Local 12 (Associated Independent Owner-Operators)

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 16, 1969

180 N.L.R.B. 293 (N.L.R.B. 1969)

LOCAL 12 ( ASSOCIATED INDEPENDENT OWNER -OPERATORS)
International Union of Operating Engineers, Local
Union No. 12, AFL-CIO (Wesley Forsythe) and
Associated Independent Owner-Operators, Inc.
Case 21-CC- 1 137
December 16, 1969
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS FANNING, BROWN, AND ZAGORIA
On October 7, 1969, Trial Examiner George H.
O'Brien issued his Decision in the above-entitled
proceeding, finding that Respondent had engaged in
and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices
within the meaning of the National Labor Relations
Act, as amended, 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 Examiner also found that the
Respondent had not engaged in certain other unfair
labor practices alleged in the complaint and
recommended dismissal as to them. Thereafter, the
General Counsel, Charging Party, and Respondent
filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision
and supporting briefs, and Respondent filed an
answering 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, the brief, and
the entire record in this case, and hereby adopts the
findings, conclusions, and recommendations 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
Recommended Order of the Trial Examiner, and
hereby orders that Respondent, International Union
of Operating Engineers , Local Union No. 12,
AFL-CIO, its officers, agents , and representatives,
shall take the action set forth in the Trial
Examiner's Recommended Order.
TRIAL EXAMINER' S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
GEORGE H. 0 BRIEN, Trial Examiner: On August 12,
1969, a hearing was held in the above-entitled matter in
Los Angeles, California at which all parties appeared and
participated. The complaint, issued by the Regional
Director for Region 21 of the National Labor Relations
293
Board on May 27, 1969, is based on a charge filed by
Associated Independent Owner-Operators, Inc. on April 4,
1969 and alleges violation of Section 8(b)(4)(ii )(A) and (B)
of the National Labor Relations Act by International
Union of Operating Engineers Local Union No. 12,
AFL-CIO, herein called Respondent . Upon the entire
record in this proceeding , including my observation of the
witnesses and after due consideration of the post-hearing
briefs , I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER
Midway Construction Company, herein called Midway,
is engaged as a general contractor in the building and
construction industry. At all times material herein
Midway has been engaged in the construction of an
industrial project known as Dominguez Industrial Park in
Compton, California. During the 12-month period ending
May 1, 1969, Midway purchased and received at
Dominguez Industrial Park materials and supplies valued
in excess of $50,000 either directly from points located
outside the State of California, or from California
suppliers who obtained said equipment and supplies
directly from points located outside the State of
California. Midway at Dominguez Industrial Park is an
employer engaged in commerce and in a business affecting
commerce within the meaning of Sections 2(6) and (7) of
the Act.
IL THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Respondent is a labor organization within the meaning
of Section 2(5) of the Act.
•fll. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The Issues
The complaint alleges that Respondent, through its
business agent, Orville J. Whisman, on March 31, 1969
"threatened Midway with picketing and shutting down
work at the construction project" and that Respondent's
objects were (1) to force or require Wesley Forsythe, a
self-employed person, to join Respondent and (2) to force
or require Midway to cease doing business with Forsythe.
Respondent's answer is a general denial. In his
posthearing brief Respondent's counsel argues that
Forsythe was an employee of Midway and not an
"independent contractor" and that Whisman did not
threaten Midway. He also argues that Whisman, when
informed that Forsythe was an "owner operator" accepted
this representation at face value, and merely advised
Midway that its subcontract to Forsythe violated the
Master Labor Agreement and that Midway would be
required to make reparation to the man on the top of the
Union' s out-of-work list who had been deprived of
employment by Midway's violation of contract.
B. The Setting
On July 1, 1965, Respondent entered into a Master
Labor Agreement, effective to July 1, 1969, with Home
Builders Association and three other employer
associations. The Agreement contains a clause restricting
job site subcontracting to persons under contract with
unions affiliated with the Building Trades Department of
180 NLRB No. 53
294 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
AFL-CIO or Teamsters, and contains detailed provisions
governing the dispatch of workmen from offices
maintained by the Respondent. It also contains a "union
shop" clause. As of July 1, 1965, R. A. Watt
Construction Company was a member of Home Builders
Association, the name of which has been changed to
Building Industry Association. R. A. Watt Construction
Company was acquired by Boise-Cascade Company.
Midway Construction Company is a wholly owned
subsidiary of Boise-Cascade. On the facts in this record I
am unable to find or conclude that Midway Construction
Company was on March 31, 1969, bound to observe the
terms of the Master Labor Agreement with Respondent.'
Dominguez Industrial Park encompasses a large area,
comprising many city blocks and Boise-Cascade is the
general contractor for the entire project. Midway
Construction Company is the subcontractor for concrete
and masonry with responsibility for the concrete
foundations of the several buildings. The work of
surveying and laying out the foundations was
subcontracted by Midway to E. L. Pierson and
Associates, whose employees are represented by
Respondent. Layout men string lines between stakes set
by the surveyors, and trenches are dug on these lines. On
March 31, Wesley Forsythe, with his backhoe was digging
trenches behind the surveying crew, which was also
working on that date.
Forsythe became a member of Respondent in 1957, and
ceased to be a member in 1964 or 1965. For several years
he has been in business for himself.: He owns two pieces
of equipment, a Massey-Ferguson backhoe valued at
$8,000 and an Allis Chalmers backhoe valued at $11,000
to which he can attach "buckets" of different sizes and
widths in accordance with the requirements of different
jobs. The useful life of each machine is about three years.
He does not permit anyone other than himself to operate
the equipment and does not work for wages with the
equipment of any other person. He is retained by
contractors to perform specific jobs for which he demands
and receives a set rate per hour. During the past year he
performed services for some thirty different contractors.
Vernon Stallmo, Midway's superintendent of concrete and
masonry construction has called on Forsythe at least once
every other week over a period of three to five years.
When Forsythe was otherwise engaged or unavailable he
has suggested the name of some other person to Stallmo
as a substitute. Forsythe sets his own price for each job,
and from time to time over the years has raised his rates.
On the Dominguez job he charged $14.50 per hour. He
keeps and records his own time and turns it in to the
foreman or to the superintendent if one of them is still on
the job when he completes his day's task. If he has not
completed a trench when other project work stops and
supervision goes home , he continues to work and turns in
his time on the following day. The only instruction he
receives when accepting a job is the width of the trench
and the location of the project. The only additional
instruction ever given to him is the depth of the trench.
He uses his independent judgment , based on his
knowledge of construction and of the bearing qualities of
'This is not a finding that Midway Construction Company was not
bound to observe terms of the Master Labor Agreement. In Hoisting
Engineers Local 302 (West Coast Steel Works). 144 NLRB 1449, the
Board held at page 1452• " Such an agreement or arrangement need not be
written , but may be established by evidence of an oral understanding or of
a course of conduct in which both parties mutually assume the
concommitant obligations imposed by the necessity to use a hiring hall or
referral system."
soil to dig the trench deeper when he runs into a fill spot
or bad soil and in deciding whether he should deposit the
dirt inside or outside of the building line. He is free to
leave the job anytime it suits his convenience and is
responsible only for the finished result. He pays
maintenance, operating, and insurance costs on his own
equipment. No deduction is made by the contractor for
social security, workmen's compensation or for income
tax. There is no evidence that Midway owns any
comparable equipment or has, or has ever had any
employee doing comparable work.
The foregoing facts bring this case squarely within the
Board's holding in Claremont Development Co., 106
NLRB 611, and require a finding that Forsythe on the
Dominguez project on March 31, 1969, was an
independent contractor within the meaning of Section 2(3)
of the Act and a self-employed person within the meaning
of Section 8(b)(4)(ii)(A) of the Act.3
C. Sequence of Events
Orville J. Whisman is a surveyor by trade, and for the
past seven years has been a business representative,
employed by Respondent, charged with the primary
responsibility of protecting the interests of its 1,700
surveyor members, with other incidental responsibilities.
On the morning of March 31, 1969, Whisman drove to
the Industrial Park to visit the Pierson surveyors.
Observing an idle backhoe and two men standing nearby,
he walked up and asked who was the operator of the
backhoe. Forsythe replied that he was the operator
Whisman asked to see his card. Thereupon, according to
Whisman:
And he told me at that time he was not a member of
the union ; he had no contract; he was an independent
owner-operator; and that he didn't have to belong to
any union.
So I told him, "Thank you." I told him I had no
further argument with him, I had a problem with the
general contractor on the job because the general
contractor was in violation of his agreement, and I left
the jobsite immediately for Boise-Cascade's
superintendent's office.
Forsythe, describing the same incident testified:
I told him I was a member of Associated
Independent Owner-Operators. And he said, "That
doesn't make any difference. You don't work here."
And he walked off.
Forsythe further testified after his recollection was
refreshed by reading his pre-trial statement, that he was
talking to Art, the foreman when Whisman walked up,
and that after Whisman left, the foreman told Forsythe
"that the Business Agent had said that the general
contractor had a collective bargaining agreement with
Local 12 under which they could not use anyone who did
not belong to Local 12." Art did not testify.
'On March 9 , 1960, Forsythe, with two other partners doing business as
J D & W BACKHOE RENTAL, signed a collective bargaining agreement
with Respondent . The existence of this agreement was unknown to
Whisman on March 31 , 1969, and it has no relevance in this proceeding.
'Compare Marshall and Haas . 133 NLRB 1144, where the Board found
that the owner of a dump truck was an employee , in part, because he lined
up with and did the same work under the same supervision as employees
driving company trucks , and Oltmans Construction Company, 168 NLRB
No. 112, where the Board found that "owner operators" were "engaged to
perform duties that could have been assigned to acknowledged employees
of the contractors."
LOCAL 12 (ASSOCIATED INDEPENDENT OWNER-OPERATORS)
Whisman walked back to his car and drove about eight
blocks to the trailer which George Dushane,
Superintendent for Boise-Cascade, was using as his office.
Whisman told Dushane "that they were in violation of
their agreement, in that they had not hired Mr. Forsythe
in accordance with the agreement, and [Whisman] was
asking for pay for a man on the top of the out-of-work
list for every hour that [Forsythe] was on the jobsite
performing the work of an operator." Mr. Dushane
replied, "that Mr. Forsythe was working for Midway
Construction Company, which was a subcontractor on the
job and that [Whisman's] problem was with them, and
that [Dushane] would get ahold of a gentleman called
Marlin Kenny who was superintendent for Midway
Construction Company."
Whisman then drove back to where the surveyors were
working, where he was met by the Pierson surveyors' chief
of party, James C. Shannon. Shannon had been informed
by one of his chainmen that there was a nonunion
operator on the job, and Shannon inquired of Whisman
whether the surveyors should leave. Whisman replied,
"Definitely, Not. Just go ahead and work."
Shortly thereafter Vernon Stallmo drove up, got out of
his car and walked over to Whisman. Stallmo, who was
assistant superintendent for Midway, under Kenny, knew
that Forsythe was not a member of Local 12 and had
been informed by a Boise-Cascade superintendent, Bert
Herrick, that "there was a Local 12 man on the job and
he [Stallmo] had better get over there immediately."
Stallmo testified:
I approached Mr. Whisman and he handed me his
card . . . he said, "You don't have a Local 12 operator
on the job. I want him [Forsythe] taken off the job.
Otherwise, I'm going to shut the job down. You have to
have a Local 12 man perform this duty." In this sense
he said, "If you don't do it, I'm going to shut down the
job."
And I said, "Do I have to do it immediately?"
And he said, "Yes sir." Otherwise, the following
morning he was going to come out with five men and
go through the tract, ... if I didn't get Wes [Forsythe]
off the job immediately I would have to pay a man
from Local 12 wages for that entire day, the first man
on the out-of-work list .... And I said, "I'm not going
to do that." and he said, "You better shut it down."
Stallmo further testified that Whisman did not say what
Whisman and the five men were going to do the following
morning.
Whisman, describing the same conversation, testified:
... this gentleman here approached me . . . and he
never at that time told me his name but he identified
himself as superintendent for Midway Construction
Company . . . I advised him that Midway Construction
Company was in violation of their agreement; that my
demand was for all the time worked by the improperly
hired person on that project. I wanted to compensate
the man on the top of the out-of-work list who had not
worked, and they had violated their agreement. He
asked me what did I want him to do, and he
specifically insinuated did I want him to get rid of Mr.
Forsythe, and I says, "Definitely not."
Whisman cate>orically denied telling Stallmo that he
would shut the job down or that he made any statement to
Stallmo regarding pickets.
Shannon testified that he met Whisman on his return
from the Boise-Cascade office and asked whether
Whisman wanted him to leave the job. He had received a
295
negative reply and was still talking to Whisman when
Stallmo drove up. Shannon stood by within five or ten
feet and listened to their conversation but did not pay
strict attention. The only portion he recalled was the
statement of Whisman that the man on the top of the
out-of-work list should receive pay as long as the backhoe
was operating.
It was then lunch time and Whisman bought lunch for
the two survey crews then working on the project. A few
minutes after Whisman had conversed with Stallmo,
Shannon 'again put the question: "did [Whisman] want
him to'leave the job?" Whisman replied:
... and I told him definitely not, that would be the
worst thing in the world that could happen, was for the
men to leave that job, and I specifically gave him
instructions not to leave the job.
As soon as Whisman left, Stallmo told Forsythe to stop
working and to call his [Forsythe's] business agent. Later
in the day Richard E. Brown, a business agent of
Associated Independent Owner-Operators, Inc., came to
the project and told Forsythe and Stallmo that despite the
decree of the Circuit Court of Appeals handed down
February 18, 1969,' it would be legal for the Union to
picket. Stallmo then told Forsythe "that he'd better join
Local 12", adding, "Otherwise, if you don't, I'm going to
have to get a Local 12 man in."
The next day, April 1, Forsythe made application for
reinstatement in Respondent and paid a total of $350 in
fees and dues. Forsythe completed his then current job for
Midway about two days later.
After the instant charge was filed, the Regional
Director for Region 21 of the Board filed in the United
States District Court a petition for injunction under
Section 10(1) of the Act. In connection with this
application counsel for the Director filed with the Court
an affidavit of Vernon Stallmo dated June 6, 1969. Upon
being shown a copy of this affidavit by the Union's
counsel, Whisman decided to have a second talk with
Stallmo.
Whisman went to the project, asked "are you Vernon
Stallmo?" and, on receiving an affirmative reply, handed
him a business card. Stallmo testified that it was the
business card of W. P. "Bill" Jacobs, an Ironworkers'
Business representative. Whisman testified that it was the
card of Jim Morris, a Local 12 representative. In any
event, Stallmo did not recognize Whisman as the man
who had spoken to him on March 31. Whisman asked
Stallmo if he was absolutely sure about the statements
which he had made in the affidavit of June 6, and Stallmo
replied that the affidavit was true. Whisman then asked
Stallmo if he knew there was a witness present, Shannon,
and Stallmo replied that there was none and that Shannon
was 500 feet away. Whisman ended the brief conversation
with the remark, "I'll see you in Court." At the instant
hearing Stallmo identified Whisman as the man who had
presented the business card of Bill Jacobs, but did not
identify him as the business agent to whom he spoke on
March 31.
D. Respondent's Threat
On March 31 when Vernon Stallmo refused Whisman's
demand that he pay a Local 12 member for all hours
'Associated Independent Owner Operators Inc, v. N L.R.B., 407 F.2d
1383 (C . A. 9), vacating and remanding International Union of Operating
Engineers Local Union No. 12, AFL-CIO (Ohmans Construction
Company ), 168 NLRB No. 112.
296 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
worked by Forsythe, Whisman did say "You better shut
it down." On the same date, and in the same
conversation, Whisman did say that if Stallmo did not
shut down the backhoe, Whisman would be out the next
morning "with five men and go through the tract."
Whisman did not specifically deny these portions of
Stallmo's testimony, and these statements together
constitute a threat within the meaning of Section
8(b)(4)( â–ºi) of the Act. Stallmo correctly understood by the
reference to five men going through the tract, that he was
being threatened with picketing of the entire project.
Shannon, who could recall only a small part of the
conversation between Whisman and Stallmo felt
compelled at its conclusion, to repeat the question which
he had put to Whisman only a few minutes before
Shannon again asked whether the surveyors should leave
the job and on this second occasion obtained a more
emphatic negative response. I do not believe that Shannon
would have repeated his question in the absence of some
statement by Whisman to Stallmo tending to negative the
previous instruction.
E. Respondent's Object
Whisman's statement, "You better shut it down," in its
entire context is sufficient evidence that one object of
Whisman's threat was to force or require Midway to cease
doing business with Forsythe, and this conjunction of
means and object constitutes a violation of Section
8(b)(4)(u)(B) of the Act.
I find no evidence that an object of Respondent's
conduct was to force or require Forsythe to join
Respondent. The General Counsel argues: that "a
respondent may be held to have intended the natural and
forseeable consequences of its conduct." Citing: Local
980, Laborers, et al., (The Kroger Company). 119 NLRB
469, 579, and Local Union 789, Laborers, et al., (Doyle
and Russell), 125 NLRB 571, 574. Conceding the validity
of the proposition, there was reason for Whisman to
anticipate that Stallmo would cease to do business with
Forsythe. There was no reason for him to anticipate that
Forsythe would attempt to rejoin Respondent. Stallmo in
effect told Forsythe that he could not work any longer
unless he rejoined the Union. Forsythe' s business agent,
who signed the charge which gave rise to this proceeding
advised Forsythe to rejoin Respondent. Since Respondent
did not force Forsythe to join, it cannot on any theory be
required to permit him to withdraw, nor can it be required
to return the fees and dues which Forsythe voluntarily
tendered.
Whisman did not on March 31, 1969, refer to the
subcontracting clause of the Master Agreement, nor was it
part of Respondent's object on that date to secure
compliance with the subcontracting clause . Respondent's
counsel argues , in support of his contrary assertion, that
Whisman' s insistance that the top man on the out-of-work
list be paid for the hours actually worked by Forsythe
indicated such intent, and directs my attention to an
arbitrators decision' prescribing such a remedy Such a
remedy would be equally appropriate, were Forsythe an
employee hired in violation of the exclusive referral
clauses of the contract. That Whisman regarded Forsythe
as an employee is evidenced by his words to the
Boise-Cascade superintendent:
'Decision of Board of Arbitration , Sam Kagel , (chairman ) in Associated
General Contractors. 38 Labor Arbitration Reports 500
I told him the problem that I had, that they were in
violation of their agreement in that they had not hired
Mr. Forsythe in accordance with the agreement.
If Midway Construction Company, or Boise-Cascade
was or if both were, on March 31, 1969 bound to observe
the subcontracting clause of the Master Labor Agreement,
an attempt by Respondent to secure compliance therewith
by threat of picketing would violate Section 8(b)(4)(ii)(B)
of the Act. Northeastern Indiana Building and
Construction Trades Council, etc (Centlivre Villiage
Apartments), 148 NLRB 854.
Since an object of Whisman's threat to return on the
following morning with five men and go through the tract
was to cause Midway Construction Company to cease
doing business with Wesley Forsythe, an independent
contractor, Respondent did thereby engage in conduct
violative of Section 8(b)(4)(ii)(B) of the Act. N.L R.B v
Denver Building and Construction Trades Council, et al
(Gould and Preisner), 341 U.S. 675, 689.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
UPON COMMERCE
The activities of Respondent set forth above, occurring
in connection with the operations of the employers as set
forth above, have a close, intimate, and substantial
relation 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
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has violated Section
8(b)(4)(ii )(B) of the Act, it will be recommended that it
cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative
action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact, and upon
the entire record in the case, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Midway Construction Company is an employer
within the meaning of Section 2(2) of the Act engaged in
commerce and in a business affecting commerce within
the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. Midway Construction Company and Wesley
Forsythe are persons in an industry affecting commerce
within the meaning of Section 8(b)(4) of the Act.
3. International Union of Operating Engineers, Local
Union No. 12, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within
the meaning of Section 2(5) and 8(b) of the Act.
4. By threatening to picket Midway Construction
Company with an object of forcing or requiring Midway
Construction Company to cease doing business with
Wesley Forsythe, International Union of Operating
Engineers, Local Union No. 12, AFL-CIO, has engaged
in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the
meaning of Section 8(b)(4)(i â–º)(B) of the Act.
5. Respondent has not engaged in unfair labor practices
affecting commerce within the meaning of Section
8(b)(4)(ii)(A) of the Act.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and
conclusions of law, and upon the entire record in this
proceeding, I recommend that International Union of
Operating Engineers , Local Union No. 12, AFL-CIO, its
LOCAL 12 (ASSOCIATED INDEPENDENT OWNER -OPERATORS)
officers , agents and representatives , shall:
1. Cease and desist from threatening, coercing or
restraining Midway Construction Company or any other
person engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting
commerce where an object thereof is forcing or requiring
any such person to cease doing business with Wesley
Forsythe.
297
(c) Notify the said Regional Director in writing within
20 days from the date of the receipt of this Decision, what
steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith.'
'In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board,
this provision shall be modified to read : "Notify the Regional Director for
Region 21, in writing , within 10 days from the date of this Order, what
steps it has taken to comply herewith "
2. Take the following affirmative action which I find
will effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Post in conspicuous places at its business offices and
meeting halls, including all places where notices to
members are customarily posted, copies of the attached
notice marked "Appendix."6 Copies of said notice to be
furnished by the Regional Director for Region 21, shall,
after being signed by Respondent's authorized
representative, be posted by Respondent immediately upon
receipt thereof and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive
days. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to
insure that said notices are not altered, defaced or covered
by any other material.
(b) Sign and mail copies of said notice to the Regional
Director for posting by Midway Construction Company, it
being willing, at all locations where notices to its
employees are customarily posted.
'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
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
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."
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO MEMBERS
Posted by order of the National Labor Relations Board
an agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT threaten, coerce, or restrain Midway
Construction Company or any other person engaged in
commerce or in an industry affecting commerce where
an object thereof is to force or require any such person
to cease doing business with Wesley Forsythe.
INTERNATIONAL UNION
OF OPERATING
ENGINEERS, LOCAL
UNION No . 12, AFL-CIO
(Labor Organization)
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,
849 South Broadway, Los Angeles, California 90014,
Telephone 688-5229.