North Hills Office Services, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 18, 2005

344 N.L.R.B. 523 (N.L.R.B. 2005)

NORTH HILLS OFFICE SERVICES
344 NLRB No. 63
523
North Hills Office Services, Inc. and Local 32B-32J,
Service Employees International Union, AFL–
CIO, CLC. Case 22–CA–26250
April 18, 2005
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN BATTISTA AND MEMBERS LIEBMAN
AND SCHAUMBER
On January 7, 2005, Administrative Law Judge Marga-
ret M. Kern issued the attached decision. The Respon-
dent filed exceptions and a supporting brief, and the
General Counsel filed an answering brief.
The National Labor Relations Board has considered
the decision and the record in light of the exceptions and
briefs and has decided to affirm the judge’s rulings, find-
ings, and conclusions and to adopt the recommended
Order as modified below.1
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board adopts the rec-
ommended Order of the administrative law judge as
modified below and orders that the Respondent, North
Hills Office Services, Inc., Woodbury, New York, its
officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the
action set forth in the Order as modified.
1. Substitute the following for paragraph 2(c).
“(c) Preserve and, within 14 days of a request, or such
additional time as the Regional Director may allow for
good cause shown, provide at a reasonable place desig-
nated by the Board or its agents, all payroll records, so-
cial security payment records, timecards, personnel re-
cords and reports, and all other records, including an
electronic copy of such records if stored in electronic
form, necessary to analyze the amount of backpay due
under the terms of this Order.”

1 Postal Service, 204 NLRB 292 (1973), the principal case cited by
the Respondent in support of its argument of unilateral mistake, is
distinguishable from the circumstances of this case. In Postal Service,
the Board set aside, on the ground of unilateral mistake, an agreement
on vacation request procedures where the union misrepresented critical
facts in its discussions with the employer’s representative and the em-
ployer’s representative would not have accepted the union’s offer ab-
sent the misrepresentation. No evidence of this character is present in
this case.
We amend the judge’s remedy to provide that backpay shall be
computed in the manner provided in Ogle Protection Service, 183
NLRB 682 (1970), enfd. 444 F.2d 502 (6th Cir. 1971), rather than F.
W. Woolworth Co., 90 NLRB 289 (1950). The Ogle Protection formula
applies when, as here, the Board is remedying “a violation of the Act
which does not involve cessation of employment status or interim earn-
ings that would in the course of time reduce backpay.” Ogle Protection
Service, supra, at 683; see also Pepsi-America, Inc., 339 NLRB 986 fn.
2 (2003).
We shall also modify par. 2(c) of the judge’s recommended Order in
accordance with Ferguson Electric, Inc., 335 NLRB 142 (2001).
Robert Gonzalez, Esq., for the General Counsel.
Alan Pearl, Esq. (Portnoy Messinger Pearl & Associates, Inc.,)
of Syosset, New York, for the Respondent.
Katchen Locke, Esq., of New York, New York, for the Charg-
ing Party.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
MARGARET M. KERN, Administrative Law Judge. This case
was tried before me in Newark, New Jersey, on September 28,
2004. A complaint issued on June 15, 2004, based upon an
unfair labor practice charge filed by Local 32B-32J, Service
Employees International Union, AFL–CIO, CLC (Charging
Party or Union) on March 3, 2004 against North Hills Office
Services (Respondent). On the day of the hearing, counsel for
the General Counsel filed a first amended complaint after hav-
ing previously served on all parties a notice of intent to amend.
The first amended complaint was allowed without objection.
It is alleged that on December 9, 2003, Respondent proposed
to increase the wages of all employees employed at the Mead-
ows Office Complex located at 201/301 Route 17 North, Ruth-
erford, New Jersey (201/301) by 35-cents-per-hour. Ten days
later, by voicing no objection to the proposed increase, the
union agreed. Thereafter, Respondent increased the wages of
full-time employees by 35 cents, but increased the wages of the
part-time employees by only 15 cents. Respondent claims that
it always intended to implement a two-tiered wage increase but
its negotiator made a mistake and conveyed to the union an
offer of a uniform increase for both full-time and part-time
employees. Respondent further claims that the union was on
notice of this unilateral mistake and therefore there was no
enforceable agreement.
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. JURISDICTION
North Hills is a corporation with a main office located in
Woodbury, New York. It is engaged in the provision of com-
mercial building cleaning services in the New York/New Jersey
metropolitan area, including two office buildings located at
201/301. 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.
II. LABOR ORGANIZATION STATUS
Respondent admits, and I find, that the union is a labor or-
ganization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Prior Board Proceedings
The events of this case arose during the pendency of another
case before the Board involving the same parties. It is helpful to
briefly review the chronology of the earlier case in order to put
the events of this case into context.
In September and November 2002, and in January 2003, the
union filed unfair labor practice charges and amended charges
against Respondent alleging that Respondent was a successor
employer to a company called Harvard Maintenance, Inc. at
201/301, that it had unlawfully refused to recognize and bar-
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD524
gain with the union as the representative of the employees at
201/301, and that it had unlawfully extended its company-wide
agreement with the National Organization of Industrial Trade
Unions (NOITU) to these employees.1
On July 22, 2003, United States District Court Judge Joseph
Greenaway issued an order granting the acting Regional Direc-
tor’s request for a temporary injunction pending final disposi-
tion of the ULP charges. Judge Greenaway enjoined Respon-
dent, in relevant part, from recognizing and bargaining with
NOITU for the employees of 201/301, from applying or enforc-
ing the terms of the NOITU collective-bargaining agreement to
the employees of 201/301, and from refusing to bargain with
the union for the employees at 201/301.
On February 2, 2004, I issued a decision and recommended
order in North Hills Office Services, JD-7-04.
On July 9, 2004, the Board issued its decision and order, re-
ported at 342 NLRB 437 (North Hills I). The Board determined
that on August 31, 2002, Respondent became a successor em-
ployer of the employees at 201/301, and that since September
20, 2002, Respondent had an obligation to recognize and bar-
gain with the union in the following appropriate unit:
All full-time and regular part-time building service employees
employed at the Meadows Office Complex located at 201/301
Route 17 North, Rutherford, New Jersey site, but excluding
office clerical employees, managerial employees, guards and
supervisors as defined in the Act.
The Board ordered Respondent, in relevant part, to withhold
recognition from NOITU as the representative of the employees
at 201/301 until such time as NOITU was certified by the
Board, and to cease and desist from giving force and effect to
its collective-bargaining agreement with NOITU with respect to
the employees at 201/301. The Board further ordered Respon-
dent, on request, to recognize and bargain with the union as the
exclusive collective-bargaining representative of the employees
at 201/301.
Respondent and the Union commenced negotiations for a
collective-bargaining agreement for the employees at 201/301
in August 2003, 1 month after the issuance of the temporary
injunction by Judge Greenaway and prior to the Board’s deci-
sion in North Hills I.
B. Collective Bargaining from August to December 2003
From August to December 2003, the parties met on a
monthly basis. At the initial bargaining session in August 2003,
Murray Portnoy,2 Respondent’s representative, responded to an
information request previously made by the Union by providing
Goldman with a copy of the contract between Respondent and
Linque Management, the managing agent for 201/301. Exhibit
A of the Linque contract was a pricing list that contained the
monthly charges for different job classifications. Exhibit A
also contained the following language: “Annual union increases

1 The NOITU agreement at issue was effective by its terms from Oc-
tober 18, 2000 to November 23, 2003 and covered all of Respondent’s
employees at all locations.
2 Murray Portnoy and Mark Portnoy are partners and both represent
Respondent in labor negotiations. To avoid confusion, I will refer to
Murray Portnoy by his full name.
for full-time porters, full-time matrons, full-time lead personnel
and part-time employees shall be absorbed by the client.”
Goldman immediately observed that the specific dollar amounts
for labor costs had been redacted and he asked Murray Portnoy
to provide the Union with an unredacted copy of Exhibit A.
Murray Portnoy responded that the redacted information was
none of the Union’s business.
Goldman testified, without contradiction, that early on in ne-
gotiations he had a copy of the NOITU agreement which pro-
vided NOITU with plant visitation rights. He requested the
Union be granted similar access to employees. Murray Portnoy
responded that if the Union wanted the NOITU agreement, it
could get the entire agreement, but he would not agree to parse
out portions of the agreement on an interim basis. Murray Port-
noy said that the access issue would not be determined until an
overall agreement was reached. Murray Portnoy did not testify.
The NOITU agreement provided for annual wage increases
of 35 cents for full-time employees and 15 cents for part-time
employees to be effective on November 24 of each contract
year, i.e., November 24, 2000, November 24, 2001, and No-
vember 24, 2002.
It is not disputed that from August to December the parties
focused primarily on noneconomic issues in their negotiations.
The Union made a wage proposal at the October 31, 2003 ses-
sion, but it was not discussed in detail and there was no coun-
terproposal by Respondent.
C. Portnoy’s December 9, 2003 Letter
On December 9, 2003, Portnoy sent a letter to Goldman stat-
ing as follows:
It has been brought to my attention that our contract with the
building in the Meadowlands requires a raise of 35-cents-per-
hour to be provided to our maintenance employees. We intend
to institute this raise on Monday morning, January 5, 2004
retroactive to November 1, 2003. However, we are prepared
to meet to discuss this issue at your convenience . . . If we do
not hear from you within the next ten calendar days, we will
assume that you and the Union have no objection to the bar-
gaining unit employees receiving this raise.
Following his receipt of the letter, Goldman consulted with
Kevin Brown, the Union’s New Jersey District chairperson.
They decided the Union would not oppose the wage increase.
Goldman did not affirmatively respond to Portnoy’s December
9, 2003 letter, and let the 10-day period expire without commu-
nicating an objection.
When asked about the circumstances which led him to write
the December 9, 2003 letter, Portnoy testified that at some
point it came to attention that Respondent was going to grant a
wage increase to the employees at 201/301 pursuant to the
terms of the NOITU agreement. Portnoy could not recall who
advised him of the intended wage increase or exactly when he
was told. His only recollection was that it was “somebody at
North Hill’s office. Whoever called to tell me that the raise
would have to go, that a raise was due and coming into effect. I
asked ‘Well, how much are you talking about?’ and they told
me 35 cents.” Portnoy did not explain during his testimony why
he cited the provisions of the Linque contract in his letter to the
NORTH HILLS OFFICE SERVICES 525
Union as the reason for the proposed increase rather than the
terms of the NOITU agreement.
D. Collective Bargaining from January to February 2004
The next bargaining session was held on January 26, 2004.
Present were Goldman, Brown, and Portnoy. Portnoy was
asked if the 35-cent increase had been implemented. According
to Goldman, Portnoy responded that “all of the minimums” had
been increased by 35 cents. Portnoy, on the other hand, testified
that he responded that he didn’t know and would have to check.
Brown asked if new employees would be the beneficiaries of
the increases, and Portnoy testified that he responded, “every-
body would be the beneficiary because they would establish the
new minimums.” Goldman asked for proof that the 35-cent
wage increase had been put into effect and Portnoy said that
would not be a problem.
The next bargaining session was held on February 17, 2004,
and Goldman, Brown, and Portnoy were present. Goldman and
Brown again requested to see documentation relating to the
wage increase. Portnoy had a seniority list for the employees at
201/301, but there was no information contained in the docu-
ment relating to the wage increase. The meeting adjourned
briefly and Portnoy called Respondent. When the meeting re-
convened, Portnoy produced an annotated version of the senior-
ity list that had been faxed to him during the break. The anno-
tated document contained a handwritten notation indicating that
on January 1, 2004, full-time employees had been given a 35-
cent increase and part-time employees had been given a 15-cent
increase.
According to Goldman, Portnoy had no immediate explana-
tion for the different treatment of full-time versus part-time
employees and he asked for a caucus so he could again talk to
his client by telephone. According to Goldman, when the par-
ties returned from the break, Portnoy stated that there might
have been a mistake. He said the Linque contract provided for
different wage increases for full-time versus part-time employ-
ees and that is why the full-time employees received a 35-cent
increase and part-time employees only a 15-cent increase.
Goldman immediately objected and demanded that the 35-cent
increase be extended to all employees. He also said he would
file charges with the Board if Respondent did not extend the
raise to all employees. According to Goldman, at no time dur-
ing this or any other negotiating session did Portnoy ever say
that the wage increase was being given pursuant to the NOITU
agreement.
Portnoy testified that when he received the annotated version
of the seniority list with the wage increase information he real-
ized that the wage increase he had previously said had gone
into effect did not reflect what actually happened. He told
Goldman and Brown, “I may have made a mistake in the in-
formation that I gave you. Something different happened.”
Brown said that he thought all the employees got the same 35-
cent increase and Portnoy said, “That’s not what was called
for.” According to Portnoy, neither Brown nor Goldman asked
what he meant by the phrase, “what was called for,” and he did
not elaborate further. According to Portnoy, he did not refer-
ence either the Linque contract or the NOITU agreement as the
basis for the wage increase.
On April 23, 2004, Portnoy addressed a letter to the investi-
gating Board agent which stated in relevant part:
Apparently I misunderstood what was requested with respect
to the increases at the Meadowlands and I mistakenly in-
formed the Union about what had happened in my letter.
When I realized that in fact the increases would be put into ef-
fect at the beginning of 2004 and that they were different for
full-time and part-time employees, I informed the Union.
Portnoy also acknowledged during his testimony that he had
made a mistake:
Q: So it’s clear then, when you made your official offer back
on December 9, 2003 to the union you had it in your mind
that all the employees would be getting this 35-cent wage in-
crease?
A: I did, yes.
Q: Okay, and it wasn’t until February 17th that you became
aware from your client that, in fact, they really intended 35
cents to full-time and the 15-cent increase to apply to part-
time?
A: Yes.
IV. ANALYSIS
It is well established that the formation of a binding contract
may be affected by a mistake. In the case of unilateral mistake,
there is considerable authority to the effect that if in the expres-
sion of the intention of one of the parties to an alleged contract
there is error, and that error is unknown to and unsuspected by
the other party, that which was so expressed by the one party
and agreed to by the other is a valid and binding contract which
the party not in error may enforce. A party to a contract cannot
avoid it on the ground that he made a mistake where the other
contractor has no notice of such mistake and acts in perfect
good faith. Health Care Workers, Local 250, 341 NLRB 1034,
1040 (2004), slip op. at p. 6; Apache Powder Co., 223 NLRB
191 (1976).
Counsel for the General Counsel does not dispute that Port-
noy was genuinely mistaken when he conveyed the proposal to
increase all employees wages by 35-cents-per-hour rather than
35 cents for full-time employees and 15 cents for part-time
employees. The sole issue is whether, under the circumstances,
the Union was placed on notice of Portnoy’s mistake.
During the 4 months of bargaining that preceded the Decem-
ber 9, 2003 letter, the parties were focused on noneconomic
issues. The Union did make an initial wage proposal on Octo-
ber 31, but that proposal was not discussed in detail and Re-
spondent made no counterproposal. Given this backdrop, the
Union had no reason to think that Portnoy’s letter of December
9, 2003 was anything other than what it purported to be: a pro-
posal to implement a modest interim wage increase pending the
negotiation of a global collective-bargaining agreement.
The sole reason cited by Portnoy in the December 9, 2003
letter for the wage increase was a requirement in the Linque
contract that employees receive a 35-cent raise. I credit Gold-
man’s testimony that Portnoy advanced the same reason at the
February 2004 bargaining session. The Union had previously
requested a copy of the Linque contract, and Respondent had
provided a redacted version. The redacted version omitted the
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD526
labor cost information upon which employee wage rates were
obviously based. Thus, Respondent withheld from the Union
the very information from which the Union might have been
able to determine what wage increases, if any, were due em-
ployees. The Union’s acceptance of Portnoy’s representation of
what the Linque contract provided for was therefore perfectly
reasonable.
Respondent, in its opening statement, and Portnoy in his tes-
timony, stated that the NOITU agreement called for a raise on
November 1, 2003 of 35 cents for full-time employees and 15
cents for part-time employees, and it was pursuant to this man-
dated contractual increase that Portnoy wrote the December 9,
2003 letter. Respondent concedes that Portnoy was mistaken
when he wrote that the increase was 35-cents for all employees,
but argues that because the Union was in possession of the
NOITU agreement, as well as Exhibit A of the Linque agree-
ment that provided that all union increases would be paid for by
Linque, the Union should have recognized Portnoy’s mistake. I
disagree for the following reasons:
First, Portnoy stated in his December 9, 2003 letter that the
Linque contract was the basis for the wage increase, not the
NOITU agreement.
Second, I credit Goldman’s testimony that at the February
17, 2004 bargaining session, Portnoy again said that it was the
Linque contract that was the basis for the wage increase. I
credit Goldman’s testimony that at no time during negotiations
did Portnoy ever cite the NOITU agreement as the basis for the
proposed wage increase. His testimony is corroborated by the
fact that Portnoy made no mention of the NOITU agreement in
his position letter to the Board in April 2004. In fact, it appears
the first time Respondent expressed its reliance on the terms of
the NOITU agreement as the rationale for the proposed wage
increase was at this hearing.
Third, even if the wage increase was premised on the
NOITU agreement, that agreement expired by its terms on No-
vember 23, 2003, and contrary to Respondent’s assertions, did
not provide for a wage increase on November 1, 2003. The last
wage increase provided for in the NOITU agreement was on
November 24, 2002.
Fourth, early in negotiations when the Union asked for ac-
cess to employees at the worksite, Murray Portnoy made it
clear that Respondent would not agree to the partial implemen-
tation of any of the provisions of the NOITU agreement. His
blanket statement could reasonably have been interpreted by
the Union to include any provision for a wage increase under
the NOITU agreement. As Goldman testified, Murray Portnoy
made it clear that the NOITU agreement “was basically irrele-
vant.”
Finally, and perhaps most significantly, Respondent had
been enjoined from enforcing any of the terms of the NOITU
agreement with respect to the employees at 201/301.
Given all of these factors, there is no basis upon which to
conclude that the Union should have realized that Respondent
intended to implement a two-tiered wage increase instead of an
across-the-board increase as stated unequivocally in Portnoy’s
December 9, 2003 letter. I find that on December 9, 2003, Re-
spondent’s agent made an unequivocal offer to increase wages
for all employees at 201/301 by 35 cents and that, on December
19, 2003, by virtue of not registering an objection, the Union
accepted that offer. There was a meeting of the minds on this
interim wage agreement. Respondent’s refusal to thereafter
implement the agreement based upon the unilateral mistake of
its agent violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce within
the meaning of Section 2(2), (6) and (7) of the Act and has
engaged in unfair labor practices affecting 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. The following employees constitute a unit appropriate for
the purpose of collective bargaining within the meaning of
Section 9(b) of the Act:
All full-time and regular part-time building service employees
employed at the Meadows Office Complex located at 201/301
Route 17 North, Rutherford, New Jersey site, but excluding
office clerical employees, managerial employees, guards and
supervisors as defined in the Act.
4. Since August 31, 2002, the Union has been the exclusive
representative of all employees in the appropriate unit for pur-
poses of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section
9(a) of the Act.
5. On December 19, 2003, Respondent and the Union
reached an agreement to increase wages for all full-time and
regular part-time unit employees by 35-cents-per-hour.
6. Since December 19, 2004, Respondent North Hills has
violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act by failing and refus-
ing to implement the agreed upon wage increase for the part-
time unit employees.
REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in certain un-
fair labor practices, I find that it must be ordered to cease and
desist and to take certain affirmative action designed to effectu-
ate the policies of the Act. Respondent must implement the
agreed upon 35-cents per-hour wage increase for the part-time
unit employees. Respondent must also make these employees
whole for any loss of earnings and other benefits suffered as a
result of Respondent’s unfair labor practice. Backpay shall be
computed in accordance with F. W. Woolworth Co., 90 NLRB
289 (1950), with interest as prescribed in New Horizons for the
Retarded, 283 NLRB 1173 (1987).3
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on the
entire record, I issue the following recommended4

3 It is not clear if the wage increase for full-time employees was im-
plemented on November 1, 2003, as indicated in Portnoy’s letter, or on
January 1, 2004, as indicated on the document presented by Portnoy at
the February 17, 2004 bargaining session. Whatever the date, the part-
time employees are entitled to the same increase as that received by the
full-time employees, and the effective date of that increase should be
determined at the compliance stage.
4 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
NORTH HILLS OFFICE SERVICES 527
ORDER
The Respondent North Hills, Woodbury, New York, its offi-
cers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Refusing to implement the 35-cents per-hour wage in-
crease for part-time unit employees as agreed to by Respondent
and the Union.
(b) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining
or coercing employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed
them by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to effectu-
ate the policies of the Act.
(a) Implement the agreed upon 35-cents per-hour wage in-
crease for the part-time unit employees.
(b) Make the part-time employees whole for any loss of earn-
ings and other benefits suffered in the manner set forth in the
remedy section of the decision.
(c) Preserve and, within 14 days of a request, make available
to the Board or its agents for examination and copying, all pay-
roll records, social security payment records, timecards, per-
sonnel records and reports, and all other records necessary to
analyze the amount of backpay due under the terms of this Or-
der.
(d) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at its
201/301 site in Rutherford, New Jersey copies of the attached
notice marked “Appendix.”5 Copies of the notice, on forms
provided by the Regional Director for Region 22, after being
signed by Respondent North Hills’ authorized representative,
shall be posted by Respondent North Hills immediately upon
receipt and maintained for 60 consecutive days in conspicuous
places including all places where notices to employees are cus-
tomarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent
North Hills to ensure that the notices are not altered, defaced, or
covered by any other material. In the event that, during the

Board and all objections to them shall be deemed waived for all pur-
poses.
5 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 Na-
tional Labor Relations Board” shall read “Posted Pursuant to a Judg-
ment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the
National Labor Relations Board.”
pendency of these proceedings, Respondent North Hills has
gone out of business or closed the facility involved in these
proceedings, Respondent North Hills shall duplicate and mail,
at its own expense, a copy of the notice to all current employees
and former employees employed by Respondent North Hills at
that location at any time since December 19, 2003.
(e) 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
Respondent North Hills has taken to comply.
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 refuse to implement a 35-cents-per-hour wage
increase for part-time employees agreed to by us and Local
32B-32J, Service Employees International Union, AFL–CIO,
CLC.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, re-
strain, or coerce you in the exercise of the rights guaranteed
you by Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL implement a 35-cents-per-hour increase for part-
time employees as agreed to by us and Local 32B-32J, Service
Employees International Union, AFL–CIO, CLC.
WE WILL make employees whole for any loss of earnings and
other benefits suffered as a result of our failure to implement
the 35-cents-per-hour increase for part-time employees.
NORTH HILLS OFFICE SERVICES, INC.