F. W. Woolworth Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 26, 1969

179 N.L.R.B. 748 (N.L.R.B. 1969)

748 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
F. W. Woolworth Company and Retail Clerks Union
Local 870, Retail Clerks International Association,
AFL-CIO'
F. W. Woolworth Company and Culinary Workers
and Bartenders Union Local 823, Hotel and
Restaurant Employees and Bartenders
International Union, AFL-CIO, and Joint
Executive Board of the Hotel and Restaurant
Employees and Bartenders International Union of
Alameda County, AFL -CIO.' Cases 20-CA-4911
and 20-CA-5088
November 26, 1969
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS FANNING, JENKINS, AND ZAGORIA
On June 10, 1969, Trial Examiner Lloyd
Buchanan issued his Decision in the above-entitled
proceeding finding that the Respondent had engaged
in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices
and recommending that it cease and desist
therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set
forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Decision.
Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the
Trial Examiner's Decision and a supporting brief.
The General Counsel filed a brief in support of the
Trial Examiner's Decision and the Charging Unions
filed a brief in reply to Respondent's 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
powers in connection with this case to a
three-member panel.
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial
Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no
prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are
hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial
Examiner's Decision, the exceptions and briefs, and
the entire record in these cases, and hereby adopts
the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of
the Trial Examiner, with the additions set forth
below.
The Trial Examiner found, and we agree, that the
Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the
Act by consistently refusing to meet with either the
Retail Clerks or the Joint Union unless
representatives of both were present.
The Charging Unions were certified individually
on December 1, 1967. The Retail Clerks was
certified as the exclusive collective-bargaining
representative of Respondent's selling and nonselling
employees employed at its Store No. 2405 and the
Joint Union was similarly certified for Respondent's
culinary department employees at Store No. 2405.
Following the certifications, the Retail Clerks and
the Joint Union separately sought, by letter, to
' Herein the Retail Clerks.
'Herein the Joint Union.
begin negotiations with the Respondent. Subsequent
exchanges of correspondence indicated that the
Respondent desired that both the Retail Clerks and
the Joint Union be present at any negotiating
meetings to be held. The Charging Unions each
expressed their opposition to such a format.
Nevertheless, early in February 1968, a meeting
was held at which representatives of the Respondent,
the Retail Clerks, and the Joint Union were all
present. At this meeting the Retail Clerks made it
clear that it was attending solely as a matter of
courtesy and that it was opposed to simultaneous
negotiations which would include the Joint Union.
The Respondent presented its position regarding
simultaneous bargaining, and, after inviting the
Respondent to meet at its offices on a future date,
the Retail Clerks representatives left the meeting.
Discussions continued with the Joint Union and it
requested that the Respondent furnish it with a list
of job classifications.
After the meeting, correspondence between the
Retail Clerks and the Respondent completely
crystallized the positions of the parties. The
Respondent adamantly insisted upon meeting with
the Retail Clerks and the Joint Union
simultaneously whereas the Retail Clerks clearly
communicated its desire to meet separately.
Thereafter, on March 20, the Retail Clerks filed the
allegations involved in Case 20-CA-4911.
Subsequently, it appears that the Respondent sent
the Joint Union the list of job classifications it had
requested and, on April 19, 1968, the Joint Union
and the Respondent met for the second time. An
exchange of correspondence followed. The Joint
Union requested another meeting for the stated
purpose of presenting a proposed
collective-bargaining agreement to the Respondent.
Ultimately, the Respondent firmly reiterated its
position that it desired to meet jointly with the
Retail Clerks and the Joint Union. Thereupon, on
July 8, 1968, the Joint Union filed the 8(a)(5)
allegation in Case 20-CA-5088.
Correspondence between the Respondent and the
Joint Union continued after the filing of the above
allegation. Although the Respondent had indicated
its position throughout the course of its
communications with the Unions involved, the
following language, contained in a letter it sent to
the Joint Union on October 4, 1968, appears to
state its position clearly.
I (Respondent's store manager) will be most
happy to meet with representatives of the [Joint
Union] on October 22, 1968, or at some later
mutually convenient time provided that
representatives of Retail Clerks Union Local 876
are also present. [Emphasis supplied.] As the
record of the representation hearing involving this
store indicates, there is constant interchange of
employees between the salesfloor and the
luncheonette. This obviously raises problems of
job classifications, the rates of pay that will apply,
179 NLRB No. 129
F. W. WOOLWORTH COMPANY 749
the manager's right to interchange employees,
and, if union security is agreed to, to what union
or unions the affected employees are to belong....
In the representation hearing referred to above,
the Respondent unsuccessfully sought a single
storewide unit including its selling and nonselling
employees and the culinary department employees.
One of the reasons why the Respondent sought a
single storewide unit was the alleged interchange of
employees and, in fact, it sought to introduce
evidence at the hearing in this case relating to an
asserted increase in the frequency of employee
interchange in the units involved. The above-quoted
language provides explicit proof of Respondent's
refusal to meet separately with the representatives of
each of the certified units. Furthermore it suggests
that the reason for Respondent's refusal is its
continuing dissatisfaction with the Board's unit
determinations. The issue of employee interchange
was considered in the related representation
proceeding, and it is well established that, in the
absence of newly discovered or previously
unavailable evidence, a Respondent is not entitled to
relitigate in an 8(a)(5) proceeding issues which were
or could have been raised in a related representation
proceeding.3 Accordingly, to the extent that the
Respondent's refusal to bargain is based upon a
challenge of the prior representation proceeding it is
in violation of Section 8(a)(5) of the Act.4
In further attempting to justify its conduct herein,
the Respondent advances the following argument. It
appears to contend that it is not actually refusing to
bargain but, on the contrary, it is quite willing to
meet with the unions involved provided joint
meetings are agreed to. Furthermore, it contends
that, in seeking joint negotiating sessions it asks no
more than was required of the employer in the
Board's General Electric decision.'
As we have observed, the Respondent's reasons
for seeking joint negotiating sessions are basically
the same arguments it advanced in connection with
the unit determinations made in the prior related
representation proceedings. In our opinion, the
Respondent's adamant insistence upon joint
meetings constituted an attempt to do indirectly that
which it is precluded from doing directly; i.e.,
relitigating the issues raised in the related
representation proceeding in an 8(a)(5) proceeding.
To permit the Respondent to pursue such a course
of conduct with impunity would do violence to the
well-established relitigation doctrine noted above.
We find no merit in the Respondent's contention
that it is merely seeking for itself what the Board
required of the employer in General Electric, supra.
'Pittsburgh Plate Glass Company v N.L R B 313 U.S 416
'Although the Respondent did not seek review of the Regional Director's
Decision overruling its objections to the elections involved, it now claims
that these objections have not been waived Because of the attempts to
meet in joint session , Respondent , rather than denying the validity of the
certifications, has in fact acknowledged the representative status of the
Charging Unions.
'173 NLRB No. 146
That decision noted, inter alia, that subject to
certain limitations employees have --a basic right
under Section 7 of the Act to select their own
bargaining representatives and the actual members
of their own bargaining teams.6 This right of
selection belongs to the employees, and it is only the
employees or their duly designated bargaining
representatives which may seek to exercise that
right.
The Respondent has indicated its willingness to
sign separate agreements with each of the certified
union involved (providing that representatives of
both the Joint Board and the Retail Clerks appear
simultaneously at the bargaining sessions). While
Respondent contends that, because of its willingness
to sign separate agreements it is not actually
attempting to alter its employees choice of
bargaining agents, or change the scope of the
certified units, we are of the opinion that there is no
substantive distinction. Under the most generous
interpretation of its conduct herein, Respondent is
insisting upon the presence of both bargaining
representatives before it is willing to discuss the,
terms and conditions of employment for either unit.
In so doing the Respondent is infringing upon a
basic employee right guaranteed by Section 7 of the
Act. The Respondent may certainly propose that
both the Joint Union and the Retail Clerks meet
simultaneously with it. However, in essence, the
Respondent has conditioned its willingness to
bargain upon the joint presence of the Unions
involved. As this position does not directly involve
terms and conditions of employment, it is clearly
not a mandatory subject of collective bargaining
which the Respondent might, under certain
circumstances, negotiate for to the point of impasse.'
Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, we
shall adopt the Trial Examiner's findings that the
Respondent is unlawfully refusing to bargain with
each of the Charging Unions in violation of Section
8(a)(5) of the Act.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board adopts as its Order the
Recommended Order of the Trial Examiner and
hereby orders that the Respondent, F. W.
Woolworth Company, San Leandro, California, its
officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take
the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's
Recommended Order, as modified below:
Delete paragraph 2(a) of the Recommended Order
and substitute the following paragraphs 2(a) and (b)
and reletter the subsequent paragraphs:
'173 NLRB No 46
'Cf Fibreboard Paper Products Corp v N L R B, 378 U S 203, and
Wooster Division of Borg-Warner Corporation , 356 U S 342
750 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
"Upon request and without requiring the presence
of other persons, bargain with Retail Clerks Union
Local 870, Retail Clerks International Association,
AFL-CIO, as the exclusive representative of all
employees in the bargaining unit described herein
with respect to rates of pay, hours of employment,
or other conditions of employment, and embody in a
signed agreement any understanding reached. The
bargaining unit is:
All full-time and regular part-time selling and
nonselling employees employed by F. W.
Woolworth Company at 110 Mall Level, Bayfair
Shopping Center, San Leandro, California, but
excluding all Department 340 employees, seasonal
and on-call employees, professional employees,
confidential office employees, guards, manager,
assistant manager , management trainee , personnel
supervisor, the day and night sales floor
supervisor, the ready-to-wear supervisor, the office
supervisor, and all other supervisors as defined in
the Act.
"Upon request and without requiring the presence
of other persons, bargain with Culinary Workers
and Bartenders Union Local 823, Hotel and
Restaurant Employees and Bartenders International
Union, AFL-CIO, and Joint Executive Board of the
Hotel and Restaurant Employees and Bartenders
International Union of Alameda County, AFL-CIO,
as the exclusive representative of all employees in
the bargaining unit described herein with respect to
rates of pay, hours of employment, or other
conditions of employment, and embody in a signed
agreement any understanding reached. The
bargaining unit is:
All full-time and regular part-time Department
340 employees employed by F. W. Woolworth
Company at 110 Mall Level, Bayfair Shopping
Center, San Leandro, California, but excluding all
other employees, office clerical employees,
professional employees, seasonal and on-call
employees, guards, the day and night fountain
operators, the assistant fountain operator, and all
other supervisors as defined in the Act."
MEMBER JENKINS , concurring:
For the reasons set forth by the Trial Examiner, I
would affirm his decision.
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
BUCHANAN, Trial Examiner: The complaints herein
(issued June I I and September 30, 1968, and consolidated
on the latter date; charges filed March 20, and July 8 and
September 13, 1968) respectively allege that the Company
has violated Section 8(a)(5) and (I) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, 73 Stat 519, by refusal to
bargain with the Unions named in the separate complaints
as collective-bargaining representatives of the employees
in the appropriate units according to Board certifications.
The answers, as amended, deny the allegations of requests
and refusals to bargain, and challenge the validity of the
certifications.
The Board on February 4, 1969, denied the General
Counsel's motion for summary judgment and remanded
the case for trial on the limited issue "whether or not
Respondent has, in fact, refused to bargain with" the
Charging Unions; we are not here relitigating the unit
determinations or the overruled objections in the RC
proceedings.
The case was tried before me at San Francisco,
California, on April 3, 1969 Pursuant to permission
granted to all parties, briefs have been filed by the
General Counsel, the Unions, and the Company, the time
to do so having been extended. The briefs are succinct and
generally to the point, adequately presenting the
conflicting positions.'
While counsel argue for diametrically opposite
conclusions, the facts before us are not in dispute. Counsel
cooperated by entering into various stipulations and
agreements . This commendable cooperation with respect
to certain facts did not dispose of questions raised as the
Company sought to offer proof which I rejected; and it
left for decision the question whether the Company had
violated the Act as alleged. No witnesses were called
except with respect to proof offered and rejected.
Upon the entire record in the case, I make the
following:
Findings of Fact (With Reasons Therefor) and
Conclusions of Law
1. THE COMPANY S BUSINESS AND THE LABOR
ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
The facts concerning the Company 's status as a New
York corporation , the nature and extent of its business,
and its engagement in commerce within the meaning of
the Act are admitted ; I find and conclude accordingly. I
also find and conclude that , as admitted , each of the
Unions is a labor organization within the meaning of the
Act.
II. THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF SECTION 8(A)(5) AND
1)
On December 1, 1967, the Regional Director for
Region 20 certified the Retail Clerks as the exclusive
representative of all the employees in the following unit,
which he had previously found to be an appropriate unit
within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act:
All full-time and regular part-time selling and
non-selling employees employed by F. W. Woolworth
Company at 110 Mall Level, Bayfair Shopping Center,
San Leandro, California, but excluding all Department
340 employees, seasonal and on-call employees,
professional employees, confidential office employees,
guards , manager , assistant manager , management
trainee, personnel supervisor, the day and night sales
floor supervisors, the ready-to-wear supervisor, the
office supervisor, and all other supervisors as defined in
the Act.
The Regional Director at the same time certified Local
823 and the Joint Executive Board, hereinafter referred to
as the Joint Union, as the exclusive representative of all
employees in the following unit, which he had previously
found to be an appropriate unit within the meaning of
' I reject as improper and hardly worthy of counsel the statemept in the
Company's brief that it is "[plerhaps today ... not quite true " that the
General Counsel has the burden of proof.
F. W. WOOLWORTH COMPANY 751
Section 9(b) of the Act:
All full-time and regular part-time Department 340
employees employed by F W. Woolworth Company at
110 Mall Level, Bayfair Shopping Center, San
Leandro, California, but excluding all other employees,
office clerical employees, professional employees,
seasonal and on-call employees, guards, the day and
night fountain operators, the assistant fountain
operator, and all other supervisors as defined in the
Act.
The Company's contentions with respect to the
Regional Director's procedures and decisions in the
representation proceedings were there rejected by the
Board in its denial of review in May 1967. At the instant
trial no relevant matters were offered for consideration
which were not or could not have been presented in the
representation proceedings. It is neither my function nor
my right to review the Board's determinations.' Beyond
this, the remand by the Board expressly excluded matters
covered in the representation proceedings.
I find and conclude that each of the units as described
above is an appropriate unit within the meaning of
Section 9(a) of the Act, and that the respective unions
were on December I, 1967, and have been at all times
since the respective exclusive bargaining representatives,
within the meaning of Section 9(a) of the Act, of all
employees in the aforesaid units for the purposes of
collective bargaining.
On February 19, 1968, the Retail Clerks by letter
requested that the Company meet and bargain with it
The Company replied on February 26, declaring its
willingness to meet "providing" that Culinary Workers
representatives would be on hand to meet. Mirroring this
and quite consistently when the Joint Union on September
9 demanded a bargaining meeting, the Company by letter
dated October 3 declared its willingness to meet "provided
that representatives of Retail Clerks Union, Local 870,
are also present."
On the basis of the Regional Director's finding that
separate units are appropriate, the General Counsel
maintains that the Company has been obliged to meet as
requested and separately with the respective labor
organizations. The Company on the other hand maintains
that it may lawfully insist 3 (as I find that it insisted
although it denies that it did) that all three unions be
present at negotiations. If the Board in its denial of the
motion for summary judgment relied on the references, in
the Company's opposition to the motion, to
correspondence and meetings between the parties, nothing
has now been indicated in either the correspondence or the
meetings contrary to the respective positions noted above.
The Board did not have before it the details of the
correspondence. Where the general statements submitted
on the motion suggested a triable issue, we have now
determined the facts. Indeed such determination has
proved to be no complicated task. The proof with respect
to items not previously established was received in the
form of exhibits and stipulations. The communications
cited collectively and consistently manifested the
respective positions early established and declared. Nor is
the contrary indicated in an affidavit received at the trial.
As for negotiation meetings on February I and April
19, 1968, mentioned to the Board, no evidence beyond
correspondence which referred to them was offered at the
trial. One need not guess concerning such meetings.
conceivably and as suggested in the briefs, they may
themselves have included a dispute concerning joint
negotiations or some other item which might not at all
indicate a willingness to bargain as required. Whatever
impression was conveyed to the Board, we have no
evidence that the Company indicated at meetings a
readiness to meet its statutory obligation
The express provisos in the Company's letters of
February 26 and October 3 were unlawful conditions
declared to be precedent to performance of the Company's
duty pursuant to the certifications. These provisos,
demanding joint negotiations or the presence of
representatives other than those designated by the certified
bargaining agent, defied the rule against insistence on
nonmandatory provisions or on bargaining with respect to
nonmandatory provisions ° What was early declared as an
assumption by the Company that the bargaining would be
joint was continued by it for many months as a condition
to bargaining with any of the certified unions, it was
indeed insistence in the face of the Unions' objections and
refusals.
Aside from the specific limitations in the Board's
remand order, joint bargaining between other locals of
these International Unions and other stores of this
Company, of which proof was offered but rejected, might
reflect no more than willingness or desire by those other
locals and those stores to bargain jointly -- an element
which the Unions here rejected. In any event, the issue
remains of lawfulness in the instant situations: if the
Company's attitude and actions were in derogation of the
rights of the charging unions, actions elsewhere by other
locals would not here exculpate the Company
I find and conclude that since February 26, 1968,5 the
Company has refused to bargain collectively with the
Retail Clerks as the exclusive representative of the
employees in the appropriate unit described above; and
that since October 3, 1968, it has refused to bargain
collectively with the Joint Unions as the exclusive
representative of the employees in the other appropriate
unit described above.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and
conclusions of law, and upon the entire record in the case,
I recommend that the Company, F. W. Woolworth
Company, at Bayfair Shopping Center, San Leandro,
'Clearfield Cheese Company, Inc., 139 NLRB I, enfd 322 F 2d 89
(C A 3)
'The Company agreed to meet with the union or unions which
represented the employees in the respective units "provided that" their
counterpart , i e., the other unions or union, be present To maintain such a
position is to insist unlawfully , as we shall further see, on conditions
outside the scope of required bargaining What the circumstances were at
another store , where there was such joint bargaining , we do not know
(Wooster Division of Borg- Warner Corporation . 113 NLRB 1288, 1324
Nor do we know whether the unions there agreed , as they may, to joint
bargaining To ask for and obtain agreement is one thing , to condition
bargaining on it is another
'Wooster Division of Borg-Warner Corporation , 113 NLRB 1288, 1325
( 1 2 1 NLRB 1492), 236 F 2d 898 (CA 6), 356 U S 342 We need not
indulge in what has become a common redundancy with the phrase "resist
to an impasse " After agreement or concession , there is no longer any
insistence , where there is no agreement, impasse, by definition, follows
insistence The significance and effect are the same whether the terms used
"be provided that, " ` on condition ," "pressing a demand, " or "insistence "
'The respective dates of refusal are those featured by the General
Counsel and relied on at the trial The correspondence received may
support earlier dates, but none of the parties will be prejudiced , nor the
remedy affected , by reliance on the sufficient letters and dates specifically
cited
752 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
California, its officers, agents, successors , and assigns,
shall
1. Cease and desist from.
(a) Refusing to bargain collectively with Retail Clerks
Union Local 870, Retail Clerks International Association,
AFL-CIO, as the exclusive representative of all its
employees in the appropriate unit , as certified, with
respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, or
other conditions of employment
(b) Refusing to bargain collectively with Culinary
Workers and Bartenders Union Local 823, Hotel and
Restaurant Employees and Bartenders International
Union, AFL-CIO, and Joint Executive Board of the Hotel
and Restaurant Employees and Bartenders International
Union of Alameda County, AFL-CIO, as the exclusive
representative of all its employees in the appropriate unit
(Department 340 employees), as certified , with respect to
rates of pay , wages, hours of employment, or other
conditions of employment.
(c) In any like or related manner interfering with,
restraining , or coercing its employees in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which is
necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Upon request, bargain collectively with each of the
representative unions, as certified, as the exclusive
representative of the employees in the respective
appropriate units, and embody in signed agreements any
understanding reached.
(b) Post at its place of business at Bayfair Shopping
Center, San Leandro, California, copies of the attached
notice marked "Appendix."6 Copies of said notice, on
forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 20,
shall be posted by the Company, after being duly signed
by its representative, immediately upon receipt thereof,
and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter,
in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to
its employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps
shall be taken by the Company to insure that said notices
are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 20, in
writing, within 20 days from the receipt of this Decision,
what steps have been taken to comply herewith.'
'In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board, the
words "a Decision and Order" shall be substituted for the words "the
Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner" in the notice In the further
event that the Board ' s Order is enforced by a decree of a United States
Court of Appeals , the words "a Decree of the United States Court of
Appeals Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the words "a
Decision and Order "
'In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board,
this provision shall be modified to read : "Notify the Regional Director for
Region 20. in writing , within 10 days from the date of this Order, what
steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith "
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial
Examiner of the National Labor Relations Board and in
order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, we hereby notify our
employees that:
WE WILL, without requiring the presence of other
persons, bargain, upon request, with Retail Clerks
Union Local 870, Retail Clerks International
Association, AFL-CIO, as the exclusive representative
of all employees in the bargaining unit described herein
with respect to rates of pay, hours of employment, or
other conditions of employment, and embody in a
signed agreement any understanding reached. The
bargaining unit is.
All full-time and regular part-time selling and
non-selling employees employed by F W. Woolworth
Company at 110 Mall Level, Bayfair Shopping
Center, San Leandro, California, but excluding all
Department 340 employees, seasonal and on-call
employees, professional employees, confidential
office employees, guards, manager, assistant
manager, management trainee , personnel supervisor,
the day and night sales floor supervisor, the
ready-to-wear supervisor, the office supervisor, and
all other supervisors as defined in the Act.
WE WILL, without requiring the presence of other
persons, bargain, upon request, with Culinary Workers
and Bartenders Union Local 823, Hotel and Restaurant
Employees and Bartenders International Union,
AFL-CIO, and Joint Executive Board of the Hotel and
Restaurant Employees and Bartenders International
Union of Alameda County, AFL-CIO, as the exclusive
representative of all employees in the bargaining unit
described herein with respect to rates of pay, hours of
employment, or other conditions of employment, and
embody in a signed agreement any understanding
reached. The bargaining unit is:
All full-time and regular part-time Department 340
employees employed by F. W. Woolworth Company at
110 Mall Level, Bayfair Shopping Center, San Leandro,
California, but excluding all other employees, office
clerical employees, professional employees, seasonal and
on-call employees, guards, the day and night fountain
operators, the assistant fountain operator, and all other
supervisors as defined in the Act
F. W. WOOLWORTH
COMPANY
(Employer)
Dated By
(Representative) (Title)
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
if employees have any question concerning this notice
or compliance with its provisions, they may communicate
directly with the Board's Regional Office, 13050 Federal
Building, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, Box 36047, San
Francisco, California 94102, Telephone 415-556-3197.