Jackson Farmers, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 31, 1970

186 N.L.R.B. 337 (N.L.R.B. 1970)

JACKSON FARMERS, INC.
Jackson Farmers , Inc. (Formerly known as Farmers
Union Co-Operative Business Association) and
American Federation of Grain Millers, AFL-CIO.
Case 17-CA-4078-2
October 31, 1970
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS FANNING, BROWN, AND JENKINS
On May 6, 1970, Trial Examiner John M. Dyer
issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding,
finding that Respondent had engaged in and was
engaging in certain unfair labor practices alleged in
the complaint 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
Decision and a supporting brief, and the Charging
Party filed cross-exceptions to the Decision 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
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 this case, and hereby adopts the
findings, conclusions, and recommendations i of the
Trial Examiner.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board adopts as its Order the Recommend-
ed Order of the Trial Examiner, and hereby orders
that the Respondent, Jackson Farmers, Inc. (formerly
known as Farmers Union Co-Operative Business
Association), Holton, Kansas, its officers, agents,
successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth
in the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order.
1 The Charging Party has excepted to the failure of the Trial Examiner
to recommend a remedy which would make it whole for the amount of
money it has lost in fees , dues, and legal expenses as a result of
Respondent's refusals to bargain We deem it inappropriate in this case to
depart from existing policy with respect to remedial orders in cases
involving 8(a)(5) violations and therefore find no merit in said exception
See Monroe Auto Equipment Company, 164 NLRB 1051
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
337
JOHN M. DYER, Trial Examiner: On September 17, 1969,1
the American Federation of Grain Millers, AFL-CIO,
herein called the Union, filed the charge in this case
alleging that Jackson Farmers, Inc., formerly known as
Farmers Union Co-operative Business Association, and
herein called Respondent, or the Company, violated
Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act by abolishing a unit
position and terminating the employment of Jacob Schuetz.
On November 25, the Regional Director issued a complaint
alleging that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) by
unilaterally and without notice or an opportunity for
bargaining and in derrogation of the Union's rights
abolishing a unit position and subcontracting such unit
work after giving Jacob Schuetz notice, on July 21, that he
would be discharged on September 1. Respondent's duty to
bargain with the Union is premised on the fact that the
Union, in Case 17-RC-5851, was chosen as the majority
representative of an appropriate unit of Respondent's
employees in an election held December 31, 1968, and
thereafter on January 15 certified by the Regional Director
as the collective-bargaining representative for the following
unit:
All production and maintenance employees of the
Respondent at its Holton , Denison , Mayetta, and
Valley Falls, Kansas, locations , including service
station employees , tankmen , truck drivers , mechanics,
regular part-time employees, and regular seasonal
employees , but excluding office clerical employees,
temporary employees and professional employees,
guards, and supervisors within the meaning of the Act.
Respondent filed an answer on December 3, admitting
the filing and service of the charge , the facts of, and
conclusions drawn from , the commerce data, the status of
the Union , and the appropriateness of the unit . Respondent
denied the validity of the election and the certification and
that it had subcontracted unit work or discharged Schuetz
without bargaining , or providing an opportunity for such.
At the hearing of this matter on January 20 , 1970, in
Holton, Kansas, Respondent amended its answer and
admitted that on or about August 15, it unilaterally and
without notification to the Union contracted out the
hauling of feed and supplies and that such contract took
effect on September 1. It further admitted that such work
had been performed by Schuetz whom it discharged on
September 1. In essence Respondent admitted the facts
premised as violative in this complaint but dented that it
violated the Act standing on its position that the Union was
not properly elected and certified as the collective -bargain-
ing agent and that it has no duty to bargain with the Union.
Respondent 's defense here is essentially its position and
defense which the Board rejected in 178 NLRB No. 56.
That case is a straight refusal to meet and bargain with the
Union following its certification in Case 17 -RC-5851 and
in a companion case for another unit . As to the instant unit,
I Unless otherwise stated the events herein took place during 1969.
186 NLRB No. 53
338 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Respondent's position was that the unit contains seasonal
employees and that the election should be delayed until
employment was at its peak. The Regional Director
rejected that contention and the election was held as noted
above and the Union certified. After Respondent refused to
meet and bargain charges were filed, a complaint issued,
and the matter went to Trial Examiner Schneider on a
Motion for Summary Judgment which he granted. The
Board affirmed his findings of 8(a)(5) and (1) violations and
the matter is presently before the Tenth Circuit Court of
Appeals for review and enforcement.
In addition to the validity of the election and certification
Respondent presents two other contentions: (1) that it was
economically motivated in subcontracting the work done
by Schuetz and discharging him and should not have to
reinstate him, and (2) that it offered Schuetz a substantially
equivalent job which he refused. In addition to these
questions the Union raised an issue as to proper remedy
and requested particular remedial action.
On the entire record in this case including my evaluation
of the reliability of the witnesses based on the evidence
received and my observation of their demeanor, I make the
following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT AND THE
LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Respondent is a Kansas corporation which operates grain
elevators, a feed mill, petroleum bulk plant and service
stations, a fertilizer plant, and a store at various locations in
Kansas with its principal location and place of business at
Holton. Respondent annually sells and distributes products
valued in excess of $500,000 and annually receives goods
valued in excess of $50,000 directly from points outside of
the State of Kansas.
Respondent admits and I find that it is engaged in
commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the
Act.
Respondent admits and I find that the Union is a labor
organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
II. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Background, Undisputed Facts, and Resolutions
As noted above Respondent admits the facts on which
the complaint is based but denies that it has violated the
Act asserting the invalidity of the underlying certification
which it is testing in another case presently before the
Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals.
As the matter is presently constituted, I have no
alternative but to accept the Board's decision in 178 NLRB
No. 56 that the certification in Case 17-RC-5851 is valid
and that Respondent has violated Section 8(a)(5) of the Act
by refusing to bargain with the Union herein for that unit of
employees. With that as the foundation it follows that
Respondent, by unilaterally and without bargaining with,
or giving notice to the Union, terminating a unit position,
discharging the incumbent of that position, and subcon-
tracting that unit work to an independent contractor, has
again violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act, even
though Respondent's actions are arguably economically
motivated.
The principal question then becomes whether I should
order that job reinstituted and Schuetz reemployed.
Respondent contends that its action was economically
motivated and that no such order should be granted, or if
granted, that I should find that Schuetz, by declining what
it terms a substantially similar job, has forfeited any right to
reinstatement at Respondent.
In support of Respondent's arguments , its general
manager, Charles Robert Kinast, testified that just before
he became general manager on November 1, 1968, an audit
was made of Respondent' s business and showed that
Respondent was losing approximately $52,000 for the fiscal
year which ended the following July 1. Kinast's job was to
reduce the losses . He first revised the bookkeeping
procedures to update them and to pinpoint operations so
they could be scrutinized. The system was changed around
June 1. He also made some equipment changes which
helped to reduce the amount of part-time help needed. He
testified that in the spring of 1969, he checked into the
trucking operations and using 2 or 3 weeks' figures for the
1968 International truck used by Schuetz to bring goods
from Kansas City and to haul grain and feed, and
comparing that information against a rough figure given
him by someone as to the cost for hauling, he came to the
conclusion that it would be simpler and cheaper to contract
out the work done by Schuetz. Thereafter Kinast contacted
various companies and came to an agreement with Reaser
Trucking Company to provide the services. Reaser is an
individual proprietorship whose principal operation was
hauling cattle to the markets in Kansas City and other
places. This contract provided Reaser with a cargo on the
return trip.
Respondent offered in evidence its Exhibit 2, which it
testified was a summary of the tonnage hauled by Schuetz
from January 1 through August 31 and included Schuetz'
salary, the amounts paid toward his social security,
retirement benefits, and company life insurance , operation-
al truck expenses plus licenses and taxes, depreciation on
the truck and grain bed, etc. This exhibit was prepared just
prior to the hearing of this case and for use in this hearing,
although Kinast at first denied that was its purpose.
Respondent said that after Schuetz was discharged it sold
for salvage an old truck which theretofore had been used
occasionally and kept and thereafter occasionally used the
1968 International, and a 1962 GMC truck, both of which
had a 7-ton capacity.
Respondent's Exhibit 3 is the contract between Respon-
dent and Reaser Trucking dated August 15, 1969, effective
from September 1 of that year for a 1-year period. It is
terminable on 30 days' notice by either party. The contract
provides an "approved" rate of $4 per ton to and from St.
Joseph and $5 a ton to and from Kansas City. According to
the testimony the word "approved" means rates approved
by the Interstate Commerce Commission.
In testifying about its (later rejected) Exhibit 4, which was
a compilation of the amounts of goods hauled and
payments made to Reaser Trucking for the 4-month period
of September 1 to December 31, Kinast said the document
showed only one instance of Reaser's hauling items
JACKSON FARMERS, INC. 339
between Respondent's facilities. This movement could have
occurred over several days but was covered by only one bill
and amounted to about 7 percent of the total volume that
Reaser hauled. Kinast, without citing any figures, said the
amount was only about 10 percent less than what Schuetz
would have hauled between facilities. Kinast admitted that
Respondent had others (apparently part-time help) haul
goods between its facilities.
In completing Respondent's financial picture, it was
stipulated that the auditor's report showed that Respondent
lost $58,346.88 for the fiscal year which ended on June 30.
This means that Kinast apparently was able to effect
economies in the 8 months he was general manager so that
only some $6,000 more debt was accumulated over the
amount facing him when he took over Respondent's
operations.
To Respondent's economic justification arguments,
General Counsel and the Union argued that Respondent
had not considered all the factors in weighing the
economics of Schuetz' job. As examples it was pointed out
that in establishing its ex post facto justification, Respon-
dent did not consider the value of Schuetz' services when he
worked at the various facilities in addition to his
truckdriving duties; Respondent included the costs of
licenses, taxes, and depreciation on the 1968 International
truck in figuring the expenses for Schuetz but did not
include or weigh those amounts which are still current
expenses while the same truck is used on a part-time basis,
and in truth still constitutes a company expense which
could be figured in derogation of the Reaser contract for
comparison figures. To Respondent's claim that it would
have to purchase a third truck to replace the one it junked,
General Counsel's response is that the 1968 and the 1962
trucks, according to Respondent's testimony, are only used
part time and the use may aggregate less than 50 percent
use for one truck. If Respondent's testimony is true, then
the 1968 truck could be used full time and the 1962 truck
could handle all of the part-time work and still not be fully
utilized so that the purchase of a third truck would appear
unwarranted. Further, Respondent is still using part-time
employees to haul goods between facilities and at least a
part of that work (10 percent of the total according to
Respondent's estimates) was work formerly performed by
Schuetz, which is not accounted for or considered by
Respondent in its post mortem cost justification.
Respondent has presented a one-sided picture in
attempting to justify its actions in terminating Schuetz and
contracting with Reaser Trucking . Its claims , from the
arguments and points raised by General Counsel and the
Union, seem overstated and not balanced.
But the problem here is that Respondent by its unilateral
action kept the Union from raising these points and
arguments in a bargaining session and frustrated any
attempt to come to some understanding and agreement and
perhaps save this work and Schuetz' job. In a reasoned
discussion other factors might have emerged and another or
other solutions might have been achieved. But these
possibilities have been forestalled by Respondent's refusal
to bargain with the Union over this or any other matter.
Considering all these factors, it does not appear that
Respondent would be put to any serious disadvantage if the
driving work were restored to the unit and Schuetz
reinstated. The contract between Reaser and Respondent is
terminable on 30 days' notice. Respondent still has the 1968
truck which is now only in part-time use , and from
Respondent's own testimony it would not appear necessary
for Respondent to purchase any other equipment to
reinstitute this service since the 1962 truck would still be
available for part-time use.
It seems apparent that the proper course is to restore the
status quo by ordering reinstitution of the unit driving work
and the reinstatement of Schuetz for that job so that the
parties can then proceed to bargain in good faith about this
matter and come to a reasoned determination.
Respondent would resist the reinstatement of Schuetz
saying that it offered him a substantially similar job which
he refused. Apparently by "substantially similar" Respon-
dent refers only to pay rate since the job it offered Schuetz
was working in a feed mill at another location. The
evidence showed that Schuetz originally took inside work
with Respondent only on the promise that he would be
made a truckdriver. He was a truckdriver for over 10 years
with Respondent, maintaining his home near St. Louis,
Missouri. One of the side benefits, both to Respondent and
Schuetz, was that Schuetz took his truck home and then was
ready to pick up materials early in St. Louis and haul them
to Respondent's Kansas facilities. Schuetz testified he also
has "hay-fever" which would preclude his working in a feed
mill and he was sure General Manager Kinast was aware of
this condition.
The Board provides for reinstatement to a "substantially
similar" position only if the original job has been
eliminated. Since I have found above that the termination
of Schuetz and the elimination of his job was the result of
Respondent's unfair labor practice in not bargaining about
the matter, there is no reason for Schuetz to accept or to
have accepted a "substantially similar" position which was
in fact not "substantially similar." I will therefore order that
the unit work be reinstituted and that Schuetz be offered
employment at his position as a truckdnver.
B. The Union's Further Remedial Claims
The Union requests that it be made whole for the lost
dues and initiation fees which have not accrued to it since
there is no contract between the Union and Respondent
owing to Respondent's refusal to meet and bargain with it.
This request is based on the Union's position that it had
informed the employees that it would not make any such
charges until there was a contract between the parties. The
Union also claims that it incurred unnecessary expenses in
having its counsel prepare for and come to the hearing in
this matter and that such hearing was really unnecessary
after Respondent amended its answer and in effect
admitted the complaint allegations . The Union attributes
much of Respondent's conduct, including its conduct in
this case, to a plan or desire to weaken the Union by
causing it to expend sums of money which are not being
recouped from proper sources, which in this case would be
the members being serviced at Respondent. The Union
states that if Respondent had bargained from the inception
of its duty to do so, as it is now being required to bargain,
the Union would have been in a position where it was
340 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
collecting dues and initiation fees and would not have been
put to the expense of counsel fees, travel expenses, etc., for
the prosecution of either the first or the second case and
that by its unfair labor practices Respondent has caused
specific losses to the Union.
Contentions regarding lost dues and initiation fees and
for reimbursement of legal expenses in 8(a)(5) situations
have been made in a number of cases presently pending
before the Board, without resolution by it on these matters
as of this time . Since these requests involve "policy making"
by the Board, I feel it is proper to pass these requests on to
the Board for its considered decision.
III. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
UPON COMMERCE
The activities of Respondent set forth in section II,
above, and therein found to constitute unfair labor
practices in violation of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act,
occurring in connection with Respondent's business
operations as set forth 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 burdening and obstructing commerce and
the free flow of commerce.
IV. THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent engaged in the unfair
labor practices set forth above, I recommend that it cease
and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action
designed to effectuate the policies of the Act as follows:
Respondent, since on or about July 21, 1969, has at all
times since then refused, and still refuses, to bargain with
the Union in good faith as the representative of its
employees in an appropriate unit, in regard to Respon-
dent's decision to discontinue certain unit work, subcon-
tract it, and discharge the employee who was then
performing such work.2 I therefore recommend that
Respondent terminate its contract with Reaser Trucking
Company, Inc., reinstitute the unit trucking work formerly
done by Jacob Schuetz, and reemploy Jacob Schuetz to
perform such work. If Respondent still wishes to explore
the economics of the situation with a view to terminating
this unit work, Respondent will then enter into collective
bargaining in good faith with the Union in regard thereto. I
further recommend that Respondent reinstate Jacob
Schuetz to his former position as a truckdriver with all
seniority and other rights and privileges due him and make
him whole for any loss of pay he has suffered by reason of
Respondent's discharge of him on September 1, 1969, until
the date of reinstatement, less any net interim earnings.
Backpay is to be computed on a quarterly basis in the
manner established by the Board in F. W. Woolworth
Company, 90 NLRB 289, with interest at the rate of 6
percent per annum to be computed in the manner set forth
in Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716. I further
2 The conclusions in this case and the remedy for the unfair labor
practices found herein are not in derogation of the conclusion that
Respondent refused to bargain and the remedies therefor in the prior
Board case 178 NLRB No. 56, but rather are in addition to the remedies
and conclusions therein.
3 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Section 102.46 of
recommend that Respondent make available to the Board,
upon request, payroll and other records in order to
facilitate checking the amounts of backpay due and the
rights of Jacob Schuetz.
Having found that Respondent has refused to bargain
with the Union in regard to its employees' jobs and other
work-related terms and understanding that Respondent is
in the position now of attempting to modernize its
operations, I am concerned that Respondent may violate
some of its employees' rights by not bargaining with the
Union in regard to any work changes or eliminations it may
wish to make. I therefore recommend that Respondent be
enjoined from acting in the same or a similar manner to its
actions in this case.
On the basis of the foregoing findings and the entire
record, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Jackson Farmers, Inc. (formerly known as Farmers
Union Co-operative Business Association), is an employer
engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6)
and (7) of the Act.
2. American Federation of Grain Millers, AFL-CIO, is
a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of
the Act.
3. All production and maintenance employees of the
Respondent at its Holton, Denison, Mayetta, and Valley
Falls, Kansas, locations, including service station employ-
ees, tankmen , truckdrivers, mechanics , regular part-time
employees, and regular seasonal employees, but excluding
office clerical employees, temporary employees, and
professional employees, guards, and supervisors within the
meaning of the Act, constitute a unit appropriate for the
purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of
Section 9(b) of the Act.
4. At all times since January 15, 1969, and particularly
on and since July 21, 1969, the Union has been, and is now,
the exclusive representative of the employees in the said
unit for the purposes of collective bargaining within the
meaning of Section 9(a) of the Act.
5. Respondent by refusing to bargain in good faith with
the Union, which is the exclusive representative of its
employees in the appropriate unit stated above, in regard to
discontinuing unit work, subcontracting it, and discharging
an employee on and after July 21, 1969, has engaged in and
is engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce
within the meaning of Sections 8(aX5) and (1) and 2(6) and
(7) of the Act.
RECOMMENDED ORDERS
On the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and
conclusions of law, and upon the entire record in this case
considered as a whole, it is recommended that Jackson
Farmers, Inc. (formerly known as Farmers Union Co-
the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the
findings, conclusions , recommendations, and Recommended Order herein
shall, as provided in Section 102.48 of the Rules and Regulations, be
adopted by the Board and become its findings , conclusions , and order, and
all objections thereto shall be deemed waived for all purposes.
JACKSON FARMERS, INC. 341
operative Business Association), of Holton, Kansas, its
officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Refusing to bargain collectively in good faith
concerning unit work and the working conditions of unit
employees, rates of pay, hours of employment, and other
terms and conditions of employment, with American
Federation of Grain Millers, AFL-CIO, as the exclusive
representative of the employees in the appropriate unit
described in the section above entitled Conclusions of Law.
(b) Discontinuing unit work, subcontracting it, and
discharging or laying off unit employees without bargaining
or offering to bargain concerning these matters with
American Federation of Grain Millers, AFL-CIO.
2. Take the following affirmative action which is
necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Upon request bargain collectively in good faith with
the above-named Union as the exclusive representative of
all employees in the appropriate unit concerning employ-
ees' working conditions, unit work, or any Respondent
desires or plans to change or eliminate unit work.
(b) Offer Jacob Schuetz reinstatement in accordance with
the recommendations set forth in the section of this
decision entitled "The Remedy."
(c) Make Jacob Schuetz whole for any loss of pay he may
have suffered by reason of Respondent's refusal to bargain
concerning his job, in accordance with the recommenda-
tion set forth in the section of this decision entitled "The
Remedy."
(d) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the
Board or its agents, for examination and copying, all
payroll records, social security payment records, timecards,
personnel records and reports and all other records
necessary to analyze the amount of backpay due Jacob
Schuetz as set forth in the section of this decision entitled
"The Remedy."
(e) Post at Holton, Kansas, and its other facilities and
plants, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix." 4
Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional
Director for Region 17, after being duly signed by
Respondent's representative, shall be posted by Respon-
dent immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained
by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous
places, including all places where notices to employees are
customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by
Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered,
defaced, or covered by any other material.
(f) Notify the Regional Director for Region 17, in writing,
within 20 days from the receipt of this Decision, what steps
have been taken to comply herewith.5
4 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 "
5 In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board,
this provision shall be modified to read "Notify said Regional Director, in
writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps Respondent
has taken to comply herewith "
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
After a trial in which the Company, the Union, and the
General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board
participated and offered evidence, the National Labor
Relations Board has found that we violated the law and has
ordered us to post this notice and we intend to carry out the
order of the Board and abide by the following:
WE WILL reinstate Jacob Schuetz to his position as
truckdriver and reinstitute the trucking operation which
he formerly served and WE WILL make him whole for
any loss of pay which he suffered as a result of our
decision to discontinue that work.
WE WILL bargain collectively in good faith upon
request with the American Federation of Grain Millers,
AFL-CIO, as the exclusive representative of all
employees in the bargaining unit described below, with
respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment,
and other terms and conditions of employment,
including any desires we have to change unit work, and,
if an understanding is reached, we will sign a contract
containing such understanding. The bargaining unit is:
All production and maintenance employees at our
Holton, Denison, Mayetta, and Valley Falls,
Kansas, locations, including service station em-
ployees, tankmen, truck drivers, mechanics,
regular part-time employees, and regular seasonal
employees, but excluding office clerical employ-
ees, temporary employees and professional em-
ployees, guards and supervisors within the
meaning of the Act.
All our employees are free to become or remain union
members.
JACKSON FARMERS, INC.
(Employer)
Dated By
(Representative) (Title)
This is an official notice and must not be defaced by
anyone.
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days
from the date of posting and must not be altered, defaced,
or covered by any other material.
Any questions concerning this notice or compliance with
its provisions may be directed to the Board's Office, 610
Federal Building, 601 E. 12th Street, Kansas City, Missouri
64106, Telephone 816-374-5181.