Martinelli Interior Construction Company, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Administrative Judge Opinions

Oct 1, 2007

04-CA-035167 (N.L.R.B. Oct. 1, 2007)

JD–62–07
Wayne, PA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
DIVISION OF JUDGES
MARTINELLI INTERIOR CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC.
and Case- 4-CA-35167
METROPOLITIAN REGIONAL COUNCIL OF
CARPENTERS, SOUTHEASTERN PENNSYLVANIA,
STATE OF DELAWARE AND EASTERN SHORE OF
MARYLAND, UNITED BROTHERHOOD OF CARPENTERS
AND JOINERS OF AMERICA
Edward J. Bonett, Jr. Esq., of Philadelphia, PA,
for the General Counsel.
Stephen J. Holroyd, Esq., of Philadelphia, PA,
for the Charging Party.
Marc Furman, Esq., of Philadelphia, PA,
for the Respondent-Employer.
DECISION
Statement of the Case
Bruce D. Rosenstein, Administrative Law Judge. This case was tried before me on July,
11 and 12, 20071, in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, pursuant to a Complaint and Notice of Hearing
in the subject case (complaint) issued on May 16, by the Regional Director for Region 4 of the
National Labor Relations Board (the Board). The underlying charge was filed on February 13,
by Metropolitan Regional Council of Carpenters, Southeastern Pennsylvania, State of Delaware
and Eastern Shore of Maryland, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America (the
Charging Party or Union) alleging that Martinelli Interior Construction Company, Inc. (the
Respondent or Employer), has engaged in certain violations of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the
National Labor Relations Act (the Act). The Respondent filed a timely answer to the complaint
denying that it had committed any violations of the Act.
Issues
The complaint alleges that the Respondent created the impression that employee’s
union activities were under surveillance in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act and that it
discharged its employee Michael Long in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act.

1 All dates are in 2007 unless otherwise indicated.
JD–62–07
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
2
On the entire record, including my observation of the demeanor of the witnesses, and
after considering the briefs filed by the General Counsel, Charging Party, and the Respondent, I
make the following
Findings of Fact
I. Jurisdiction
The Respondent, a Delaware corporation, with a principal office located in Wayne,
Pennsylvania, has been engaged in business as an interior fit out carpentry subcontractor in the
construction industry. During the past year, Respondent, in conducting its business operations
provided goods and services valued in excess of $50,000 directly to customers located outside
the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. The Respondent admits and I find that it is an employer
engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act and that the
Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
II. Alleged Unfair Labor Practices
A. Background
The Respondent is a small open shop carpentry subcontractor in the construction
industry that has approximately 7-10 permanent employees on its payroll but also employs
subcontractors. It primarily works on commercial projects and provides carpentry services as
needed for General Contractors. The President of the company is Susanne Martinelli and her
husband Alfred “Buddy” Martinelli (B. Martinelli or Martinelli) is vice president and part owner.
Martinelli serves as chief estimator and construction coordinator and is the only managerial
representative that has the authority to hire, fire, and discipline employees. Martinelli’s brother
Greg (G. Martinelli) serves as one of the two working carpentry foreman along with Joseph
Gallagher. However, neither G. Martinelli nor Gallagher has the authority to hire, fire, or
discipline employees. At all times material herein, Michael Long is a journeyman carpenter who
prior to being employed with the Respondent on November 21, 2006, was and continues to be a
full-time paid Union representative. As part of his job duties, Long was instructed by his
superiors to attempt to organize employees of non-union companies by securing employment
and then educating employees about the benefits of union representation with the intention of
the Union becoming the collective-bargaining representative of the employees. The
Respondent was the first non-union employer that Long worked for.2
In mid-November 2006, while driving in the area, Long noticed a large construction site
and decided to walk on the premises to seek employment as a carpenter. He left his name and
telephone number with the individual in charge and several days later received a return
telephone call from Martinelli. During the course of their telephone conversation information
was exchanged about Long’s prior experience and the type of jobs he had previously performed
as a skilled carpenter. Without informing Long, Martinelli instructed his financial consultant to
conduct a D & B (Dunn and Bradstreet) report on Long to discern if there were any problems
with his prior experience as a self employed carpenter. Upon learning that the D & B report did
not uncover any irregularities, Martinelli offered a carpenter position to Long at the rate of $20
per hour.3 Long did not reveal his union affiliation to any co-worker or to any member of

2 Under these circumstances I find that Long is “salt” under the Board’s recent decision in
Oil Capitol Sheet Metal, Inc., 349 NLRB No. 118 (2007).
3 Long, during the period from November 21, 2006 to December 31, 2006, was hired and
remained a subcontractor pursuant to his request and was paid without taking deductions from
Continued
JD–62–07
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
3
management until January 30, when he wore a Union sweatshirt to the 220 E. Lancaster
Avenue job (Dane Décor) and spoke to fellow employee Marc Palumbo about the benefits of
being a union member. During the morning of January 30, the General Contractor
representative on the job, Andy Purcell, commented to Long that we have a “spy” on the project.
B. The Agency status of G. Martinelli
The Board and the Courts have uniformly held that whether someone acts as an agent
under the Act must be determined by common law principles of agency. See, e.g. NLRB v.
Plasterers & Cement Masons Local 90 (Southern III. Builders Ass’n), 606 F.2d 189 (7th Cir.
1979), enforcing 236 NLRB 329 (1978).
Applying these principles to the subject case, the evidence establishes that G. Martinelli
Is a Foreman of the Respondent with the authority to assign work to employees while on the
jobsite. Likewise, G. Martinelli is the Respondent’s representative on the jobsite who is the
liaison with the General Contractor. The evidence further shows that G. Martinelli gave a direct
order to Long on the Dana Décor jobsite to install a door in an elevator room as part of his
official duties.
Under these circumstances, and particularly noting that employees including Long
recognized G. Martinelli as the person in charge on the jobsite, I find that G. Martinelli is an
agent of the Respondent and reject the Respondent’s denial in its answer to the contrary.
Facchina Construction Co., 343 NLRB 886, 887 (2004) (Company foremen were agents, as
they served as conduits between employees and management, employees receive their daily
assignments and work instructions from the foremen, and foremen were responsible for
overseeing employees’ work and instructing them to redo work if it is done incorrectly); Celtic
General Contractors, 341 NLRB 862, 877 (2004) (Brother of company president was an agent,
because he spoke with considerable authority and was used as a conduit to employees).
C. The Section 8(a)(1) Allegation
The General Counsel alleges in paragraph 5 of the complaint that Respondent, by
Martinelli, at a job site located in Blue Bell, Pennsylvania, created the impression that
employees’ union activities were under surveillance by telling an employee that he had the
employee checked to see if he was a Union “plant”.
1. Facts
Long, on December 28, 2006, was working at the Cedar Crest Boulevard jobsite and
Martinelli upon arriving at that location in early afternoon informed him that fellow employee
Jose Velasquez suffered a seizure at another job and had to be removed by ambulance. Since
Velasquez was a former Union member Long informed the Union about the matter.
Union representative William Cassidy went to the jobsite where the incident occurred
and inquired about the well being of Velasquez. Cassidy learned that he had recovered and
was back working on the job.
Long, on December 29, 2006, was working at the 630 Skippack Pike job jobsite (GC
Exh. 2) along with Martinelli and fellow employees Vince Grosso and Jorge Cordenos. He
overheard a telephone conversation that Cordenos received concerning Cassidy showing up on
a jobsite and inquiring about the welfare of Velasquez. After the telephone call was completed,
_________________________
his paycheck. Long, on or about January 1, became a full-time employee of the Employer and
was given a raise to $22 per hour. Effective with the raise, his net pay reflected payroll
deductions taken from his paycheck.
JD–62–07
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
4
Martinelli told Long that he should always wear his hard hat, safety glasses and if he was in a
boom lift, he should make sure that his harness was on. Martinelli told Long that the Union was
driving him “fucking” nuts and that they were “fucking” with Grosso. Martinelli said that he did
not want Long to take offense but that he had him checked out because he thought Long was a
Union “plant”. Long did not respond to this comment. Martinelli also told Long that if anyone
else comes on the job to tell them to call him and give his telephone number (GC Exh. 7(d)).
2. Analysis
Long’s testimony has a ring of truth to it and the above statement is consistent with his
contemporaneous notes taken on December 29, 2006 (GC Exh. 7(d)).4 Likewise, Counsel for
the Respondent reviewed his pre-trial affidavit before commencing cross examination and did
not challenge Long’s version of what Martinelli stated to him. Martinelli did not specifically deny
that he made the statement attributed to him in the complaint. Rather, he generally denied ever
having any employee checked out to see if they were union members.
Under these circumstances, I conclude that Martinelli made the statement alleged in the
complaint and find that the Respondent created the impression that employees union activities
were under surveillance in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
D. The 8(a)(1) and (3) Allegations
In Wright Line, 251 NLRB 1083 (1980), enfd, 662 F.2d 899 (1st Cir. 1981), cert. denied
455 U.S. 989 (1982), the Board announced the following causation test in all cases alleging
violations of Section 8(a)(3) or violations of Section 8(a)(1) turning on employer motivation.
First, the General Counsel must make a prima facie showing sufficient to support the inference
that protected conduct was a “motivating factor” in the employer decision. On such a showing,
the burden shifts to the employer to demonstrate that the same action would have taken place
even in the absence of the protected conduct. The United States Supreme Court approved and
adopted the Board’s Wright Line test in NLRB v. Transportation Management Corp., 462 U.S.
393, 399-403 (1993). In Manno Electric, 321 NLRB 278 fn. 12 (1996), the Board restated the
test as follows. The General Counsel has the burden to persuade that antiunion sentiment was
a substantial or motivating factor in the challenged employer decision. The burden of
persuasion then shifts to the employer to prove its affirmative defense that it would have taken
the same action even if the employee had not engaged in protected activity.
The General Counsel alleges in paragraph 6 of the complaint that the Respondent, on or
about January 31, discharged its employee Michael Long because he supported and assisted
the Union.
1. Facts
During Long’s first day of employment on November 21, 2006, he made a statement that
he did not like Mexicans especially Black ones. Martinelli immediately informed him that we do
not talk like that about our fellow employees.
Long was hired by Martinelli without the benefit of an application for employment, but he
ultimately received the application on November 26, 2006. The application shows that in
addition to his education Long noted that he had been self employed as a carpenter from 2001

4 Long made a practice of memorializing the events of each day that he worked at the
Respondent either at the end of the work day or shortly thereafter. Some of those notes have
been introduced into the record as GC Exh. 7(a)-(k).
JD–62–07
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
5
to the present and was applying for the position as he needed a steady paycheck. Long did not
list any other prior employers on the application and did not reveal his position as a full-time
paid Union organizer. Accordingly, the application was not complete and Long misrepresented
his employment history.
Long worked on approximately six different job sites during the course of his
employment (GC Exh. 2). He regularly received job assignments from Martinelli, G Martinelli or
Gallagher while working at these locations along with other employees of the Respondent.
Long, between November 21, 2006 and January 18, experienced no job related
problems for which he was counseled, reprimanded, or had written memoranda placed in his
personnel file. Indeed, over the Christmas holiday Long received a number of gifts including an
employee jacket. Martinelli recognized Longs skills as a journeyman carpenter in the beginning
of January 2007, when he received a wage increase of $2.00 per hour. On January 9, Martinelli
told Long that he should be around a long time at the Respondent (GC Exh. 7(f)), and often
complimented his skills as a carpenter during this period (GC Exh. 7(a)).
Martinelli, on January 19, had a telephone conversation with Forrest Grove Enterprises
Project Manager Franco D’Andrea wherein Martinelli learned for the first time that D’Andrea was
experiencing problems with Long. D’Andrea told Martinelli that Long exhibited a poor attitude
on the Cedar Crest Boulevard project that has created tension among other contractors and
himself. D’Andrea informed Martinelli that Long was no longer wanted on the project and if he
was unable to supply the project with appropriate manpower, then he would have to terminate
their contract. Martinelli requested that D’Andrea put these concerns in writing. By letter dated
January 19, D’Andrea memorialized the content of there telephone conversation (R Exh. 2).
Based on D’ Andrea’s complaint, Long was immediately and permanently removed from the
jobsite.
Long, by letter dated January 21, filed a complaint against the Respondent with the
Pennsylvania Department of Labor alleging that he and other employees were not paid for
overtime work at the proper rate (GC Exh. 4).
On January 25, Department of Labor employee Joseph Winkler arrived at the 630
Skippack Pike jobsite where Long was working that day, to investigate the overtime work
complaint.
Long, on January 26, while working at the Court at Upper Providence jobsite, apprised
G. Martinelli that he was the individual who filed the overtime work complaint with the
Pennsylvania Department of Labor and gave G. Martinelli the business card of Winkler
suggesting that he call him to learn more about the complaint. G. Martinelli wanted to
immediately talk about the complaint rather then calling Winkler. Long told him that it concerned
overtime violations. G. Martinelli replied that those were union rules. Long stated that it is
federal law. G. Martinelli attended to some work responsibilities before returning with Winkler’s
business card. He told Long that this is union shit since the address on the business card was
proximate to the Union office address (GC Exh. 7(h)).
Martinelli testified that he was away from the area when the Department of Labor
complaint was filed but his brother called on January 26 to inform him that Long had filed the
overtime complaint and that Winkler had visited one of their jobsites on January 25. Martinelli
instructed G. Martinelli to telephone there financial consultant to straighten out the overtime
claim but to wait until he had a chance to telephone the consultant to bring him up to speed.
The record shows that Long was paid by check dated February 2, for the back overtime that he
was owed (GC Exh. 6).
JD–62–07
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
6
Martinelli testified that he went to West Palm Beach Florida on January 24 and did not
return to Pennsylvania until approximately 1 a.m. on January 30. Martinelli, on either January
25 or 26 received a telephone call from Forrest Grove Enterprises Vice President of Operations
Jeffory Beckers concerning the uncooperative attitude of Long. Beckers informed Martinelli that
Long has repeatedly refused to clean up his work area causing Beckers to hire outside labor to
remove the debris. Beckers ended the telephone conversation by informing Martinelli that he
wanted Long removed from their jobsites and another individual assigned who can be more
understanding to the needs of the other trades and be willing to respond to the requirements on
the jobsite. Martinelli requested Beckers to put his concerns in writing. Beckers, by letter dated
January 26, summarized there telephone conversation with the information about Long (R Exh.
3).
Martinelli, contacted his financial consultant on January 26 immediately after he
completed his telephone conversation with Beckers, and discussed whether it was prudent to
terminate Long based on the issues raised by D’Andrea and Beckers. It was jointly decided
during the course of the telephone conversation that Long should be terminated based on these
incidents and the racial slur that he uttered on November 21, 2006. Martinelli instructed the
financial consultant to prepare a termination letter to give to Long when he returned to
Pennsylvania on either January 29 or 30. Accordingly, the financial consultant prepared the
termination letter with a date of January 30. Since Martinelli did not return to Pennsylvania until
1 a.m. on January 30, the termination letter was not given to Long until the morning of January
31 (GC Exh. 5).
Long, on January 30, wore a Union sweatshirt to the 220 E. Lancaster Avenue job (Dana
Décor) and spoke to fellow employee Palumbo about the benefits of being a union member.
This was the first time that Long revealed his union affiliation to any employee or management
representative of Respondent. During that morning, the General Contractor representative on
the job, Andy Percell, stated to Long that we have a “spy” on the project. Martinelli testified that
he was called on that day by G. Martinelli and Palumbo to inform him that Long was wearing a
Union sweatshirt.
Martinelli, on January 31 around 5:30 a.m., telephoned Long to come to the Court at
Upper Providence job. Long wore the same Union sweatshirt that he did the preceding day.
Martinelli arrived with G. Martinelli and the rest of the employees and informed Long that be was
being terminated due to reasons that were contained in a sealed envelope that he handed to
Long (GC Exh. 5). Long returned some of the tools that Martinelli had given him and then
commenced to read the letter. He became agitated due to his position that many of the
allegations were false and unpleasantries were exchanged between Long and Martinelli. The
conversation ended when G. Martinelli stated that, “This is America and the Union didn’t make
the rules”.
2. Analysis
The General Counsel argues that Long was a skilled carpenter who was routinely
complimented by Martinelli, was never counseled or reprimanded, and it was not until he filed
an overtime complaint with the Pennsylvania Department of Labor and wore his Union
sweatshirt that the Respondent took disciplinary action against him. Moreover, the Respondent
never told Long about the complaints that D’Andrea and Beckers made nor was he informed
that he was removed from the Forrest Grove Enterprises jobsites or other job locations because
of his conduct. Accordingly, the General Counsel asserts that the reasons advanced by the
Respondent for Long’s discharge are pretextual and a finding should be made that the Act was
violated.
JD–62–07
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
7
The Respondent opines that Long was terminated for legitimate business reasons
unrelated to his protected activities. In this regard, they argue that his belligerent attitude and
conduct as evidenced by his refusal of a direct order from G Martinelli to hang a door in a
elevator room coupled with the issues discussed in the D’Andrea and Beckers letters and the
racial slur provide legitimate non-discriminatory reasons for the discharge.
While I found that Martinelli engaged in section 8(a)(1) conduct by creating the
impression that employees union activities were under surveillance, I am not persuaded that
Long was terminated because of his protected activities.
In this regard, I note that the General Counsel did not allege in the complaint that the
termination was in any way related to the filing of the overtime complaint with the Pennsylvania
Department of Labor despite the fact that the complaint was lodged on behalf of Long and other
employees. Moreover, the General Counsel did not allege the remarks of G. Martinelli that this
was “union rules or union shit” as independent 8(a)(1) conduct.
The evidence conclusively shows that the decision to terminate Long was independently
made by Martinelli on January 26, which was prior to the time that Long revealed his Union
affiliation.5 In this regard, Martinelli made the termination decision in a telephone conversation
with his financial consultant on January 26, immediately after he completed another telephone
conversation with Beckers that came on the heels of an earlier conversation with D’Andrea that
involved repeated inappropriate conduct by Long.6 While Long and others might believe that
the conduct relied upon by Martinelli was exaggerated, the bottom line is that the termination
was not based on Long’s protected conduct as neither Martinelli or any employee learned of the
conduct until January 30, a period of time after the decision had been made to discharge Long.
Moreover, I note and credit the testimony of Martinelli that his family has a long history of
union membership and allegiance. Indeed, his father, older brother and himself are or had been
members of the Carpenters Union. Additionally, I note that G. Martinelli previously was a
member of the Teamsters Union and that when Martinelli hired employees Velasquez,
Cordenos and Grosso, he was aware that they were all active union members. Thus, I do not
attribute any union animus toward Martinelli when he effectuated Long’s discharge for legitimate
non-discriminatory reasons.
Accordingly, I find that Long was not terminated because of his union support and
activity and recommend that this allegation of the complaint be dismissed.7

5 The evidence shows that neither G. Martinelli nor Gallagher had any input into the decision
to terminate Long.
6 The General Counsel and the Charging Party argue that there was no corroboration for
Martinelli’s testimony that one or both letters from the Forrest Grove officials were faxed to him,
no corroboration of cell phone records from these officials, and the Respondent declined to call
these individuals in addition to Martinelli’s secretary and the business consultant/legal counsel
as witnesses to support their case. I note, however, that neither the General Counsel nor the
Charging Party issued subpoenas to any of these individuals to compel their testimony.
7 Under these circumstances, I do not find that the General Counsel established a prima
facie case under the Wright Line guidelines as it concerns Long’s discharge. If others disagree,
I would find that the Respondent would have taken the same action even in the absence of
Long’s protected conduct.
JD–62–07
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
8
Conclusions of Law
1. Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(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 Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act when it created the impression that
employees’ union activities were under surveillance.
4 Respondent did not violate Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act when it discharged its
employee Michael Long.
Remedy
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices, I find
that it must be ordered to cease and desist and to take certain affirmative action designed to
effectuate the policies of the Act.
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on the entire record, I issue the
following recommended8
ORDER
The Respondent, Martinelli Interior Construction Company, Inc., its officers, agents,
successors, and assigns, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Creating the impression that employees union activities were under
surveillance.
(b) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees in the
exercise of rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at its facility in Wayne,
Pennsylvania, copies of the attached notice marked “Appendix.”9 Copies of
the notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 4 after
being signed by the Respondent’s authorized representative, shall be posted
by the Respondent and maintained for 60 consecutive days in conspicuous
places including all places where notices to employees are customarily
posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to ensure that
the notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. In the
event that, during the pendency of these proceedings, the Respondent has
gone out of business or closed the facility involved in these proceedings, the
Respondent shall duplicate and mail, at its own expense, a copy of the notice

8 If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the Board’s Rules and
Regulations, the findings, conclusions, and recommended Order shall, as provided in Sec.
102.48 of the Rules, be adopted by the Board and all objections to them shall be deemed
waived for all purposes.
9 If 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.”
JD–62–07
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
9
to all current employees and former employees employed by the Respondent
at any time since December 29, 2006.
(b) Within 21 days after service by the Region, file with the Regional Director a
sworn certification of a responsible official on a form provided by the Region
attesting to the steps that the Respondent has taken to comply.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint is dismissed insofar as it alleges violations of
the Act not specifically found.
Dated, Washington, D.C. October 1, 2007
____________________
Bruce D. Rosenstein
Administrative Law Judge
JD–62–07
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
10
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
Posted by Order of the
National Labor Relations Board
An Agency of the United States Government
The National Labor Relations Board has found that we violated Federal labor law and has
ordered us to post and obey this Notice.
FEDERAL LAW GIVES YOU THE RIGHT TO
Form, join, or assist a union
Choose representatives to bargain with us on your behalf
Act together with other employees for your benefit and protection
Choose not to engage in any of these protected activities
WE WILL NOT create the impression that employees’ union activities were under surveillance.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the
exercise of their Section 7 rights protected by the Act.
Martinelli Interior Construction Company, Inc.
(Employer)
Dated By
(Representative) (Title)
The National Labor Relations Board is an independent Federal agency created in 1935 to
enforce the National Labor Relations Act. It conducts secret-ballot elections to determine
whether employees want union representation and it investigates and remedies unfair labor
practices by employers and unions. To find out more about your rights under the Act and how to
file a charge or election petition, you may speak confidentially to any agent with the Board’s
Regional Office set forth below. You may also obtain information from the Board’s website:
www.nlrb.gov.
615 Chestnut Street, One Independence Mall, 7th Floor
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19106-4404
Hours: 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.
215-597-7601.
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 ABOVE REGIONAL OFFICE’S
COMPLIANCE OFFICER, 215-597-7643.
JD–62–07
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
11