Cascade Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 4, 1971

192 N.L.R.B. 533 (N.L.R.B. 1971)

CASCADE CORP.
Cascade Corporation and International union, United
Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement
Workers 'of Anienca;-UAW, and its Local Union
No,1689
.
Case 9-CA-5683
August 4, 1971
DECISIONAND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN- MILLER AND MEMBERS
- FANNING AND BROWN
On April 13, 1971, Trial Examiner William W.
Kapell issued his Supplemental Decision in the
above-entitled proceeding, finding that-the Respon-
dent had engaged in and was engaging in certain
unfair labor practices 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 Supplemental Decision.
Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions `to the
Trial 'Examiner's Supplemental Decision and a
supporting brief, the Charging Party filed cross-
exceptions and a supporting brief,'and the General
Counsel filed a"`brief in answer to the Respondent's
exceptions. The Respondent also requested oral
argument.
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. I
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
hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the'Trial
Examiner's Supplemental Decision, the exceptions
and briefs, and the entire record in the case,' and
hereby adopt the findings, conclusions,2 and recom-
mendations of the, Trial Examiner.
,ORDER
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 Trial Examiner and hereby orders that
the Respondent, Cascade Corporation, Springfield,
Ohio, itsofficers,_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, and
it hereby is, dismissed. insofar as it alleges violations
of the Act not found herein.
i The Respondent's request for oral argument is hereby denied, as the
192 NLRB No. 74
533
record, the exceptions , and the briefs adequately present theissues and the
positions of the parties.
2 We agree with the Trial Examiner for the reasons stated by him that
Respondent may not now relitigate matters disposed of in the
representation proceeding. We need not consider nor do we adopt the Trial
Examiner's conclusion that such evidence was previously available because
it could have been obtained through an investigative subpena.
We also agree with the Trial Examiner for the reasons stated by him that
it is appropriate to issue a bargaining order in this case. Unlike 'Laura
Modes, 144 NLRB 1592, where there had been no opportunity for the
employees to make a- free choice in an atmosphere free of coercion , here a
valid election was conducted and a certification had issued before any
violence took place. While we do'not condone the violence, and indeed our
General Counsel hadissued a complaint and was prepared to prosecute the
Union for alleged violations of Section 8(bXlXA), that case was settled and
'a firm and enforceable commitment obtained from the Union that like
conduct shall not again occur. There is no allegation that the Union has
violated the terms of that agreement , or any, evidence , that any union
misconduct has occurred since that agreement . Under these circumstances,
where the Union was chosen as the employees ',`representative pursuant to
an orderly process, and where proper -remedial action has taken place and
provides adequate assurances that future union misconduct will not occur,
we see no reason to deprive the employees of the right to be represented by
the Union of their choice. -
TRIAL EXAMINER'S SUPPLEMENTAL
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
WILLIAM W. KAPELL, Trial ' Examiner: -This matter, a
proceeding under Section 10(b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended , herein called the Act, was
heard in Springfield , Ohio, on December 8 and 9 , 1970,1
with all parties participating pursuant to due notice upon a
complaint in Case 9-CA-5608 issued by the General'
Counsel on June 5 , and a complaint 2 in Case 9-CA--'5683
(the within proceeding) issued on September 18, which were
consolidated for-hearing by order of the Regional Director
dated October 14 . As appears, infra, the record in the within
proceeding was conditionally closed subject to reopening.
The record in Case 9-CA=5608 was closed and inasmuch as
a decision in that Case was not dependent upon , and could
be issued without awaiting further developments in the
conditionally closed case , it was severed and a -decision
therein was issued (TXD-123-71) on March 3, 1971.
The complaint, as amended, herein alleges, in substance,
that following an election , the Board-on April 28 issued a
certification of representation to UAW, that since about
April 30 UAW has requested-recognition and bargaining,
that since about May 6 the Company has refused to comply
with UAW's request, and that since . about May 18 certain
employees of the company have engaged in a:strike caused
and prolonged by its refusal to bargain , in violation of
Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act. In its duly filed answer,
the Company admitted the issuance , of the certification, its
refusal to comply with UAW's request to bargain, and the
strike by certain employees, and affirmatively alleged (1)
that the UAW. certification was invalid, and (2) that
beginning about May 18 UAW,,has engaged in coercive acts
against company employees involving mass picketing,
shooting at employees and their homes and cars , threaten-
ing to inflict and inflicting physical injury on such
employees, and damaging their cars and homes , as a result
i All dates hereafter refer to the year 1970 unless otherwise noted.
2 Based upon a charge filed on June 9 by UAW and its 'Local No. 1689.
534 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
of which, the= Company is not obligated to bargain with
UAW.
As' indicated, supra the record herein was conditionally
closed pending Board approval or rejecting of a settlement
agreement in Case 9-CB-1930 in which a complaint was
issued based on alleged misconduct by UAW violative of
Section 8(b)(IXA) of the Act a Such misconduct was also
pleaded, as an affirmative defense, in, the. instant case.
Pursuant to arrangements made at the conditional close of
the hearing herein, the record herein was to remain closed
automatically in' the event the' Board approved of the
proposed settlement agreement ., If 'rejected by the Board;
said record-was to,be reopened and the hearing. resumed in,
connection' with the Company's motion to consolidate Case
9-CB-1830 for hearing-with the instant case, on which
ruling had been,deferred -pending Board action on the
proposed settlement., On March 31, 1971, the Board issued
its Decision and Order in Case 9-CB-1-830 approving the'
settlement agreement offered ' therein. Accordingly, the'
record herein was automatically closed. Upon the entire
record in the, case, and from my observation of the
witnesses, I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACTO
I. THE ALLEGED 8(A)(5) AND (1) VIOLATIONS
A. Background
Pursuant to the provisions of a Stipulation for Certifica-
tion Upon Consent Election, the Board in Case 9-RC-8371
conducted am election in, a unit of the Employer's (the
Company's) employees at its Springfield, Ohio, plant
consisting of all production and maintenance employees,
including inventory clerks and schedulers, but excluding'
guards, -professionals, and supervisors within the meaning
of the Act,=and all office clericatemployees. The UAW won
the election by 131 votes A o 116 , for the intervenor
(Employees Independent Union,- the former employee
representative). The Company thereupon filed various
Objections to Conduct Affecting the Results, of Election
alleging, inter alia, that the Petitioner (UAW) caused
substantial and material, misrepresentations of,, fact to be
made in a , circular distributed to employees immediately
prior to, the election.-In support of said Objection,-;the
Employer-submitteda copy of a leaflet entitled-"Message
from Portland , Oregon" at the bottom of which there
appeared the -typewritten, name of Larry Vance secretary-'
treasurer of Teamsters Automotive Local Union No. 255 of,
Portland, Oregon. The leaflet purports to compare the
higher wage rates of certain employees- in the Employer's
Portland, Oregon, plant where allegedly an, independent
union voted to affiliate with an International Union, with
the rates of certain employees in the Springfield, Ohio,
plant. The Regional Director appraised ' ^ the evidence
submitted by the Employer in support of all its objections
and,in his report concluded that the objections did not raise
3 Said agreement was offered in evidence by Respondent and admitted
without objection . It provides for the entry of a Board Order and court
decree containing , the usual cease-and-desist conditions with respect to the
alleged violative conduct but makes no findings ;o1 violation and has a
nonadmission clause.
any substantial or-material issue affecting the results of,,the,
election and recommended that - the,Board overrule all the
objections ,and issue an, appropriate, certification- of
representative. The Company filed;. exceptions , to; the
Regional Director's report and recommendation , attacking
in particular the finding with respect to the "letter" from
Larry Vance, claiming it not only contained substantial
misrepresentationsYbut was also a forgery . On April28 the
Board issued its' Decision adopting the findings , conclu-
sions , and recommendations of the Regional Director, and
certified the UAW as the'exclusive,representative of the
unit of employees described therein, - stating that the
exceptions to the Regional Director's report raised no
material issue of fact or law which would warrant reversal
of the Regional Director's findings and recommendation of
require a hearing.,
B. The. Certification,,
The Company contends : that the certification -issued to
UAW is invalid because of UAW's preelection conduct in
distributing the leaflet containing the "signature " of Larry
Vance because it contained substantial misrepresentations
and was also a forgery . At the, hearing herein, it sought to
prove the forgery or unauthorized use of the leaflet through
the, testimony of Vance and served a subpena on him for
that , purpose. Vance, however, ':failed to ' appear' at the
hearing and the Company moved for a continuance to
compel his appearance through enforcement procedures,,
claiming that his evidence was previously unavailable. The
motion was denied.
C. Conclusions as, to the Certification
The alleged misrepresentations and forgery of the leaflet
were raised and considered by the Board in the related
representation case. Vance's testimony was as available at
that time through an investigative subpena as it was at the
hearing herein. Moreover, ,; if , it were i proven that Vance's
"name" was used without, his authorization, it would not
affect the, validity of ' -the certification, The Regional
Director, and the Board on exceptions, determined that the
leaflet's adverse effects were 'promptly dissipated through
the corrective action taken by UAW`and'the Company and
therefore did not raise a material or substantial issue
affecting the results of the election and requiring a hearing.
It is the well established policy of the Board, in the absence
of newly` discovered or previously unavailable evidence, or
special circumstances, not to'permit relitigation in an unfair
labor practice case of issues which were of could have been
raised' in a prior -representation case 5 Furthermore, the
Board's determination with regard to the leaflet is the law
of the case and binding upon the Trial,Examiner at the
present stage of the proceedings. I, accordingly, find no
merit in the Company's contention and sustain the validity
of the certification.
4 Findings were made in the Decision, in' Case 9-CA--5608 that at all
times material herein the Company has been engaged as an employer and
that UAW and its Local No . 1689 have been labor organizations , within
the meaning of the Act.
5 Pittsburgh Plate Glass Co. v. N.L.P.B., 313 U.S.146, 162.
CASCADE CORP. 535
D. The Alleged UAW Picket Line Violence
The Company also contends that it should be relieved of
the obligation to bargain with UAW because of the-latter's
alleged acts of violence and intimidation to force it to
abandon its efforts to have the validity of the election
finally adjudicated. In addition to interposing such grounds
as an affirmative defense in the instant case, the Company,
as related above, also `filed 8(b)(1)(A) charges (Case
9-CB-1`830) against UAW and its agents, and, a'complaint
issued'alleging 'that UAW and its agents engaged in certain
acts and threats of violence at the picket line and elsewhere
causing injury to employees and damage to their automo-
biles in an attempt to prevent their entry to or departure
from the plant. At the hearing herein, the Company offered
in evidence, a proposed` settlement agreement of said-case
signed by UAW and its agents-named therein consenting to
a Board Order and court decree.' The agreement and the
complaint6 on which it was- based were admitted in
evidence upon consent of all parties, and counsel for the
General Counsel recommended its"approval by the Board.
Pending -Board ' approval or rejection of the proposed
settlement, ruling, was deferred on the Company's motion
to consolidate the hearing in that case with the hearing of
the within proceeding. The' Company then elected to rest
without offering any evidence in addition to that previously
admitted concerning UAW's alleged violative conduct
pending resolution- of the proposed settlement, and the
'record 'was closed subject to reopening and reactivation of
the Company's motion to consolidate the CB case hearing
in the event the Board rejected the proposed settlement., As
indicated above, the'- Board approved the proposed
settlement agreement, thereby mooting the Company's
motion to consolidate, " and automatically closing , the
hearing herein.
The only evidence of UAW's alleged violence or
misconduct on the picket fine consists of the following
testimony: Cecil Clary, a company employee, testified that
on May 19 or 20 he drove a company pickup truck to work
and when he started to turn in at the center gate of the plant
he found about 10 or 15 pickets, including Pride,7 standing
in the entrance. The pickets refused to get out of the way
and about 10 of them grabbed hold of the truck, shaking
and bouncing it. Pride,'who did not touch the truck, asked
him why he wanted to come in and scab to which he replied
that he was going to work for what he believed in'and to do
so-in an orderly manner . Pride then told him, "Clary, you
better get home before you get hurt and hurt bad.,
Thereupon, Clary backed out, drove away, and entered the
plant through, another entrance. Pride testified in connec-
tion with this incident that he had asked Clary not to cross
the picket line to which Clary replied that he had to go in
because he needed the money, and that then Clary pulled
away with his truck.
Ronald Massie, a company employee, testified that on
May 20 he drove to work in his car and pulled up behind a
few cars waiting to enter the plant. When the driver in front
of him, a foreman , was permitted to enter, he began driving
in. Robert Goodfellow, a picket, yelled "stop him," and a
6 It was stipulated that UAW's answer denied engaging in the alleged
violations.
group of men rushed to his car and someone yelled "Let's
turn it over," The pickets, including, Pride, started lifting
and rocking the car and the left rear tire,blew out. The
pickets then dropped the car and scattered. Pride testified
that he was present at this incident on the picket line and
admitted having his hands on she car but denied rocking it.
Based on the, demeanor of the witnesses, I credit the
testimony of Clary and Massie as ,hereinabove related.;
Pride also testified that he followed a truck as it left the
plant to go to the premises, of. Commercial Trucking
Company where he and five other individuals set up a
picket line in front of the truck, carrying a placard for a
period of about 3 hours.
E. Conclusions Regarding UA W's Picket Line
Violence
The Company cites the'Board's decision in Laura Modes,
144 NLRB 1592, in support of its contention that UAW's
alleged acts of violence on the picket line has the effect of
absolving it from bargaining with 'UAW pursuant to the
latter's certification. It contends that the- United Mineral
and Chemical Corporation case (155 NLRB 1397) where the
Board issued a bargai=n order - despite incidents of
violence by strikers is distinguishable on the ground that the
incidents of violence are far greater in the instant case and
are directly attributable to UAW and its agents, and also
further notes that the court denied enforcement of the
Board's bargaining order because of the violence that
occurred.
The General Counsel and UAW contend, (1) that the
settlement agreement approved by the Board in Case
9-CB-1830 not only contains no findings of violation but
also has a nonadmission clause, and, therefore, cannot
constitute evidence of violation, (2), that the adduced
evidence of UAW's alleged picket line violence, even if
credited, would not constitute sufficiently flagrant or
widespread misconduct to absolve the Company from
bargaining with it, (3) that whatever violence occurred was
caused by the Company's unlawful refusal to bargain, (4)
the instant case presents an even stronger ground that the
United Mineral case for the issuance of a bargaining order
when comparing the misconduct of the respective alleged
unions, and (5) the Board in refusing a bargaining order in
the Laura Modes case specifically noted that the offending
union would be denied the right to invoke the Board's
statutory processes in aid of a demand for recognition as
bargaining representative of the employer's employees
unless and until it demonstrated its majority status through
the election procedures, whereas the UAW herein had
already perfected its bargaining status through an election
and certification,
"A refusal to bargain is a common method for
challenging the Board's certification of a union since Board
decisions in representation proceedings usually are not
reviewable by the Courts of Appeals." N.L.R.B. v. Smith
Industries, Inc., 403 F.2d 889, 891 (C.A. 5). However, the
employer acts at his peril in the event he fails to prevail with
respect to his refusal to bargain. It appears that although
7 The General Counsel failed to sustain the alleged discriminatory
discharge of Paul Pride in Case 9-CA-5608, which was heretofore severed.
536 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
UAW,requested bargaining since April 30, the,Company
has, -refused to comply with- that request since May 6,
although admittedly UAW did- -not, engage in any
misconduct,until May 18. Thus, the Company's refusal to
bargain from May 6 to May 18 was based solely on the
invalidity of the 'certification to UAW. In view of the
finding made herein as to the certification's validity, I
conclude that,theCompany violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1)
during that period.
Thereafter, UAW engaged in the misconduct related
above. In appraising that misconduct, the problem is
essentially one of weighing the gravity of employee
misconduct against the employer's unfair -labor practice
which, in the first place, provoked the employees to resort
to unprotected-. activities.8 Viewing UAW's • misconduct,
especially in view of the Company's refusal to bargain, I
conclude that the few proven incidents, while reprehensible
and not to be •condoned, were not so widespread or
pervasive as to relieve it from bargaining with UAW. See
World Carpets of New York Inc., 188 NLRB No. 10.
'Upon the.foregoing findings of facts and upon the,entire
record-of thiscase; I make the following: • -
'CONCLUSIONS 013 LAW
1. Respondent Company'is an employer whose opera-
tions affect commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6)
and (7) of the Act.
2. UAW and its Local No. 1689 are labor organizations
within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. All production and maintenance employees at the
Company's Springfield, Ohio, plant, including inventory
clerks and schedulers, ' but' excluding guards, professionals,
and supervisors' within the meaning of the Act, and all
office clerical employees, constitute a unit appropriate for
the purpose o.collective-bargainng within the meaning of
Section 9(b) of theAct.
4. Since April 28 the above-named labor organization
has been and now is the certified exclusive representative of
all employees in the aforesaid appropriate unit for the
purpose of collective bargaining within the meaning of
Section 9(a) of the Act.
5., By refusing on about May 6, and at all times
thereafter, to bargain collectively with the above-named
labor organization as the exclusive bargaining representa-
tive of all the employees of the Company in the appropriate
unit, the Company has engaged in and is engaging in unfair
labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) of the
Act.
6. By theaforesaid refusal to bargain, the Company had
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
8 See N.L R.B. v. Thayer Company, 213 F.2d 748 (C.A. 1), cert. denied
348 U.S. 883.
9 Citing International Union of Electrical. Radio and Machine Workers
(Tiidee Products) v. N L.R.B.,, 426 F2d 1243, 1253 (C.A.D.C.), cert demed
4K (JS. 0A; and Amalgamated Clothing Workers (Levi Strauss & Co.) v.
N L.R B, 441 F2d 02 (C.A.D.C.).
10 Ex-Cell-O Corporation, 185 NLRB No. 20. Recently, however, on
March 19, 1971,'the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia in a 2 to
I decision (449 F.2d 1046,) remanded the case to the Board for further
thereby-,engaged imand is engagingin unfairlabor 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 meaning of Section
2(6) and (7) of the Act.
THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has, engaged in unfair
labor, practices, within the meaning of Section a8(a)(5) and
(1) of the "Act, I shall recommend- that it cease and desist
therefrom, `and, upon request, bargain collectively with
UAW 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 representative for the period provided by law, I
shall recommend that the initial period of certification shall
be construed as beginning on the date, Respondent
commences to bargain in good faith with UAW as the
bargaining representative in the appropriate unit: Burnett
-Construction Company, 149 NLRB 1419 enfd. 350 F.2d'57
(C.A.10).
UAW in its brief, seeks a compensatory remedy designed
to grant the employees the benefits which they would have
received through `bargaining,with'Respondent, but for the
latter's,refusal to recognize and bargain with it .9 While the
cited cases appear to' vest the Board with autho'nty to grant
compensatory relief in appropriate cases, I find that in its
last pronouncement on the matter In the Board disclaimed
such authority. Until the Board, changes its position or, the
Supreme Court reverses it, that decision, remains binding:,
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: 11
ORDER
Respondent, Cascade Corporation, 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 International Union, United Automo-
bile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of
America, UAW, as the exclusive bargaining representative
of its employees in the following appropriate unit:
All production and, maintenance employees at its
Springfield, Ohio, plant, including inventory clerks, and
schedulers, but excluding guards, professionals, and
supervisors within the meaning of,the Act, and all office
clerical employees.
(b) In any like or related manner interfering with,
findings as to whether the employer' s ' objections to certification were
frivolous or fairly debatable and whether a "make whole" remedy was
appropriate. -
In the_ event no exceptions are filed as provided by Section 102.46 of
the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the
findings, conclusions, and recommended Order herein shall, as provided m
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.
CASCADE CORP. 537
restraining, or coercing employees in the rights guaranteed
them in Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which will
effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Upon, request, bargain. with the above-named labor
organization as the exclusive representative of all employ-
ees in the aforesaid appropriate unit with respect to rates of
pay, wages, hours, and other terms -and conditions of
employment, and, if an understanding is.reached, embody
such understanding in a signed agreement.
(b) Post at its Springfield, Ohio, plant copies of the
attached notice marked "Appendix." 12 Copies of said
notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for
Region 9, after being duly signed by Respondent's
authorized representative, shall be posted by it immediately
upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60
consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, includ-
ing 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 9, in writing,
within 20-days from the receipt of,this Decision, what steps
have been taken to.comply herewith 13
12 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."
13 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."
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
POSTED BYORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
The National Labor Relations Board having found , after a
trial, that we violated Federal law by refusing'to recognize
and bargain with International Union, United Automobile,
Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of Ameri-
ca, UAW, pursuant to its certification:
WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain collectively with the
above-named Union 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 bargaining representative
of all employees in the bargaining,unit described below,
with respect to wages, hours, and other terms and
conditions of employment, and,, if an understanding is
reached, embody such understanding in a signed
agreement: The bargaining unit is:
All' production and maintenance employees at the
Company's Springfield, Ohio, plant, including
inventory clerks and schedulers, but excluding
guards, professionals, and supervisors within the
meaning of the Act, and all office clerical
employees.
CASCADE' CORPORATION
(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 thisnotice or compliance' with
its provisions may be directed to the Board's Office, -Room
2407, Federal Office Building, 550 Main Street, Cincinnati,
Ohio 45202, Telephone 513-684-3686.