Sun Hardware Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 26, 1968

173 N.L.R.B. 973 (N.L.R.B. 1968)

SUN HARDWARE CO. 973
Sun Hardware Co., Inc. and General Truck Drivers,
Chauffeurs, & Helpers, Local 692, International
Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Ware-
housemen and Helpers of America. Case 21-CA-
7909
November 26, 1968
2 In adopting the Trial Examiner 's remedial recommendations, we
construe his Decision as incorporating the usual Board provisions as
follows ( 1) that the Respondent shall be required to offer full
reinstatement only to those employees to whom it has not previously
offered reinstatement , (2) that the Respondent is liable for making
employees whole only from the date of the discrimination against them
to the date of the offer of reinstatement , and (3 ) that the Respondent
in carrying out its obligation to reinstate employees to their old or
substantially equivalent positions shall, if necessary , discharge em-
ployees hired since the date of the discrimination
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MC CULLOCH AND MEMBERS
BROWN AND ZAGORIA
On July 12, 1968, Trial Examiner Melvin Pollack
issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding,
finding that the Respondent had engaged 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. He further found
that the Respondent had not engaged in certain other
unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint and
recommended that such allegations be dismissed.
Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the
Trial Examiner's Decision and a supporting brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
powers in connection with 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 and brief, and
the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the
findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the
Trial Examiner, with the addition' and modifications
noted below.2
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board adopts as its Order the Recom-
mended Order of the Trial Examiner, and hereby
orders that the Respondent, Sun Hardware Co., Inc.,
Long Beach, California, its officers, agents, successors,
and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Trial
Examiner's Recommended Order.
I We agree with the Trial Examiner that the remark of the
Respondent 's president Goodrich, to employee Miller on December 12,
to the effect that he did not want a union in the plant, did not violate
Section 8 (a)(1) of the Act. However, such comment does show
antiunion animosity on the Respondent's part, relevant to a considera-
tion of the reason for the discontinuance of the night shift on January 4
and the failure to recall immediately those laid off, night shift
employees who had signed union authorization cards
TRIAL EXAMINER 'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
MELVIN POLLACK, Trial Examinee Upon a charge filed on
January 19, 1968, and amended on March 7, 1968, the
General Counsel issued a complaint on March 14, 1968, against
Respondent Sun Hardware Co., Inc. The principal issue
presented by the complaint is whether Respondent discharged
its night-shift employees on January 4, 1968, in violation of
Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended. The case was heard in Los Angeles, California, on
May 21 and 22, 1968. The General Counsel and Respondent
have filed briefs.
Upon the entire record in the case and from my observation
of the witnesses, I make the following
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. RESPONDENT'S BUSINESS
Respondent, a California corporation, is engaged in the
reclaiming of aircraft hardware and related components at its
plant in Long Beach, California. It annually performs services
valued in excess of $50,000 for Aircraft Division of Douglas
Aircraft Company Division of the McDonnell Douglas Corpora-
tion in Long Beach, California, whose interstate sales are in
excess of $50,000. I find that Respondent is engaged in
commerce and in a business affecting commerce within the
meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
General Truck Drivers, Chauffeurs & Helpers, Local 692,
International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Ware-
housemen and Helpers of America,' herein called the Union, is
a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the
Act
III THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Sequence of Events
Respondent has been engaged in business at its Long Beach
plant for some 10 years. For about a year up to January 4,
1968, it employed 75-100 employees on two shifts, a day shift
and a night or swing shift of approximately 25 employees. In
late December 1967, night-shift employee Willine Riley called
Business Agent Boldt of the Union and told him that the
' The name of William R. Boldt, appearing as business agent for the
Union, is incorrectly given as "Bolt" in the transcript of testimony.
173 NLRB No. 143
974 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
employees at her plant were interested in obtaining a union
contract and that her foreman, Ronald Maloof, would get in
touch with him. In a telephone conversation with Maloof, who
was in charge of the night shift, Boldt said the Union would
handbill the plant and that he would write an introductory
letter "explaining our purposes in handbilling the plant." Boldt
brought a rough draft of the letter to Maloof's home on
January 2 or 3, 1968.2 After Boldt read the letter to Maloof
and his wlfe,3 they suggested that he distribute copies at the
plant about 4:30 p.m. when the shifts changed. Boldt said he
would be there on Friday afternoon, January 5, about 4 p.m.
"to catch the second shift coming in ... and also remain there
until the first shift let out to handbill the plant." Maloof told
"between 17 and 20" night-shift employees on January 3 that
the Union "was coming down" on January 5.
Meanwhile, on January 2, Respondent posted a notice that
in addition to their regular 5-day, 40-hour workweek, all
employees would work the Saturdays of January 6 and 13 at
regular pay. Pursuant to employee complaints, Business
Agent Boldt took the matter up with a representative of the
Wage and Hour Division of the Department of Labor. The
representative on January 3 advised Respondent's president,
Gordon Goodrich, that the employees were entitled to time
and a half pay for the scheduled Saturday work.
On January 4, about 3:30 p.m., Respondent posted the
following notice:
NOTICE
EFFECTIVE THIS DATE, JANUARY 4, 1968 , THE SWING
SHIFT WILL BE DISCONTINUED.
SUN HARDWARE CO., INC., IN THE INTEREST OF ACHIEV-
ING MORE AND EFFICIENT PRODUCTION SCHEDULES IN ITS
WORK FOR THE MAJOR AIRCRAFT COMPANIES, IS GOING
TO EXPAND ITS DAY SHIFT IN BOTH PERSONNEL AND
EQUIPMENT
WE HOPE TO HAVE THIS PLANNING ACCOMPLISHED AND
IN EFFECT BY THE FIRST PART OF FEBRUARY, 1968
ANY EMPLOYEE NOW WORKING ON THE SWING SHIFT,
CAPABLE OF CHANGING TO THE DAY SHIFT SHOULD SIGN
THIS NOTICE
WE WILL REVIEW OUR PERSONNEL AND PRODUCTION
NEEDS AND NOTIFY ANYONE SIGNING THIS NOTICE OF
OUR INTENTION TO TRANSFER THEM ONTO THE DAY
SHIFT BY FEBRUARY 16, 1968
THE MANAGEMENT
Note Swing Shift pay checks may be picked up at the
office after 4 00 P M. Friday, Jan. 5.
Upon reading the notice, Ronald Maloof walked over to the
"main office" where he found President Goodrich, Vice
President Harry Smith, and Foreman Raymond Snyder.
Maloof asked the reason for the notice and Goodrich said the
night shift was not "putting out the work." Maloof asked that
the employees be kept on at least another week but Goodrich
replied that when he made a decision, he acted on it at once
He told Maloof to terminate the shift at midnight.
Maloof told the "girls" as they reported for work that he
would try to reach the Union "so they could come right
down " Maloof spoke to Business Agent Boldt over a plant
telephone between 7 and 7.30 p.m He told Boldt the
employees were "quite upset" over the layoff and did not
want to wait until Friday to sign union authorization cards
Boldt agreed to come to the plant during the employees' lunch
period-8 to 8.30 p m.-and to bring letters and handbills "to
hand out.s5
About 7 45 p in., Laura Scales, leadwoman on the night
shift, told Maloof not to permit the Union in the budding
Maloof replied that he was not going to let the Union into the
building and that "they will be out at lunch time." About 5
minutes later, Scales told Maloof, "Harry Smith wants to see
you in the office right away " Maloof went to the office where
he found both President Goodrich and Vice President Smith
Upon being instructed to shut the machines down and send the
"girls" home, Maloof said most of the women would not have
a ride home until midnight and he could not tell them to go
home now. He added, "If you want to tell them, you will have
to tell them yourself." Smith asked Maloof for his keys to the
plant. Maloof handed over the keys and walked back into the
plant He was asked what had happened and answered, "We
have to go home now." Smith then came in and told the
employees to shut the machines down and leave
The employees gathered outside the plant Following a call
from Sharon Maloof, Business Agent Boldt and several other
union men came down and invited the employees to walk over
to the Union hall About 20 employees walked to the Union
hall where 17 signed union cards Three employees-Violet
Krementz, Violet Thompson, and Mary Snyder-did not sign
cards.
Leadwoman Laura Scales, Krementz, and Thompson were
rehired on January 8, and Snyder was rehired on January 9.
Nine new employees were hired between January 11 and
February 1, including four women, a utility man, a truck-
driver, and three men for work in the "Annex " Between
February 2 and May 9, Respondent hired approximately 20
employees, including 9 women laid off on January 4.
B. Respondent's Explanation
for the Layoff
President Goodrich's explanation for the layoff of the night
shift on January 4 may be summarized as follows The night
shift was in operation "possibly a year " Its productivity
compared to that of the day shift was "pretty poor " At its
inception, Respondent had trouble getting a trained man to
put in charge of the night shift. It needed a man familiar with
the machines and who had "a strong back" to load the
"hoppers" because the night workers were mostly women
Ronald Maloof was chosen to be in charge of the night shift
and, after he learned the work, another man, Fred Miller, was
hired to relieve Maloof of the hopper loading work. The
production of the night shift remained low, however, mainly
because of "the absenteeism factor." Goodrich and Smith
were aware of the night-shift production problem but did
nothing about it for several months because they were busy
"developing sales and new contacts." A flood of the premises
around Thanksgiving Day caused Goodrich and Smith to "get
2 All dates hereafter are in 1968 unless otherwise noted
3 Sharon Maloof also worked on Respondent's night shift
4 Respondent had signed on December 12, 1967, a contract for
payroll services with the Bank of America It was decided to work all
employees two Saturdays so that the pay period could be adjusted to
allow processsing time to the bank without causing the employees to
receive "short paychecks "
5 Maloof testified that he heard a "click" when he picked up the
telephone to talk to Boldt and that the light for his extension button
was still on when he hung up the telephone.
SUN HARDWARE CO.
down to cases" about improving production. Not only did the
flood cause them to lose a week's production, but they were
"in negotiations with Boeing" and anticipated "a great volume
of work " They discussed the situation with foreman Snyder
and decided upon a single-shift operation to be expanded as a
new building which had been completed was equipped with
machinery Goodrich drafted the notice of layoff "just around
the middle of December" but it was decided to delay the
layoff because "the holidays were coming up," and a layoff at
Christmas time would have affected the morale of the day
shift The new operation was explained at "a general meeting
in the office" to the persons who would be "solely responsible
as leadmen in their own areas, all reporting to Mr. Snyder "
This meeting was held "just prior to the discontinuance of the
night shift" on January 4, 1968 The evening of the layoff,
Goodrich and Smith decided to stop the shift at 8 p.m. and
pay the employees "for the full shift" because a tour of the
plant showed "nobody was too happy about the decision" and
"the work was [not] being performed "
Following the layoff, senior employees Laura Scales, Violet
Krementz, Mary Snyder, and Violet Thompson were promptly
rehired "because we were taking in totally new and unknown
people on some of the inspection machines " It was Goodrich's
intention to review the work of other night-shift employees
and to rehire them as work became available "in the order of
their efficiency and their seniority "6 Except for two or three
employees whose absenteeism was "completely unacceptable,"
Respondent has offered reemployment on the day shift to all
the laid-off employees it has been able to reach.
C. Analysis and Conclusions
The January 4 layoff was effected without advance notice,
at the beginning of a pay period, at a time of full production,
and just 1 day after Ronald Maloof told the night-shift
employees that the Union would begin an organizing drive
between shifts at the plant on January 5. Although Respond-
ent asserts that the night shift was inefficient and suffered
from excessive absenteeism, it offered no records to support its
claim of poor production and its attendance records for several
months before the layoff indicate that all but a few night-shift
employees were regular in their attendance It may well be that
Respondent decided sometime in December to switch as soon
6 Twenty employees had signed the January 4 layoff notice to
indicate their wish to work on the day shift
7 Respondent had intended to divide the space in the new building
between the hardware reclamation operation and another business
venture The abandonment of this other venture released an additional
4000-4500 square feet for the hardware operation
8 Although compatible with Respondent 's production needs, the
Saturday work also served to adjust Respondent 's payroll period The
credible testimony of a Bank of America representative and of
Respondent 's office manager shows that the failure to provide overtime
pay was an oversight I therefore find no merit to the allegation in the
complaint that Respondent 's decision to lay off the night-shift
employees was motivated , at least in part, by the complaint presented in
their behalf to the Wage and Hour Division.
9 Night -shift employee Fred Miller credibly testified that President
Goodrich asked him "about two weeks before Christmas " whether he
knew anything about union activity in the plant, and, when Miller said
"no," Goodrich made remarks to the effect that he had been "involved"
with a union and did not want a union in the plant . The interrogation
was incidental to a conversation which centered around Respondent's
prospects for a Boeing contract and Goodrich 's conversations with a
representative of the International Association of Machinists about
union working conditions in the Seattle area where the Boeing facility
was located . The conversation between Goodrich and Miller occurred at
975
as practical to a single-shift operation since all the space in a
new building had become available to it ' But this building was
not equipped for production on January 4 and Respondent
had posted a notice just 2 days before the layoff that all
employees would work the next two Saturdays. This Saturday
work was not "made" work, for Goodrich himself testifed that
there was "plenty of work to be done by the night shift," and
Respondent, although advised by a Wage and Hour representa-
tive on January 3 that the employees were entitled to time and
a half pay for Saturday overtime work, chose to go ahead with
the Saturday work 8 1 therefore reject Goodrich's testimony
that the January 4 layoff was effected pursuant to a firm
decision reached in December to discontinue the night shift
after the "holidays."
It is true, as Respondent argues, that the record contains no
direct evidence that Respondent had knowledge of union
activities before the layoff and that the layoff occurred in a
setting free of unfair labor practices 9 Nevertheless, the layoff
was accomplished at a time and in a manner calculated to
frustrate union organization, and Respondent's explanation
why it discontinued the night shift at a time of full production
is wholly unconvincing. I find that Respondent learned of the
union activity on the night shift and that it laid off the
night-shift employees in order to counter this activity
I also find that Respondent delayed recalling the night-shift
employees because of their union activity In addition to the
prompt recall of several employees who had not signed cards at
the Union hall the night of the layoff, Respondent hired a
number of new employees for work which laid-off employees
were competent to perform It did not begin to recall these
laid-off employees until about a month after the layoff I
reject Goodrich's testimony that he delayed recalling the
night-shift employees in order to review their work records I
have previously noted that Respondent offered no records to
support its claim of poor production on the night shift and
that Respondent's attendance records show that all but a few
employees on the shift were regular in their attendance
Respondent makes no claim that any night-shift employee was
criticized for poor production or absenteeism before the
January 4 layoff Why it was necessary for Goodrich to review
their work before rehiring the night-shift employees is there-
fore not apparent to me t ° Even assuming that such a review
was warranted and could not be delegated to Foreman
a time when there was no union activity at Respondent 's plant. No
inference is warranted in these circumstances that Goodrich's inquiry
about union activity tended to restrain Miller in the exercise of his
rights under the act
10 There was certainly no need to review Ronald Maloof's work
Maloof had been in charge of the night shift and Goodrich acknowl-
edged that he was a competent utility man Yet Respondent hired a new
utility man , Johnson, on January 11 in preference to Maloof
As the record shows that Maloof was included in the layoff notice
and hence discharged before he refused to dismiss the night shift early
on the night of January 4, 1 find no merit to the allegation in the
complaint that Maloof was discharged and refused reinstatement
because he refused to commit unfair labor practices in behalf of
Respondent I find rather that he was discharged because of his activity
in behalf of the Union The record shows that Maloof was in charge of
the night shift and that no one above him spent any considerable time
at the plant during the night shift I find that Maloof was a supervisor
under the Act and that his discharge for union activity was not violative
of the Act I consider Pioneer Drilling Co, Inc., 162 NLRB No 85, and
J B Martin Company, 164 NLRB No. 73, cited by the General
Counsel, distinguishable on their facts In Martin, the supervisor was
discharged "to give a color of validity to Ithe employee 's] discharge "
In Pioneer, driller-supervisors were discharged as a means of getting rid
of crews whose own employment was tied to that of the drillers
976 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Snyder,'' Goodrich offered no plausible explanation for his
delay in making such a review. His absence from the plant on a
business trip in January plainly does not account for the delay,
for the trip lasted about 3 days.
For the foregoing reasons, I conclude that Respondent laid
off the night-shift employees on January 4 and delayed their
recall in order to discourage support of the Union, thereby
violating Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Respondent is an employer within the meaning of the
Act.
2. The Union is a labor organization within the meaning of
the Act.
3 By laying off and failing to reinstate its night-shift
employees to discourage support of the Union, Respondent
violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent engaged in certain unfair
labor practices, I shall recommend that it cease and desist
therefrom and take certain action designed to effectuate the
policies of the Act
As it has been found that Respondent discriminatorily laid
off the night-shift employees on January 4, 1968, 1 shall
recommend that Respondent offer them immediate and full
reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent
positions, without prejudice to their seniority or other rights
and privileges, and make them whole for any loss of pay
suffered by reason of the discrimination against them. The loss
of pay under the order recommended shall be computed in the
manner set forth in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB
289, with interest added thereto in the manner set forth in Isis
Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716
As the unfair labor practices of Respondent found herein go
to the heart of the Act, I shall recommend that Respondent
cease and desist from infringing in any manner upon the rights
guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and
conclusions of law, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act,
it is recommended that Respondent, its officers, agents,
successors, and assigns, shall
1 Cease and desist from
(a) Discouraging membership in General Truck Drivers,
Chauffeurs & Helpers, Local 692, International Brotherhood
of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of
America, or any other labor organization of its employees, by
laying off or discharging its employees or discriminating
against them in any other manner in respect to their hire or
tenure of employment, or condition of employment.
(b) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or
coercing its employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed to
them by Section 7 of the Act, except to the extent that such
right may be affected by an agreement requiring membership
in a labor organization as a condition of employment, in
conformity with the proviso of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act.
2 Take the following affirmative action which will effec-
tuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Offer the following employees immediate and full
reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent
positions,' 2 and make them whole for any loss of pay they
may have suffered because of the discrimination against them,
the manner set forth in the section entitled "The Remedy"in
Kay Bell
Lori Costley
Thelma Coaney
Charlotte De Libro
Gerrie Mae Eldred
Nancy Lee Haupt
Edith Pauline Hollis
Mary Johnson
Violet Krementz
Joan McCue
Sharon Maloof
Peggy Manasco
Fred J. Miller
Iola Mitchell
Medena Marie Owens
Willme Riley
Bonnie Russell
Mary Ann Snyder
Violet Thompson
Kathryn Townsend
Ellrnor J. Vann
Lorraine H. Vanaman
Joyce Vincent
(b) Notify the above-named employees, if presently serving
in the Armed Forces of the United States, of their right to full
reinstatement upon application in accordance with the Selec-
tive Service Act and the Universal Military Training and Service
Act, as amended, after discharge from the Armed Forces
(c) Preserve and make available to the Board or its agents,
for examination and copying, all payroll records, social
security payment records, timecards, personnel records and
reports, and all other records necessary or useful in computing
the amount of backpay due, as herein provided
(d) Post at its Long Beach, California, plant, copies of the
attached notice marked "Appendix s13 Copies of said notice,
on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 21,
after being duly signed by Respondent, shall be posted
immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained for 60
consecutive days thereafter in conspicuous places, including all
places where notices to employees are customarily posted
Reasonable steps shall be taken to insure that said notices are
not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material
(e) Notify the Regional Director for Region 21, in writing,
within 20 days from the date of receipt of this Trial
Examiner's Decision, what steps Respondent has taken to
comply herewith 14
IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the complaint be dis-
missed insofar as it alleges violations of the Act not specifically
found herein
11 Snyder hired the new employees after the layoff.
12 No offer of reinstatement need be made to any employee
reinstated prior to the issuance of this decision.
13 In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the
Board, the words "a Decision and Order " shall be substituted for the
words "the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner " in the notice. If
the Board 's Order is enforced by a decree of a United States Court of
Appeals, the notice will be further amended by the substitution of the
words "a Decree of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an
Order" for the words "a Decision and Order "
14 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 the Respondent has taken to comply herewith "
SUN HARDWARE CO. 977
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner
of the National Labor Relations Board and in order to
effectuate the policies of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended, we hereby notify our employees that.
WE WILL NOT discourage you from membership in
General Truck Drivers, Chauffeurs & Helpers, Local 692,
International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Ware-
housemen and Helpers of America, or any other labor
organization, by discharging, laying off, or discriminating
against you in any other manner with respect to hire or
tenure of employment or any term or condition of
employment
WE WILL offer any of the following employees who
have not been reinstated immediate and full reinstatement
to their former or substantially equavalent jobs, and we will
pay all of the following employees any wages due them as a
result of our discrimination against them
Kay Bell Peggy Manasco
Lori Costley Fred J. Miller
Thelma Coaney Iola Mitchell
Charlotte De Libro Medena Marie Owens
Gerrie Mae Eldred Willine Riley
Nancy Lee Haupt Bonnie Russell
Edith Pauline Hollis Mary Ann Snyder
Mary Johnson Violet Thompson
Violet Krementz Kathryn Townsend
Joan McCue Ellinor J. Vann
Sharon Maloof Lorraine H Vanaman
Joyce Vincent
WE WILL NOT in any other way interfere with your
right
To organize yourselves
To form, join, or help unions
To bargain for your wages, hours, and working
conditions as a group through representatives of your
own choosing
To refuse to do any or all of these things except as
such right may be affected by an agreement requiring
membership in a labor organization as a condition of
employment, in conformity with the proviso of Section
8(a)(3) of the Act
SUN HARDWARE
CO., INC.
(Employer)
Dated By
(Representative) (Title)
NOTE. We will notify the above-named employees if
presently serving in the Armed Forces of the United States of
their right to full reinstatement upon application in accordance
with the Selective Service Act and the Universal Military
Training and Service Act, as amended, after discharge from the
Armed Forces
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
If employees have any question concerning this Notice or
compliance with its provisions, they may communicate direct-
ly with the Board's Regional Office, Eastern Columbia
Building, 849 South Broadway, Los Angeles, California 90014,
Telephone 688-5200.