Allied Foods, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 31, 1971

189 N.L.R.B. 513 (N.L.R.B. 1971)

ALLIED FOODS
Allied Foods , Inc. and General Teamsters Local Union
No. 528, affiliated with International Brotherhood
of Teamsters, Chauffeurs , Warehousemen and
Helpers of America . Case 10-CA-8684
March 31, 1971
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS
FANNING AND BROWN
Upon a charge filed on November 3, 1970, by
General Teamsters Local Union No. 528, affiliated
with International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauf-
feurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, herein
called the Union, and duly served on Allied Foods,
Inc., herein called the Respondent, the General
Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board, by
the Regional Director for Region 10, issued a
complaint on December 11, 1970, against Respon-
dent, alleging that Respondent had engaged in and
was engaging in unfair labor practices affecting
commerce within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) and
(1) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended. Copies of the charge,
complaint, and notice of hearing before a Trial
Examiner were duly served on the parties to this
proceeding.
With respect to the unfair labor practices, the
complaint alleges in substance that on or about July 1,
1970, following a Board election in Case 10-RC-8126
the Union was duly certified as the exclusive
collective-bargaining representative of Respondent's
employees in the unit found appropriate; i and that,
commencing on or about October 22, 1970, and at all
times thereafter, Respondent has refused, and contin-
ues to date to refuse, to bargain collectively with the
Union as the exclusive bargaining representative,
although the Union has requested and is requesting it
to do so. On December 21, 1970, Respondent filed its
answer to the complaint admitting in part, and
denying in part, the allegations in the complaint, and
requesting that the complaint be dismissed in its
entirety. More specifically, Respondent admits all
allegations of the complaint, including the request
and refusal to bargain, except it denies that an
uncoerced majority of the unit employees designated
the Union as their bargaining representative, that the
Union was properly certified, and that the Union is
the exclusive representative of the employees in the
unit found appropriate. Respondent further denies
the conclusionary allegation that it has violated
' Official notice is taken of the record in the representation proceeding,
Case 10-RC-8126, as the term "record" is defined in Secs 102 68 and
102 69( f) of the Board's Rules and Regulations , Series 8 , as amended See
LTV Electrorystems, Inc, 166 NLRB 938, enfd 388 F 2d 683 (CA 4,
513
Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act. Additionally,
Respondent raises certain affirmative defenses, which
will be discussed infra.
On January 20, 1971, counsel for the General
Counsel filed directly with the Board a Motion for
Summary Judgment, alleging there are no issues of
fact or law requiring an evidentiary hearing and
requesting that the Board grant the Motion for
Summary Judgment. Subsequently, on February 1,
1971, the Board issued an order transferring the
proceeding to the Board and a Notice To Show Cause
why the General Counsel's Motion for Summary
Judgment should not be granted. Respondent
thereafter filed a cross Motion for Summary Judg-
ment and response to General Counsel's Motion for
Summary Judgment.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
national Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
powers in connection with this case to a three-member
panel.
Upon the entire record in this proceeding, the Board
makes the following:
RULING ON THE MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT
The record in Case 10-RC-8126 reflects that
pursuant to a petition filed on February 13, 1970, the
Regional Director conducted an election in which a
majority of the employees in the appropriate unit cast
votes in favor of the Union. Thereafter, Respondent
filed timely objections alleging that (1) a change in the
ballot shortly before the election, after the withdrawal
of the intervenor, caused sufficient confusion in the
minds of the voters to affect the results of the election;
(2) the Regional Director improperly denied Respon-
dent's motion for postponement of the election due to
the change in the wording of the ballot; (3) organiza-
tional efforts on behalf of the Union were made by
asserted Supervisor William R. Towe, with the
assistance of another supervisor; and (4) the Regional
Director acted arbitrarily in proceeding with the
election while an appeal was pending before the
General Counsel on the Regional Director's refusal,
on March 18, 1970, to issue a complaint in Case
10-CB-1903, which alleged that the Union had
violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act by enlisting the
services of Supervisor William R. Towe during its
organizational campaign.
Following administrative investigation, the Region-
al Director on July 1, 1970, issued a Supplemental
Decision and Certification of Representative in
1968), Golden Age Beverage Co, 167 NLRB 151, Intertype Co v Penello,
269 F Supp 573 (D C Va, 1967), Follett Corp, 164 NLRB 378, enfd 397
F 2d 91 (C A 7, 1968), Sec 9(d) of the NLRA
189 NLRB No. 79
514 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
which he found that the objections filed by Respon-
dent did not raise substantial or material issues
affecting the results of the election. The Regional
Director found that (1) the revised notices of election
were posted for more than 2 days prior to the election,
which was an adequate time for the voters to have an
opportunity to examine and become familiar with the
material therein; (2) no evidence was presented
showing that supervisors engaged in organizational
efforts on behalf of the Union during the critical period
after the filing of the representation petition on
February 13, 1970; and (3) there was no merit to the
objection based on the Union's use of alleged
Supervisor Towe to assist in organizing
employees-which also was the subject of a charge
filed by Respondent in Case 10-CB-1903 alleging
violation of Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act2 -because
all the evidence submitted by Respondent during the
prior investigation of Case 10-CA-8118, in which a
complaint had issued alleging Respondent's discharge
of Towe as violative of Section 8(a)(3), did not
establish his supervisory status as defined in the Act.
After finding that the election had been conducted in
accordance with the Board's customary policies and
procedures, the Regional Director accordingly over-
ruled the objections and certified the Union as the
exclusive representative of Respondent's employees
in the unit found appropriate.
On August 4, 1970, Respondent filed with the Board
a Request for Review of the Regional Director's
Decision in which it renewed the contentions raised in
its objections to the election. With respect to its
objection concerning supervisory participation in the
union organizational campaign, Respondent ac-
knowledged that although there was no evidence of
supervisory assistance subsequent to the filing of the
petition on February 13, 1970, which led to the
election in the representation case, it urged the Board
not to apply the Ideal Electric cutoff rule3 in cases
involving supervisory assistance and participation in
a union organizational campaign. In addition, Res-
pondent contended that in any event the cutoff date
should not have been February 13, 1970, as found by
the Regional Director, since the Union had respec-
tively filed, and then withdrew prior petitions for the
same unit on January 12 and 21, 1970. Although
Respondent acknowledged that the first petition was
untimely filed, it contended that even if that petition
were disregarded, a petition nevertheless was continu-
ously pending for the unit found appropriate on and
after January 21, 1970, and asserted that where
overlapping, successive petitions are filed for the same
2 We take administrative notice of the fact that the General Counsel on
January 11, 1971, sustained the Regional Director's Dismissal of the charge
in Case 10-CB-1903
3 See Ideal Electric and Manufacturing Company, 134 NLRB 1275, where
unit, they should be treated as a single petition for
purposes of the cutoff date for consideration of
objections. Respondent finally contended that the
Regional Director committed prejudicial error by
overruling its objections without benefit of a hearing.
Upon consideration of the request for review, the
Board on November 16, 1.970, denied it as raising no
issues warranting review.
In its answer to the complaint, cross Motion for
Summary Judgment, and Response to General
Counsel's Motion for Summary Judgment, Respon-
dent reiterates the contentions previously advanced in
its objections to the election and request for review. In
addition, Respondent contends, in effect, that special
circumstances exist in this case in view of the fact that
the basis upon which the Regional Director refused to
consider the merits of the objections based on Towe's
conduct-his conclusion following investigation of
the charge in Case 10-CA-8118 that Towe was not a
supervisor-has subsequently been overturned by the
Board's decision in that case, Allied Foods, Inc., 186
NLRB No. 150. The Board thus found in the latter
case that Towe was in fact a supervisor within the
meaning of the Act and that his discharge on January
12, 1970, for engaging in union activities, was
therefore privileged and not violative of Section
8(a)(3) of the Act. Respondent argues that in view of
this intervening Board decision, it should now be
permitted to litigate the merits of the issue concerning
not only the participation and assistance by Towe in
the Union's organizational campaign, but also that of
alleged Supervisors Damon Heath and Oscar Foster.
In support of its contention concerning the involve-
ment of these three individuals in the organizational
campaign, Respondent has attached various affidav-
its to its response to General Counsel's Motion for
Summary Judgment, treated herein as an offer of
proof, which in substance reflect the following:
Although William R. Towe was a moving force in the
union compaign, he was discharged on January 14,
1970, for his participation therein. Can Line Foreman
Oscar Foster signed an authorization card away from
the plant on an undetermined date in January 1970
and on a number of occasions (the last possibly within
30 days of the election) pointed out to certain
employees the differences between union and nonun-
ion pay scales and outlined some of the benefits of a
union contract. Foster did not, however, attend any
union meetings or solicit authorization cards. Third
Shift Foreman Damon Heath attended two union
meetings, one on January 11, 1970, and another
"about three weeks or a month later." At the first
the Board held that conduct which occurs prior to the filing of the
representation petition will not be considered as grounds for setting aside
the election
ALLIED FOODS 515
meeting, Heath signed "a paper for the Union" and
also signed an authorization card on an unspecified
date. At union headquarters before both meetings,
Heath talked to employees "about different problems
that we needed to correct and benefits we wanted to
get through the Union." Sometime during January
1970, Heath also wore one or more union buttons for
2 days in the plant, and also talked to at least two
employees "in favor of the Teamsters Union," telling
one of them that "if we got the Teamsters in here, we
could get a little better organized."
Although we agree that our intervening decision in
Case 10-CA-8118 constitutes sufficient "special cir-
cumstances" to warrant review of the determination
made in the representation proceeding concerning
alleged supervisory participation in the union organi-
zational campaign, after such review we nevertheless
reaffirm the determination made therein. We are thus
satisfied that there is no basis warranting departure
from the Ideal Electric rule in this case and consider
the date upon which the operative petition was filed,
February 13, 1970, as the critical date for considera-
tion of the objections to the election. Furthermore,
even assuming that the alleged conduct in question
occurred during the critical period prior to the
election, we are not convinced that the conduct in any
event would constitute grounds for setting aside the
election. The asserted participation and assistance of
Heath and Foster was of a minimal nature which
would not have affected the results of the election. 4
Moreover, the discharge of Towe for engaging in
union activities, which occurred 2 days after the first,
and untimely, petition, not only effectively removed
any taint occasioned by his activity on behalf of the
Union, but would also have similarly removed any
possible taint attached by the very limited participa-
tion of Foster and Heath.
We find, furthermore, that the Regional Director's
processing of the representation proceeding in light of
the charges in Cases 10- CA-8118 and 10-CB 1903
was fully in accord with customary Board policies and
procedures.5
We also reject Respondent's contention that it has
been denied due process by the overruling of its
objections without benefit of a hearing. It is well
established that parties do not have an absolute right
to a hearing on objections to an election. It is only
when the moving party presents a prima facie
showing of "substantial and material issues" which
4 See Brown -Dunkin Company, 118 NLRB 1603
5 See Section 11730 2 of the Board's Public Field Manual , which deals
with concurrent charge and representation cases and provides that the
disposition of a charge case (a dismissal , though appealed, is considered a
disposition ) will serve to unblock the representation case and the Regional
Director in such circumstances should proceed as if there were no
concurrent charge See also Coffey's Transfer Company, 115 NLRB 888
6 See , e g, N L R B v DIT- MCO Incorporated, 428 F 2d 775 (C A 8),
would warrant setting aside the election that he is
entitled to an evidentiary hearing.6 As previously
noted, Respondent's proffered evidence with respect
to supervisory participation in the organizational
campaign, even if true, and even if we were not to
apply the Ideal Electric rule, would not constitute
grounds for setting aside the election. As for
Respondent's contention that it was entitled to a
hearing to present evidence of the confusion in the
minds of employees caused by the change in ballot
shortly before the election, we are satisfied that the
evidence objectively establishes that the revised
election notices were posted for a sufficient period of
time prior to the election to enable individual
employees to become apprised of the change in the
ballot and to make an informed choice. We therefore
reject Respondent's contention that it was entitled to
a hearing to present evidence of alleged confusion
that existed in the minds of individual employees.
It is equally well settled that in the absence of newly
discovered or previously unavailable evidence or
special circumstances a respondent in a proceeding
alleging a violation of Section 8(a)(5) is not entitled to
relitigate issues which were or could have been
litigated in a prior representation proceeding.?
All issues raised by the Respondent in this proceed-
ing were or could have been raised in the prior
representation proceeding, and the Respondent does
not offer to adduce at a hearing any newly discovered
or previously unavailable evidence, nor does it allege
that any additional special circumstances exist herein
which would require the Board to otherwise reexa-
mine the decision made in the representation proceed-
ing. We therefore find that the Respondent has not
raised any other issues which are properly litigable in
this unfair labor practice proceeding. We shall,
accordingly, grant the General Counsel's Motion for
Summary Judgment, and deny the Respondent's
cross Motion for Summary Judgment.
On the basis of the entire record, the Board makes
the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
Respondent is, and has been at all times material
herein, a Georgia corporation, with its principal office
and place of business located at Atlanta, Georgia,
where it is engaged in the manufacture and sale of
Liberty Coach Company, Inc v NL RB, 418 F 2d 1191 (C A D.C ),
National Cash Register Co v NLRB, 415 F 2d 1012 (C A 5), Polymers,
Inc v N L R B, 414 F 2d 999 (C A 2), cert denied 396 U .S 1010,
Intertype Company v N LR B, 401 F 2d 41 (C.A 4), cert denied 393 U S
1049, Plastic Fabricating Co, Inc, 179 NLRB No 86, and cases cited
therein at fn 1, Golden Age Beverage Company, supra
7 See Pittsburgh Plate Glass Co v N L R B, 313 US 146, 162 (1941),
Rules and Regulations of the Board, Sees 102 67( f) and 102 69(c)
516 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
food products, both food for human and food for
animal consumption.
Respondent, during the past calendar year, which
period is representative of all times material herein,
sold and shipped finished products valued in excess
of $50,000 directly to customers located outside the
State of Georgia.
We find, on the basis of the foregoing, that
Respondent is, and has been at all times material
herein, an employer engaged in commerce within the
meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act, and that it
will effectuate the policies of the Act to assert
jurisdiction herein.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
General Teamsters Local Union No. 528, affiliated
with International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauf-
feurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, is a
labor organization within the meaning of Section
2(5) of the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR I'kACTICES
B. The Request To Bargain and Respondent's
Refusal
Commencing on or about October 6, 1970, and at all
times thereafter, the Union has requested the Respon-
dent to bargain collectively with it as the exclusive
collective-bargaining representative of all the employ-
ees in the above-described unit. Commencing on or
about October 22, 1970, and continuing at all times
thereafter to date, the Respondent has refused, and
continues to refuse, to recognize and bargain with the
Union as the exclusive representative for collective
bargaining of all employees in said unit.
Accordingly, we find that the Respondent has, since
October 22, 1970, and at all times thereafter, refused
to bargain collectively with the Union as the exclusive
representative of the employees in the appropriate
unit, and that, by such refusal, Respondent has
engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices
within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the
Act.
A. The Representation Proceeding
1. The unit
The following employees of the Respondent consti-
tute a unit appropriate for collective-bargaining
purposes within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the
Act:
All production, maintenance and warehousing
employees of Respondent's Atlanta, Georgia, opera-
tion, including service department employees, quality
control department employees, garage employees,
and can line shift leadmen, but excluding all truck
drivers, office clerical employees, salesmen, profes-
sional employees, watchmen and guards; pet food
plant manager, assistant plant manager and shift
foremen; IMP manager or plant manager, assistant
plant manager and foremen; O-C-O plant manager,
pressroom foreman, machine shop foreman and can
line foreman; manager of S & R warehousing, dock
foreman, and garage foreman; service department
supervisors; and all other supervisors as defined in the
Act.
2. The certification
On May 7, 1970, a majority of the employees of
Respondent in said unit, in a secret ballot election
conducted under the supervision of the Regional
Director for Region 10, designated the Union as their
representative for the purpose of collective bargaining
with the Respondent. The Union was certified as the
collective-bargaining representative of the employees
in said unit on July 1, 1970, and the Union continues
to be such exclusive representative within the mean-
ing of Section 9(a) of the Act.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR
PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of Respondent set forth in section III,
above, occurring in connection with its 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 com-
merce and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has engaged in and
is engaging in unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act, we shall
order that it cease and desist therefrom, and upon
request, bargain collectively with the Union as the
exclusive representative of all employees in the
appropriate unit, and, if an understanding is reached,
embody such understanding in a signed agreement.
In order to insure that the employees in the
appropriate unit will be accorded the services of their
selected bargaining agent for the period provided by
law, we shall construe the initial period of certification
as beginning on the date Respondent commences to
bargain in good faith with the Union as the recogniz-
ed bargaining representative in the appropriate unit.
See Mar-Jac Poultry Company, Inc., 136 NLRB 785;
Commerce Company d/b/a Lamar Hotel, 140 NLRB
226,229, enfd. 328 F.2d 600 (C.A. 5), cert. denied 379
U.S. 817; Burnett Construction Company, 149 NLRB
1419, 1421, enfd. 350 F.2d 57 (C.A. 10).
The Board, upon the basis of the foregoing facts and
the entire record, makes the following:
ALLIED FOODS 517
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Allied Foods, Inc., is an employer engaged in
commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7)
of the Act.
2. General Teamsters Local Union No. 528,
affiliated with International Brotherhood of Team-
sters, Chauffeurs , Warehousemen and Helpers of
America , is a labor organization within the meaning
of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. All production, maintenance and warehousing
employees of Respondent 's Atlanta, Georgia, opera-
tion , including service department employees , quality
control department employees , garage employees,
and can line shift leadmen , but excluding all truck
drivers, office clerical employees , salesmen , profes-
sional employees , watchmen and guards ; pet food
plant manager , assistant plant manager and shift
foremen; IMP manager or plant manager , assistant
plant manager and foremen ; O-C-O plant manager,
pressroom foreman , machine shop foreman and can
line foreman ; manager of S & R warehousing, dock
foreman , and garage foreman ; service department
supervisors ; and all other supervisors as defined in the
Act, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of
collective bargaining within the meaning of Section
9(b) of the Act.
4. Since July 1, 1970, the above-named labor
organization has been and now is the certified and
exclusive representative of all employees in the
aforesaid appropriate unit for the purpose of collec-
tive bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(a) of
the Act.
5. By refusing on or about October 22, 1970, and
at all times thereafter , to bargain collectively with the
above-named labor organization as the exclusive
bargaining representative of all the employees of
Respondent in the appropriate unit , Respondent has
engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices
within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) of the Act.
6. By the aforesaid refusal to bargain , Respondent
has interfered with , restrained, and coerced, and is
interfering with , restraining , and coercing , employees
in the exercise of the rights guaranteed to them in
Section 7 of the Act, and thereby has engaged in and
is engaging in unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
7. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair
labor practices affecting commerce within the mean-
ing of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board hereby orders that Respondent,
Allied Foods, Inc., Atlanta, Georgia, its officers,
agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Refusing to bargain collectively concerning rates
of pay, wages, hours, and other terms and conditions
of employment, with General Teamsters Local Union
No. 528, affiliated with International Brotherhood of
Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousmen and Helpers of
America, as the exclusive bargaining representative of
its employees in the following appropriate unit:
All production, maintenance and warehousing
employees of Respondent's Atlanta, Georgia, opera-
tion, including service department employees, quality
control department employees, garage employees,
and can line shift leadmen, but excluding all truck
drivers, office clerical employees, salesmen , profes-
sional employees, watchmen and guards; pet food
plant manager, assistant plant manager and shift
foremen; IMP manager or plant manager, assistant
plant manager and foremen; O-C-O plant manager,
pressroom foreman, machine shop foreman and can
line foreman; manager of S & R warehousing, dock
foreman, and garage foreman; service department
supervisors; and all other supervisors as defined in the
Act.
(b) In any like or related manner interfering with,
restraining, or coercing employees in the rights
guaranteed them in Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the
Board finds will effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Upon request, bargain with the above-named
labor organization as the exclusive representative of
all employees in the aforesaid appropriate unit with
respect to rates of pay, wages, hours, and other terms
and conditions of employment, and, if an understand-
ing is reached, embody such understanding in a
signed agreement.
(b) Post at its Atlanta, Georgia, facility copies of the
attached notice marked "Appendix". 8 Copies of said
notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director
for Region 10, after being duly signed by Respon-
dent's representative, shall be posted by Respondent
immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained
by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicu-
ous places, including all places where notices to
employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps
shall be taken by Respondent to insure that said
notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any
other material.
(c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 10, in
8 In the event that this Order is enforced by a Judgment of a United Pursuant To A Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals
States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted By Order Enforcing an Order of The National Labor Relations Board."
of the National Labor Relations Board" shall be changed to read "Posted
518 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order,
what steps have been taken to comply herewith.
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
concerning rates of pay, wages, hours, and other
terms and conditions of employment with General
Teamsters Local Union No. 528, affiliated with
International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauf-
feurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, as
the exclusive representative of the employees in
the bargaining unit described below.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner
interfere with, restrain , or coerce our employees in
the exercise of the rights guaranteed them by
Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL, upon request, bargain with the above-
named Union, as the exclusive representative of all
employees in the bargaining unit described below,
with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours, and
other terms and conditions of employment, and, if
an understanding is reached, embody such under-
standing in a signed agreement. The bargaining
unit is:
All production, maintenance and warehous-
ing employees of Respondent's Atlanta,
Georgia, operation, including service depart-
ment employees, quality control department
employees, garage employees, and can line
shift leadmen, but excluding all truck drivers,
office clerical employees , salesmen , profes-
sional employees; watchmen and guards; pet
food plant manager, assistant plant manager
and shift foremen; IMP manager or plant
manager, assistant plant manager and fore-
men; O-C-O plant manager, pressroom
foreman, machine shop foreman and can line
foreman; manager of S & R warehousing,
dock foreman, and garage foreman; service
department supervisors; and all other super-
visors as defined in the Act.
ALLIED FOODS, INC.
(Employer)
Dated By
(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, Room 701, 730 Peachtree Street, N.E.,
Atlanta, Georgia 30308, Telephone 404-526-5760.