchmen duties as required. At that time there were approximately 10 guards and 8 janitor-watchmen. The function of the guards was to provide guard service in the general area of the front gate, while the primary function of the janitor- watchmen was to perform fire watching and janitorial duties throughout the refinery , following prescribed ADT routes. From 1922 until 1960, Amstar guards were never represented by any labor organization although Amstar did have a history of collective-bargaining relations with respect to the janitor-watchmen. The janitor-watchmen, between 1938 and 1948, were represented by an independent local union confined to the refinery. Thereafter, the janitor-watchmen and the pro- duction and maintenance employees became members of the United Packinghouse Workers of North America. In September 1960, Amstar, in an effort to improve plant security, merged the functions of both the guards and the janitor-watchmen and subcontracted the functions per- formed by these two classifications to Pinkerton. B. The Alleged Unfair Labor Practices Raymond Roecker, assistant vice president and regional manager for the mideastern region of Pinkerton , having been employed by Pinkerton since September of 1962, was in charge of the supervision of all offices of Pinkerton in Virginia, the eastern part of West Virginia, all of Mary- land, Pennsylvania, Delaware, and New Jersey. Amstar has been a client of Pinkerton since October 1960 and, according to Roecker, they "have had the relationship of a contractor and a client providing security services." He testified that he personally had had no relationship with Amstar as of September 1, 1960, that Amstar and Pinkerton entered into a contract for security services which was modified by letter agreement on April 26, 1972, in respect to the rate payable to the contractor for services. This was signed by a Mr. Hawkins, the local office manager. Roecker testified that from May 1963 through the early part of 1968, when Hawkins took over as manager in Baltimore he on occasion visited with officials of clients and endeavored to see that the guards were appropriately uniformed and also to determine whether they had any grievances. He further related that Pinkerton had no relationship whatever with the Steamship Trade Associa- tion of Baltimore and was not a member of that organization , and so far as he knew, Pinkerton had given no authority to the association to negotiate contracts in its behalf. Roecker testified that, to his knowledge, the Union had never requested that Pinkerton recognize it as the collective-bargaining agent for the guards employed at Amstar. Further, he related that no guard employed by Pinkerton at Amstar or elsewhere had ever claimed to be a member of the Respondent Union. There are normally eight full-time guards and about four part-time guards. Guards are assigned directly from the Baltimore office of Pinkerton's and, according to this witness, Amstar has no responsibility in this area. Amstar became a member of the Association in 1937 and has continued its membership, apparently because it utilizes hourly labor represented by the ILA to unload vessels carrying bulk sugar to the refinery . Pinkerton is not now and never has been a member of the Association. While the Association and the Respondent have had a bargaining relationship since approximately the mid-50s, no contract negotiated between the Respondent and the Association has ever been applied to any employee working at the Amstar facility. At no time did the Respondent, prior to February 1972, claim that any employee working at Amstar was covered by its collective- bargaining agreement with the Association. It was not until February 1972, when a new group of individuals assumed the positions of officers of the Association, that representa- tives of Amstar first heard of the existence of the Respondent. The Association and the Respondent, in January 1970, entered into a 2-year agreement expiring December 31, 1972, which contained a union-security clause. On Febru- ary 4, 1972, the Respondent filed a grievance with the Association alleging that Amstar employed nonunion guards in violation of the collective-bargaining agreement. The Association referred the grievance to Amstar and the representative of the latter sent a letter of response dated February 17 in which he made clear to the Association that he had never authorized the Association to negotiate on behalf of Amstar with respect to any guards employed by it and that it would be an unfair labor practice for either party to the contract, or Amstar, to extend the contract with its union-security provision to employees who were not previously covered by the contract . On March 23, the Association's Trade Practice Committee reviewed the grievance of the Respondent, found that the Respondent was attempting to expand its area of jurisdiction , and ruled that no contract violation had occurred. Following this, the Respondent invoked arbitration to compel Amstar to apply the contract to the Pinkerton employees. On June 20 and July 17, arbitration hearings were held before Judge Ruben Oppenheimer . Representatives of the Association and Amstar and the Respondent were present at the hearing. Pinkerton was not a party to such proceeding, nor was it provided with either formal or informal notice. At the arbitration hearing, the issue of whether or not Amstar was bound by any contract negotiated between the Association and the Respondent was not raised because of the Association's request to Amstar that it not be made part of the proceeding. In substance, the hearing concerned itself primarily with Respondent's contention that the work performed by the Pinkerton guards at Amstar's facility came within the express jurisdictional provisions of the contract. Amstar and the Association contended that the work performed by the Pinkerton guards was not covered by the jurisdictional paragraphs of the contract ; that past practice governed; and that the Respondent, by its past conduct, had recognized that it did not have jurisdiction. Under date of October 22, the arbitrator handed down his award in which he concluded that Amstar was in violation of the agreement. Pursuant to a request for interpretation of the award by Amstar on October 17, the arbitrator in a letter dated WATERFRONT GUARD ASSOC., LOCAL 1852 November 20, confirmed his ruling which "requires that all nine guards employed at Amstar's Baltimore facility must become and remain members of the Waterfront Guard Association." Throughout October and November 1972, and continu- ing to the present, the Respondent has made efforts to enforce the arbitrator's award. On or about October 5, Mr. Fortune, managing director of the Association, telephoned Henry Kief, a representative of Amstar, and informed him that the Respondent wanted Amstar to commence hiring members of the Respondent. Following that, by letter dated October 13, Attorney Davis, on behalf of Respon- dent, made a further demand that the guard work at the Amstar facility be performed by Respondent's members. The newly elected financial secretary of the Respondent, Thomas, informed Kief that if Amstar did not begin hiring members of the Respondent immediately that the Respon- dent would seek retroactive pay from October 2, the date of the arbitration award. Thomas called a second time on November 16, and in this conversation requested a meeting with Kief so that they could discuss the hiring of members of the Respondent. Thomas further indicated to Kief that Amstar could keep the guards it then had but that the guards would be required to join the Union. A third call by Thomas to Kief was made on November 17, in which Thomas told Kief that the arbitrator had not changed his mind and Thomas again insisted that Amstar hire members of the Respondent. Finally, on November 20, Thomas called Kief the fourth time and again inquired as to when Amstar was going to do something with respect to hiring members of the Respondent and mentioned that the retroactive pay was approximately $10,000. Upon Amstar's refusal to comply with the arbitration award, the Respon- dent brought suit in Federal court to enforce the award. This was pending at the time of the hearing herein. The record is clear that Thomas never claimed to represent any of the Pinkerton guards. Thus, he testified as follows: Q. (by Mr. Balsamo) Do you claim to represent any of the Pinkerton guards? A. No. Q. What guards other than the Pinkerton guards are employed at the Amstar facility that you claim to represent? A. There are none others right now except Pinker- ton so I don't plan to represent any of them there now Q. (by Mr. Balsamo) Let's reiterate one more time, you state that you don't claim to represent the Pinkerton guards at Amstar? A. That is correct. Q. Now, or back in 1972 either? A. At any time. C. Discussion and Conclusions Happily, there is little or no disagreement on the facts with respect to the violations alleged in the complaint. Moreover, it is apparent that from February 4, 1972, until 515 the present time, the Respondent has attempted to apply the union-security provisions of its collective-bargaining agreement with the Association to the employees of an employer who have never selected the Respondent as a collective-bargaining representative. Indeed, Financial Secretary Thomas conceded that the Respondent does not represent any of the guards employed at the Amstar facility; moreover, he conceded that he informed Amstar that the guards would have to become members of the Union. Finally, he buttressed this demand by informing Mr. Kief that if Amstar did not comply, the Respondent would seek retroactive pay from October 2. Counsel for the General Counsel, accordingly, argues that from the time "Respondent filed its grievance on February 4, 1972, Respondent has set upon a course designed to coerce Amstar into interfering with the labor relations of another employer, Pinkerton, and Section 7 rights of the Pinkerton guards. This case represents 8(b)(2) and 8(b)(1)(A) viola- tions in their most flagrant form." Counsel for the General Counsel submits that there are three separate bases, any one of which, standing alone, is sufficient to establish that the Respondent violated the Act. In the first place, he points out that the Pinkerton guards are not part of any multi-employer bargaining unit. Accordingly, he argues that the Respondent, in demanding that the Pinkerton employees be covered by the Association-Union contract, the Respondent is in effect demanding that Pinkerton's employees become union members as a condition of employment in violation of the foregoing sections of the Act. In the second place, counsel for the General Counsel points to the fact that Amstar had never manifested an unequivocal intent to be bound in collective-bargaining negotiations between the Association and the Respondent. Finally, he argues that neither the Association, nor the Respondent, nor Amstar for that matter, "has any legal right to include Pinkerton employees as part of a multi- employer contract unit in the event it is found that Amstar is bound by the Association's contract with Respondent. The Board has held that an employer violates Section 8(a)(2) and the Union 8(b)(2) and 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act when they include employees as part of the multi-employer bargaining unit without the employees' consent. The evidence is abundantly clear that the Pinkerton employees have never been afforded an opportunity to choose or reject a particular union in any form of bargaining unit. To impose a union-secunty clause on such employees even under color of an arbitration award is totally inconsistent with the rights guaranteed to employees under the Act." 1 Counsel for the General Counsel contends that, in effect, the arbitrator's award is analogous to a unit clarification proceeding before the Board, but that in such proceedings the Board has established the principle that when the parties to a contract have for long periods of time excluded certain employees from contract coverage, it raises a question of representation that can best be resolved by an election, rather than by a petition to clarify unit. He asserts that the arbitrator has in effect made a unit clarification decision by including the guards at the Amstar facility, despite the fact that the Association and Respondent have excluded these employees for almost 20 years. In sub- 1 Footnotes omitted 516 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD stance, counsel asserts that "Respondent's insistent de- mands that Amstar comply with the arbitrator's award can only be honored by Amstar if it violates Section 8(a)(2) of the Act." Counsel for the General Counsel, in his brief, states that in the defenses raised by the Respondent it contends "that its actions are justifiable because it is only demanding compliance with an arbitral award," and that it "asserts that it has never requested that the Pinkerton guards become part of the bargaining unit; its only contention being that under the contract Amstar had no right to subcontract the work to Pinkerton." Counsel for the General Counsel labels the first defense as "weak and specious," because in order to sustain that position ..It must be shown that the arbitrator's award is valid and not in irreconcilable conflict with the Act." It is his position that the "arbitrator's award is repugnant to the purposes and policies of the Act," and in support thereof points out that "a necessary party, Pinkerton, was not a party to the proceeding" and was not provided with either official or unofficial notice of the proceeding. He properly points out that Pinkerton had a direct and vital interest in that proceeding, inasmuch as the Respondent was attempting to apply its contract to the employees of Pinkerton, an employer who had never entered into that contract. In support of his position, counsel for the General Counsel cites White Front San Francisco, Inc., 203 NLRB No. 79, where the Board held that it would not defer to an arbitrator's award because the party affected by the award was not a party to the proceeding and that, therefore, the arbitration did not meet the standards set forth in Spielberg Manufacturing Company, 112 NLRB 1080. In addition, he points out that crucial issues were not even considered by the arbitrator, i.e., he never considered the question of whether or not Amstar had ever manifested an unequivocal intent to be bound by the agreement the arbitrator was interpreting, or whether or not Amstar and Pinkerton could properly be considered point employers under the Act. Finally, counsel for the General Counsel contends that the arbitrator's award is contrary to established Board and court decisions citing Radio Television Technical School, Inc., 199 NLRB 579, and Combustion Engineering, Inc., 195 NLRB 909, where the Board refused to defer to an arbitrator's conclusion "that the employees of a facility newly established by the employer had been accreted to the existed bargaining unit and thus covered by the bargaining agreement." With regard to the Respondent's second defense, namely, that it was only objecting to Amstar's subcontract- ing the guard work to the Pinkerton agency, counsel for the General Counsel suggests that the letter from the Respon- dent's attorney to the Association and Amstar "clearly 2 Counsel for Amstar points out that Mr Fortune, managing director of the Association , testified that up until the instant arbitration award, it was the position of the Association that its contract with Respondent did not cover the guard work performed at Amstar's Baltimore refinery, a fact which is consistent with the further fact that Amstar was never asked to post the $500 bond which is required of all Association members covered by the labor agreement with the Respondent 3 See also International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, Iron Ship Builders, Blacksmiths, Forgers & Helpers, and Local 92 (Bigge Drayage Company), 197 NLRB 281, where the Board affirmed the following findings of the Trial Examiner. establishes that Respondent was demanding full compli- ance with the arbitral award. Moreover, Mr. Kief and Mr. Thomas both testified that the Respondent was demanding that the guards at the Amstar facility should become members of the Union in compliance with the award of the arbitrator, a demand which if complied with would result in the inclusion of the Pinkerton employees in the multiemployer bargaining unit. Concerning the contention that Amstar did not have the right to subcontract the work, the evidence clearly establishes that since the Respondent and the Association began their bargaining relationship sometime in the mid- 1950's until February 10, the Union never claimed the right to represent the employees who performed the guard work at the Amstar facility.2 Counsel for the Respondent argues that the Board should defer to the arbitrator's award, approved by the court and, accordingly, dismiss the complaint. He asserts that this case is squarely within the Board's analysis in Spielberg, and that in order to defer to the award it is not necessary to apply Collyer Insulated Wire, A Gulf and Western Systems Co., 192 NLRB 837. In Spielberg, the Board enunciated certain tests that must be met before it will recognize the validity of an arbitration award. These are: (a) the proceedings must have been fair and regular; (b) all parties must have agreed to be bound; and (c) the decision of the arbitrator must not be clearly repugnant to the Act. In the present proceeding, Pinkerton, although a neces- sary party, was not in fact a party to the proceeding and was not provided with either official or unofficial notice of the proceeding. It seems plain that Pinkerton had a direct and vital interest in that proceeding because what the Respondent was attempting to do was to apply its contract to Pinkerton's employees, an employer who had never entered into the contract. Plainly, the arbitrator's award directly affects the Pinkerton employees because it requires the nine guards to become and remain members of the Union. Moreover, the arbitrator never considered the question of whether or not Amstar had ever manifested an unequivocal intent to be bound by the agreement that he was interpreting or whether Amstar and Pinkerton could be considered joint employers under the Act. Finally, in my view the arbitrator's award is contrary to established Board and court decisions, as pointed out by counsel for the General Counsel in his brief. I conclude, substantially for the reasons set forth by counsel for the General Counsel in his brief, that in the present case it would be inappropriate to defer to the arbitrator's award because that award is repugnant to the policies and the purposes of the Act.3 Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, I find that Respondent, conceding the jurisdiction of the Board , under Section 10(a), asserts the policy or promoting industrial peace and stability through collective bargaining obliges the Trial Examiner to defer to the grievance-arbitration procedures which the parties have voluntarily established I do not agree. In Collyer the Board found the dispute , in an alleged failure to bargain case involving unilateral changes in an existing contract between the parties, was essentially a dispute over the terms and meaning of the contract WATERFRONT GUARD ASSOC., LOCAL 1852 517 Amstar was not bound by the contract between the Association and the Respondent Union with respect to the representation of the Pinkerton guards. Moreover, it is plain that Pinkerton, not a party to the agreement, and which had not delegated to Amstar any right to speak for its guard employees in matters of labor relations and collective bargaining, was not bound. I find that Respon- dent's attempts to cause Amstar to comply with the award of the arbitrator constitutes a violation of Section 8(b)(1)(A) and 8(b)(2) of the Act. Accordingly, I shall issue an appropriate recommended Order. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Amstar Corporation is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act. 2. Steamship Trader Association of Baltimore, Inc., is an association of employers which employ members of the Respondent, which exists, in part, for the purposes of engaging in collective bargaining in behalf of its members with various labor organizations, including the Respon- dent. 3. Amstar, although a member of the Association, has at no time material herein delegated any authority to the Association to represent it in negotiations with the Respondent with respect to the wages, hours, and condi- tions of employment of employees employed by Pinkerton to perform guard services at the Respondent's facility in Baltimore. 4. Waterfront Guard Association is a labor organiza- tion within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 5. By demanding that Amstar recognize the Respon- dent as the collective-bargaining representative of the guards employed by Pinkerton to perform the guard services at Amstar's refinery, although said employees have at no time selected Respondent as a collective-bargaining representative, the Respondent has engaged in, and is engaging in, unfair labor practices as defined in Section 8(b)(2) and 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act. 6. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, I issue the following recommended: ORDERS Waterfront Guard Association, its officers, agents, successors and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from demanding that Pinkerton, Amstar, or the Association enter into a collective-bargain- ing agreement covering the guard employees of Pinkerton at the Amstar facility unless and until such employees have selected the Respondent as their collective-bargaining representative in a Board-conducted election or by other valid means. 2. Take the following affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Post at its respective business offices and meeting halls, if any, within the geographical area where Pinkerton operates, i.e., Virginia, the eastern part of West Virginia, and the States of Maryland, Pennsylvania, Delaware, and New Jersey, copies of the attached notice marked "Appen- dix." 5 Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for Region 5, shall, after being duly signed by a representative of the Respondent, be posted by it immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained for 60 consecutive days thereafter , in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to members 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. (b) Sign and mail to the Regional Director for Region 5 sufficient copies of said notice for posting by Pinkerton, Amstar, and the Association where notices to employees, and members of the Association, are customarily posted, if any of said parties are willing to do so. (c) Notify the Regional Director, in writing, within 20 days from the date of the receipt of this Decision, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith. IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that unless, on or before 20 days from the date of the receipt of this Decision, the Respondent shall notify the said Regional Director that it will comply with the foregoing recommended Order, the National Labor Relations Board issue an order requiring that Respondent take the aforesaid action. I find Collyer inapposite. Bigge, the charging party herein, has never been a party to the contract in question I find no merit in this contention 4 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec 102.46 of the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board , the findings, conclusions, and recommended Order herein shall, as provided in Sec 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 5 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." APPENDIX NOTICE To EMPLOYEES POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government WE WILL NOT demand that Pinkerton, Amstar, or the Association enter into any contract requiring that guard employees employed by Pinkerton be covered by the collective-bargaining agreement Respondent has with members of the Association concerning the employment of guards and their wages, terms, and conditions of employment , unless and until the guard employees of Pinkerton have freely selected us to be their collective-bargaining representative in a Board- conducted election or by other valid procedures. 518 Dated By DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD WATERFRONT GUARD ASSOCIATION LOCAL 1852, INDEPENDENT WATCHMEN'S ASSOCIATION OF THE PORT OF BALTIMORE (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, Federal Building Rm. 1019, Charles Center, Baltimore, Maryland 21201 , Telephone 301-962-2772.