Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 31, 1970

187 N.L.R.B. 661 (N.L.R.B. 1970)

KAISER AGRICULTURAL CHEMICALS 661
Kaiser Agricultural Chemicals, a Division of Kaiser
Aluminum & Chemical Corporation and Interna-
tional Brotherhood of Firemen & Oilers , AFIs-CIO
Kaiser Agricultural Chemicals , a Division of Kaiser
Aluminum & Chemical Corporation and Interna-
tional Brotherhood of Firemen & Oilers,
AFL-CIO, Petitioner . Cases 10-CA-8026,
I0-CA-8153, and 10-RC-8013
December 31, 1970
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS FANNING, BROWN, AND JENKINS
On July 1, 1970, Trial Examiner Joseph L Nachman
issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding,
finding that the Respondent had engaged in and was
engaging in certain of the unfair labor practices
alleged in the complaint in Case l0-CA-8026, and
recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and
take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the
attached Trial Examiner's Decision. The Trial Exam-
iner further recommended that the election in Case
10-RC-8013 be set aside and that it be dismissed in its
entirety. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions
to the Trial Examiner's 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 these cases 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 supporting
briefs, and the entire record in these cases, and hereby
adopts the findings,' conclusions, and recommenda-
tions of the Trial Examiner.2
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, Kaiser Agricultural Chemicals, a
Division of Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Corpora-
tions, Bainbridge, Georgia, its officers, agents, succes-
sors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the
Trial Examiner's Recommended Order.3
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the election in Case
10-RC-8013 herein be, and it hereby is, dismissed in
its entirety.
These findings are based , in part, upon credibility determinations of
the Trial Examiner to which the Respondent has excepted After careful
review of the record, we conclude that these credibility findings are not
contrary to the clear preponderance of all the relevant evidence.
Accordingly, we find no basis for disturbing these findings Standard Dry
Wall Products, inc, 91 NLRB 544, enfd 188 F 2d 363 (C A 3).
2 We correct the following inadvertent errors in the Trial Examiner's
Decision , which in no wise affect our disposition of the instant proceeding
(I) his statement that the Respondent opposed the issuance of any remedial
order , whereas the Respondent would accept an order covering its
conceded violations , (2) his misspelling of employee Clemmons' first name,
which should read "Lucious"; (3) his inadvertent reference to the Union's
meeting of April 24, instead of October 24, the correct date , (4) his
establishment of October 25, rather than October 24, as the date of
Whidden's conversation with Harris and Neal , (5) his attributing the
ownership of a car to Harris and a house to Neal, instead of vice versa, (6)
his finding that employee Poitivent sought out Production and
Superintendent Smith, rather than Maintenance Supervisor Phillips, (7) his
finding that Respondent threatened employees specifically with
discontinuance of their use of the Coca-Cola machine, when they were not
occupied with work, if the Union came in, and (8) his statement that the
incidents referred to in paragraphs 4 through 10 of section C, 1, of his
Decision, rather than the Nichols incident referred to in paragraph 4 and
the incidents referred to in paragraphs 6 through 9 (there being no
paragraph 10), all occurred between the date of the representation petition
and the date of the election
Finally, we amend the first paragraph of Section 2 of the Trial
Examiner 's Decision by deleting therefrom the words "calculated to,"
where they twice appear , and by substituting therefor the words "which
tended to ," See N L R B v Gissel Packing Co, 395 U S 614
" in footnote 35 of the Trial Examiner' s Decision , substitute "20" for
"t0" days
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
and
REPORT ON OBJECTIONS
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
JOSEPH I. NACHMAN, Trial Examiner: This matter tried
before me at Bainbridge, Georgia, between March 31 and
April 2, 1970, with all parties present and represented,
involves consolidated complaints' pursuant to Section
10(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended
(herein the Act), alleging that Kaiser Agricultural Chemi-
cals, a Division of Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical
Corporation (herein Respondent or Company), at its
Bainbridge, Georgia plant, interfered with, restrained, and
coerced employees then the subject of an organizational
campaign, in the exercise of rights guaranteed by Section 7
of the Act, and refused to bargain collectively with
International Brotherhood of Firemen & Oilers, AFL-CIO
(herein Union), the designated collective -bargaining repre-
sentative of the employees involved in an appropriate unit.
By answer as amended at the trial , Respondent admitted
certain allegations of the complaints, including an allega-
tion that a supervisor had engaged in surveillance of a
union meeting, but urged that under the circumstances of
this case, no remedial order should issue. Consolidated for
trial with the aforementioned unfair labor practice
complaints are objections filed by the Union to conduct
i In Case IO-CA-8026, the complaint issued December 15, 1969, on a
charge and amended charge filed November 4 and December 1, 1969,
respectively in Case lO-CA-8153, the complaint issued February 20, 1970,
on a charge and amended charge filed February 3 and February 16, 1970.
The last mentioned complaint consolidated the cases for hearing
187 NLRB No. 95
662 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
affecting the results of an election conducted among I The events of October 24-26
Respondent's employees on January 6 and 7, 1970 2 For
reasons hereafter stated, I find and conclude that the
evidence sustains the material allegations of the complaints,
and that a remedial order, which will include a requirement
that Respondent recognize and bargain with the Union, is
appropriate As hereafter more fully detailed, I shall in
accordance with applicable Board precedent, recommend
that the election held on January 6 and 7, 1970, be set aside,
and all proceedings in the representation case be vacated
and the petition therein dismissed
At the trial the parties were afforded full opportunity to
adduce relevant evidence, to examine and cross-examine
witnesses , to argue orally on the record, and to submit
briefs Oral argument was waived Briefs submitted by the
General Counsel and Respondent have been duly consid-
ered
Upon the pleadings, stipulations of counsel,3 the
evidence including my observation of the demeanor of the
witnesses while testifying, and upon consideration of the
briefs of counsel, and the entire record in the case, I make
the following
FINDINGS OF FACTO
I THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES ALLEGED
A Interference, Restraint, and Coercion
Respondent maintains a plant at Bainbridge, Georgia,
where it is engaged in the manufacture and sale of granular
fertilizer and other agricultural chemicals Prior to the
events hereafter referred to, the employees at the Bain-
bridge plant were unorganized On or about September 18,5
Union Agents Bartlett and Cochran who are headquartered
in Atlanta, made their first trip to Bainbridge with a view to
organize Respondent's employees Following several other
trips, a meeting of the employees was arranged for the early
evening of October 24, to be held at the Holiday Inn in
Bainbridge That Respondent was aware of the planned
Union meeting is admitted 6
2 The pertinent events in the representation proceeding are as follows
October 27 1969 Representation petition filed by Union
December 5 1969 Decision and Direction of Election
January 6 & 7 1970 Election conducted Tally of ballots disclosed
that of approximately 57 eligible voters 12 votes were cast for and 25
against the Union and that 20 ballots were challenged
January 13 1970 Union filed and served objections specifying 6
incidents allegedly affecting the results of the election
February 12 1970 Supplemental Decision and Direction of Second
election Director sustained the 20 challenges overruled objections 3
and 6 sustained 4, and found it unnecessary to pass on objections 1 2
and 5 Election set aside and new election ordered
February 24 1970 Respondent forwards to Board its Request for
Review of Director s Supplemental Decision
March 6 1970 Request for Review granted Board ordered Director
to pass on objections 1 2 and 5 consolidating them with U L P case if
necessary Ruling on objection 4 held in abeyance with ruling thereon
to be made only if necessary after objections I 2 and 5 have been
disposed of
March 10 1970 Objections 1 2 and 5 consolidated for hearing with
unfair labor practice cases
3 Following the close of the record herein I received a stipulation dated
April 22 1970 executed by counsel for the General Counsel and counsel
for Respondent but not by the Charging Party Because I regard the facts
stated in the stipulation to be irrelevant and immaterial to the alleged
On October 24, the Union held its meeting at the Holiday
Inn, with a substantial number of Respondent 's employees
in attendance, 27 of them signing authorization cards for
the Union 7 Union Agents Bartlett and Cochran told those
in attendance that by signing the cards the employees were
authorizing the Union to represent them in all matters of
wages , hours, and other conditions of employment, that
once a majority of the employees signed cards the Union
would be their bargaining agent , that the Union would then
seek recognition from the Employer, and if such was not
granted the Union would file a representation petition with
the Board The employees were also told that while an
election could be obtained if as many as 30 percent of the
employees indicated support of the Union, the latter as a
matter of policy would require a showing of 70-80 percent
support before it would proceed, that if the Employer acted
in good faith the Union would proceed to an election, but
that if it acted in bad faith and indicated an effort to
destroy the Union's majority, the Union would seek to
establish bargaining rights through a refusal -to-bargain
charge
Respondent, by amendment of its answer at the trial
admitted that while the union meeting at Holiday Inn was
in progress on October 24, R L Whidden, an admitted
supervisor, "drove into the Holiday Inn parking lot for the
purpose of determining the number and identity of
employees of Respondent who were attending [the] Union
meeting " On October 25 or 26, Plant Manager Montee
admittedly learned of Whidden's activity at the Holiday
Inn and told the latter that what he had done was a
violation of law, and must not be repeated There is no
evidence, however, that Respondent made known to
employees that Whidden's conduct had not been author-
ized, nor where appropriate steps taken to assure employees
that Whidden's conduct would not be repeated
At midnight following the Union's October 24 meeting, a
number of employees reported for work on the shift starting
at that time Among these was Donald Corley During this
shift, Loren Johnson, an admitted supervisor, approached
8(a)(5) violations with which it deals I reject the same for reasons stated in
that part of this Decision which deals with the Section 8(a)(5) allegations
The stipulation has however been marked Rejected and is by this
reference made a part of the rejected exhibit file
+ No issue of commerce or labor organization is presented The
complaint alleges and the answer admits facts which establish these
jurisdictional elements I find those facts to be as pleaded
5 This and all dates hereafter mentioned are 1969 unless otherwise
indicated
6 Plant Manager Montee testified that during the afternoon of October
24 while at another of Respondents plants in Dothan Alabama he
received a telephone call from F D Smith his production superintendent
and an admitted supervisor within the meaning of the Act who stated that
there was to be a union meeting at the Holiday Inn that evening Montee
gave Smith no instructions but stated that he would be back in Bainbridge
as soon as possible How or when Smith learned of the impending union
meeting the record does not show
r The cards recite that the signing employee authorizes the Union to
represent me and in my behalf to negotiate and conclude all Agreements
as to hours of labor wages and other employment conditions I further
authorize [the Union] in accordance with the provisions of the Federal
Labor Management Relations Act to include in any contract a union
security clause The validity of these cards as authorizations to the Union
is hereafter considered
KAISER AGRICULTURAL CHEMICALS 663
Corley while the latter was at work. Johnson asked Corley
what his car was doing at the Holiday Inn that night. Corley
at first denied that his car was there. Johnson then stated,
"Oh, come on, I know it was out there." Corley then
replied, "We were having a little meeting," and asked,
"How did you know about it?" Johnson replied that he had
known about it for some times
Also on October 25, Johnson approached employee Gary
Nichols, while the latter was at work, and asked if Nichols
"had attended the meeting." Nichols asked what Johnson
was referring to, and the latter replied, "The meeting you
had at the Holiday Inn." Nichols then admitted that he had
attended the union meeting, and asked Johnson how he
knew about it. Johnson merely replied that he knew .9
Also on the day following the union meeting of October
24, employees Isaiah Harris and Chester Neal were
approached at their work station by Supervisor Whidden,
who first asked Neal what he thought of the Union. Neal
responded that he thought the Union would be a good
thing. Whidden admittedly then told Neal and Harris that
if the Union came in and asked for increased wages, a strike
would follow which the Company was prepared to take,
which would put striking employees out of work, and
commented that while Harris and Neal would be out
carrying picket signs, he (Whidden) would be working.
Whidden then commented that Neal had just bought a new
home, and asked how he would make the payments on it if
he were out of work for several months, and asked Harris
how he would make payments on his car. Neal replied that
the matter had been considered and that they thought the
necessary arrangements could be made.io
On the night shift following the union meeting on
October 24, employee Wayne Mercer, while at work in the
granulation plant, had a conversation with J. B. Swicord, an
admitted supervisor. It appears that Mercer and Swicord
live near each other, with their families and have frequent
social contacts. Mercer and Swicord had made arrange-
ments to meet on October 24. During that day Mercer
notified Swicord that he had other business to attend to and
would be unable to meet as previously agreed, but did not
indicate the nature of the business that he would attend to.
When the two met in the plant after the beginning of the
midnight shift, Swicord asked if Mercer had attended the
union meeting. Mercer admitted that he had, and
commented that he did not feel that he had done anything
wrong. Swicord then asked if Mercer had signed a card.
Mercer replied that he had. Swicord stated that he did not
think the Union would do any good because the Company
would not increase wages, and when Mercer said that wage
increases was the purpose of getting the Union in, Swicord
8 Based on the credited testimony of Donald Corley and the admission
of Johnson According to Johnson, he was informed of the union meeting
by Production Superintendent Smith
9 Based on the credited testimony of Nichols and the admissions of
Johnson
10 Based on the credited testimony of Harris and Neal, and the
admissions of Whidden Harris and Neal also testified that in this
conversation Whidden further stated that if the Union came in the
granulation plant, where Harris and Neal were employed, it would be
closed down Whidden denied that he made such a statement I find it
unnecessary to resolve that conflict
ii Based on the credited testimony of Mercer and the admissions of
Swicord The latter denied telling Mercer that the plant would close if the
replied that in his opinion the Union would not help, and
that if the Union was voted in he believed the plant would
close because of the bad economic condition of the
Company and its inability to grant wage increases."
Employee Harry C. Bryant attended the union meeting
the evening of October 24, and during his work shift the
following day, was approached by Supervisor Swicord who
stated "I hear you all have a Union man." Bryant admitted
this was true. In the course of further discussion about the
Union, Swicord stated that if the Union came in the laxity
with respect to employees going to the coca-cola machine,
and standing about talking when they were not busy, would
have to cease and everyone would do their job. During his
3-1/2 years of employment with Respondent no supervisor
had theretofore spoken to Bryant about laxity in the
plant. 12
Lucius Clemmons also attended the union meeting on
October 24, and signed a union card there. On his next
work shift following the signing of the card, Clemmons was
asked by Supervisor Swicord what he (Clemmons) thought
about the Union, and Clemmons replied that in his opinion
the employees needed a union.13
On October 25, pursuant to information furnished him by
Plant Manager Montee, that the Union was engaging in
organizational activity, Neil Whitaker, then vice president
in charge of production for the division, came to
Bainbridge from his station in Savannah, and remained for
several hours discussing with Plant Manager Montee the
problems raised by the appearance of the Union, and the
steps to be taken by Respondent in view of the Union's
campaign.
The parties stipulated that late in the afternoon of
October 25, the Union sent and Plant Manager Montee
received a telegram reading:
THIS IS TO ADVISE THAT THE MAJORITY OF YOUR
PRODUCTION AND MAINTENANCE EMPLOYEES WITH YOUR
BAINBRIDGE, GEORGIA, PLANT, EXCLUDING OFFICE AND
SUPERVISORY EMPLOYEES HAVE DESIGNATED AND
AUTHORIZED INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF FIREMEN
AND OILERS, AFL-CIO AS THEIR COLLECTIVE-BARGAINING
AGENT. WE HEREBY REQUEST THAT YOU MEET WITH US
FOR THE PURPOSE OF NEGOTIATING AND CONCLUDING A
LABOR AGREEMENT.
2. The October 27-November 12 period
On October 27, the Union filed a representation petition
with the Board's Regional Office. By letter dated October
28, Montee declined to grant the Union's request for
recognition, stating in pertinent part:
We do not believe that your organization represents a
Union came in, but admitted telling Mercer that if the Union came in it
was his opinion that there was a possibility the plant would close
i2 Based on the credited testimony of Bryant . Swicord admitted that he
spoke with Bryant on this occasion but denied that he made any statement
concerning tightening up on laxity in the plant I do not credit this denial
is Based on the credited testimony of Clemmons Clemmons was plainly
confused as to the dates of various union meetings, and the date of his
conversation with Swicord I credit his definite testimony that the
conversation took place the day after he signed the union card, which is
dated October 24 Swicord , though testifying to other conversation with
employees , did not deny Clemmons' testimony with respect to this
conversation
664 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
majority of our employees in any group appropriate for
collective bargaining It is our understanding that the
National Labor Relations Board is the proper agency to
determine these matters, and we assume that the
proceeding which you have already started is the correct
one 14
In the week following the October 24 union meeting,
employee Corley was approached at his work station in the
granulation plant by Production Superintendent Smith
Smith asked Corley whether the latter had any problems
and when Corley replied in the negative, Smith stated that
some other men did The conversation then veered to the
subject of the Union with Smith stating that bargaining
with the Union concerning employee benefits would start at
zero and that employees would receive by way of benefits
only those that were agreed upon in the negotiations Smith
also told Corley that other benefits such as swapping shifts
which had therefore been permitted, would be discontin-
ued Smith additionally told Corley that if the Union came
in the granulation plant would have to be shut down, and
that some of the employees would be out of work 15 Corley
also testified without contradiction that it was normal
experience for the granulation plant to shut down, usually
once a year, for maintenance or repair, but that in such
instances employees who normally work in that plant were
assigned to other duties during the period of the closedown
Between November 1 and 10, Corley had still another
conversation concerning the Union, this time with Supervi-
sors Johnson and Smith According to Corley, Smith and
Johnson approached him while at work in the granulation
plant, and in the course of discussion concerning the Union
told Corley that the granulation plant would shut down if
the Union came in, that Respondent in that event, was
prepared to take a strike and run the plant with supervisors,
and that employee benefits would go to zero with
bargaining with the Union to start from there Also in this
conversation, Johnson told Corley that the practice of
swapping shifts would no longer be permitted and that he
would have to be strict about it since the union matter came
up 16
Employee Gary Nichols, while at work in the acid plant,
had a conversation with Supervisor Smith during the last 3
days of October Smith asked Nichols if he had any
complaint, and when Nichols replied that he thought
14 Montee s reference to the proceeding already started was to the
Union s filing of the representation petition
15 Based on the credited testimony of Corley Smith admitted he had a
conversation with Corley and that the Union was discussed While Smith
denied telling Corley that if the Union came in the granulation plant would
close he admitted telling employees with whom he spoke that if the Union
came in and asked for too much money the granulation plant would or
might be closed To the extent that the testimony of Corley and Smith may
be regarded as in conflict I credit Corley
16 Based on the credited testimony of Corley Corley explained that in
the past employees frequently exchanged shifts after obtaining the approval
of all supervisors involved Johnson admitted that he told Corley that the
way a union worked he would be assigned to a specific shift and swapping
of shifts would not be permitted Smith testified that while it had been the
practice some time back for employees to swap shifts he had ordered the
practice stopped but that without his knowledge or consent the practice
gradually resumed To the extent that there is any conflict I credit Corley
is Based on the credited testimony of Nichols As in the case of Corley
Smith admitted that he had a conversation with Nichols concerning the
Union His version of the conversation is set forth in fn 15 supra To the
extent that there is a conflict I credit Nichols Nichols also testified
employees should have sick leave and better pay, Smith
asked if he (Nichols) thought the Union would get in When
Nichols replied in the affirmative , Smith stated that if it did,
and the employees struck, the granulation plant would be
shut down 17
Employee Harry Bryant had heard that Company Vice
President Whitaker had conferred with Plant Manager
Montee over the weekend following the union meeting of
October 24 Several days later Bryant asked Supervisor
Swicord what had been decided Swicord told Bryant that
the Company was prepared to shut down the granulation
plant if the Union came in and asked for a raise 18 Several
days later Bryant asked Production Superintendent Smith if
what he had been told by Swicord was correct Smith
affirmed that Respondent was prepared to close the
granulation plant if the Union came in and asked for a
raise 19
On or about November 1, Supervisor Johnson called
employee Charles Cooper to his office Although Cooper
had then been employed by Respondent for over a year this
was the first time he had been called to his supervisor's
office In Johnson's office the latter asked Cooper how he
felt about the Union, and then reminded Cooper of what
Respondent had done for him Johnson told Cooper that if
the Union came in Respondent would have to bargain with
it, but that such bargaining would start from zero with
Respondent agreeing to increases up to what employees
were then earning , but would not give anything else
Johnson then referred to a retirement plan which the
Company provided for its employees,20 and stated that
Cooper, who is under 30, would lose what the Company
had deposited for him if the Union came in Johnson also
stated that in the past when the granulation plant closed for
maintenance, the employees thereof were given other work,
but now they would be laid off At this point Cooper
referred to the fact that he had a National Guard meeting
coming up and asked if he would be permitted to meet that
commitment by swapping shifts with other employees
Johnson stated that the practice would no longer be
permitted, and also stated that if the Union came in the
employees would no longer be permitted to record their
hours of work on a timesheet, but would be required to
punch a timeclock 21
On or about November 1, Production Superintendent
concerning a conversation he had with Plant Manager Montee immediately
following his conversation with Smith but as he attributed no statement to
Montee which would constitute a violation of Section 8(axl) of the Act I
have not set it forth
11 Based on the credited testimony of Bryant Swicord denied that he
made any statement of the nature attributed to him by Bryant I credit
Bryant in view of the fact that other supervisors made statements of that
nature and in view of Bryant s subsequent conversation with Smith
19 Based on the testimony of Bryant For Smith s version of what was
said see fn 15 supra To the extent that there is a conflict I credit Bryant
20 Under the plan only the Company makes contributions so long as the
employee is under 30 years of age but such contributions accumulate for
the benefit of the employee
21 Based on the credited testimony of Cooper Johnson admitted that he
called Cooper to his office and there discussed the Union with him
According to Johnson he did this to find out if Cooper had all the facts
and when Cooper replied in the negative he proceeded to give Cooper the
facts Johnson admitted that he told at least one employee (Wilson) that he
thought the Company would require the Union to start bargaining from
the bottom and work up but claimed he had no recollection whether he
made that statement to Cooper Johnson denied that the retirement plan
KAISER AGRICULTURAL CHEMICALS 665
Smith engaged employee Raymond Wilson in conversation
concerning the Union, while the latter was at work in the
plant. Smith told Wilson that the Company was "in a
financial bind," and that if the Union came in and asked
for a raise , this would so affect Respondent' s financial
condition as to require closing of the granulation plant.
Prior to this conversation no supervisor had mentioned to
Wilson the possible closing of the granulation plant.22
Three or four days later Wilson, while at work, was
engaged in conversation concerning the Union by Supervi-
sor Johnson, who told Wilson that, if the Union came in,
contract negotiations would have to start from zero-from
the ground level up-and "that whatever we got it would
not be above anything we had." 23
On or about October 31, employee Poitivent sought out
Production Superintendent Smith for the purpose of
explaining that he and his father were not responsible for
the union organization in the plant. In this discussion
Poitivent asked Smith if he (Poitivent) could see Plant
Manager Montee. Smith made the necessary arrangements,
and that afternoon Poitivent met with Montee in the latter's
office. After repeating to Montee that he and his father
were not the ones responsible for the union campaign,
Montee asked Poitivent what the employees wanted, and
what did they think the Union could get for them that they
did not already have. Poitivent replied that the employees
were discussing increased wages , more holidays, and
annual leave. Montee replied that Respondent would not
go along with that and if the Union asked for any benefits
above what the employees then had, Respondent was
prepared to take a strike.24 During the week following the
Union's April 24 meeting, Production Superintendent
Phillips called employee James Gause to his office. In the
discussion which followed, Phillips told Gause that if the
Union came into the plant , existing benefits would be lost
and that negotiations with the Union would start from
zero.25 Gause also testified that in this conversation Phillips
stated that if the Union came in it would close the plant
before it would give employees a raise. Phillips admitted
that Gause asked about a wage increase and that he stated
there was no money available for that purpose, that the
Bainbridge plant was losing money, and if it continued to
do so, the plant would have to close. Phillips denied that his
statement was in the context of the Union. I find it
unnecessary to resolve the conflict. After some further
discussion, Phillips told Gause that Vice President Whitak-
er was in Montee's office, and asked if Gause would like to
discuss the matter with them. Phillips made the necessary
arrangements and Gause went to the office where he talked
with Whitaker and Montee.
Gause testified that he was told by Montee that the latter
had instructions from Respondent 's home office to close
the plant if the Union came in and asked for a raise. Both
Montee and Whitaker denied that such a statement was
made . For reasons hereafter stated I find it unnecessary to
resolve the conflict . Montee admitted that in the conversa-
tion referred to he told Gause that Respondent did not
want a union , that because it was in financial difficulty a
general moratorium on wage increases had been decreed by
the home office , that he was fighting to save the plant and
his own job , but "If the Union was successful in organizing
our plant and demanded a pay increase and went out on
strike to get this pay increase , [he, Montee ] had been
authorized to take the strike." 26
The Alleged 8(a)(5) Violation
B. The Refusal To Bargain
1. The unit contentions
As heretofore stated, on October 25 the Union made
telegraphic demand on Respondent for recognition in a
unit of "all production and maintenance employees with
your Bainbridge, Georgia plant, excluding office and
supervisory employees." Both the representation petition
filed on October 27, and the Decision and Direction of
Election issued December 5, as well as the complaint
herein, described the unit in substantially the same
language. The only difference is that both the Decision and
Direction of Election and the Complaint are more specific
in the classification of employees that are in the unit, as well
as those excluded.27 The specific reference to "temporary"
employees in the Decision and Direction of Election, as
footnote 5 thereof makes clear, was made because of the
contention advanced by Respondent during the hearing in
the representation case that the "temporary" employees
should not be included in the unit. The Director rejected
this contention and held the "temporary" employees in the
unit. Not only was the issue fully litigated before and
decided by the Director but review of his Decision was not
sought by Respondent. Hence under familiar principles the
Regional Director 's Decision on that issue became the law
of the case and cannot be litigated in this unfair labor
proceeding.28 Accordingly, I find and conclude that the
"temporary" employees must be considered in determining
the numerical composition of the unit on October 25, the
was discussed during his conversation with Cooper To the extent that
Johnson's testimony conflicts with that of Cooper, I credit the latter
22 Based on the credited testimony of Wilson For Smith's version of
this conversation see fn 15, supra To the extent that there is a conflict, I
credit Wilson
23 Based on the credited testimony of Wilson As stated in fn 21, supra,
Johnson admitted that he made a statement to this effect to Wilson
24 Based on the credited and uncontradicted testimony of Poitivent
Montee gave no testimony regarding this conversation, but as hereafter set
forth, he admitted making a similar statement to employee Gause
25 Based on the credited testimony of Gause Phillips admitted that
Gause asked whether existing benefits would be lost if the Union came in,
and that he replied that "Normally the negotiations start at zero " To the
extent that there is a conflict, I credit Gause
26 Based on the admission of Montee and Whitaker
27 Thus, the Decision and Direction of Election and the Complaint
describe the unit as "All production and maintenance employees of the
Employer's Bainbridge, Georgia plant, including the 'temporary'
employees, the store room clerk, the laboratory employee, the Janitor, the
lead laborers, but excluding all office clerical employees , the plant engineer
and all other professional employees, guards and supervisors as defined in
the Act
26 Section 102 67(f) of the Board's Rules and Regulations provides
Failure to request review [of a Regional Director's Decision in a
representation case I shall preclude such parties from relitigating in any
related subsequent unfair labor practice proceeding, any issue which
was, or could have been raised in the representation proceeding
666 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
date Respondent admittedly received the Union' s demand
for recognition.
2. The Union's majority status
By stipulation, there was received in evidence a list of
employees on the payroll as of October 25. Respondent
conceded that the list contained the name of all employees
in the unit on the date mentioned, reserving the issue
whether the "temporary" employees should be counted in
determining the number of employees in the unit. Including
the "temporary" employees, the list contains 70 names. Of
these, 53 signed union authorization cards; 27 cards being
dated October 24, 19 cards are dated October 25, 1 card is
dated October 26, and the 6 remaining cards are dated
October 27. The authenticity of each card was clearly
proved either by the testimony of the signer or by one who
witnessed the signature.29 No testimony was adduced to
establish nor does Respondent contend in its brief, that the
authorization cards were, or were intended to be anything
other than what appears on the face of the cards, namely an
unconditional authorization of the Union to act as the
collective-bargaining representative of the card signor. I
therefore find and conclude that on October 25, the day
Respondent received the Union's recognition demand, the
Union had valid authorization cards from 46 of the 70
employees in an appropriate unit, and hence was the duly
designated collective-bargaining representative of the
employees in that unit.30
C. Contentions and Conclusions
1. Section 8(a)(1) findings
Upon the facts herein found, as above set forth, I find
and conclude that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of
the Act by the following conduct:
1. Surveillance of the Union's meeting of October 24,
by Supervisor Whidden admittedly "for the purpose of
determining the number and identity of employees
attending said meeting. That such conduct violates Section
8(a)(1) is too well settled to require the citation of authority.
The fact that the evidence fails to disclose that the
employees were aware of Whidden's activity in that regard
is immaterial . Wallace Press, 146 NLRB 1236, 1239 fn. 5.
2. The statements by Supervisor Johnson to employees
Corley and Nichols that he knew about the scheduled
union meeting of October 24, thus giving the impression
that the union activities of the employees were under
surveillance by Respondent. Opp Textiles, Inc., et al, 168
NLRB No. 33 (TXD).
3. Supervisor Whidden's statement to employees Harris
and Neal that if the Union came in and asked for a wage
increase , a strike would result, as well as Whidden's inquiry
of Neal as to how he would make payments on his home,
and of Harris how he would make payments on his car, if
they were out of work for several months because they were
participating in a strike. This was clearly interference with
the Section 7 rights of those employees.
4. The statement by Supervisor Swicord to employee
Mercer as well as the statement of Supervisor Smith to
employee Nichols, to the effect that if the Union came in
the granulation plant would close because economic
conditions would not permit Respondent to grant wage
increases. A threat of plant closure in the event the
employees organize has uniformly been held by the Board
to be coercive and hence violative of Section 8(a)(1) of the
Act. Thompson Transport Co., 165 NLRB 746, 750.
5. Supervisor Swicord's interrogation of employee
Mercer as to whether the latter had attended the union
meeting and if he had signed a union card, as well as his
interrogation of employee Clemmons as to what the latter
thought about the Union. In the circumstances of this case
the interrogation did not have as its purpose obtaining
information as to how Respondent should respond to the
Union's request for recognition, nor was the interrogation
in an atmosphere free of employee unfair labor practices.
6. Supervisor Swicord's statement to employee Bryant
that if the Union came in Respondent would curtail the
prior practice of employees, engaged in with Respondent's
approval, of going to the Coca-Cola machine, or of talking
when not busy, as well as the statements of Supervisors
Smith and Johnson to employee Corley that if the Union
came in the past- practice of swapping shifts would no
longer be permitted. These was threats of reprisal if
employees exercised their Section 7 rights.
7. The statements by Supervisor Smith to employee
Corley, by Supervisor Phillips to employee Gause, by
Supervisor Johnson to employees Wilson and Cooper, as
well as by Plant Manager Montee to employee Poitivent, to
the effect that in negotiating with the Union, it became the
representative of the employees, employees would lose their
existing benefits , that negotiations would start from zero, or
from "scratch," and that thereafter employees would enjoy
only those benefits that were agreed upon in the contract
negotiations which might be more , the same, or less than
what employees then enjoyed. That such statements violate
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act has been established. Hills
Department Stores, 155 NLRB 1163, 1177; Suprenant
Manufacturing Company v. N. L. R. B., 341 F.2d 756, 761 and
the cases there cited.
8. Supervisor Johnson's statement to employee Cooper
that the latter would lose the contributions made by
Respondent to the retirement fund for his benefit, if the
employees selected a union to represent them.
9. The statement by Plant Manager Montee to employ-
ee Gause that if the Union succeeded in organizing the
plant and demanded a wage increase in support of which it
struck, Respondent would "take the strike." In the context
of the other substantial unfair labor practices committed by
Respondent, as herein found, the statement was not only a
threat that employees would have to strike to obtain any
improvement in wages , but "was also intended to make the
employees realize the futility of electing a union; [and] was
za In the case of the card signed by Marion Butler, the facts were on the stipulated payroll, 19 are designated as "temporary " Of these only 6
stipulated had signed authorization cards, 5 dated October 25, and I dated October
30 It may be pointed out that even were I to agree with Respondent' s 27 Excluding the "temporary " employees, the total unit would number 51,
contention that the "temporary" employees are not a part of the unit , such and of these the Union had 41 cards signed on or before October 25;
a conclusion would not affect the Union 's majority status Of the 70 names likewise a clear majority
KAISER AGRICULTURAL CHEMICALS 667
thus coercive." (Aerovox Corporation, etc., 172 NLRB No.
97. To the same effect see K D. Manufacturing Company,
169 NLRB No. 10, and compare Yazzo Valley Electric
Power Assn., 163 NLRB 777, 788-789, order enforced on
this aspect of the case, 405 F.2d 479 (C.A. 5),.31
2. The refusal to bargain
Although, as I have found, the Union was the duly
designated majority representative of Respondent's em-
ployees in an appropriate unit when it demanded and
Respondent refused recognition, it does not necessarily
follow that such refusal violated Section 8(a)(5) of the Act.
For an employer enjoys the qualified right to refuse to
recognize and bargain with a union until such time as the
latter establishes its majority status in some manner other
than the bald assertion in its demand letter. Such right,
however, is not absolute, and will be regarded as forfeited if
it is established that the employer acted in a manner
calculated to undermine the union's majority. Tower
Enterprises, Inc., 182 NLRB No. 56. Accordingly, applica-
tion of the aforementioned principles makes it necessary to
determine whether Respondent's refusal to bargain in the
instant case took place in the context of lawful conduct, or
in a context of unlawful conduct calculated to undermine
and destroy the Union's claimed majority. If, as the
Supreme Court held in N.L.R.B. v. Gissel Packing Co., 395
U.S. 575, Respondent's conduct falls in the latter category,
and is of a character that the effect thereof is not likely to be
eradicated so as to insure a fair rerun election, the prior
card designations may on balance be regarded as a more
reliable indicator of the wishes of the employees than their
votes in an election, and a bargaining order may issue as an
appropriate remedy. N.L.R.B. v. Gissel Packing Co., supra
at 610-614.
Applying the foregoing principles of Gissel Packing Co.,
to the facts of the instant case it appears that promptly
upon becoming aware that the Union was organizing,
Respondent engaged in a campaign which was designed to
thwart that organization and to destroy any majority the
Union may have succeeded in obtaining. Thus, as herein
found, Respondent willfully and intentionally engaged in
surveillance of the Union's activities; made statements to
employees from which the latter might reasonably infer that
their union activities were under Respondent's surveillance;
coercively interrogated employees with respect to their
union activities and desires; threatened to revoke employee
privileges; threatened to close a portion of its plant if the
31 That the employer's conduct in Yazzo Valley, supra, took the form of
written material distributed to employees. as distinguished from the oral
statements employed in the instant case , is a distinction without a
difference
32 An employer who unlawfully dissipates a union's majority, as I have
found Respondent did in the instant case , cannot be heard to complain
that the Union no longer represents a majority Great Southern Trucking
Company v N L.R B, 139 F.2d 984, 985 and the cases there cited Cf
N L R B v Warren Co, inc, 350 U S 107 It is for this reason that I reject
the stipulation referred to in fn 3, supra
33 J A Conley Company, 181 NLRB No. 20, Seymour Transfer, Inc, 179
NLRB No 5, Central Soya of Canton, Inc, 180 NLRB No 86, Blade-
Tribune Publishing Company, 180 NLRB No 56, and Alcoa Corporation,
180 NLRB No. 5, relied upon by Respondent, I find to be inapposite. In J
A. Conley, the Board found "that the few instances of misconduct in
violation of Section 8(a)(I) were not sufficiently flagrant to prevent the
Union demanded a wage increase ; told employees that if
the Union became their representative , existing employee
benefits would be lost; that bargaining would begin from
"zero"; and finally Plant Manager Montee made it clear
that only a strike could have any possible effect on its
predetermined position not to grant a wage increase. This
conduct, I find and conclude, was not only coercive, but so
pervasive in character, as to make it unlikely that its
coercive effects would be neutralized by the remedies
normally employed to produce a fair election.
I find unconvincing Respondent 's argument that the
practice of a cease-and-desist order posted for the normal
60-day period, which the Board has at times utilized in the
past, will neutralize and fully eradicate the effects of the
Section 8(a)(1) violations herein found , so that an election
after such posting period will be held in an atmosphere free
of restraint and coercion. The argument assumes-an
assumption I am unable to accept-that restraint and
coercion as extensive and pervasive as that present in the
instant case , can be fully eradicated by the mere issuance of
a cease-and-desist order and a 60-day posting period. The
rescheduling of an election in such a posture can only serve
to recall to the employees Respondent's prior coercive
conduct.
Respondent's contention that because the Section 8(a)(1)
violations herein found ceased no later than November 12,
that the employees' rejection of the Union in the election
conducted the following January 6 and 7, must have been
for reasons other than Respondent's restraint and coercion
which ceased some 55 days prior to the election, is a non
sequitur. I find it an equally permissible inference that the
employees' rejection of the Union in the election resulted
from the fact that Respondent's restraint and coercion had
a lingering effect which was still manifesting itself at the
time of the election.32
For reasons stated, I find and conclude that by refusing
to bargain with the Union and engaging in unfair labor
practices proscribed by Section 8(a)(1) of the Act,
Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act; that
under the circumstances of this case the employees'
sentiment as expressed through the authorization cards, is a
more reliable measure of their desires on the issue of
representation than the election held January 6 and 7; and
that to effectuate the policies of the Act a bargaining order
is both necessary and appropriate to remedy Respondent's
refusal to bargain as well as its other unfair labor
practices.33
holding of a fair election in Seymour Transfer, supra, the Board concluded
that the single violation of Section 8 (aXI) there involved did not preclude a
free and fair election . In Central Soya, supra, the unfair labor practices
were relatively minor in nature and limited in extent in terms of their effect
on the election processes : that some of those were voluntarily corrected by
Respondent with no likelihood of their recurrence in these circumstances
the Board concluded that a bargaining order was not necessary to protect
employee rights In Blade- Tribune Publishing. supra, the Board found the
employer's violations of Section 8 (a)(1) to be of a "minor or less extensive
[character ] which, because of their minimal impact on the election
machinery . will not sustain a bargaining order." In Alcoa Corporation,
supra, the Board concluded that neither the single incident of polling
employees with respect to their union desires, nor the granting of a wage
increase was sufficient to establish a violation of Section 8(a)(5) or the
necessity for a bargaining order. In the instant case the violations of
Section 8(axi) were substantially more extensive in scope . more pervasive
(Continued)
668 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Upon the foregoing findings of fact, and the entire record
in the case, I make the following.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Respondent is an employer within the meaning of
Section 2(2) of the Act, and is engaged in commerce within
the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. The Union is a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. By the conduct set forth in section C, 1, hereof,
Respondent interfered with, restrained, and coerced its
employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed them by
Section 7 of the Act, and thereby engaged in, and is
engaging in unfair labor practices proscribed by Section
8(a)(1) of the Act.
4. By refusing, upon request, to recognize and bargain
with the Union as the duly designated representative of its
employees in an appropriate unit, Respondent engaged in,
and is engaging in, unfair labor practices proscribed by
Section 8(a)(5) of the Act.
5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor
practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section
2(6) and (7) of the Act.
THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent interfered with, re-
strained, and coerced employees in violation of Section
8(a)(1) of the Act, I shall recommend that it be required to
cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative
action designed and found necessary to effectuate the
policies of the Act.
Having also found that Respondent unlawfully refused to
bargain with the Union as the representative of its
employees in an appropriate unit, it will be recommended
that Respondent be required, upon request, to bargain
collectively with the Union as such representative, and if an
understanding is reached embody the same into a signed
written agreement.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and
conclusions of law and the entire record in the case, and
pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations
Act, as amended, it is recommended that the National
Labor Relations Board Order Kaiser Agricultural Chemi-
cals, a Division of Kaiser Aluminum and Chemical
Corporation, its officers , agents, successors and assigns to:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Refusing, upon request, to bargain collectively with
international brotherhood of firemen & oilers, AFL-CIO,
in character , and were engaged , as I have found, with the intent and
purpose of undermining the Union's claimed majority In these
circumstances I deem it more appropriate to follow cases like Tower
Enterprises, Inc, 182 NLRB No 56, Gissel Packing Co, Inc, 180 NLRB
No 7, Clay City Beverages, Inc, 180 NLRB No 178, Heck's, Inc, 181
NLRB No 129, 2520 Madison Corporation d/b/a Lilian Abrahamson
Nursing Home, 181 NLRB No 148, Arbie Mineral Feed Co, 182 NLRB
No 24, Juniata Packing Company, 182 NLRB No 140
34 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Section 102 46 of
the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the
as the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of its
employees in an appropriate unit . The unit is:
All production and maintenance employees at its
Bainbridge , Georgia , plant , including temporary em-
ployees, the storeroom clerk , the laboratory employee,
the janitor , and lead laborers , but excluding all office
clerical employees , the plant engineer and all other
professional employees , guards and supervisors as
defined in the Act.
(b) Engaging in surveillance of the union activities of its
employees , or in any conduct from which such employees
may reasonably infer that their union activities are under its
surveillance.
(c) Interrogating employees with respect to their attend-
ance at union meetings ; as to whether or not they had
signed union cards; or whether they were in favor of a
union.
(d) Threatening to curtail or eliminate plant operations if
the employees select a union as their bargaining representa-
tive.
(e) Reducing or eliminating privileges enjoyed by
employees , if they selected a union as their bargaining
representative.
(f) Telling employees that if a union becomes their
bargaining representative and requests increased wages, the
employees would have to strike to obtain such increase.
(g) Threatening employees that if they select union
representation , existing employee benefits would be
reduced to zero, and that bargaining would start from
"scratch."
(h) Threatening employees with loss of employer
contributions to a retirement fund for their benefit , if they
select a union to represent them.
(i) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or
coercing employees in the exercise of their rights to self-
organization , to form , join or assist labor organizations, to
bargain collectively through representatives of their own
choosing, and to engage in other concerted activities for the
purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or
protection , or to refrain from any and all such activities.
2. Take the following affirmative action designed and
found necessary to effectuate the policies of the National
Labor Relations Act, as amended:
(a) Upon request , bargain collectively with international
brotherhood of firemen & oilers , AFL-CIO as the exclusive
representative of its employees in an appropriate unit,
above set forth , and if an understanding is reached , embody
the same into a written and signed agreement.
(b) Post at its Bainbridge , Georgia, plant copies of the
notice attached hereto and marked "Appendix ." 34 Copies
of said notice on forms to be furnished by the Regional
Director for Region 10 (Atlanta , Georgia), shall, after being
signed by an authorized representative , be posted immedi-
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 In the event
that the Board's Order is enforced by a judgment of a United States Court
or 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."
KAISER AGRICULTURAL CHEMICALS 669
ately upon receipt thereof and maintained by it for a period
of 60 consecutive days thereafter in conspicuous places,
including all places where notices to employees are
customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken to
insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered
by any other material.
(c) Notify the aforesaid Regional Director in writing,
within 20 days from the date of receipt of this Decision,
what steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith.35
Report on Objections Affecting the Results of the
Election
Having found that by the conduct set forth in section C,
1, hereof, Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act,
and having further found that the incidents referred to in
paragraph 4 through 10 of said section occurred subsequent
to the filing of the representation petition herein, and prior
to the date of the election,36 it follows that the election held
on January 6 and 7, 1970, must be set aside, and I so
recommend. Dal-Tex Optical Company, Inc., 137 NLRB
1782; Leas & McVitty, Incorporated, 155 NLRB 389; L B.
Foster Company, 168 NLRB No. 15, enforced 418 F.2d I
(C.A. 9), cert. denied 73 LRRM 263, March 23, 1970.
Having recommended that the Board order Respondent to
bargain with the Union, no purpose would be served by
conducting a new election. Accordingly, IT IS FURTHER
RECOMMENDED that the Board dismiss the petition in
Case 10-RC-8013, and vacate all prior proceedings it had
in connection therewith.
35 In the event this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board, this
provision shall be modified to read "Notify the aforesaid Regional
Director in writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps
it has taken to comply herewith "
36 The Board regards this as the critical period in assessing whether
alleged objectionable conduct had an impact on the election Ideal Electric
Company, 134 NLRB 1275, 1278 As heretofore indicated, the petition was
filed on October 27, and the election was held the following January 6 and
7 The conduct above referred to occurred between October 27 and
November 12
To act together for collective bargaining or other
mutual aid or protection
To refuse to do any or all of these things.
WE WILL NOT do anything to interfere with you in the
exercise of these rights.
WE WILL NOT engage in surveillance of your union
activities, or in any conduct from which you might
reasonably infer that your union activities are under
surveillance by us.
WE WILL NOT question you regarding your attend-
ance at union meetings, whether you have signed a
union card, or whether you are for or against a union.
WE WILL NOT threaten to reduce or eliminate any
privilege our employees now enjoy, if they select a
union to represent them.
WE WILL NOT threaten employees that if they select a
union to represent them all existing employee benefits
will be reduced to zero, and that bargaining with the
Union will start from scratch.
WE WILL NOT threaten employees that if they select a
union to represent them, employees would have to
strike to obtain increased benefits.
WE WILL NOT threaten you with loss of contributions
we made on your behalf to a retirement fund, if you
select a union to represent you.
WE WILL, upon request, recognize and bargain
collectively with the Firemen & Oilers Union as the
exclusive representative of our employees in an
appropriate unit, and if an understanding is reached,
put such understanding into a written signed agree-
ment. The unit is:
All production and maintenance employees at our
Bainbridge, Georgia, plant, including temporary
employees, the storeroom clerk, the laboratory
employee, the janitor, and lead laborers, but
excluding all office clerical employees, the plant
engineer, and all other professional employees,
guards and supervisors as defined in the Act.
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
After a full trial in which all sides had the opportunity to
present their evidence, the National Labor Relations Board
has found that we, Kaiser Agricultural Chemicals, violated
the National Labor Relations Act, and ordered us to post
this notice. We intend to carry out the order of the Board,
thejudgement of the court, and abide by the following:
The Act gives all employees these rights
To organize themselves
To form, join or help continue unions
KAISER AGRICULTURAL
CHEMICANS, A DIVISION OF
KAISER ALUMINUM &
CHEMICAL CORPORATION
(Employer)
Dated By
(Representative) (Title)
This is an official notice and must not be defaced by
anyone.
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days
from the date of posting and must not be altered, defaced,
or covered by any other material.
Any questions concerning this notice or compliance with
its provisions, may be directed to the Board's Office,
Peachtree Building, Room 701, 730 Peachtree Street, N. E.,
Atlanta, Georgia 30308, Telephone 404-526-5760.