Dura-Fibre, LLC

National Labor Relations Board - Administrative Judge Opinions

Jan 19, 2012

30-CA-018988 (N.L.R.B. Jan. 19, 2012)

JD(ATL)–02–12
Menasha, WI
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
DIVISION OF JUDGES
ATLANTA BRANCH OFFICE
DURA-FIBRE LLC1
and Case 30-CA-18988
CAROL HEALY, An Individual
Andrew S. Gollin, Esq.,
for the Government. 2
Tony J. Renning, Esq.,
for the Company.3
DECISION
Statement of the Case
WILLIAM N. CATES, Administrative Law Judge. This is a discipline and discharge
case which I heard in trial in Menasha, Wisconsin, on November 7, 2011. This case originates
from a charge filed on May 20, and amended on July 19, 2011, by Carol Healy, an individual,
(Healy or Charging Party Healy). The prosecution of the case was formalized on August 25,
2011, when the Acting Regional Director for Region 30 of the National Labor Relations Board
(the Board), acting in the name of the Board’s Acting General Counsel, issued a complaint and
notice of hearing (the complaint) against Dura-Fibre LLC (the Company).
The Company, in a timely filed answer to the complaint, denied having violated the Act
in any manner alleged in the complaint.
It is specifically alleged the Company, since on or about March 1, 2011, has maintained
an overly-broad rule in its plant discipline rules prohibiting employees from “Posting,
distributing or circulating unauthorized notices, posters or handbills on Company premises or
causing same to be done.” It is also alleged that on or about March 29, 2011, Healy prepared

1 The name of the Respondent appears as, by motion, corrected at trial.
2 I shall refer to counsel for the Acting General Counsel as counsel for the Government and I shall refer to
counsel for the Government as the Government.
3 I shall refer to counsel for the Respondent as counsel for the Company and shall refer to the Respondent as
the Company.
JD(ATL)–02–12
2
and circulated a survey, with and on behalf of other employees, soliciting their opinion
regarding a change made to the laminating machine startup schedule and its effect on
employees’ wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment. It is further alleged
that on or about March 31, 2011, the Company disciplined and then discharged Healy because
she prepared and circulated the petition and it did so in order to discourage employees from 5
engaging in these and/or other concerted activities. It is also alleged Healy was, by the same
survey, soliciting opinions from her coworkers regarding a negotiated change to the collective-
bargaining agreement concerning the laminating machine startup schedule and the effects
thereof on the employees’ wages, hours and other terms and conditions of employment in order
to discourage employees from engaging in union activities. The discipline given to and 10
discharge of Healy is alleged to violate Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the National Labor Relations
Act (the Act). The maintenance of the solicitation and distribution rule is alleged to violate
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
The parties were given full opportunity to participate, to introduce relevant evidence, to 15
examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to file briefs. I carefully observed the demeanor of
the witnesses as they testified. I have studied the whole record, the post trial briefs, and the
authorities cited therein. Based on more detailed findings and analysis below, I conclude and
find the Company violated the Act as alleged in the complaint.
20
Findings of Fact
I. Jurisdiction, Labor Organization Status, Bargaining Unit,
and Collective- Bargaining Agreement
25
The Company is a corporation with an office and place of business in Menasha,
Wisconsin, where it has been, and continues to be, engaged in the manufacturing of laminated
paperboard products. During the past calendar year, a representative period, the Company sold
and shipped goods and materials valued in excess of $50,000 directly to customers located
outside the State of Wisconsin. The parties admit, and I find, the Company is an employer 30
engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.
The parties admit, and I find, that at all material times herein, the United Steelworkers
Local 2-432 (the Union) has been and continues to be a labor organization within the meaning of
Section 2(5) of the Act.35
It is admitted that all production and maintenance employees of the Company (the unit),
constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of
Section 9(b) of the Act, and based on Section 9(a) of the Act the Union has been, and continues
to be, the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of the unit. The Company’s recognition 40
of the Union as the bargaining representative of the unit has been embodied in a series of
collective-bargaining agreements, the most recent of which is effective from October 19, 2009,
to June 22, 2013.
JD(ATL)–02–12
3
II. The Facts
The Company specializes in laminating, die-cutting, and printing fiberboard products.
For example, the Company’s products are on inexpensive furniture such as the backs of 5
bookshelves. The back portion of the shelves are made of fiberboard paper. The backs are
produced by laminating sheets of fiberboard paper together until the desired product is
manufactured. The Company employs approximately 60 employees, 43 of which are in the
bargaining unit and, as earlier noted, the collective-bargaining agreement covering the unit
employees is effective until June 22, 2013. The Company is essentially divided into two sides10
or departments. One side (laminating) houses the laminating machine, which operates
continuously with six employees on each of three shifts. The other side (converting) has three
die-cutter machines, along with baler and forklift equipment and machine operators. The
shipping and maintenance department employees are on the converting side as well. At the time
of the trial herein, the Company was operating with three shifts per day 5 days per week. The 15
third shift, which is the focus herein, is 10 p.m. to 6 a.m.
The Company, for an extended period, operated three shifts per day, 7 days per week.
However, on or about September 18, 2010, the Company commenced operating with three shifts
per day 5 days per week. Although the laminating machine operates continuously, going to a 5-20
day workweek necessitated having to restart the machine at the beginning of each new
workweek.
The startup of the laminating machine had been each Monday morning at 6 a.m.
However, in the fall of 2010, the Company and the Union, following a vote (29 in favor of the 25
change with 10 opposed) among the bargaining unit employees, agreed to change the startup of
the laminating machine from Monday morning at 6 a.m. to Sunday night at 10 p.m. Normally,
Sunday work for unit employees was paid at double time while Saturday work was paid at time
and a half. The agreement changing the startup time to Sunday night for the third shift (10 p.m.
to 6 a.m.) called for them to be paid at straight time, including the hours worked on Sunday.30
Union President Dan Nett testified not everyone was happy with the change, to the
startup time. Nett said unit employees talked to him individually, as well as at the Union’s
monthly meetings, about their discontent. Nett explained, “There were some issues about just
the vagueness of it. When it was going to start, the pay period, the how it was going to be paid 35
out, as far as being that its’ Sunday and, you know, I’d be paid straight time. . . .” He further
explained there continued to be issues about it, every day, as well as at the union meetings. Nett
said it was first brought up at the regular monthly union membership meeting in November 2010
and raised each month thereafter. Nett notified the Company in early 2011 that employees were
coming to him upset about the startup change.40
Company Human Resource Manager Jamie Gonnering learned some of the unit
employees had questions regarding, or were confused about, the change in startup time from
Monday morning to Sunday evening.
45
Laminating department third-shift employee (roll tender) Dennis Newbert was directly
affected by the change in the startup time and spoke with fellow unit employees, specifically
JD(ATL)–02–12
4
Carol Healy and Tom Jacob, about his concerns. Newbert explained he was, “disappointed how
it took place. . . . .how it wasn’t explained properly” and the number of days an employee could
be called upon to work in any particular week.
Charging Party Healy was unhappy from the beginning with the change. She worked in 5
the laminating department as a wet-end operator for the last 3–4 years of her employment and
was responsible for the glues, coatings, ink, and printing of the laminated products. Healy
generally reported to Lead Person Tim Jacobs, or on occasion, to fill-in Lead Person Tom
Jacobs, who is Tim Jacobs brother. Healy explained the change in startup time changed family
dynamics and created economic issues for she and other unit employees. Healy testified, “[I]f 10
you come in on Sunday night, a lot of people plan things on Sundays with their families, and
you would have to either go to bed earlier and get a nap in or you would not be able to attend
those [family] functions.” Healy also objected that they were not paid double time for Sunday
and they had to come in on holiday evenings if the holiday fell during the week. Healy said it
also changed coworker Tom Jacobs’ family dynamics because he was the care giver for his 15
mother. Healy talked weekly with Tom Jacobs about the change. She also spoke about the
change with coworkers from October 2010 until her termination on March 31, 2011. As a result
of her conversations with coworkers, Healy found “some that were in favor of it and some that
really didn’t like it.”
20
Healy explained the changed startup time was discussed at the union membership
meetings held on the third Monday of each month. Healy attended as many monthly meetings
as possible and specifically attended the March 21, 2011 meeting at a local restaurant.
According to Healy, 7 to 8 other unit employees attended while Union President Nett placed the
number at 10. Laminating employee Newbert specifically named certain employees that were25
present namely Carol Healy, Tom Jacobs, Joe Hostetter, and Lisa Vandeloop. Union President
Nett, Vice Present Steve Wilz, Treasurer Tim Voelker, and Recording Secretary Tim Jacobs
were present. It is undisputed several members talked about the change in startup time and did
so at length. Healy stated employees “were frustrated and confused because we weren’t sure
exactly how it was suppose to work.” She explained the frustration centered, in part, around: 30
“How the Sunday night start-ups worked with overtime,” and “if you missed a day during the
week, your Friday night would be straight time.” Union President Nett said the discussions
centered around whether pay would be straight, time and a half, or double time for weekend
work. Nett added the discussions were “heated” and some employees’ were adamant about
going back to a Monday startup time. 35
Laminating department employee Newbert said the “heated” discussions were not
getting anywhere but “just kept going and going and going.” According to Newbert, Union
President Nett then stated: “Well, we’ll do a survey.” Newbert asked who would do the survey
and Nett responded, “We’ll have amongst one of you guys go out and do it.” Newbert protested 40
asking how he would have time to do a survey. According to Newbert, Nett responded,
“Somebody here has to do it,” adding: “[W]hen you get this survey done with results, bring it to
me, and then I’ll take it to a union vote.” Newbert said Nett further added, “One of you will
distribute and bring the results to me.” Thereafter the meeting ended. Newbert said when he left
the meeting he had no idea who would take the lead with respect to the survey. Newbert thought 45
about doing it but was glad he didn’t after seeing what happened.
JD(ATL)–02–12
5
Charging Party Healy testified Union President Nett looked straight at she and Tom
Jacobs and said, “Put together a survey. Get people’s opinions and see if they—what they like
about it, what they don’t.” According to Healy, Union Recording Secretary Tim Jacobs, Vice
President Wilz, and Treasurer Voelker all nodded their heads in approval when Union President
Nett told them to create a survey and get the employees opinions. Healy said no timeframe was 5
given for completion of the survey.
Union President Nett acknowledged the issue of a “survey” came up at the March 21
meeting adding, “I do believe it was my idea.” Nett said the startup time issue had been brought
up for a few months and “it was something we just needed to put to bed, I guess, or let it go.” 10
Recalling specifically, Nett testified, “I just do believe that all I said was just that maybe we
should do a survey.” Nett said he did not direct anyone to conduct a survey, nor did he talk
specifically with anyone about doing a survey. Nett, for example, denied having a direct
conversation with laminating employee Newbert about the survey. Nett added no one took him
up on doing the survey and, as far as he knew, no one wanted to conduct one. Nett also said he 15
wanted to talk with his International union representative to see if an additional vote on the
startup time could be taken. Nett stated he would have gone to the Company prior to conducting
any survey to obtain the Company’s input and approval. Nett specifically denied authorizing or
directing anyone to conduct a survey and added none of the other union officers did so. Nett
testified that when he left the union meeting on March 21, 2011, he did not believe anyone was 20
going to create and/or conduct a survey.
Charging Party Healy created, with assistance from Acting Lead Person, Tom Jacobs, a
handwritten draft of the survey at her workstation during working time the night of March 29,
2011. Healy said they chose March 29 to create the survey because Tom Jacobs received a25
phone call from Union Recording Secretary Tim Jacobs asking if the survey had gotten put
together. Healy said she and Acting Lead Person Tom Jacobs created the survey because, “there
was frustration and confusion on the floor about the Sunday night start-ups, and we wanted to
get members’ opinions to see if we could find some common ground, see what people . . .
thought, you know.” Healy and Tom Jacobs showed the handwritten draft to Union Steward 30
Jeff Nitz (a roll grab driver on third shift). Nitz suggested allowing employees to write out what
they liked or disliked about the startup time change. Healy and Tom Jacobs incorporated the
suggested change. Tom Jacobs typed the draft and printed the necessary copies of the survey to
distribute.
35
The survey distributed by Healy and Tom Jacobs follows:
SUNDAY NIGHT START UP SURVEY
Are you aware?40
There is a “Side Letter” stating that if you
don’t have 40 hrs in, weekend work will be straight time.
yes
no45
JD(ATL)–02–12
6
Are you aware?
There is no double time for 3rd shift ever,
with sunday night start up.
yes5
no
After six months of Sunday pm start ups.
What do you like about it?10
What do you dislike about it?
Would you like to change everything back to
Monday morning start up?15
yes
no
Healy distributed the survey to laminating employees, tow motor drivers, and baler 20
operators. She did not show the survey to Union President Nett before distributing it because
Nett was not on the third shift and not at work at the time. She and Acting Lead Person Tom
Jacobs distributed the survey during working time in working areas. Healy explained, “I
thought since he [Tom Jacobs] was my lead man he was doing it [distributing during working
time] . . . it would be all right for me to.” Healy told employees as she gave them a copy of the 25
survey it pertained to the Sunday night startup, and, solicited their opinion asking them to fill out
the survey whenever they had time. Healy received seven or eight completed surveys which she
placed in her desk.
On March 30, 2011, Healy told Union President Nett where the filled out surveys were, 30
namely in her desk. She testified Nett responded: “Oh, you got the survey together? Good.”
Union President Nett said he first learned of the survey when Charging Party Healy
made him aware of it. Nett had concerns about the accuracy of a couple of items on the survey
specifically about a “side” letter which he was not aware of and about no double time for the 35
third shift on Sunday night. Nett explained he showed the survey to Union Treasurer Voelker
because he thought he could be wrong about his view of the accuracy of the survey. Nett said
Voelker agreed portions of the survey were not accurate. Nett, however, acknowledged the
survey statements were not so blatantly false that he alone could conclude the statements were
false. Nett said he then collected all the surveys and put an end to it.40
Later that day, Operations Manager Rick Hollin questioned Nett about the survey. He
told Hollin he had been directed to the survey by Healy. Nett then learned from Hollin that Tom
Jacobs had also been involved with the survey. Human Resources Manager Gonnering also
spoke with Nett about the survey. Nett said Hollin and Gonnering, who were both, 45
“significantly upset about the circulation of the survey,” held his feet to the fire as to how this
JD(ATL)–02–12
7
survey could have taken place. Nett added, “I guess they asked me if I had authorized it, and I
said, ‘No. I wasn’t aware it was going to happen or be circulated.”
Human Resources Manager Gonnering said that after she learned from Hollin and Nett a
survey had been taken she and Hollin immediately began an investigation with assistance from 5
Nett and Union Treasurer Voelker. Gonnering quickly ascertained Charging Party Healy and
Acting Lead Person Tom Jacobs had drafted and distributed the survey. Union Vice President
Wilz provided Healy’s original handwritten draft to the Company. Gonnering said Healy and
Tom Jacobs acknowledged drafting and distributing the survey. Gonnering said Healy told her
she had been told by Union President Nett to do the survey. Gonnering then confronted Nett 10
who told her the Union had not authorized the survey. Gonnering said she believed Nett
because “our relationship has been so good, I have no reason to believe that Dan Nett would
ever be dishonest to me . . . regarding the union-management relationship.” Gonnering also
stated Union Treasurer Voelker, Vice President Wilz, and Recording Secretary Tim Jacobs all
indicated no one had been directed to draft or distribute a survey.15
Human Resources Manager Gonnering testified she had concerns regarding the accuracy
of the survey. She said for example, the reference to a “side letter” was not accurate because
there was no “side letter,” and added that if one existed she would have created it and she did not
do so. Gonnering questioned that part of the survey regarding no double time pay ever for the 20
third shift. Gonnering considered that inaccurate because if an employee came to work early at
9:30 p.m. for the third shift on Sunday the employee would be paid double time the first 30
minutes. Gonnering acknowledged employees working the regularly scheduled 10 p.m. to 6
a.m. third shift on Sunday night would be paid straight rather than double time.
25
Gonnering acknowledged she, “didn’t realize how big of a situation it [shift start change]
had become and it wasn’t until . . . March, when this whole survey got drafted, that I even
realized how big of a deal it was. . . .”
Human Resources Manager Gonnering issued disciplinary points to Healy and Tom 30
Jacobs March 31, 2011, for their role in drafting, creating, and distributing the survey, however,
she met with Union President Nett and Treasurer Voelker beforehand to inform them.
Gonnering gave Healy and Tom Jacobs the same number of disciplinary points noting it could
be determined later which points would stand after she spoke with Healy and Tom Jacobs.
Gonnering decided, after meeting separately with Healy and Tom Jacobs, on March 31, 2011,35
that all the points for both would remain. Gonnering issued each of them a prepared disciplinary
letter at the end of her meeting with them. The letters were essentially identical, with respect to
points given and justification for the points. The letter for Healy is set forth in full:
Carol Healy40
721 Cedar Street
Neenah, WI 54956
March 31, 2011
45
Dear Carol,
JD(ATL)–02–12
8
It has been brought to Rick Hollin (VP—Operations) and Jamie Gonnering
(Human Resource Manager) attention that you participated in creating and
distributing a non-authorized survey to union employees about Sunday night start
ups and double time concerns. This survey was distributed to union employees
beginning on March 29th. Several employees brought this survey to our attention 5
and asked us to look into the situation further.
Upon reviewing the survey, we have found the following:
1) The survey was falsely worded.10
2) It was not authorized by your union leadership team, nor did they tell you
to distribute it.
3) It was not authorized by the management team, nor did they tell you to
distribute it
4) The survey was completed during work time on Dura-Fibre’s computer, 15
paper, and printers without supervisory permission.
You will be issued disciplinary points for this situation, resulting in a total of 20
points (Labor Agreement, October 19, 2009 to June 22, 2013, Exhibit B, Plant
Discipline Rules, General Rules) due to the following violations:20
 Group 1(4 points)
5. Posting, distributing, or circulating unauthorized notices, posters or
handbills on Company premises or causing same to be done.
 Group 1(4 points)25
6. Wasting Company time and/or material.
 Group 1(4 points)
8. Performing personal work with Company equipment without
supervisory permission.
 Group 2(8 points)30
6. Purposely providing false information to the Company for personal
gain.
Your current disciplinary folder indicates your points balance is at 24 points.
With the newly assessed points (20 points), you will be at a total point balance of 35
44 points. The union contract states (Labor Agreement, October 19, 2009 to June
22, 2013, Exhibit B, Plant Discipline Rules, Plant Discipline rules):
1. Any employee who accumulates twenty-four (24) points for violation of
Plant Rules is just cause for discharge.40
Therefore, this incident has resulted in the termination of your employment
effective March 31, 2011 due to a violation of disciplinary points.
Your final check will be mailed to you at your home address and your insurance 45
will end March 31, 2011 at 12pm. COBRA paperwork will be mailed to you at
JD(ATL)–02–12
9
your home address through EBC. If you should have any additional questions, we
expect that you would call either Rick Hollin (969-3624) or myself (969-3622).
Sincerely,
/s/ Jamie Gonnering5
Jamie Gonnering
Human Resource Manager
Cc: Can Nett, Rick Hollin, Jason Gscheidmeier10
The plant discipline rules, general rules, set forth in the above-disciplinary letter are
accurately quoted in full and taken from the parties collective-bargaining agreement. Gonnering
explained that while there is no mention of the employee handbook in the disciplinary letters
issued to Healy and Tom Jacobs, employees can always reference the handbook for clarification 15
of what the parties collective-bargaining agreement means regarding plant disciplinary rules,
general rules. Gonnering testified the provisions of the parties collective-bargaining agreement
always take precedence over the employee handbook with the exception of matters being
specifically covered by Federal or State statue.
20
One portion of the employee handbook Human Resources Manager Gonnering said
needed to be read in conjunction with of the disciplinary letters issued to Healy and Tom Jacobs
follows:
Solicitation and Distribution of Literature25
No employee may solicit, or distribute literature in any form (including e-mails),
in working areas during working time. “Working time” means the time in which
the employee is required to be performing work, but does not include break
periods or meal periods or periods in which the employee is properly excused 30
from performing work. An employee who is not on working time shall not solicit
employees or distribute literature to employees who are on working time. The
rule applies to solicitation and distribution of literature of all types for causes or
organizations.
35
On April 3, 2011, grievances were filed on behalf of Healy and Tom Jacobs. It stated in
Healy’s grievance, “The survey that was drafted for the union committee was for the union body
for discussion of Sunday night start-up, pros & cons. The purposes was to help resolve conflicts
of Sun pm start-up which was to benefit the Union & the Company.” The relief sought was “all
points to be dropped.”40
Healy and Tom Jacobs’ grievances were addressed by the Union and the Company at a
meeting on April 6, 2011. Gonnering and Hollin were present for the Company along with Nett,
Voelker, Wilz, and Tim Jacobs for the Union. Union President Nett recalled that either Human
Resources Manager Gonnering or Operations Manager Hollin told the union committee 45
something to the effect, “If this matter goes to arbitration and the Company finds out that the
JD(ATL)–02–12
10
union group misrepresented themselves, i.e. union executive committee, about authorizing this
survey, they will be issued points for posting, distributing, and circulating.”
Gonnering testified the Company agreed to reduce the disciplinary points given Healy to
12. The Company agreed to dismiss the 4 points for plant discipline rule group 1 number 6, 5
“Wasting Company time and/or material” because Healy and Tom Jacobs’ actions did not cause
the laminating machine to be shut down. The Company also agreed to dismiss these 4 points
given Healy for plant discipline rule group 1 number 8; “Performing personal work with
Company equipment without supervisory permission.” The Company dismissed these points
because her acting lead person, Tom Jacobs, told her to do it. The Company did not dismiss, but 10
rather left in place, the plant disciplining rule group 1 number 5, “Posting, distributing, or
circulating unauthorized notices, posters or handbills on Company premises or causing same to
be done” points (4) given Healy, as well as the plant disciplinary rule group 2 number 6,
“Purposely providing false information to the Company for personal gain” points given Healy.
The Company upheld Healy’s March 31, 2011 termination because she was subject to a “last 15
chance agreement,” whereby, if she received any additional discipline she would be terminated.
The parties agree Healy would not have been discharged on March 31, 2011, but for her part in
creating and distributing the survey in question.
Human Resources Manager Gonnering testified she was not aware of any other written 20
surveys at the facility prior to the March 29, 2011 survey at issue herein. Gonnering further
indicated she was not aware of any office pools for basketball or football, or for the selling of
Girl Scout cookies, Pampered Chef Cookware, Lisa Sophia Jewelry, or “those types of things
happening in the workplace during working time” prior to the trial herein.
25
Charging Party Healy, however, testified she had seen employees soliciting for various
causes while working at the Company. She explained: “I have seen school fundraisers such as
pizza sales, flower bulbs, wrapping paper, cookie dough, Girl Scout cookies; football boards and
pools . . . raffles for several outdoor clubs, entertainment books; Lisa Sophia parties; candlelight
parties . . . Pampered Chef parties . . . [and] PartyLite candlelight parties.” She observed such30
activities in the break room, as well as on the work floor, in the laminating and connecting
departments during working time throughout the year. Healy said supervisors were present
while the soliciting was taking place and some even participated in the football pools. Healy
specifically identified Maintenance Manager Terry Thompson, Production Manager Dennis
Koeppel, and Operations Manager Hollis as being fully aware of these type activities.35
Laminating department employee Newbert testified he had observed employees
distributing materials for entertainment books, football pools, business cards, and fundraisers for
schools on the work floor during worktime at the Company. Newbert explained he had been
asked to join football pools or to help fundraisers.40
Union President Nett testified he was aware of raffles, Pampered Chef parties, Girl Scout
cookie sales, pizza sales, and those types of notices being distributed at the Company but only in
the nonwork area lunchroom. Nett first testified he was not aware of these type items being
carried onto the work area. However, Nett later acknowledged he was aware of charts or45
football raffles on the work floor.
JD(ATL)–02–12
11
III. Analysis, Discussion, and Conclusions
Before an analysis of the facts is made and controlling precedent applied, it is necessary
to make certain credibility resolutions. I note the facts, for the most part, are undisputed, but,
nonetheless, some resolutions regarding what was said and whether certain actions were 5
authorized is necessary and helpful. In arriving at my credibility resolutions, I have taken into
account my impressions of the witnesses as they testified. I have also considered each witnesses’
testimony in relation to other witnesses’ testimony and in light of the exhibits presented herein.
If there is any evidence that might seem to contradict the credited facts, I have not ignored such
evidence, but rather have discredited or rejected it as not reliable or trustworthy. I considered the 10
entire record in arriving at the facts herein. My observations persuade me Healy and Newbert
testified truthfully. Healy’s testimony was clearly in line with undisputed facts and events. She
described in detail what she had heard, observed, and did without equivocation. Newbert’s
somewhat limited testimony was supportive of Healy’s more lengthy testimony but just as
unequivocal. I am unwilling to rely on Union President Nett’s testimony where it conflicts with 15
the testimony of other witnesses. Nett impressed me as attempting to avoid fully committing
himself to what he was saying. As examples he testified, “I’m almost positive I told her.” “I do
believe I told her.” “I guess they asked me if I authorized it.” and, “I just do believe that all I said
was just that maybe we should do a survey.” In considering Nett’s testimony about whether he
authorized a survey regarding the startup time for the laminating machine, I have considered the 20
fact he was told by either Human Resource Manager Gonnering or Operations Manager Hollin
that if he (Nett), or the Union’s executive committee, authorized the taking of a survey he and
the Union’s executive committee would be accessed disciplinary points also. Hereinafter, I will
refer to Healy’s credited testimony, and in doing so, I am specifically not relying on any
testimony of Nett that would conflict with either Healy’s or Newbert’s testimony.25
The starting point for analysis of the issues herein begins with the Company going from a
three shift per day, 7-day workweek to three shifts per day, 5-day workweek. The laminating
machine is in continuous operation but with a 5-day workweek it is shut down at the end of the
workweek and restarted at the beginning of the new workweek. For a while, after the 5-day 30
workweek commenced in September 2010, the laminating machine was restarted on Monday
morning at 6 a.m. However, the Company and the Union, after a vote by the unit employees,
agreed upon a change in the startup time from 6 a.m. Monday morning to a 10 p.m. startup on
Sunday night.
35
A number of unit employees were unhappy with the change. They expressed concerns
about how the weekend days would be paid, and, they complained the change had not been
explained properly; it disrupted their weekend activities; and, created economic issues for them.
Unit employees began individually talking to Union President Nett about their concerns and,
starting in November 2010, raised their concerns at the regular monthly union membership 40
meetings. The employees’ concerns about the startup change were discussed thereafter daily and
at each monthly union membership meeting. Union President Nett notified the Company in
early 2011 that the unit employees were coming to him upset about the change. Human
Resource Manager Gonnering also learned, at about the same time, of the unit employees
questions and confusion regarding the change in the startup time.45
JD(ATL)–02–12
12
Charging Party Healy started talking to fellow coworkers about the change in October
2010 and did so until her termination in March 2011. She spoke to, among others, her Lead
Person Tom Jacobs and employee Newbert, both of whom shared her concerns. Some of
Healy’s main concerns related to how the change in the startup time impacted weekend family
dynamics and the economic impact it created.5
It is against the above backdrop that Healy and several (probably 8 to 10) other unit
employees attended the March 21, 2011 monthly union membership meeting and raised their
concerns about the changed startup time. The meeting was “heated” with some employees’
adamant they wanted to have the startup time changed back to Monday mornings. Unit 10
employees expressed, among other frustrations, how the new startup time was supposed to work
and how overtime, time and a half, and straight time would be allocated for weekend work. The
meeting just kept on going until Union President Nett announced they would do a survey and
asked who among the unit employees would do it. Nett stated someone present had to do the
survey and when they had done so to bring the results to him and he would take the matter to a 15
union vote. Employee Newbert believed Union President Nett was speaking directly to him
about conducting the survey. Charging Party Healy believed Nett was looking at her and Tom
Jacobs when he asked for some employee or employees to put together a survey regarding the
employees’ opinions, likes, and dislikes about the startup time. Union Recording Secretary Tim
Jacobs, Vice President Wilz, and Treasurer Voelker all signaled their approval of President 20
Nett’s directions to create a survey and bring the results to him. I note Union President Nett
acknowledged bringing up the idea of a survey because the issue of the changed startup time had
been ongoing for a while and, “we just needed to put [it] to bed . . . or let it go.” I, however, do
not credited Nett’s denial he never authorized or directed anyone to create or conduct a survey,
his statements and actions indicate otherwise. Nett specifically asked the unit employees at the 25
meeting to conduct a survey and bring the results to him.
It is clear Union President Nett requested a survey be conducted and I so find. That
union officials wanted a survey taken is further demonstrated by Union Recording Secretary Tim
Jacobs telephoning Acting Lead Person Tom Jacobs, on March 29, 2011, asking if a survey had 30
actually been taken. Healy and Tom Jacobs created and distributed the survey when they did
because of the inquiry of Tim Jacobs to Tom Jacobs. The Union continued demonstrating its
interest in the survey when Union Steward Jeff Nitz suggested changes to the language of the
survey so as to specifically ask that the unit employees write out what they liked or disliked
about the changed startup time. After Charging Party Healy told Union President Nett about the 35
survey and where he could find the filled out copies, he responded it was “good” she had gotten
the survey together. Nett’s interest in a survey and its results never diminished. The survey
Healy and Tom Jacobs distributed addressed concerns related to straight time and premium pay
for weekend work, the likes and dislikes of the Sunday night startup time and whether the
employees desired to return to a Monday morning startup.40
Does Healy’s (and Tom Jacob’s) creating and distributing the survey among unit
employees, as well as providing the results thereof to the Union, constitute concerted activity
protected by the Act? I find it does.
45
First, its helpful to briefly review certain guidance of the Board and courts regarding
concerted activity including under what circumstances it will or will not be protected under the
JD(ATL)–02–12
13
Act. Section 7 of the Act guarantees employees the right to engage in concerted activities for the
purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection. Section 8(a)(1) of the Act
makes it an unfair labor practice, “for an employer to interfere with, restrain, or coerce
employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7.” For an employee’s activity to
be “concerted” the employee must be engaged with or on the authority of other employees and 5
not solely on behalf of the employee him/herself . Meyers Industries (Meyers I), 268 NLRB 493
(1984), remanded sub nom. Prill v. NLRB, 775 F.2d 941 (D.C. Cir. 1985), sub nom. Meyers
Industries v. Prill, cert denied 474 U.S. 948 (1985), and Meyers Industries (Meyers II), 281
NLRB 882 (1986), affd. sub nom. Prill v. NLRB 835 F.2d 1481 (D.C. Cir 1987), cert. denied 487
U.S. 1205 (1988). The Board pointed out in Meyers I that although the legislative history of 10
Section 7, the Act, does not specifically define concerted activity, it does reveal that Congress
considered the concept in terms of “individuals united in terms of a common goal.” The statue
requires that activities under consideration be “concerted” before they can be “protected.” As
the Board observed in Meyers I, Section 7, of the Act does not use the term protected concerted
activities only concerted activities. It goes without saying the Act does not protect all concerted 15
activity. The question of whether an employee has engaged in concerted activity is a factual one
based on the totality of the record evidence. See, e.g., Ewing v NLRB, 861 F.2d 353 (2d Cir.
1988). It is clear the Act protects discussions and/or actions between two or more employees
concerning terms and conditions of employment. Wages (straight, time and a half, and double
time) are vital terms and conditions of employment and seeking clarification about or having 20
discussions among employees about wages are at the core of Section 7 rights because wages are
probably the most critical element in employment. Parexel International, LLC 356 NLRB No.
82, slip op. at 3 (2011). The scheduling of shift times are likewise core elements of terms and
conditions of employment. In summary, on this point, it is clear Healy and Tom Jacobs engaged
in concerted activity protected by the Act when they prepared and distributed a survey soliciting 25
their coworkers views on the changed startup time for the laminating machine and how that
change impacted their wages. When Healy and Tom Jacobs, at the direction of Union President
Nett, prepared and distributed the survey they were also engaging in union activity protected by
the Act. In this regard, I note the survey was requested by the Union in order to see if the unit
employees wished to have the Union negotiate another change for the startup time with the 30
Company.
Company Human Resource Manager Gonnering acknowledged that had Healy not
participated in the preparation and circulation of the survey among her coworkers regarding the
startup time for the laminating machine and pay for weekend work she would not have been 35
disciplined or discharged on March 31, 2011. Based on the fact the Company took disciplinary
action against Healy because she engaged in concerted and union activity protected by that Act,
it is not necessary to engage in a Wright Line, 251 NLRB 1083 (1980), enfd. 662 F.2d 899 (1st
Cir. 1981), cert denied 455 U.S. 989 (1982), analysis because motivation is not an issue.
Winston-Salem Journal, 341 NLRB 124, 133 (2004).40
The Company in its posttrial brief acknowledges employers are prohibited from
disciplining employees for engaging in protected concerted activity. The Company also
correctly observes that not all concerted activity is protected by the Act. The Company, citing
NLRB v. Washington Aluminum Co., 370 U.S. 9, 17 (1962); and Trompler, Inc. v. NLRB, 338 45
F.3d 747, 748 (7th Cir. 2003), argues Healey was lawfully terminated for a breach of contract
and that her actions were otherwise indefensible. In deciding the issues in Washington
JD(ATL)–02–12
14
Aluminum, the Supreme Court noted, but found not applicable in the case before it, that certain
concerted activities may fall within normal categories of unprotected concerted activities such as
those that are unlawful, violent, in breach of contract, or otherwise indefensible. I note the Board
in Atlantic Steel Co., 245 NLRB 814 (1979), observed that an employee engaged in protected
concerted activity can by opprobrious conduct also lose the protection of the Act.5
In analyzing the Company’s contention that Healy’s creating, distributing, and collecting
the survey on the startup time and related pay issues was a breach of contract I examine the
contract rule relied upon by the Company in its defense. The rule at issue states employees are
prohibited from, “Posting, distributing, or circulating unauthorized notices, posters or handbills 10
on Company premises or causing same to be done.” This rule is overly broad and invalid and
may not serve as a defense for the Company. It is clear an employer may, without violating the
Act, make and enforce reasonable rules covering the conduct of employees on employer time.
Stated differently, and more applicable herein, an employer may impose certain restrictions on
its employees’ right to engage in protected concerted and/or union solicitation and distribution 15
without violating the Act. Republic Aviation Corp. v. NLRB, 324 U.S. 793 (1945). However,
any restrictions placed on employee rights must be clearly limited in scope and not interfere with
or reasonably tend to chill employees in the exercise of their Section 7 rights. The appropriate
inquiry for determining whether certain work rules (or contract provisions) violate Section
8(a)(1) of the Act is whether the rules or provisions would reasonably tend to chill employees in 20
the exercise of their Section 7 rights. See, e.g., Lafayette Park Hotel, 326 NLRB 824, 825
(1998), enfd. mem. 203 F.3d 52 (D.C. Cir. 1999). If a rule or provision “explicitly” restricts
Section 7 activities, as is the case herein, it is unlawful. Lutheran Heritage Village – Livonia 343
NLRB 646 (2004). The rule the Company contends Healy violated clearly and explicitly bans
and/or prohibits distributing or circulating, for example, surveys related to working conditions 25
and/or wages on company premises. The rule herein places no limitations on its application or
scope. For example, it is not limited to actual working time or in work areas and includes
employees’ break or lunchtimes.
I reject the Company’s contention the rule set forth above, and for which Healy was 30
disciplined, must be read in conjunction with a section regarding solicitation and distribution in
the employee handbook. The limitations therein do not include, for example, break or meal
times. First, if the Company intended to discipline Healy pursuant to the employee handbook, it
seems odd Human Resource Manager Gonnering did not so state in the disciplinary and
discharge letter she issued Healy on March 31, 2011. Second, Healy was never told her 35
discipline was based, in part, on provisions in the employee handbook. Third, although all
employees were provided a copy of the employee handbook there is no showing they were
specifically told the provision on solicitation and distribution somehow supplemented the
collective-bargaining agreement provision. Human Resource Manager Gonnering’s suggestion
that employees could use the employee handbook to clear up any uncertainty in provisions of the 40
collective-bargaining agreement, such as the rule on solicitation, is not a valid defense for the
Company. The Company may not place on employees the burden of having to look at other,
even perhaps a related document, to clarify its enforced overly broad solicitation rule. Finally,
the collective-bargaining agreement, by its terms, reflects that the provisions of the agreement
prevail in the event the employee handbook conflicts with the collective-bargaining agreement. 45
To the extent the Company contends the rule is valid because it is a product of collective
bargaining is also without merit and fails. The Supreme Court in NLRB v. Magnavox of
JD(ATL)–02–12
15
Tennessee, 415 U.S. 322 (1974), found a ban on distribution in an agreement to be invalid
because it stifled the organizational rights of employees, which rights are at the core of the
representation and bargaining previsions of the Act. The Supreme Court made it clear banning
the distribution of literature was a right that could not even be bargained away by the employee’s
representative. Stated differently, the defense of waiver is not available to the Company herein 5
because the parties can not waive or bargain away core Section 7 rights guaranteed to employees.
The Company’s contention Healy’s actions, related to the survey were not protected
because the actions were not authorized by the Company or the Union is without merit. Healy,
in the circumstances herein, did not need the Company’s or the Union’s authorization or 10
approval to engage in the concerted activity she participated in. See Naples Community
Hospital, 355 NLRB No. 171, slip Op. 50–51 (2010). Her activities were protected by the Act.
Even if Healy somehow needed authorization from the Union and/or the Company, which I find
she did not, she had approval from both. The evidence establishes Healy and Tom Jacobs acted
at the request of Union President Nett and other union officials to create, distribute, collective,15
and return a survey to the Union. The Union followed up on Nett’s request with a telephone call
to Tom Jacobs on March 29, 2011, from Union Recording Secretary Tim Jacobs asking whether
a survey had been put together. Union President Nett, after being told the survey had been
conducted, declared to Healy her actions related to the survey were “good.” Simply stated,
Healy and Tom Jacobs had the authorization, approval, and encouragement of the Union to 20
conduct the survey. I am persuaded Healy had tacit authorization from the Company to conduct
the survey. Tom Jacobs, her acting lead person, helped create the survey. Lead Person Tom
Jacobs also typed and prepared the necessary copies of survey giving half to Healy to distribute
in the laminating department. Healy had implied approval of management through the actions of
her acting lead person. It is clear Human Resource Manager Gonnering considered Acting Lead 25
Person Tom Jacobs to have certain authority on behalf of the Company. She agreed to drop the
disciplinary charge against Healy that she “perform[ed] personal work with Company equipment
without supervisor permission.” Gonnering said the Company agreed to drop that charge
because Acting Lead Person Tom Jacobs had told Healy to prepare a draft survey.
30
Other asserted reasons, raised by the Company, that Healy’s actions were unprotected
and she could be lawfully disciplined are likewise without merit. The Company contends Healy,
by helping to prepare and distribute the survey was attempting to bargain collectively with the
Company as a minority group or was trying to interject her personal self-interest into the startup
time issue. It is clear Healy’s efforts with respect to the survey were for, and not to bypass, the 35
Union or inject only her specific views into the situation. Healy was working with and for the
Union and not in any way attempting to bargain with the Company as a minority union. The
results of the survey were provided by Healy to the Union for whatever use the Union desired. I
note that after the survey was conducted, the Union and the Company agreed to return the startup
time to Monday mornings.40
Even if I concluded, which I do not, that the parties collective-bargaining agreement
provision at issue herein had, in this case, to be read in conjunction with the employee handbook
provision, I would still find Healy’s discharge unlawful. Even if the two rules combined form a
valid rule, the rule was discriminatorily enforced against Healy. The evidence establishes the 45
Company permits solicitations for and distribution of, for example, football pools in working
areas during working time with no resulting disciplinary action. Some supervisors have even
JD(ATL)–02–12
16
participated in such football pools. Maintenance Manager Terry Thompson, Production Manager
Dennis Koeppel, and Operations Manager Hollis were aware of these various activities. Still
other types of solicitations have occurred during working time and in working areas involving,
for example, Pampered Chef, Party Lite Candlelight, and Lisa Sophia jewelry parties. The
Company may not lawfully single out Healy while it allows other solicitations to take place with 5
no disciplinary action.
The Company contends Healy’s creating, circulating, and collecting the survey herein
was conduct outside the protection of the Act because Healy violated the Company’s rule against
“purposely providing false information to the Company for personal gain.” The Company’s 10
contention is factually without merit. Healy never provided, nor intended the survey be
provided, to the Company. Human Resource Manager Gonnering only received the original
hand draft of the survey because Union Vice President Wilz provided it to her during the
investigation by the Company of the survey incident. Gonnering admitted Healy never gave the
survey to anyone in management. Because I have concluded Healy never provided the survey 15
information to the Company, I find it unnecessary to decide if any information in the survey was
false, or, if so, was it maliciously or recklessly false. The Company advanced no valid defense
or lawful justification for disciplining and discharging Healy.
CONCLUSION OF LAW20
By on or about March 31, 2011, disciplining and then discharging its employee Carol
Healy because she engaged in protected concerted and union activity, the Company engaged in
unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) and
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. Additionally, the Company violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act 25
by promulgating and maintaining a rule in its collective-bargaining agreement that unlawfully
restricts employees’ ability to post, distribute, and/or circulate handbills.
REMEDY
30
Having found the Company has engaged in certain unfair labor practices, I find it must be
ordered to cease and desist and to take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the
policies of the Act. Specifically, to remedy the unlawful conduct toward Healy, the Company
must, within 14 days of the Board’s Order, offer her reinstatement to her former job or, if her
former job no longer exists, to a substantially equivalent job without prejudice to her seniority or 35
other rights and privileges previously enjoyed, and make her whole for any lost wages and
benefits as a result of her March 31, 2011 discipline and discharge, with interest. Backpay will
be computed as outlined in F. W. Woolworth Co., 90 NLRB 289 (1950) (backpay computed on
quarterly basis). Determining the applicable rate of interest will be as outlined in New Horizons
for the Retarded, 283 NLRB 1173 (1987) (adopting Internal Revenue Service rate for 40
underpayment of Federal taxes). Interest on all amounts due to the employee shall be
compounded on a daily basis as prescribed in Kentucky River Medical Center, 356 NLRB No. 8
(2010), enf. denied on other grounds sub nom. Jackson Hospital Corp. v. NLRB, 647 F.3d 1137
(D.C. Cir. 2011). I also recommend the Company, within 14 days of the Board’s Order, be
ordered to remove from its files any reference to its March 31, 2011 discipline and discharge of 45
Healy and, within 3 days thereafter notify Healy in writing it has done so that her discipline and
discharge will not be used against her in any manner. Further, the Company is to forthwith
JD(ATL)–02–12
17
rescind that portion of the parties’ collective-bargaining agreement set forth at general rules,
group 1 rule 5 page 20 that states, “Posting, distributing or circulating unauthorized notice,
posters or handbills on Company premises or causing same to be done.” The Company shall
notify the employees in writing that this has been done. I also recommend the Company be
ordered, within 14 days after service by the Region, to post an appropriate “Notice to 5
Employees” in order that employees may be apprised of their rights under the Act and the
Company’s obligation to remedy its unfair labor practices.
On these findings and conclusions of law and on the entire record, I issue the following
recommended410
ORDER
The Company, Dura-Fibre LLC, Menasha, Wisconsin, its officers, agents, successors,
and assigns, shall15
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Disciplining, discharging, or otherwise discriminating against its
employees for engaging in concerted and/or union activity protected by the Act.20
(b) Promulgating and maintaining a rule in its collective-bargaining
agreement that unlawfully restricts its employee’s ability to post, distribute, and/or circulate
handbills.
25
(c) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing
employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act.
30
(a) Within 14 days from the date of the Board’s Order, offer Carol Healy full
reinstatement to her former job or, if that job no longer exists, to a substantially equivalent
position, without prejudice to her seniority or any other rights or privileges previously enjoyed.
(b) Make Carol Healy whole for any loss of earnings and other benefits 35
suffered as a result of the discrimination against her in the manner set forth in the remedy section
of this decision.
(c) Within 14 days from the date of the Board’s Order, remove from its files
any reference to the unlawful disciple and discharge of Carol Healy, and within 3 days thereafter 40
notify her in writing that this has been done and that her discipline and discharge will not be used
against her in any way.

4 If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the Board’s Rules and Regulations, the findings,
conclusions, and recommended Order shall, as provided in Sec. 102.48 of the Rules, be adopted by the
Board and all objections to them shall be deemed waived for all purposes.
JD(ATL)–02–12
18
(d) Rescind that portion of the parties collective-bargaining agreement set
forth at general rules, group 1 rule 5 page 20 that unlawfully restricts employees ability to post,
distribute, and/or circulate handbills.
(e) Preserve and, within 14 days of a request, or such additional time as the 5
Regional Director may allow for good cause shown, provide at a reasonable place designated by
the Board or its agents, all payroll records, social security payment records, timecards, personnel
records and reports, and all other records, including an electronic copy of the records if stored in
electronic form, necessary to analyze the amount of backpay due under the terms of this Order.
10
(f) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at its Menasha,
Wisconsin facility, copies of the notice marked “Appendix.”5 Copies of the notice, on forms
provided by the Regional Director for Region 30, after being signed by the Company’s
authorized representative, shall be posted by the Company and maintained for 60 consecutive
days in conspicuous places including all places where notices to employees are customarily15
posted. In addition to physical posting of paper notices, notices shall be distributed
electronically, such as email, posting on an intranet or an internet site, or other electronic means,
if the Company customarily communicates with its employees by such means. Reasonable steps
shall be taken by the Company to ensure that the notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by
any other material. In the event that, during the pendency of these proceedings, the Company has 20
gone out of business or closed the facility involved in these proceedings, the Company shall
duplicate and mail, at its own expense, a copy of the notice to all current employees and former
employees employed by the Company at any time since March 31, 2011.
Dated, Washington, D.C., January 19, 2012.25
_________________________________30
William N. Cates
Administrative Law Judge

5 If this Order is enforced by a judgment of the United States court of appeals, the words in the notice
reading “Posted by Order of the National Labor Relations Board” shall read “Posted Pursuant to a
Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing and Order of the National Labor Relations
Board.”
JD(ATL)–02–12
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
Posted by Order of the
National Labor Relations Board
An Agency of the United States Government
The National Labor Relations Board has found that we violated Federal labor law and has
ordered us to post and obey this notice.
FEDERAL LAW GIVES YOU THE RIGHT TO
Form, join, or assist a union
Choose representatives to bargain with us on your behalf
Act together with other employees for your benefit and protection
Choose not to engage in any of these protected activities.
WE WILL NOT discipline, discharge, or otherwise discriminate against any of you for engaging
in concerted and/or union activity protected by the Act.
WE WILL NOT promulgate and maintain a rule in our collective-bargaining agreement that
unlawfully restricts employees’ ability to post, distribute, and/or circulate handbills.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce you in the
exercise of the rights guaranteed you by Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL, within 14 days from the date of this Order, offer Carol Healy full reinstatement to
her former job or, if that job no longer exists, to a substantially equivalent position, without
prejudice to her seniority or any other rights or privileges previously enjoyed.
WE WILL make Carol Healy whole for any loss of earnings and other benefits resulting from
her discipline and discharge, less any net interim earnings, plus interest.
WE WILL, within 14 days from the date of this Order, remove from our files any reference to
the unlawful disciple and discharge of Carol Healy, and WE WILL, within 3 days thereafter,
notify her in writing that this has been done and that the discipline and discharge will not be used
against her in any way.
WE WILL rescind those portions of the collective-bargaining agreement set forth at general
rules, group 1 rule 5 page 20 that unlawfully restricts employees’ ability to post, distribute,
and/or circulate handbills.
JD(ATL)–02–12
DURA-FIBRE LLC
(Employer)
Dated: ________________ By: __________________________________________
(Representative) (Title)
The National Labor Relations Board is an independent Federal agency created in 1935 to enforce the National Labor
Relations Act. It conducts secret-ballot elections to determine whether employees want union representation and it
investigates and remedies unfair labor practices by employers and unions. To find out more about your rights under
the Act and how to file a charge or election petition, you may speak confidentially to any agent with the Board’s
Regional Office set forth below. You may also obtain information from the Board’s website: www.nlrb.gov.
310 West Wisconsin Avenue, Federal Plaza, Suite 700W, Milwaukee, WI 53203-2211
(414) 297-3861, Hours: 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.
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 ABOVE REGIONAL OFFICE’S
COMPLIANCE OFFICER, (414) 297-3819.