Cement Transport, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 11, 1972

200 N.L.R.B. 841 (N.L.R.B. 1972)

CEMENT TRANSPORT, INC 841
Cement Transport, Inc and Edgar Ray Thompson
Case 9-CA-6569
December 11, 1972
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS
FANNING AND JENKINS
On June 15, 1972, Administrative Law Judge 1
Thomas F Maher issued the attached Decision in
this proceeding Thereafter, Respondent filed excep-
tions and a supporting brief
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 brief
and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings, and
conclusions 2 of the Administrative Law Judge and to
adopt his recommended Order
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 Administrative Law Judge and
hereby orders that Cement Transport, Inc, Kosmos-
dale, Kentucky, its officers, agents, successors, and
assigns, shall take the action set forth in the
Administrative Law Judge's recommended Order
CHAIRMAN MILLER, dissenting
Is an employee who, among his other misdeeds,
deliberately instigates and circulates a totally base-
less rumor that his employer has been bribing a
union official at the rate of $20,000 a year entitled to
remain in the employ of the Company?
My colleagues apparently think so, and herein
order such an employee reinstated with full backpay
I think otherwise, and would dismiss the complaint
i The title of Trial Examiner was changed to Administrative Law
Judge effective August 19 1972
2 The Respondent essentially seeks to have the Board reverse the
Administrative Law Judge s credibility resolutions particularly his crediting
of Thompson s testimony that Respondent s president told him immediately
after his discharge that he was being let go because of the union poison he
was spreading around Absent a showing by a clear preponderance of all of
the relevant evidence that these credibility resolutions are incorrect the
Board will not overrule an Administrative Law Judge s credibility findings
Standard Dry Wall Products Inc 91 NLRB 544 enfd 188 F 2d 362 (C A
3) Having carefully examined the record we find no basis for reversing his
findings We would note that Thompson was a capable driver and that he
was agressive in his union activity to achieve benefits he thought he and his
fellow employees were entitled to receive Respondents unequivocal
discharge of him for these activities cannot now be Justified on the ground
that Thompson s activities may have provided Respondent with another
basis for his discharge The Board s problem in such cases is to determine
not whether a good reason existed for the discharge but whether that was
the real reason and if not whether the real reason concerned the
employee's union activity (or lack thereof) Our dissenting colleague seems
to have stopped his inquiry at the point where he found a cause other than
union activity existed which would have justified the discharge
As a secondary consideration however we note that our dissenting
colleague's characterization of the rumor allegedly instigated and circulated
by Thompson as totally baseless is contrary to both the record and the
Administrative Law Judges findings In discussing the Respondents
contention that it had been slandered by Thompson s accusation that it
bribed a union official the Administrative Law Judge found
Whatever language was used to describe the arrangement, if any
between Respondent and Business Agent Fisher of Local 89, the fact
stands unrefuted by the evidence that the last time Local 89 officials
provided blank authorization cards to the organizers General Manager
Epps knew of it and of the number of cards involved before the drivers
did I can attach no other interpretation of Epps failure to deny this
incident attributed to him but to accept it as a fact
Again we have no basis for reversing this finding particularly when the
credited evidence was not denied on the other hand, however we are
unable to discern, in view of this finding how our dissenting colleague can
characterize Thompson s alleged accusations as a "totally baseless rumor
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
THOMAS F MAHER, Trial Examiner Upon a charge filed
by Edgar Ray Thompson on November 2, 1971, against
Cement Transport, Inc, Respondent herein, the Regional
Director for Region 9 of the National Labor Relations
Board, herein called the Board, issued a complaint on
behalf of the General Counsel of the Board on December
23, 1971, wherein it was alleged that Respondent had
violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended (29 U S C, Sec 151 et seq),
herein called the Act In its duly filed answer Respondent,
while admitting certain allegations of the complaint,
denied the commission of any unfair labor practice
Pursuant to notice a trial was held before me in
Louisville, Kentucky, where all parties were present,
represented by counsel, and afforded a full opportunity to
present evidence, examine and cross-examine witnesses,
present oral argument, and file briefs with me Briefs were
filed on April 29, 1972
Subsequent to the issuance of the complaint in this
matter a petition was filed with the Regional Director on
January 3, 1972, in Case 9-RC-9380 for an election among
Respondent's truckdnvers to determine the representative
status of Local Union No 89, International Brotherhood
of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of
America Upon representations of Respondent that the
substance of the instant proceedings, the alleged independ-
ent contractor's status of the members of the bargaining
unit, had a direct relation to the employee status of the
alleged discnminatee herein, Edgar Ray Thompson, I
granted Respondent's motion to incorporate into the
instant proceeding the entire record in the pending
representation case , Case 9-RC-9380, including the tran-
script and all exhibits On March 22, 1972, the Regional
Director issued his Decision and Direction of Election in
Case 9-RC-9380 and I likewise incorporate this document
200 NLRB No 122
842 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
into the instant proceeding and have attached the copy of
it as Appendix A to this Decision 1
Upon consideration of the entire record, including the
record and decision in Case 9-RC-9380, and the briefs
filed with me, and specifically upon my observation of
each witness appearing before me,2 I make the following
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
I THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
Cement Transport, Inc, Respondent herein, is a Kentuc-
ky corporation with its terminal in Kosmosdale, Kentucky,
where it is engaged in the transportation of cement
pursuant to a hauling agreement with the Kosmos Portland
Cement Company On January 27, 1967, the Board found,
upon facts presented to it, that Respondent was an
employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of the
Act 3 As nothing has been brought to the instant record
that would suggest facts or circumstances relating to
Respondent's business inconsistent with the Board's
findings, I accordingly conclude and find that Respondent
continues to be an employer engaged in commerce within
the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act
II THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Local Union No 89, International Brotherhood of
Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of
America, referred to herein as the Union or the Teamsters,
is admitted to be and I accordingly conclude and find it to
be a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5)
of the Act
III THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A Sequence of Events
For over 17 years, since May 1954, Edgar Ray Thomp-
son has been a driver for Respondent under the terms of a
lease agreement whereby Thompson and his truck trailer
are engaged exclusively in the transportation of cement
products under the direction of Respondent's officials The
precise status of Thompson, as either employee or
independent contractor, will be considered hereinafter and
is not directly relevant to the chain of events which
culminated in Respondent's termination of Thompson's
lease agreement on October 25, 1971
Since at least 1966, Thompson has actively sought the
organization of Respondent's driver-owners, soliciting
union memberships, discussing union matters frequently
with his fellow drivers, and, at a Board-conducted election,
serving as an official observer for the Union There is no
question that all of this was known to Respondent's
i Cf The Herald Co 181 NLRB 421 424 fn 7 enfd 444 F 2d 430 (C A
2) cert denied 404 US 990
2 Bishop and Malco Inc 159 NLRB 1159 1161
3 162 NLRB 1261
4 Employee Bobby Melson included himself and employees Sales and
Burgess in this group
5 Epps did not deny this conduct attributed to him
6 I do not accept Thompson s confused explanation that he considered
Davis the better union official to work with
7 Unless stated otherwise all dates refer to events in 1971
officials, and particularly to President T W Cummins, Jr,
and General Manager William M Epps, both of whom
readily admitted to their knowledge of Thompson's
activities
Thompson's most recent efforts to unionize the drivers
commenced in June 1971 when, in the company of four or
five other dnvers,4 he drove to Greenwood, Indiana, and
met with International Representative Donald Davis,
assigned to Local 299 of the Teamsters, located in Detroit,
Michigan Davis gave Thompson a supply of blank
authorization cards bearing the inscription of Local 299,
instructed him to hold them, when signed, until the fall
These cards, when signed, were eventually returned to
Davis who in turn gave them to International Representa-
tive Leon Carrier of Local 89, in Louisville Because the
use of cards supplied by Davis bore the inscription of the
Detroit Local an issue has been raised as to Thompson's
selection of a so-called "tough" union to represent the
drivers and deal with Respondent Thompson testified
without contradiction that when blank authorization cards
were obtained from a representative of Local 89 in 1969 in
preparation for an organizing campaign and "before we
got our cards signed Mr Epps told us how many cards we
done picked up "5 As a consequence no effort was made at
that time to continue with the organizing campaign It was
to avoid a recurrence of this, I conclude, that prompted
Thompson and his associates to travel to Greenwood,
Indiana, to obtain blank cards in June 1971 rather than to
get them from the Louisville local 6 That the cards were, in
fact, turned over to Union Representative Carrier of Local
89 by Davis after they had been signed and given to him by
Thompson satisfies me that going outside the Louisville
area to obtain a "suitable" labor organization was not
intended Nor am I aware of any vice in doing so, had the
employees so preferred
During the remainder of June and into July Thompson
solicited each driver for membership in the Union and
testified that by July 157 he had obtained 38 signed
authorization cards,8 which appear to constitute substan-
tially all of the drivers eligible to vote 9 Consequently, from
that date organizing activity necessarily subsided, Thomp-
son being under instructions from Union Representative
Davis to hold on to the cards until the fall The cards were
not, in fact, used until they were presented to the Regional
Director on January 3, 1972, as the supporting evidence of
employee interest required upon the filing of the petition in
Case 9-RC-9380
Meanwhile, as Thompson's campaign gained momen-
tum, Respondent developed an interest in it Thus on June
17 General Manager Epps engaged Employee Leonard
Kilgore in a conversation asking if Thompson had asked
him to sign a union card, stating that he had heard
Thompson had some and was passing them out Several
8 Employee Randolph Wood credibly collaborates this figure as having
been told hun by Thompson
9 Twenty-four drivers voted in the 1967 election , the petition in Case
9-RC-9380 now pending stated that there are approximately 37 employees
in the unit in which an election is being sought Because the Regional
Directors decision (Appendix A) differentiates as to eligibility between
driver owners and multiple driver owners and because the 38 card signers
were not identified in the record the precise number of drivers eligible to
vote cannot be stated at this point nor is it significant to any issue herein
CEMENT TRANSPORT, INC
days after Kilgore had signed his union card, Epps again
asked him if he had signed a card A week or two later,
after Kilgore had been seen leaving Thompson's company,
Epps asked him if they had talked about the Union and if
Thompson had asked him yet to sign a union card to
Similarly, at some unrecalled dates prior to Thompson's
departure and while he was still soliciting union authoriza-
tion cards, Thompson solicited Employee Lyndell Small,
giving him a card to sign ii While the card was still in
Small's possession, Epps approached him and asked him if
he had signed a card Small answered equivocally and
Epps agreed that he had a right to do as he pleased In the
course of the conversation, Epps said it had been reported
to him that Thompson was passing out cards and asking
for help
Employee Earl McMahan also had a conversation with
Epps relating to union cards and to Thompson Thus in
September Epps asked him if there were any cards being
passed out, referring to Thompson by name McMahan
"kind of smudged it off," saying that he did not know too
much about it Actually, however, Thompson had solicited
and obtained McMahan's membership into the Union and
McMahan, when asked at the hearing what reason
Thompson had given him forjoining the Union, stated that
"it would benefit us all if we did"-"generally, it was
money wise "
Meanwhile, after learning of Thompson's progress in
organizing the drivers, Epps reported the situation to
President Cummins who immediately sent a letter, under
date of July 1, to each driver He called attention of the
men to the organizing campaign then in progress and gave
his reasons why it was "the worse possible thing that could
happen to Cement Transport and the men who drive for
us 1112 Strongly urging the drivers not to sign authorization
cards being circulated among them, Cummins suggested a
personal motive on the part of "those getting you to sign
up," and pointed out the financial benefits and friendly
relationship with the management which they already
enjoyed He then outlined the generous character of the
rates being paid the men and the disadvantages suffered by
drivers working elsewhere under union contracts Ending
with his assurance of possible rate improvement, Cummins
again urged the men to refuse to sign an authorization
card
By July 15, according to Thompson, practically all the
drivers had signed cards After that date union activity
naturally tapered off, and everyone so testified Thompson,
under instructions not to turn in the cards until fall, did
maintain a modicum of union interest, frequently discuss-
ing with the drivers their inadequate compensation and
telling everyone who would listen to him of the arrange-
ment he had worked under when he began driving for
Respondent 17 years ago-namely, the provision in his
first contract allocating to him 65 percent of the revenue
derived from each run driven
It was on this issue that Respondent based one of its
several charges of deliberate misrepresentation by Thomp-
10 The credited testimony of Employee Kilgore Epps while admitting to
the conversations with Kilgore denies that he asked him if he had signed a
card or if Thompson was passing them out stating that he had no reason to
ask the questions because he already knew Upon my observation of Epps
as a witness I do not credit his testimony except as it relates to facts within
843
son, hence a study of the background would be in order
Respondent denied Thompson's contention that an appen-
dix to the 1954 lease agreement with him contained such a
provision and it introduced into evidence the purported
document Thompson identified the contract portions of
the document but insisted that the appendix upon which
the alleged 65 percent was specified had been removed It
was his testimony that an entirely different appendix, one
containing a zone system of rating which is presently in
use, had been substituted Respondent's general bookkeep-
er and accountant, employed at the time, testified in
contradiction to this, stating that there had been no
substitution of pages in the original document and that in
fact 65 percent of gross revenue was never paid to drivers I
can only deduce from this inconclusive evidence that
Thompson did, in fact, labor under the impression that his
first lease called for 65 percent of gross revenue and that he
has consistently been agitating among the men to return to
what he believed was the original rate Under all the
circumstances present here, irrespective of whether or not
the original lease was as Thompson described it to the men
and to me on the witness stand, I am persuaded that he did
believe the original lease to be as he states it and that he
had acted and spoken in accordance with his belief,
mistaken though he may have been
In further support of his efforts to generate opposition to
the existing pay rates among the drivers, Thompson in
early October went to the offices of the State Motor
Transport Division in Frankfort, Kentucky, and obtained
copies of the rates and tariffs under which Respondent
operated in the transportation of cement Thompson had
these rates duplicated and gave copies to all the drivers
Meanwhile, he maintained a constant barrage of propa-
ganda directed to the existing pay scale and his determina-
tion to improve it
After a period of continuing activity among the men by
Thompson, Respondent's President Cummins, on October
25, wrote him a letter terminating his lease In a telephone
conversation on the following day Cummins, by his own
testimony, stated, as follows
He identified himself and wanted to know if I was
the one that signed the letter terminating his agreement
and I said I was and he said, why and I said because we
simply could not tolerate the turmoil you were creating
out there and the poison you were spreading out among
our people It just got to the point where-I was sorry
that I had to release him because he had been there
quite a long while It didn't make me feel very good to
have to do that and I was sorry but really I had no
alternative He was destroying the authority of my
superintendent and I could not continue to let him do
those things
In his testimony before me, Thompson had stated that
Cummins had accused him of "spreading that Union
poison around," whereas Cummins testified that in his
accusation he had referred to the activity as "the poison
you were spreading out among our people " Thus he did
his peculiar knowledge or constitutes statements contrary to his or
Respondent s interest
11 Small s card was signed on July 1
12 It is not alleged that this communication violated the Act
844 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
not include the word "Union" in his account, and he
specifically contradicted Thompson's testimony that he
did I accept Thompson's testimony as to the use of the
term "Union poison" and reject Cummins' denial as being
contradicted by the remainder of his account of the
conversation wherein the word "Union" was used at
several points Thus when asked if he did "ever allude to
the Union in the conversation," Cummins replied
I don't recall that I did I told him that I was
certainly aware of his activities out there in June I
knew that I said, I hope I thought it was all over, I
knew that you weren't able to get a Union organized
out there and I wondered why he did it and he said he
was trying to make things better for himself and the
men and I said, well, why didn't you come and talk to
me if you had some problems You never did approach
me about any of these things He said, well why didn't
you come and talk to me Well, I wasn't the instigator
in the case If he had a problem and he was going to get
somebody else to solve his problems, I might have
solved them for him pretty quickly but I never even
knew what they were So that was his answer and then
we went into a lot of other things, just merely
repetitious , you might say
And by way of seeking to mollify the effects of his action,
Cummins then provided to Thompson (and the record) his
final explanation thus
I've known this man for a long time He has been a
good operator There is no question about that There
is no fault to find there but he really never has worked
for anybody else for any length of time I just feel like
as far as the companies that are in this area are
concerned, we are probably as good a company to
work for as any company in the country but I don't
think he felt that way and so I suggested to him that he
go somewhere else and work awhile Maybe he would
see that things aren't quite so bad at home as he
thought they were and I knew people in the trucking
industry around here and if he wanted me to say a
word for him, I would tell anybody he was a good
operator Then, maybe some day if he felt differently
about it, if he didn't feel that we were such a bunch of
thieves and liars, we might talk again
Thompson has not since driven for Respondent
B The Disputed Employee Status of the Drivers
It is Respondent's contention that its drivers, including
Thompson, are independent contractors and not employ-
ees protected by the Act Upon this premise, it is
contended, the termination of Thompson 's lease agreement
did not constitute a discrimination remediable by the Act
against him, as an employee
This issue is not 3 new one It was raised by Respondent
in the context of an employee representation proceeding in
1966 There the Board decided, on January 27, 1967, in
Cement Transport Inc, 162 NLRB 1261, that the identical
class of employees involved here were employees within
the meaning of the Act, and designated the following as a
13 The Herald Company 181 NLRB 421 enfd 444 F 2d 430 (C A 2)
cert denied 404 U S 990 Pittsburgh Plate Glass Co v NL R B 333 U S
unit of employees appropriate for the purposes of collec-
tive bargaining
All single owner-driver and nonowner-drivers em-
ployed by the Employer at its plant located in
Kosmosdale, Kentucky, but excluding all office clerical
employees, guards, professional employees and super-
visors as defined in the Act
Subsequently, on March 22, 1972, while this proceeding
was before me, the Regional Director , in Case 9-RC-9380,
issued his Decision and Direction of Election in which, in
accordance with the earlier Board Decision, he found
single owner-drivers and nonowner-drivers to be employ-
ees, and directed an election in the same bargaining unit
designated by the Board in its January 1967 Decision
Upon the authority of these determinations as they relate
directly to the Respondent's denial of Edgar Ray Thomp-
son's employee status, which status has been fully litigated,
and in the absence of any evidence not previously
considered or available that would alter the final determi-
nation of this employee status, I consider myself precluded
from rehtigating this issue in a directly related complaint
case, and accordingly conclude and find upon these
respective Board and Regional Director determinations
that Edgar Ray Thompson, a conceded single owner-driver
under lease agreement with the Respondent, is an
employee within the meaning of the Act 13
C Respondent's Defense
Quite apart from its basic contention that Thompson is
an independent contractor and not an employee subject to
the Act, an issue resolved above, it is Respondent 's further
contention that Thompson's lease was terminated for cause
and for engaging in concerted activity not protected by
Section 7 of the Act Thus throughout the hearing it was
claimed and it is supported by evidence that Thompson
had on numerous occasions transported unauthorized
individuals in his cab, and that he had incurred accidents
in which he was found by the Company to have been at
least partially responsible, and that these contributed to
Respondent's decision to terminate Thompson 's lease In
its brief to me, however , Respondent appears to have
abandoned these factors as being contributory to the
termination Thus in commenting upon the pretexts it
could have used on earlier occasions to terminate Thomp-
son, Respondent refers to the unauthorized driver incidents
and Thompson's two accidents and states that these
"certainly would have provided ample opportunity and
excuse for cutting him off on a number of occasions after
the 1967 election " Having thus disavowed these past and
recent peculations as the motive, or partial motive, for the
lease termination Respondent 's brief proceeds to cite other
and more recent activity for what it contends to be
"Reasons for Thompson's Termination " Accordingly,
therefore , in contemplation of Respondent 's own assess-
ment of the basis for Thompson 's termination , I reject as
not relevant to any issue here such facts as deal with
Thompson's travelling companions or his several minor
accidents in the recent past, albeit his overall truckdnvmg
146 162, NLRB v Sagamore Shirt Co 365 F 2d 898 (C A D C)
N LRB v Union Brothers Inc 403 F 2d 883 887 (C A 4)
CEMENT TRANSPORT, INC
record with Respondent has been favorably recognized by
it, and others, through numerous safe driver awards and
the winning of the State Championship in the National
Truck Rodeo
There remains to be stated then the reasons advanced by
Thompson for the lease termination Here it is claimed that
Thompson, in reprisal for being charged in June 1971 for
the loss of two batteries by Respondent, determined that
he would organize the drivers, that he had obtained signed
authorization cards from other drivers through threats of
loss of jobs and seniority if they did not sign up forthwith,
that he conducted a personal campaign of abuse, vilifica-
tion, and slander of the Company by stating to other
drivers that he had been cheated out of his pay and that the
Company had bribed an official of Local 89, Dick Fisher,
that he had stated on numerous occasions he had helped
build up the Company and that he was going to help tear it
down, referring to President Cummins as a "son-of-a-
bitch", that in the course of all of the foregoing he had
created such a disturbance as to get the drivers upset and
reduce their morale, and finally that by going to the State
Motor Transport Division and obtaining a copy of the
Company's tariff rates on file there Thompson, stating that
he could not obtain them from the Company, misrepre-
sented the Respondent to the State officials, and sought to
"defame and discredit" it by conducting a one man
campaign among the drivers showing them how they were
being cheated out of money, using his first lease agreement
as he recollected it (supra) as the basis of comparison
For all of the foregoing, Respondent claims that
Thompson's activity was not protected by Section 7 of the
Act and it was accordingly provided with a complete
defense of its termination of his lease agreement, if he were
found to be an employee and not an independent
contractor, as basically claimed
D Discussion, Analysis, and Conclusions
Respondent's characterization of Thompson's activity
misreads, in many instances, the evidence in the record,
and in other instances it manifests a lack of understanding
of the representation processes guaranteed by the Act For
example, it is suggested throughout the record that
something devious was being perpetrated by Thompson
and a group of drivers who sought a particular labor
organization to represent them-the "tough" Detroit
Teamsters Local Quite apart from the fact that the
International Representative of that so-called "tough"
local actually turned the signed authorization cards over to
the Louisville Local 89, there is nothing in the administra-
tion of the Act that requires employees to choose only
certain labor organizations, and then on a geographic
basis The very purpose of the Act is otherwise Indeed the
unrefuted statement of Thompson that a supply of
authorization cards from some source other than Local 89
was sought out to insure that a premature "leak" of their
plans would not again occur would provide in itself ample
justification for looking elsewhere for cards, as the men
did And it also puts to rest Respondent's accusations
14 See Ben Pepin Corp 181 NLRB 1025
15 Sec 7 provides in relevant part that Employees shall engage in
845
concerning the so-called "bribe" of the Union official
Whatever language was used to describe the arrangement,
if any, between Respondent and Business Agent Fisher of
Local 89, the fact stands unrefuted by the evidence that the
last time Local 89 officials provided blank authorization
cards to the organizers General Manager Epps knew of it
and of the number of cards involved before the drivers did
I can attach no other interpretation to Epps' failure to deny
this incident attributed to him but to accept it as a fact 14
So much then for Thompson 's supposedly singlehanded
selection of a union and the so-called slander respecting
the "bribing" of a union official The remainder of
Respondent 's accusations directed at Thompson are
equally without significance Thus, the fact that the
campaign had quieted down by mid-July only to be
rejuvenated thereafter by Thompson is claimed by Respon-
dent to have some hidden malevolence The campaign did
quiet down , to use Respondent's terminology, when
Thompson obtained the signed card of practically of every
eligible driver Nothing remained to be accomplished but
the winning of the election , and Thompson credibly
testified that he was under instructions from the Union's
international representative , Davis, to wait until fall-at
which time, it must be remembered , the cards would then
serve the purpose of establishing a basis for a petition for
an election This actually occurred in January 1972
Meanwhile, Thompson's only campaign chores were to
maintain an interest in the Union pending the coming
election And it is precisely this which the Respondent
misconceives as defamation, accusation of cheating (a
word credibly rejected by Thompson as never having been
used), abuse , vilification , and threats to tear down the
Company Indeed Respondent objects not only to the
campaigning which Thompson carried on in behalf of the
Union but to the effect of it as well, the disturbance, the
fears being engendered among the drivers , and their
general state of unrest
Essentially it is Respondent's contention that unless an
employee engages in union or concerted activity with a
degree of finesse and gentility then he has divested himself
of the protections of Section 7 of the Act 15 Thus it seeks to
convert protected concerted activity into conduct which
would warrant termination by characterizing it as a
disturbance Thompson did frequently criticize the Re-
spondent, referring to the 65 percent of gross revenue which
he believed he had received in his first lease agreement,
and he did circulate among the drivers copies of the
Company's tariff rates filed with the State as a means of
comparing the Company 's income on a trip by trip basis
with the amount paid to each driver for such trip And on
occasion he did threaten to report the Company's alleged
permissiveness in certain operating areas to State Motor
Vehicle Division and the Interstate Commerce Commis-
sion This activity may well have engendered a degree of
unrest and general dissatisfaction But such unrest or
dissatisfaction often proceeds or accompanies certain
concerted activity for mutual aid or protection, indeed
concerted activity often springs from the employees'
dissatisfaction with their working conditions If an employ-
concerted activities for the purpose of mutual aid and protection '
846 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
er were free to discharge an employee who, in the exercise
of the statutory rights, sought to induce concerted activity
(here the eventual selection of the Umon to represent
them) simply by characterizing that exercise as "disturb-
ance" or the other invective used by the Respondent, the
guarantees which the act extends to concerted activity for
mutual aid and protection would be largely nullified A
strike, for example, is a classic example of unrest and
dissatisfaction among employees, and the language of the
pickets and the picket signs are no less the variety of
accusations used by Thompson throughout this campaign
But it cannot be accepted that employees who seek to
persuade fellow employees to engage in such concerted
activity (here acceptance of the Umon in the coming
election) are engaged in a disturbance, and are therefore
beyond statutory protection 16 Nor is it material that
Respondent may have, in good faith, regarded Thompson's
conduct as falling outside the scope of protected activity
Whatever Respondent's motive for terminating Thomp-
son's lease it did so as he was engaged in the exercise of his
right "to form, join or assist labor organizations " Because
antiunion bias is not necessary for an employer to infringe
upon such rights, Respondent's good faith reliance upon
the righteousness of his action is no concern 17
In sum, the totality of Thompson's activities to which
Respondent objects constitutes nothing more than a
vigorous, continuing organization campaign which, even as
this decision is written, awaits an election among the
drivers 18 Thompson has at all times focused the attention
of the drivers on what he believed to have been his initial
pay rate and upon the disparities between that rate, the
rates they were presently being paid, and the income which
the Respondent receives This matter goes to the very heart
of working conditions Similarly, assuming that he did
criticize Respondent for its private dealings with an official
of the Union, this matter, not denied anywhere in the
record, concerned advance knowledge of employee activi-
ty If ever employees are subject to unlawful interference it
would be at the outset of a campaign Respondent can
hardly be heard to complain that its undemed interference
was beyond reproach
Finding, therefore, that Thompson's activities were
protected in nature I am not disposed to conclude that they
have lost this protection simply because he failed to
comport with Respondent's standards of behavior The
Board does not impose such a heavy hand upon the
conduct of employee organization and representation 19
Elsewhere I have found and concluded upon established
authority, supra, that Respondent's single owner-drivers, of
which Edgar Ray Thompson was one, are employees
within the meaning of the Act In such circumstances,
therefore, upon the facts set forth above, I conclude and
find that by the termination of the lease agreement of
Thompson for the reasons stated Respondent thereby
discriminated against him as an employee for engaging in
16 Salt River Valley Water Users Association v N L R B 209 F 2d 335
(C A 9)
17 NLRB v Burnup and Sims Inc 379 U S 21
18 Case 9-CA-6569
19 M S Plastics of Ohio 181 NLRB 705, 707-708 New York Trap Rock
Corp 148 NLRB 374 380
20 F W Woolworth Co 90 NLRB 289
concerted and union activities protected by Section 7 of
the Act, and thereby violated Section 8(a)(3) By the same
conduct and by Epps' interrogation of Employees Kilgore,
Small, and McMahan concerning Thompson's union
activities and their own sentiments and membership, supra,
I further conclude and find that Respondent thereby
interfered with, restrained, and coerced Thompson and its
other employees in the exercise of their statutory right in
violation of Section 8(a)(1) 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 the Respondent's
operations described in section I, above, have a close,
intimate, and substantial relationship to trade, traffic, and
commerce among the several States, and tend to lead to
labor disputes threatening and obstructing commerce and
the free flow of commerce
V THE REMEDY
I have found that Respondent has interfered with,
restrained, and coerced its employees in certain respects
and that it has discnminatonly terminated the lease of
Edgar Ray Thompson I shall recommend that Respondent
cease and desist from this conduct, and because the nature
of the unfair labor practices committed here are of such
gravity as to present a threat of future violations of the Act,
I shall recommend that Respondent cease and desist from
any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing
its employees in the exercise of their statutory rights
Affirmatively I shall recommend that Respondent
reinstate the most recent agreement between itself and
Edgar Ray Thompson with backpay to be computed in the
customary manner,20 with interest at the rate of 6 percent
per annum,21 that it preserve and upon request make
available to the Board or its agents for examination and
copying all of its payroll records, timecards, personnel
records and reports, and all other records necessary to
determine the amount of backpay due, and that it post an
appropriate notice of compliance with such order as the
Board issues Upon the foregoing findings of fact,
conclusions of law, and the entire record, pursuant to
Section 10(c) of the Act, I hereby issue the following
recommended
ORDER 22
Respondent, Cement Transport, Inc, its officers, agents,
successors, and assigns, shall
I Cease and desist from
(a) Unlawfully interrogating its employees concerning
their membership in and activity in behalf of Local Union
No 89, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauf-
21 Isis Plumbing & Heating Co 138 NLRB 716
22 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
CEMENT TRANSPORT, INC
fears, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, or any
other labor organization
(b) By terminating their lease agreements, discharging, or
otherwise denying employment to any employee or in any
other manner disc riminatmg against any employee with
respect to hire, tenure of employment, or any term or
condition of employment
(c) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or
coercing its employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed
them by Section 7 of the Act
2 Take the following affirmative action which it is
deemed will effectuate the policies of the Act
(a) Offer to Edgar Ray Thompson the reinstatement of
his most recent lease agreement
(b) Make whole Edgar Ray Thompson for any loss of
income suffered as a result of the discrimination against
him in the manner set forth in "The Remedy "
(c) Post at its Kosmodale, Kentucky, plant a notice
attached hereto as "Appendix B "23 Copies of the notice,
on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 9,
shall, after being duly signed by the Respondent, be posted
immediately upon receipt thereof in conspicuous places,
and be maintained for a period of 60 consecutive days
Reasonable steps shall be taken to insure that said notices
are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material
(d) Notify the said Regional Director in writing within 20
days from the receipt of the Trial Examiner's Decision
what steps it has taken to comply herewith 24
23 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
24 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 A
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9(c) of the
National Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before a
hearing officer of the National Labor Relations Board The
hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from
prejudicial error, and are hereby affirmed
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the Act, the
Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case
to the undersigned Regional Director
Upon the entire record in this case, the Regional
Director finds
1 The Employer is engaged in commerce within the
meaning of the Act and it will effectuate the purposes of
the Act to assert jurisdiction herein
2 The labor organization involved claims to represent
certain employees of the Employer
3 A question affecting commerce exists concerning the
representation of certain employees of the Employer within
the meaning of Section 9(c) (1) and Section 2(6) and (7) of
the Act
4 The following employees of the Employer constitute
847
a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining
within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act 1
All single owner-drivers and all nonowner-drivers
operating equipment under lease to the Employer at its
Kosmosdale, Kentucky plant, but excluding all office
clerical employees, guards, multiple owner-drivers and
all other supervisors as defined in the Act, and all other
employees
1 The Employer a Kentucky corporation is a common carrier engaged
in the business of hauling bulk and sack cement and other material from its
terminal located at Kosmosdale, Kentucky
The Petitioner seeks to represent a unit consisting of all single owner-
drivers and nonowner drivers operating equipment under lease to the
Employer There is no history of collective bargaining for these drivers The
Employer contends that the unit petitioned for is inappropriate on the basis
that all such drivers are either independent contractors or employees of
independent contractors and accordingly urges that the petition herein be
dismissed The record reflects that the Petitioner was unsuccessful in a
representation election in Case 9-RC-6856 held on March 9 1967 among a
unit of all single owner drivers and nonowner drivers employed by the
Employer at its plant located at Kosmosdale, Kentucky, following a Board
determination as to the appropriateness of such a unit Cement Transport
Inc 162 NLRB 1262
The record reflects that the cement transported by the Employer is done
pursuant to a contract with Kosmos Portland Cement Company, which has
a plant at Kosmosdale Kentucky In addition the record shows that the
Employer has a contract with Diamond Crystal Salt Company to transport
salt from said company s Louisville Kentucky terminal The Employer
utilizes but one driver to fulfill its contract with Diamond Crystal
The record shows that the Employer does not own any of the tractors
used in any of its over-the-road hauling operations The tractors used by the
Employer in the operation of its business are leased A separate lease
agreement is executed with respect to each tractor used regardless of the
number of tractors an individual may have leased to the Employer The
record shows however, that the Employer provides all the trailers used in its
over-the road operations and further maintains a shop at its Kosmosdale
Kentucky location for the purpose of servicing its trailers To operate its
shop the Employer employs mechanics tire changers and yardmen None
of the shop employees wo' k on the leased tractors used in the Employer's
operations The record reflects that these shop employees are represented by
Local Union No 370 United Cement, Line and Gypsum Workers
International Union The Petitioner does not seek to represent any of these
employees
The following are the various categories of owners and drivers of
equipment utilized by the Employer in its operations
Owner nondrivers These individuals lease equipment to the Employer
but do no driving themselves The parties are in agreement and the
record supports the conclusion that these individuals should be
excluded from any unit found appropriate
Single owner-drivers These drivers own and drive a single tractor unit
which they lease to the Employer
Multiple owner-drivers These drivers own more than one tractor which
they lease to the Employer A multiple owner driver drives one of his
own units and employs other nonowner-drivers to drive the remainder
of the tractors he has leased to the Employer
Nonowner drivers These drivers drive leased tractors for the tractor
owners
The record shows that the Employer operates as an interstate motor
vehicle common carrier pursuant to certificates of public convenience and
necessity granted by the Interstate Commerce Commission herein called
the ICC It also operates under the authority of the Kentucky Department
of Motor Transportation The Employers operations are subject to the
Interstate Commerce Act and to the regulations promulgated thereunder by
the ICC The record discloses that under these regulations a carrier is
permitted to augment its equipment by way of lease However these
regulations require the carrier to have full direction and control of such
vehicles and to be fully responsible for the operations thereof in
accordance with applicable law and regulations as if the carrier were the
owner of such vehicles All of the drivers involved herein haul under the
authority of the Employer The record shows that each tractor leased to the
Employer must bear the name of the Employer as well as the Employer s
ICC certificate numbers
The relationship between the Employer and the owner-nondrivers single
owner-drivers, and multiple owner drivers is based on the terms of a lease
848 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
agreement . Each lease runs for one year and is subject to termination by
either party to the lease upon 30 days written notice , or, immediately, if
either party violates the agreement . The lease provides that the tractors
"shall be devoted exclusively to the carrier's business of transportation as
much and as often as may be reasonably required by such business ... .
The lease also requires the tractors to meet the requirements of the ICC
rules and regulations as well as State and Federal laws . The lease further
provides that the tractors are to be operated by the owner or owners'
employees "under the direct supervision and control of the carrier for any
useful purpose in connection with the transportation performed for the
Employer for the duration of the contract."
In addition , the tractor owners are obligated under the lease to furnish "a
full complement of competent drivers. . .," to "pay all the compensation of
every character of said drivers ...," and to "pay all taxes, charges, benefits,
claims and liabilities of every kind which may arise by virtue of their
employment." The tractor owners, in return for the use of their equipment
and services of themselves or their drivers,' receive payments from the
Employer based on the amount of freight carried and the mileage covered
according to certain geographical zones.
An owner desiring to lease a tractor to the Employer makes out a written
application to the Employer at its Kosmosdale, Kentucky, terminal.
Although the record discloses that the Employer has no requirement as to
the make or model of the tractors leased to it, the Employer's safety director
initiates a safety check on all tractors prior to the Employer's executing a
lease agreement with the owner. The Employer also requires that 30-day
periodic inspections be conducted by its safety director on all leased
tractors. Each driver must submit to a physical examination before he is
allowed to drive for the Employer and for periodic physical examinations
thereafter. In this regard, the Employer designates the examining physician
and pays the entire cost of all such examinations. While the record shows
that the owner of a tractor has the right to hire his own drivers, every driver
of leased equipment must submit an application for employment to the
Employer. Thereafter, the Employer checks on the qualifications of the
proposed driver and if he meets the requirements of the Employer, the
Employer informs the owner that he may hire the driver.
The expenses of operating the tractors are borne by the tractor owners. In
addition, all vehicle maintenance is paid for by the owner as is the purchase
of fuel, oil, tires, and safety equipment required by State and Federal laws.
The Employer does, however, provide fueling facilities at its Kosmosdale,
Kentucky, terminal for the convenience of the drivers, and, in addition,
furnishes fuel on a credit basis, deducting the cost of such fuel from the
owner's weekly reimbursement. The Employer also pays for all cargo and
liability insurance, with the exception The Employer also pays for all cargo
and liability insurance, with the exception of "bobtailing" insurance, which
is paid for by the tractor owners. Each driver is reimbursed on a daily basis
for any amount expended on tolls.
The record also shows that the Employer provides a Blue Cross-Blue
Shield Health and Accident Insurance plan for the drivers. Under this plan,
the Employer pays one-half of the premium and the drivers pay the balance.
The Employer has also instituted an investment savings program for its
drivers whereby the Employer will match the amount saved by the driver up
to a maximum of $25.00 per month. This fund is administered by a separate
agency and the participants have a say with respect to the investments that
are made with their money. Participation by the drivers in both the Health
and Accident Insurance plan and the savings program is optional.
The record shows that all drivers are assigned hauls by the Employer's
dispatcher on a first-in, first-out basis. In order to be eligible for a haul, the
drivers must sign in on a list mantained by the Employer. Although the
owners and drivers of the leased equipment frequently interchange trips,
there is a rule in effect that if a driver refuses to take a load, he will not be
permitted to drive for the Employer for a period of 3 days. In addition, the
record shows that at the time the drivers pick up a load they are provided
with a bill of lading by the Employer which contains instructions as to date,
time, and place of delivery. While the record contains some testimony to the
effect that the Employer does not exercise any control over the route to be
used by the driver, the lease agreement hereinabove referred to provides
that "notice and information with respect to the pick-up, routing and
delivery of the trailer to be pulled by the driver shall be given by the carrier
to the driver in advance of each trip ..... (Emphasis supplied.)
While the record reflects that tractor owners are not required to haul
exclusively for the Employer and have, in fact, hauled for other employers
while under a leasing agreement with the Employer, the lease agreement
requires that all tractors be devoted exclusively to the Employer's business
when necessary to meet his transportation demands. The record also shows
that all drivers are required to prepare and submit logsheets which must
show all operations for each day, as required by State and ICC regulations.
The record further shows that the Employer's dispatcher has the authority
to prohibit a driver from making a trip if the load he is expected to take will
cause him to exceed the 10-hour daily limit in driving time.
In making a determination as to whether an individual is an independent
contractor or an employee, the Board applies the common law "right of
control" test . Under this test, the employer-employee relationship exists
when the employer reserves the right to control not only the ends to be
achieved , but also the means to be used in reaching such ends. The
application of this test demands a balancing of all the evidence relevant to
the relationship . National Freight, Inc., 153 NLRB 1536; Indiana Refrigera-
tor Lines, Inc., 157 NLRB 539; Cement Transport, Inc., 162 NLRB 1261.
In applying this test to the instant case, there are concededly some factors
that indicate that the owner-drivers are independent contractors and that
the nonowner-drivers are employees of independent contractors. Thus, as
heretofore noted, the lease agreement provides that the tractor owner shall
pay the wages or other fringe benefits of the nonowner-drivers of their
leased equipment; the owners must bear the cost of operating, repairing,
and maintaining their tractors ; the owners are responsible for making
payroll deductions on behalf of the nonowner-drivers of leased equipment
for Social Security, income taxes , and unemployment compensation; and
the owners apparently are given some freedom in the selection of their
routes. In addition, the owners have some opportunity to increase their
profits by saving money on purchases of parts and repair costs, and by
hauling for other customers when the Employer's business is slow.
These factors, however, are in my judgment outweighed by others which
establish extensive employer control over the owner -drivers and/or in their
drivers; accordingly, I am constrained to conclude, on the balance of the
evidence and the record as a whole, the owner -drivers and/or their drivers
are employees of the Employer within the meaning of the Act. In reaching
this conclusion , I rely on the following heretofore noted factors : the overall
effect of the ICC regulations , requiring, as they do, comprehensive employer
control over the operations of the tractor owners, the drivers and the leased
equipment ; the lease providing for the Employer's use and control of the
leased equipment ; the fact that the rental payments made to tractor owners
for hauling the Employer's freight are unilaterally set by the Employer; the
fact that either party may terminate the lease without cause on 30-days
written notice, or immediately if one party violates the agreement; the fact
that the tractor owners are required to submit their equipment to a safety
check by the Employer; the fact that if a driver " signs in" but refuses to take
a load , he is, in effect, disciplined by not being allowed to drive for the
Employer for a period of 3 days; the fact that once a driver "signs in" he is
bound by the bill of lading furnished him by the Employer as to the date,
time, and place of delivery; the fact that the drivers are required to submit a
driver's log to the Employer; the fact that all owner-drivers and drivers are
required to file an application for employment with the Employer; the fact
that each driver must undergo a physical examination at the expense of the
Employer; the fact that the Employer has instituted a health and accident
insurance plan and savings investment program for the owners and drivers;
and, finally, the fact that each tractor is required to exhibit the Employer's
name and ICC certificate number.
In view of the foregoing, and on the basis of the record as a whole, I find
that the single owner-drivers and the nonowner-drivers operating equipment
under lease to the Employer are employees of the Employer within the
meaning of the Act and constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of
collective bargaining. Indiana Refrigerator Lines, Inc., supra; Cement
Transport, Inc., supra; Aetna Freight Lines, 194 NLRB No. 120.
The majority of the cases cited by the Employer in its brief in support of
its position that the drivers are independent contractors or employees of
independent contractors were decided prior to the decision in Indiana
Refrigerator Lines, Inc., supra. Accordingly, in light of the Board's decision
in Indiana Refrigerator, those cases would not be controlling. Other cases
relied on by the Employer are distinguishable from the instant case. Thus, in
L C. Sinor, 168 NLRB 467, the owner-drivers, contrary to the tractor
owners in the instant case , obtained their own hauling permit from the
Oklahoma Corporation Commission and displayed their own names on
their trucks. The case of Local 236, affiliated with International Brotherhood
of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America (Maxon
Construction Company), 194 NLRB No. 104, also relied on by the Employer,
is likewise inapposite. This case involved a jurisdictional dispute. The
Teamsters contended that they should be awarded the job of hauling ice
and water to a construction that they should be awarded the job of hauling
ice and water to a construction site. The Board found the individual, who
was hauling the ice and water, to be an independent contractor. The
Employer on this job site, however, did not operate as a common carrier
and was not subject to ICC regulations.
The Employer's reliance on Deaton, Inc., 187 NLRB No. 102, and Aetna
Freight Lines, Incorporated, supra, for the proposition that the Board is
retreating from its holding in Indiana Refrigerator Lines, Inc., supra, appears
CEMENT TRANSPORT, INC 849
misplaced The Board in both Deaton and Aetna Freight Lines found the
drivers who operated leased equipment for the Employer to be employees
rather than independent contractors Further in arriving at this decision,
the Board emphasized the control over the drivers vested in the Employer
by virtue of the lease agreements therein between the parties and ICC
regulations both of which are factors clearly present in the instant case
The record discloses that the multiple owner-drivers have and exercise
the power to hire and discharge the drivers of their leased equipment It also
appears that the multiple owner-drivers assign transfer , and responsibly
direct nonowner drivers of their equipment I am satisfied that the foregoing
supervisory authority is exercised not only for the purpose of protecting the
leased equipment involved , but also as an integral part of the Employers
business operations In these circumstances , and especially as the multiple
owner drivers have effective authority with respect to the tenure of
nonowner drivers of their leased equipment whom I have found to be
employees of the Employer I find the multiple owner drivers are
supervisors within the meaning of Section 2( 11) of the Act Accordingly I
shall exclude them from the unit herein found appropriate Cement
Transport Inc supra National Freight Inc supra Chemcial Leaman Tank
Lines Inc 146 NLRB 148
While not specifically raised by either party the record raises a possible
issue with respect to the status of those single owner drivers who, while they
normally drive their own leased equipment may occasionally hire second or
substitute drivers Single owner drivers have the right to hire second or
substitute drivers and some of them have done so in the past However the
record discloses that this occurs only in rare or emergency situations In
these circumstances, and since they exercise such supervisory authority only
sporadically I find that such single owner drivers are not supervisors within
the meaning of Section 2(11) of the Act Huntley Industrial Minerals Inc
131 NLRB 1227, Indiana Refrigerator Lines Inc supra
APPENDIX B
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT unlawfully interrogate our employees
concerning their membership in or activities in behalf
of Local Union No 89, International Brotherhood of
Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of
America, or any other labor organization
WE WILL offer to Edgar Ray Thompson the
reinstatement of his most recent lease agreement
WE WILL make whole Edgar Ray Thompson for any
loss of pay incurred by him as a result of our
discrimination against him
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with,
restrain , or coerce any of you in the exercise of rights
guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act
All of you, our employees, are free to remain , withdraw,
become , or refrain from becoming , members of Local
Union No 89, International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, or
any other labor organization
Dated By
CEMENT TRANSPORT, INC
(Employer)
(Representative) (Title)
WE WILL notify immediately the above-named individual,
if presently serving in the Armed Forces of the United
States, of his right to full reinstatement upon application
after discharge from the Armed Forces in accordance with
the Selective Service Act and the Universal Military
Training and Service Act
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 concern-
ing this notice 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 Number 513-684-3686