Litton Industries

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 1, 1973

203 N.L.R.B. 1025 (N.L.R.B. 1973)

LANDIS TOOL COMPANY
Landis Tool Company , Division of Litton Industries
and International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauf-
feurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, Lo-
cal Union No. 110 . Case 6-CA-6176
June 1, 1973
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS FANNING AND
JENKINS
Upon a charge and amended charge filed on July
7 and October 19, 1972, respectively by International
Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehouse-
men and Helpers of America, Local Union No. 110,
herein called the Union, and duly served on Landis
Tool Company, Division of Litton Industries, herein
called the Respondent, the General Counsel of the
National Labor Relations Board, by the Regional Di-
rector for Region 6, issued a complaint on October 20,
1972, against Respondent, alleging that Respondent
had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor prac-
tices affecting commerce within the meaning of Sec-
tion 8(a)(5) and (1) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended. Copies of
the charge, complaint, and notice of hearing before an
Administrative Law Judge were duly served on the
parties to this proceeding.
With respect to the unfair labor practices, the com-
plaint alleges in substance that on August 15, 1972,
following a Board election in Case 6-RC-5191 the
Union was duly certified as the exclusive collective-
bargaining representative of Respondent's employees
in the unit found appropriate;' and that, commencing
on or about September 5, 1972, and at all times there-
after, Respondent has refused, and continues to date
to refuse, to bargain collectively with the Union as the
exclusive bargaining representative, although the
Union has requested and is requesting it to do so. On
October 27, 1972, Respondent filed its answer to the
complaint admitting in part, and denying in part, the
allegations in the complaint.
On December 5, 1972, counsel for the General
Counsel filed directly with the Board a Motion for
Summary Judgment. Subsequently, on January 4,
1973, the Board issued an order transferring the pro-
ceeding to the Board and a Notice To Show Cause
why the General Counsel's Motion for Summary
'Official notice is taken of the record in the representation proceeding,
Case 6-RC-5191, as the term "record" is defined in Secs. 102.68 and 102
.69(f) of the Board 's Rules and Regulatons , Series 8, as amended . See LTV
Electrosystems, Inc., 166 NLRB 938, enfd. 388 F.2d 683 (C.A. 4, 1968);
Golden Age Beverage Co., 167 NLRB 151, enfd. 415 F.2d 26 (C.A. 5, 1969);
Intertype Co v. Penello, 269 F. Supp. 573 (D.C. Va., 1967); Follett Corp., 164
NLRB 378, enfd. 397 F 2d 91 (C A. 7, 1968 ), Sec 9(d) of the NLRA.
1025
Judgment should not be granted. Respondent thereaf-
ter filed a response to Notice To Show Cause as well
as a motion in Case 6-RC-5191. The General Counsel
filed opposition to the Respondent's response and
motions.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au-
thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
Upon the entire record in this proceeding, the
Board makes the following:
Ruling on the Motion for Summary Judgment
In its answer to the complaint, response to the No-
tice To Show Cause, and the motions in Case 6-
RC-5191, the Respondent argues that the General
Counsel's Motion for Summary Judgment should be
denied primarily because of the alleged unit defects,
particularly with respect to the failure to determine
the unit placement of employees who were permitted
to vote in the election under challenge and because of
the Board's alleged improper setting aside of the first
election and directing a rerun election. The General
Counsel contends that the Respondent is attempting
to relitigate issues which were raised and determined,
or could have been raised and determined, by the
Board in the underlying representation case and that
it may not do so in the absence of newly discovered
or previously unavailable evidence or special circum-
stances.
Our review of the record in Case 6-RC-5191 re-
flects that in his April 3, 1970, Decision and Direction
of Election, the Regional Director found appropriate
a production and maintenance unit but did not de-
termine the unit placement of certain categories of
employees who were permitted to vote subject to chal-
lenge? On May 1, 1970, the Board denied the
Respondent's request for review as raising no substan-
tial issues warranting review except with respect to
three other groups of employees whom the Regional
Director had excluded from the unit, but whose unit
placement, the Board concluded, could best be re-
solved by the challenge procedure.3
The Union failed to receive a majority of the votes
cast in the election of May 7, 1970, and thereafter filed
timely objections to the conduct of the election. Con-
cluding that the objections, as well as other conduct
of Respondent alleged to be violative of the Act which
had been charged in Case 6-CA-502 1, raised substan-
tial and material issues with respect to the election, the
Regional Director, on July 31, 1970, consolidated for
2 Photolab employees, print shop employees, and precision inspector.
3 Disputed machine inspectors, engineering technicians, and sales service
personnel
203 NLRB No. 143
1026 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
hearing Cases 6-RC-5191 and 6-CA-502 1. In his De-
cision of February 22, 1971, the Trial Examiner 4
found that the Respondent had engaged in certain
8(a)(1) conduct , including implied promises that solic-
ited-employee grievances would be remedied. Ac-
cordingly, he recommended that the Board set aside
the election in Case 6-RC-5191 on the basis of his
8(a)(l) findings and that a second election be con-
ducted. The Respondent filed with the Board excep-
tions to the Trial Examiner 's unfair labor practice
findings, including those pertaining to the implied
promises . On June 8 , 1971, the Board issued its Deci-
sion, Order and Direction of Second Election (190
NLRB 757) affirming the Trial Examiner 's Decision
and directing the holding of a rerun election.'
The rerun election was conducted on September 16
and 21, 1971. The tally of ballots showed that of ap-
proximately 606 eligible voters, 252 cast ballots for,
and 215 against the Union, with 82 challenged and 4
void ballots . Since the challenged ballots were suffi-
cient to affect the results of the election , the Regional
Director, on November 17, 1971, directed a hearing
on 62 challenged ballots , which raised substantial and
material issues of fact and deferred the counting of
the remaining 20 ballots, the challenges to which the
parties had agreed to overrule . In his Report on Chal-
lenged Ballots, the Hearing Officer recommended
that challenges to 14 ballots be overruled and the
votes counted , and that the challenges to 48 ballots be
sustained . The Respondent filed with the Regional
Director timely exceptions to 19 of the 48 sustained
challenges .6
In his Supplemental Decision of April 4, 1972, the
Regional Director adopted the Hearing Officer's rec-
ommendations except those pertaining to the 19 chal-
lenged ballots to which exceptions were taken
pending opening and counting of the 34 ballots whose
challenges had been overruled . As no request for re-
view with the Board was filed, the Regional Director
opened and counted the 34 ballots, 20 whose counting
had been previously deferred, and 14 whose chal-
lenges the Hearing Officer had recommended be ov-
erruled . The revised tally showed that 267 votes had
been cast for, and 234 votes against, with 19 chal-
lenged ballots unopened and not counted. As the 19
undetermined ballots could not affect the election re-
sults, the Acting Regional Director on April 26, 1972,
certified the Union as the bargaining representative of
the employees in the production and maintenance
4 The title of "Taal Examiner" was changed to "Administrative Law
Judge" effective August 19, 1972.
5 On May 22, 1972, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third
Circuit enforced the Board 's Order, 460 F .2d 23 On October 16, 1972, the
Supreme Court denied certiorari
These 19 ballots had been cast by engineering technicians, sales service
personnel, and photolab employees.
unit originally found appropriate by the Regional Di-
rector in the Decision and Direction of Election. On
August 15, 1972, the Regional Director issued an
Amended Certification of Representative which cor-
rected inadvertent errors in the earlier certification
and which noted that the unit placement of certain
groups of employees had not been determined.7 No
request to the Board for review of the Acting Regional
Director's certification and the Regional Director's
amended certification was filed by the Respondent.
In its response to the Notice To Show Cause and
motions in Case 6-RC-5191, the Respondent, in op-
position to the General Counsel's Motion for Summa-
ry Judgment, argues that the different descriptions of
the unit and the failure to resolve the unit placement
of some seven fringe groups of employees 8 had made
the unit unclear, therefore requiring it to be redefined
and had caused inaccurate election notices to be pub-
lished in both elections so that there may have been
employees who did not vote. We disagree with the
Respondent's basic position. The Board and its Re-
gional Directors have always corrected inadvertent
and minor errors in certifications which do not
change the substance of the unit .9 Further, the fact
that the unit placement of fringe categories of employ-
ees remains to be resolved, and that this was noted in
the certification, cannot affect either the basic appro-
priateness of the certified production and mainte-
nance unit herein, the Union's majority therein, or the
ability of the parties to bargain in the certified unit.
There is nothing to preclude the parties from resolving
the unit placement of these fringe employees either by
mutual agreement or by the filing of a petition for unit
clarification pursuant to Section 102.60(b) of the
Board's Rules and Regulations.1°
With respect to the election notices which specifi-
cally advised certain employee categories that they
were ineligible to vote, even though they were in fact
eligible, the Respondent, as the General Counsel has
stated without controversion in his motion, was aware
of the nature and contents of the election notices and
posted them without objection. We also note that a
substantial and representative number of employees
voted in the elections herein and that there is no show-
ing, only an alleged possibility, that employees did not
vote because of the election notices.
In addition, the Respondent contends that there are
unusual and special circumstances that warrant the
7 The groups of employees are. Engineering technicians , sales service per-
sonnel, precision inspector , photolab and print shop employees, all of whom
had been permitted to vote challenged ballots.
8In addition to the categories in In . 7, the Respondent adverts to the
unresolved unit placement of the finish stock clerk and pattern repairmen.
9 The Respondent did not file with the Board a request to review the
Regional Director's changes in the description of the certified unit herein
The May Department Stores Company, 186 NLRB 86 , enforcement de-
nied on other grounds 454 F 2d 148 (C.A 9, 1972).
LANDIS TOOL COMPANY
denial of the General Counsel 's Motion for Summary
Judgment . It calls the Board 's attention to the Third
Circuit's disapproval of the Board 's alleged per se
finding that solicitation of employee grievances dur-
ing the preelection campaign will always imply unlaw-
ful promises ." The Respondent argues that the
complaint in Case 6-CA-5021 alleged only interroga-
tion and not implied promises , and, therefore, it did
not litigate the issue of implied promises . According-
ly, the argument runs that , since the first election had
been primarily set aside on this disapproved per se
finding of implied promises , the Motion for Summary
Judgment should be denied . We find no merit in the
position . The Board did adopt the Trial Examiner's
findings of 8(a)(1) conduct by the Respondent, in-
cluding that involving improper implied promises,
and agreed with his recommendation that, on the ba-
sis of the 8(a)(1) conduct found , the first election be
set aside and a second election directed . As noted in
footnote 11, supra, the court has affirmed the Board's
implied promises findings of 8(a)( 1) violations as hav-
ing substantial evidentiary support in the record and,
therefore , the propriety of our setting aside the first
election on the basis of 8(a)(1) conduct cannot be
impugned . Further, our review of the record convinc-
es us that, even absent such 8 (a)(1) implied promises,
the election was properly set aside on the basis of the
other 8(a)(1) findings of impression of surveillance of
union activities , interrogation of employees, and
threats to employees of loss of benefits.
Finally, the Respondent contends that, because
the issue of implied promises had not been timely and
properly raised or litigated , it did not offer evidence
to rebut the evidence of unlawful promises and that
this special and unusual circumstance entitled it to a
hearing at which to present evidence and to litigate
the issue . We note , however, that, although the Re-
spondent had specifically excepted to the Trial
Examiner's findings as to the unlawful implied prom-
ises and had argued in its brief the merits of these
findings , it made no request to the Board for the op-
portunity to introduce countervailing evidence such
as it now offers . It was not until after the Board and
court decisions had sustained the merits of the 8(a)(1)
violations and after the filing of the Motion for Sum-
mary Judgment herein that the Respondent for the
first time requested a hearing in which to introduce
evidence that has been available to it for over the past
2 years. The evidence now sought to be introduced is
thus not previously unavailable . Accordingly, we con-
clude , in these circumstances , that the Respondent is
not entitled to have a hearing in which to relitigate the
11 The court also found that "[t]here is substantial evidence to support the
Trial Examiner 's finding that implied promises were made , and that finding
does not depend upon the operation of a per se rule." 460 F .2d 23, 25.
1027
issue of the unlawful implied promises.
It is well settled that in the absence of newly discov-
ered or previously unavailable evidence or special cir-
cumstances a respondent in a proceeding alleging a
violation of Section 8(a)(5) is not entitled to relitigate
issues which were or could have been litigated in a
prior representation proceeding.12
All issues raised by the Respondent in this proceed-
ing were or could have been litigated in the prior
representation proceeding, and the Respondent does
not offer to adduce at a hearing any newly discovered
or previously unavailable evidence, nor does it allege
that any special circumstances exist herein which
would require the Board to reexamine the decision
made in the representation proceeding. We therefore
find that the Respondent has not raised any issue
which is properly litigable in this unfair labor practice
proceeding.13 We shall, accordingly, deny the
Respondent's motions in Case 6-RC-5191 and shall
grant the Motion for Summary Judgment.
On the basis of the entire record, the Board makes
the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
Respondent is a Pennsylvania corporation with
principal office and manufacturing facility located in
Waynesboro, Pennsylvania, where it is engaged in the
manufacture, sale, and service of machine tools and
related products. Within the 12-month period imme-
diately preceding the issuance of the complaint, the
Respondent purchased and received goods and mate-
rials valued in excess of $50,000 directly from points
outside the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. During
the same 12-month period, the Respondent shipped
goods valued in excess of $50,000 directly to points
outside the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
We find, on the basis of the foregoing, that Respon-
dent is, and has been at all times material herein, an
employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act, and that it will effectu-
ate the policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein.
"See Pittsburgh Plate Glass Co v. NLRB., 313 U.S. 146, 162 (1941);
Rules and Regulations of the Board , Secs. 102.67(f) and 102.69(c).
13 In his answer to the complaint , the Respondent denies the service of the
amended charge as alleged in par. I of the complaint . Attached to the
General Counsel 's Motion for Summary Judgment are Exh . M (affidavit of
service of Complaint and Notice of Hearing with Form 4668 and amended
charge attached, by registered mail) and Exh. 9 N and 0 (return receipts of
service of registered mail). Since these uncontroverted exhibits establish ser-
vice of the amended charge on the Respondent , its denial is stricken and the
allegations of the complaint are found to be true . The Respondent 's answer
also denies the description of the Respondent 's operation and location al-
leged in par. 2 of the complaint . Since these allegations have been previously
litigated in Case 6 -RC-5191 and in Case 6-CA-5021, they may not be
relitigated herein
1028 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauf-
feurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, Local
Union No. 110, is a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
Ill. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The Representation Proceeding
1. The unit
The following employees of the Respondent consti-
tute a unit appropriate for collective-bargaining pur-
poses within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act.
All production and maintenance employees and
apprentices at the Landis Tool Company, Divi-
sion of Litton Industries, Waynesboro, Pennsyl-
vania, facilities, including programmers,
assembly technicians, inspection technicians,
machine inspectors, repair order clerk, tape
punch operators, plant clerical employees and
helpers and clerk in the pattern shop; excluding
pattern shop employees represented by the Pat-
tern Makers' League of North America, AFL-
CIO, office clerical employees and guards, pro-
fessional employees and supervisors as defined in
the Act.
2. The certification
On September 16 and 21, 1971, a majority of the
employees of Respondent in said unit, in a secret
ballot election conducted under the supervision of the
Regional Director for Region 6 designated the Union
as their representative for the purpose of collective
bargaining with the Respondent. The Union was cer-
tified as the collective-bargaining representative of
the employees in said unit on August 15, 1972, and the
Union continues to be such exclusive representative
within the meaning of Section 9(a) of the Act.
B. The Request To Bargain and
Respondent's Refusal
Commencing on or about August 25, 1972, and at
all times thereafter, the Union has requested the Re-
spondent to bargain collectively with it as the exclu-
sive collective-bargaining representative of all the
employees in the above-described unit. Commencing
on or about September 5, 1972, and continuing at all
times thereafter to date, the Respondent has refused,
and continues to refuse, to recognize and bargain with
the Union as the exclusive representative for collec-
tive bargaining of all employees in said unit.
Accordingly, we find that the Respondent has,
since September 5, 1972, and at all times thereafter,
refused to bargain collectively with the Union as the
exclusive representative of the employees in the ap-
propriate unit, and that, by such refusal, Respondent
has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practic-
es within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the
Act.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON
COMMERCE
The activities of Respondent set forth in section III,
above, occurring in connection with its operations
described in section I, above, have a close, intimate,
and substantial relationship to trade, traffic, and com-
merce among the several States and tend to lead to
labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce
and the free flow of commerce.
V THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has engaged in and
is engaging in unfair labor practices within the mean-
ing of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act, we shall order
that it cease and desist therefrom, and, upon request,
bargain collectively with the Union as the exclusive
representative of all employees in the appropriate
unit, and, if an understanding is reached, embody
such understanding in a signed agreement.
In order to insure that the employees in the appro-
priate unit will be accorded the services of their select-
ed bargaining agent for the period provided by law,
we shall construe the initial period of certification as
beginning on the date Respondent commences to bar-
gain in good faith with the Union as the recognized
bargaining representative in the appropriate unit. See
Mar Jac Poultry Company, Inc., 136 NLRB 785; Com-
merce Company d/b/a Lamar Hotel, 140 NLRB 226,
229, enfd. 328 F.2d 600 (C.A. 5, 1964), cert. denied 379
U.S. 817 (1964); Burnett Construction Company, 149
NLRB 1419, 1421, enfd. 350 F.2d 57 (C.A. 10, 1965).
The Board, upon the basis of the foregoing facts
and the entire record, makes the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Landis Tool Company, Division of Litton In-
dustries, is an employer engaged in commerce within
the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauf-
feurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, Local
Union No. 110, is a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
LANDIS TOOL COMPANY
3. All production and maintenance employees and
apprentices at the Landis Tool Company, Division of
Litton Industries, Waynesboro, Pennsylvania, facili-
ties, including programmers, assembly technicians,
inspection technicians, machine inspectors, repair or-
der clerk, tape punch operators, plant clerical employ-
ees and helpers and clerk in the pattern shop;
excluding pattern shop employees represented by the
Pattern Makers' League of North America, AFL-
CIO, office clerical employees and guards, profession-
al employees and supervisors as defined in the Act
constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of col-
lective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b)
of the Act.
4. Since August 25, 1972, the above-named labor
organization has been and now is the certified and
exclusive representative of all employees in the afore-
said appropriate unit for the purpose of collective
bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(a) of the
Act.
5. By refusing on or about September 5, 1972, and
at all times thereafter, to bargain collectively with the
above-named labor organization as the exclusive bar-
gaining representative of all the employees of Respon-
dent in the appropriate unit, Respondent has engaged
in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 8(a)(5) of the Act.
6. By the aforesaid refusal to bargain, Respondent
has interfered with, restrained, and coerced, and is
interfering with, restraining, and coercing, employees
in the exercise of the rights guaranteed to them in
Section 7 of the Act, and thereby has engaged in and
is engaging in unfair labor practices within the mean-
ing of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
7. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair
labor practices affecting commerce within the mean-
ing of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Rela-
tions Board hereby orders that Respondent, Landis
Tool Company, Division of Litton Industries, its offi-
cers , agents , successors , and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Refusing to bargain collectively concerning
rates of pay, wages, hours, and other terms and condi-
tions of employment with International Brotherhood
of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Help-
ers of America, Local Union No. 110, as the exclusive
bargaining representative of its employees in the fol-
lowing appropriate unit:
All production and maintenance employees and
apprentices at the Landis Tool Company, Divi-
1029
Sion of Litton Industries, Waynesboro, Pennsyl-
vania, facilities, including programmers, assem-
bly technicians, inspection technicians, machine
inspectors, repair order clerk, tape punch opera-
tors, plant clerical employees and helpers and
clerk in the pattern shop; excluding pattern shop
employees represented by the Pattern Makers'
League of North America, AFL-CIO, office cler-
ical employees and supervisors as defined in the
Act.
(b) In any like or related manner interfering with,
restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of
the rights guaranteed them in Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the
Board finds will effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Upon request, bargain with the above-named
labor organization as the exclusive representative of
all employees in the aforesaid appropriate unit with
respect to rates of pay, wages, hours, and other terms
and conditions of employment, and, if an under-
standing is reached, embody such understanding in a
signed agreement.
(b) Post at its Waynesboro, Pennsylvania, facilities
copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix." 14
Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Re-
gional Director for Region 6 after being duly signed
by Respondent's representative, shall be posted by
Respondent 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.
(c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 6, in
writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order,
what steps have been taken to comply herewith.
14 In the event that this 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 read "Posted Pursuant to a Judgment
of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National
Labor Relations Board."
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain collectively con-
cerning rates of pay, wages , hours, and other
terms and conditions of employment with Inter-
1030 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
national Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen and Helpers of America, Local
Union No. 110, as the exclusive representative of
the employees in the bargaining unit described
below.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner in-
terfere with, restrain , or coerce our employees in
the exercise of the rights guaranteed them by
Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL, upon request , bargain with the above-
named Union, as the exclusive representative of
all employees in the bargaining unit described
below, with respect to rates of pay, wages , hours,
and other terms and conditions of employment,
and, if an understanding is reached , embody
such understanding in a signed agreement. The
bargaining unit is:
All production and maintenance employees
and apprentices at the Landis Tool Company,
Division of Litton Industries , Waynesboro,
Pennsylvania , facilities , including program-
mers, assembly technicians, inspection techni-
cians, machine inspectors, repair order clerk,
tape punch operators , plant clerical employees
and helpers and clerk in the pattern shop; ex-
cluding pattern shop employees represented
by the Pattern Makers' League of North
America , AFL-CIO, office clerical employees,
and guards , professional employees and super-
visors as defined in the Act.
Dated By
LANDIS TOOL COMPANY, DI-
VISION OF LITTON INDUSTRIES
(Employer)
(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 compli-
ance with its provisions may be directed to the
Board's Office , 1536 Federal Building , 1000 Liberty
Avenue , Pittsburgh , Pennsylvania 15222 , Telephone
412-644-2977.