Bendix-Westinghouse Automotive Air Brake Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 27, 1970

185 N.L.R.B. 375 (N.L.R.B. 1970)

BENDIX-WESTINGHOUSE AUTOMOTIVE AIR BRAKE CO.
Bendix-Westinghouse Automotive Air Brake Compa-
ny and International Union , United Automobile,
Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers
of America (UAW). Case 8-CA-5608
August 27, 1970
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS FANNING,
MCCULLOCH, AND BROWN
On March 26, 1970, Trial Examiner Ivar H. Peter-
son issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceed-
ing, finding that Respondent had engaged in and
was engaging in a certain unfair labor practice within
the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act,
as amended, and recommending that it cease and
desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action,
as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Decision.
Thereafter, Respondent filed exceptions to the Deci-
sion and a supporting brief.
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial
Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no
prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are here-
by affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial
Examiner's Decision, the exceptions,' the brief, and
the entire record in this case, and hereby adopts
the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of
the Trial Examiner.2
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Rela-
tions Board adopts as its Order the Recommended
I The Respondent has requested oral argument This request is hereby
denied, as the record, the exceptions, and the brief adequately present
the issues and the positions of the patties
' We are, of course, aware of the holdings of Motor Wheel Corporation,
Subsidiary of Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company v NL R B, 74 LRRM
2832 (C A 6), setting aside 180 NLRB No 71, and Goodyear Tire
and Rubber Company v NLRB, 413 F 2d 158 (C A 6), denying
enforcement in relevant part of 170 NLRB No 79 It appears that
the court in Goodyear attached weight to two facts, that the particular
language involved was included by agreement of the contracting parties
and that the record indicated no employee ever lost anything as a
result of the provision To the extent that that opinion may be interpreted
as holding that language alone may not have an inhibiting impact on
employees, we respectfully disagree However, the instant case may be
factually distinguished in that here no agreement of the parties was
involved and the language of the plan requires the waiver of statutory
rights whereas no such waiver was required in either Goodyear or Motor
Wheel Chairman Miller would deter to the Sixth Circuit's view in Good-
vear, which he understands to mean that we must consider both the
language and any relevant factual context which may be helpful in
determining the impact on employees He concurs in the decision herein,
however, since no facts are present in this case which would justify
any inference that the language would not have an inhibiting impact
on the employees' freedom of choice
375
Order of the Trial Examiner, and hereby orders that
Respondent, Bendix-Westinghouse Automotive Air
Brake Company, Elyria, Ohio, its officers, agents,
successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth
in the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order.
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
IVAR H. PETERSON, Trial Examiner: Upon charges and
amended charges filed on September 30, 1969,' and Novem-
ber 7, respectively, by International Union, United Automo-
bile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of
America (UAW), herein called the Union, the General
Counsel fa the National Labor Relations Board, by the
Regional Director for Region 8, issued a complaint on
November 10 against Bendix-Westinghouse Automotive Air
Brake Company, herein referred to as the Respondent or
Company, alleging that the Respondent had engaged in
conduct violative of Section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended. Briefly stated, the complaint
alleged that in September the Respondent distributed to
salaried employees at its Elyria, Ohio, plant, and thereafter
maintained in effect, a savings and stock ownership plan
which, under stated circumstances, made salaried employees
who "shall be within a collective bargaining unit for which
a labor organization is recognized as collective bargaining
agent" ineligible to participate therein In its answer, the
Respondent denied having committed any unfair labor prac-
tices.
Pursuant to notice, I conducted a hearing on January
28, 1970, in Cleveland, Ohio All parties were represented
and afforded full opportunity to participate therein. The
brief filed by the Respondent has been carefully considered.
Upon the entire record in the case, and from my observa-
tion of the witnesses, I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
The Respondent, a Delaware corporation with its princi-
pal office in Elyria, Ohio, has several plants located in
various States of the United States, including Elyria, Ohio,
where it is engaged in the manufacture of automotive
air brakes and pneumatic devices. The Respondent admits
and I find that annually the Respondent ships products
valued in excess of $50,000 directly from its Elyria plant
to points outside the State of Ohio. I find that the Respond-
ent is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning
of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The Union is a labor organization within the meaning
of Section 2(5) of the Act
' Unless otherwise indicated, all dates refer to the year 1969
185 NLRB No. 29
376 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES consists of Bendix common stock. The securities purchased
pursuant to the Plan are held by a trustee and provision
is made for reinvestment of earnings. Contributions by
the Company, as well as earnings thereon, vest in the
employee according to a schedule, 100 percent vesting
occurs when the employee has completed contributions
to the Plan for 85 or more months Provision is made
for withdrawals of contributions, and upon retirement, disa-
bility or death the employee or his beneficiary will receive
all the employee's contributions and all company contribu-
tions credited to the employee's account.
During July 1969, the Company became aware that the
Union was conducting an organizational campaign among
salaried employees at the Elyria plant. Indeed, the Company
was aware of this before it sent the letter of July 14
concerning improvements in benefits, including the Plan.
The Union, on August 11, filed a representation petition
(Case 8-RC-7596) seeking to represent a unit of some
180 salaried office clerical employees at the Elyria plant
Pursuant to a consent election stipulation, an election was
held on October 14, resulting in defeat of the Union by
a vote of 96 to 61. The Union filed a petition (Case
8-RC-7660) on October 8, seeking representation of a
unit of approximately 54 salaried technical employees at
the Elyria plant. No election has been held on this petition.
There is no claim or showing by independent evidence
that the Respondent had any animus against the Union
or that its intent in publicizing the Plan was to frustrate
organization of its salaried employees
The sole issue presented is whether the Respondent,
by distributing to its Elyria salaried employees the Plan
and maintaining it in effect, violated Section 8(a)(1) because
of the following provisions in the Plan relating to employee
eligibility to participate therein:
2 03-An Employee shall not be eligible to make
contributions if such Employee shall be within a collec-
tive bargaining unit for which a labor organization
is recognized as collective bargaining agent by any
Participating Company, except that, upon approval
of the Company, the foregoing provisions of this clause
shall not affect the eligibility of such Employee to
make contributions to the Plan, if, prior to his making
any such contribution, such Participating Company
shall have requested and received from such labor
organization a waiver, in terms acceptable to such
Participating Company, of all rights of and claims
of right by such labor organization to bargain collective-
ly with respect to the Plan or any substantially similar
plan or program or to compel such Participating Com-
pany to do so, but only so long as such waiver shall
remain in effect.
It is the position of the General Counsel that the foregoing
provision is per se violative of Section 8(a)(1). The Respond-
ent, however, contends that it is lawful and to be distin-
guished from somewhat similar employer benefit plan provi-
sions held violative by the Board and the courts.
The first portion of the foregoing eligibility clause plainly
states that an employee is not eligible to make contributions
to the Plan if he is "within a collective bargaining unit
for which a labor organization is recognized as collective
bargaining agent" by the Company. Later language in the
Prior to 1969 The Bendix Corporation (Bendix) had
owned 51 percent of the capital stock of the Company.
In January 1969 Bendix entered into arrangements to acquire
the remaining 49 percent of the Company's stock, thus
making the Company a wholly owned subsidiary of Bendix.
In August 1968 Bendix adopted a Salaried Employees'
Savings and Stock Ownership Plan (herein the Plan), effec-
tive January 1969, available to its employees and those
of participating subsidiaries Following acquisition of 100
percent ownership of the Company by Bendix, the Compa-
ny's personnel policies and compensation programs were
reviewed and analyzed, and consideration was given to
making participation in the Plan available to employees
of the Company. In May the chairman of the board of
Bendix consented to the participation of the Company
in the Plan and on August 4 the Internal Revenue Service
was requested by Bendix to determine that the Plan, as
amended to include the Company, met the requirements
of the Internal Revenue Code. In the meantime, on July
14, Elyria salaried employees of the Company were advised
of a number of changes in their benefit and compensation
programs, including adoption of the Plan "under which
employees may invest up to 8% of their base monthly
salary with the Company matching 50% of this investment."
Employees were also informed that the changes would
be explained in a series of meetings beginning July 21.
On August 8 the president of the Company wrote the
salaried employees and sent them a memorandum which,
among other things, summarized the Plan, advised that
it was subject to approval of the Internal Revenue Service
which approval was expected by October 1, and informed
employees they would attend a "communications program"
at which the Plan would be further explained
On September 11 and 12, two officials of Bendix, Virgil
Hare and Larry Dooley, conducted a series of meetings
with salaried employees at the Elyria plant in which they
explained the Plan by use of a prepared script and slides
that had been developed in the fall of 1968 for use at
other locations in introducing the Plan which went into
effect January 1. They also distributed a prospectus which
set forth the formal text of the Plan On September 29
the Respondent distributed enrollment forms to Elyria sala-
nes employees, but noted that IRS approval had not as
yet been obtained Such approval was issued under date
of October 17, and the Plan was thereupon placed in
effect as of October 1 for those Elyria salaried employees
who had enrolled. Of the approximately 510 salaried employ-
ees at Elyria, about 65 percent enrolled as of October
1; at the time of the hearing, about 71 percent participated
The Plan, which is voluntary, provides that an eligible
salaried employee may invest not less than 2 percent or
more than 8 percent of base salary, either in U.S. government
bonds or Bendix common stock. For every $2 an employee
invests, the Company invests $ 1 in Bendix common stock
on behalf of the employee Employees may elect to have
their contributions invested 100 percent in government
bonds (Fund A), 100 percent in Bendix common stock
(Fund B), or equally divided between Fund A and Fund
B Company contributions are invested in Fund C, which
BENDIX-WESTINGHOUSE AUTOMOTIVE AIR BRAKE CO.
clause, however, provides that such disqualification will
not attach under certain circumstances, one of which is
that the Company request and receive from the labor organi-
zation a waiver, acceptable to the Company, of "all rights
of and claims of right by such labor organization to bargain
collectively with respect to the Plan or any substantially
similar plan or program or to compel" the Company to
bargain with respect thereto In other words, salaried
employees of the Company are not eligible to participate
in the Plan if the Company recognizes a union as their
collective-bargaining representative, except if the union in
a manner satisfactory to the Company relinquishes the
right to bargain about the Plan or any similar program.
In short, a necessary condition to employees being able
to make contributions to the Plan, once the Company
has recognized a union as their representative, is that the
bargaining agent forego bargaining about the Plan or any
program similar thereto It seems plain that if the Company
does not choose to request a waiver, or if the labor organiza-
tion refuses to execute a waiver or the waiver is for some
reason not acceptable to the Company, the represented
employees are foreclosed from making contributions to
the Plan. In any event, for represented employees to continue
to be eligible to make contributions they must, through
their bargaining representatives, forego their statutory right
to bargain collectively about the Plan or any similar pro-
gram The narrow question, therefore, is whether the
Respondent's unilateral action in so conditioning participa-
tion in the Plan is an infringement upon the exercise
of Section 7 rights of employees
Section 7 guarantees employees the right "to bargain
collectively through representatives of their own choosing,"
and Section 8(a)(l) makes it an unfair labor practice for
an employer "to interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees
in the exercise" of that right. It is now well established
that benefits such as those made available by company
contributions under the Plan are embraced within the terms
"wages" and "conditions of employment" and, as such,
are mandatory subjects of collective bargaining . Richfield
Oil Corporation, 110 NLRB 356, enfd. 231 F.2d 717
(C A.D.C.), cert. denied 351 U.S. 909. That the contributions
made by the Company pursuant to the Plan are substantial
is evident, as they represent 50 percent of the contributions
made by the employees. And it seems equally evident
that employees, by reason of the eligibility provision in
the Plan, must forego such benefits if they select a union
to represent them and if the union does not execute an
acceptable waiver of bargaining rights as to the Plan or
a similar program.
The Respondent argues that employees who choose to
be represented by a union are not thereby automatically
foreclosed from continued participation in the Plan, and
on this basis would distinguish cases holding disqualification
of represented employees from participation in similar bene-
fit plans to be violative of the Act. The Respondent also
points out that salaried employees in the only operating
unit of Bendix covered by a collective-bargaining agreement
(a unit of plant guards at the Kansas City, Missouri,
division) participate in the Plan, since the union representing
that unit executed a satisfactory waiver of bargaining rights.
While represented employees are not "automatically" dis-
377
qualified in the sense that they are forever foreclosed from
participation, it is nonetheless true that they-unlike unre-
presented employees-can remain or become eligible only
by paying the price of giving up the statutory right to
bargain about the subject matter of the Plan. In my opinion
the unilateral imposition and publication of this requirement
is inherently destructive of the rights of employees under
Section 7 of the Act and not significantly different from
like restrictions found violative of the Act in decided cases
involving comparable benefit plans 2
In Melville, supra, the employer restricted participation
in a profit-sharing plan to employees "not represented
by a Union designated as the bargaining agent for the
employee." The Board held that by maintaining the plan
with this condition on eligibility the employer violated
Section 8(a)(1), and it adopted the Trial Examiner's finding
that "no independent evidence of animus or specific intent
to abrogate rights guaranteed by the Act is necessary"
to support such finding. The Court of Appeals for the
Seventh Circuit affirmed the Board's decision, stating that
the company's conduct "in maintaining the provision making
union representation a disqualification for eligibility to par-
ticipate in its employee profit-sharing plan benefits and
continuing to bring such restriction to the attention of
its employees ... constituted a per se violation of Section
8(a)(1)." The Court further added that such conduct was
"inherently destructive of rights guaranteed by Section 7."
The Dura case, supra, involved a profit-sharing plan available
to "any employee ... who is not a member of a Collective
Bargaining Unit recognized" by the employer. Following
Board certification of a union as the representative of
salaried office clerical employees at one of its plants, the
employer refused to permit participation in the plan by
the represented employees. The Board held, with court
approval, that such disqualification was violative of Section
8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act. In Kroger, supra, the employer's
retirement and profit-sharing plan in substance provided
that employees who were covered by a negotiated pension
plan were not eligible to participate in the employer's
retirement and profit-sharing plan. Additionally, the employ-
er refused to bargain concerning the profit-sharing plan.
The Board's findings of violation of Section 8(a)(1), (3),
and (5) were sustained by the Court of Appeals for the
Sixth Circuit
In Goodyear, supra, the Board held that it was violative
of Section 8(a)(1) to limit participation in retirement and
insurance plans to employees not represented by a collective-
bargaining representative In refusing to enforce the Board's
order in this respect, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals
noted that the language found objectionable by the Board
had been inserted at the request of the union there involved
in order "to distinguish between employees who were cov-
ered under Company plans and employees covered under
' Melville Confections, Inc, 142 NLRB 1334, enfd 327 F 2d 689
(C A 7), cert denied 377 U S 933, Dura Corporation, 156 NLRB
285, enfd 380 F 2d 970 (CA 6), The Kroger Co., 164 NLRB 362,
cnfd in pertinent part 401 F 2d 682 (C A 6), The Goodyear Tire &
Rubber Company, 170 NLRB No 79, enforcement denied in pertinent
part 413 F 2d 158 (C A 6), Motor Wheel Corporation, 180 NLRB
No 71
378 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
various benefit plans negotiated by their collective bargaining
representatives."
The Board's latest decision in this area is Motor Wheel,
supra There the employer had in effect two retirement
plans for salaried employees which provided that in order
to be eligible to participate an employee be "not represented
by a collective bargaining representative recognized by the
Company." In response to an order to show cause why
a motion for judgment on the pleadings should not be
granted, the employer asserted that the disputed language
was never alluded to during the course of an organizing
campaign leading to certification of the union for a unit
of salaried employees; that since certification of the union
the parties had bargained with respect to a new pension
plan to replace the plans containing the disputed language;
and that the represented employees continued to be covered
by the plans during the course of negotiations. In granting
the motion for judgment on the pleadings and finding
that restriction on eligibility to participate per se violative
of Section 8(a)(1), the Board stated:
As we have had previous occasion to hold, employee
benefit plans which on their face are restricted to
participation or enjoyment by employees who are not
members of a union, or who have foregone their right
to select and bargain through a collective-bargaining
representative are inherently restrictive of employee
rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act, and without
further evidence of interference, restraint, or coercion
are per se violations of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.'
Melville Confections, Inc., 142 NLRB 1334, enfd 327 F.2d
689 (C A 7), cert. denied 377 U S. 933
In making the foregoing determination in Motor Wheel
the Board assumed, arguendo, that the employer's "continu-
ation of the plan after employees had chosen the Union
was subject to pending negotiations" and further assumed
"that if the Employer's pension plan had specifically provid-
ed for such conditional continuation following selection
of a bargaining agent, no violation would have occurred."
Noting that the employer's plan did not provide for such
conditional continuation, the Board reasoned as follows:
Employees considering selecting a bargaining agent
would therefore be impeded in their free exercise of
their right to selection by clear and unequivocal lan-
guage in Respondent's plan indicating that they would
suffer a loss of benefit if they selected a Union and
the Respondent recognized it. In view of the Respond-
ent's admission by answer that it has maintained the
retirement plans containing the restrictive language
in effect at all times material to this case, and that
the provisions of the plans have been publicized to
salaried employees such as those currently represented
by the Union, we find that there are no matters requir-
ing hearing before a trial examiner. Accordingly, it
is appropriate that the General Counsel's motion for
judgment on the pleadings be, and it hereby is, granted.
I conclude and find that the language in the Respondent's
Plan, excluding represented employees from continued par-
ticipation therein except upon the condition that their repre-
sentative waive the right to bargain concerning the Plan
or any similar plan or program, is inherently restrictive
of employee rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
Accordingly, I find that by maintaining the Plan in effect
and publicizing it to its salaried employees, the Respondent
has engaged in conduct violative of Section 8(a)(1) of the
Act.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON
COMMERCE
The acts of the Respondent set forth in section III,
above, occurring in connection with the operations of the
Respondent described in section I, above, have a close,
intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and com-
merce among the several States, and tend to lead to labor
disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free
flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in unfair
labor practices violative of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act, it
will be recommended that the Respondent cease and desist
therefrom and take certain affirmative action to effectuate
the policies of the Act.
I have found that by maintaining in effect those provisions
of its Salaried Employees' Savings and Stock Ownership
Plan excluding from participation therein otherwise eligible
employees if they chose to be represented by a collective-
bargaining representative recognized by it, unless such repre-
sentative waives the right to bargain concerning the Plan
or any similar plan or program, the Respondent interfered
with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise
of their Section 7 rights. I will accordingly recommend
that the Respondent amend the foregoing Plan by eliminat-
ing therefrom the provisions so excluding represented
employees. I will further recommend that the Respondent
cease and desist from in any like or related manner infringing
upon rights guaranteed to its employees in Section 7 of
the Act.
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. Bendix-Westinghouse Automotive Air Brake Company
is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning
of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace
and Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW),
is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5)
of the Act.
3. By maintaining in effect a Salaried Employees' Savings
and Stock Ownership Plan which provides for the exclusion
from participation therein of employees who shall be within
a collective-bargaining unit represented by a labor organiza-
tion recognized by the Respondent, unless such labor organi-
zation waives the right to bargain concerning the Plan
or any similar plan or program, the Respondent has inter-
fered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the
exercise of their rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the
Act, and has thereby engaged in unfair labor practices
BENDIX-WESTINGHOUSE AUTOMOTIVE AIR BRAKE CO.
within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor
practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section
2(6) and (7) of the Act.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and
conclusions of law, and upon the entire record in the
case, it is recommended that Bendix-Westinghouse Automo-
tive Air Brake Company, Elyria, Ohio, its officers, agents,
successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from-
(a) Maintaining in effect a Salaned Employees' Savings
and Stock Ownership Plan which contains a provision
excluding employees from participation therein because they
are within a collective-bargaining unit represented by a
labor organization recognized by the Respondent, unless
such labor organization waives the right to bargain concern-
ing the Plan or any similar plan or program.
(b) In any like or related manner interfering with, restrain-
ing, or coercing employees in the exercise of the rights
guaranteed to them by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action designed to effec-
tuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Amend its Salaried Employees' Savings and Stock
Ownership Plan by the elimination therefrom of the provi-
sion excluding from participation therein employees within
a collective-bargaining unit represented by a labor organiza-
tion recognized by the Respondent, unless such labor organi-
zation waives the right to bargain concerning the Plan
or any similar plan or program.
(b) Post at its plant in Elyria, Ohio, copies of the attached
notice marked "Appendix "' Copies of said notice, on forms
provided by the Regional Director for Region 8, after
being duly signed by the Respondent's authorized represent-
ative, shall be posted immediately upon receipt thereof,
and be maintained for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in
conspicuous places, including all places where notices to
employees are customarily posted Reasonable steps shall
be taken to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced,
or covered by any other material.
(c) Notify said Regional Director, in writing, within
20 days from the receipt of this Decision, what steps
Respondent has taken to comply herewith.'
' 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 , recommendations , and Recommended Order
herein shall , as provided in Sec 102 48 of the Rules and Regulations,
379
be adopted by the Board and become its findings, conclusions, and
order, and all objections thereto shall be deemed waived for all purposes
In the event that the Board's Order is enforced by a judgment of
a United States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading
"Posted by Order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall be
changed to read "Posted pursuant to a Judgment of the United States
Court of Appeals enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations
Board "
' In ih% event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board,
this provision shall be modified to read "Notify said Regional Director,
in writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps
Respondent has 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 amend our Salaried Employees' Savings
and Stock Ownership Plan by the elimination therefrom
of the provision which excludes from participation
employees within a collective-bargaining unit represent-
ed by a labor organization recognized by us, unless
such labor organization gives up the right to bargain
concerning the Plan or any similar plan or program.
WE WILL NOT disqualify our salaried employees
from eligibility to participate in our Salaned Employees'
Savings and Stock Ownership Plan because they are
or become members of a collective-bargaining unit
represented by a labor organization recognized by us
BENDIX-WESTINGHOUSE
AUTOMOTIVE AIR BRAKE
COMPANY
(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, 1695
Federal Office Building, 1240 East Ninth Street, Cleveland,
Ohio 44199, Telephone 216-522-3715.