Valley Mold Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 24, 1971

191 N.L.R.B. 498 (N.L.R.B. 1971)

498 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Valley Mold Company, Inc. and District Lodge No. 13
of the International Association of Machinists and
Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO. Cases 9-CA-5745
and 9-CA-5811
June 24, 1971
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS FANNING , JENKINS, AND KENNEDY
On January 20, 1971, Trial Examiner Paul E. Weil
issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding,
finding that Respondent has engaged in and was engag-
ing in certain unfair labor practices alleged in the com-
plaints and recommending that it cease and desist
therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set
forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Decision. He
also found that Respondent had not engaged in other
unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint and
recommended dismissal of those allegations. There-
after the General Counsel filed limited exceptions to the
Trial Examiner's Decision and a supporting brief. Re-
spondent filed cross-exceptions and a supporting brief,
and a request for oral argument.'
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its powers
in connection with this proceeding to a three-member
panel.
The Board has reviewed the rulings by 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, cross-exceptions
and briefs, and the entire record in this proceeding and
finds merit in the General Counsel's exceptions. Ac-
cordingly, the Board adopts only those findings,' con-
clusions,, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner
consistent with this Decision and Order.
The complaints allege that Respondent violated Sec-
tion 8(a)(1) of the Act by interrogating employees con-
cerning their union membership and activities, keeping
under surveillance union meeting places and activities
of its employees, and threatening that the plant would
close if the employees did not refrain from becoming
members of the Union. The complaints, as amended at
the hearing, further allege that Respondent violated
Section 8(a)(3) of the Act by laying off 17 named em-
ployees during the period of June 23, 1970, to June 29,
1970; discharging named employees on August 14,
1970; and discharging named employees on August 15,
1970.
The Trial Examiner found Respondent did engage in
interrogation, surveillance, and threats in violation of
Section 8(a)(1) as alleged and discharged five em-
ployees for leaving work on August 15, 1970, in viola-
tion of Section 8(a)(3). He dismissed the remainder of
the complaint.
The General Counsel urges that the Trial Examiner
erred in viewing the June 234 layoffs and the August 14
discharges in isolation, rather than as a continuous
effort on the part of Respondent to interfere with the
rights of its employees, and excepts to the Trial Ex-
aminer's failure to find that those events also violated
Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act.
A chronology of events occuring after the Union's
organizational campaign began is set forth below. Some
of the details of these events are more fully set forth in
the Trial Examiner's Decision, but some are not set
forth at all.
On June 11, employee Evelyn Good was questioned
as to Englewood employee union activities by Brook-
field Plant Manager Hall during a 45-minute automo-
bile ride.' She was informed that if the Union came in,
the plant doors would close.
On June 12, Hall interrogated employee Juanita
Evans about union activity. She was informed that she
would be out of a job if the Union came in.
On June 12, the Union filed an RC petition.
On June 19, employees Mary Dafler and Rita Mast
were called into the office of Respondent President Val-
ley and were informed by him that there would be no
union in the shop, and that, if the union came in, he
would close the doors.
On Tuesday, June 23, Hall told employee Shirley
Hangen that he knew she had signed a union card
because everyone in the plant except two people, whom
he named, had signed a card.
Shortly after the 4 p.m. shift change6 on June 23, the
evening shift was sent home, and the day shift was
called by telephone and told not to report to work until
they were notified. No explanation was given any of the
employees other than that the plant was closed, nor
were the employees told the length of time for which
the plant would be closed.
I The Respondent's request for oral argument is hereby denied , as, in our
opinion, the record, including the exceptions and brief, adequately presents
the issues and positions of the parties.
I The Trial Examiner's Decision is amended in the following respects:
The date of June 14 contained in section III is amended to read August 14.
The name of Johnson in fn. 8 is amended to read Strange
Although the Trial Examiner concludes Kathelene Strange was mterro-
gated in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act without citing supporting
evidence, ample evidence is contained in the record as will be shown below.
4 All dates hereinafter are in the year 1970 unless otherwise stated.
' Respondent operates two Ohio plants , one in Brookfield and the other
at Englewood. Only the Englewood plant was being organized by the Union.
' The Trial Examiner's inference that the change of shifts occurred at
4:30 p in. is incorrect , as normal first and second shift hours are 8 a.m.-4
p in. and 4 p.m.-12 midnight, respectively Employee G1en,Bowen testified,,
he worked an extra half hour daily to compensate for the lunch half hour
normally deducted, by_ Respondent
191 NLRB No. 69
VALLEY MOLD COMPANY, INC.
On the evening of June 23 or 24, Englewood Plant
Manager Pace paid a social visit to the home of em-
ployee Joanne Innis. He told her that the Union was
not the reason why the plant closed, but that the Com-
pany would close the doors before it had a union.
On June 26 the employees were called and told to
report the following Monday, June 29.
On the morning of July 26, a meeting of the em-
ployees was held at the union hall.7 Valley and Pace
stationed themselves in a car not far from the union hall
where they could observe all employees entering and
leaving the meeting. Valley told Union Business Repre-
sentative James Ronto that he had reason to fire all the
people at that meeting. Valley and Pace did not leave
until after the last employee had left the union hall.
Near the end of July, Respondent installed a closed
circuit television and a two-way speaker system. The
television camera covered 95 percent of the plant area
and the speakers were strategically located above em-
ployee lunch areas as well as work areas.
Shortly before the election Valley's secretary, Zita
Swayne, spoke to employee Kathelene Strange on be-
half of, and at the request of, Valley. Mrs. Strange was
informed that Mr. Valley did not want a union and if
the union got in he would have to close the shop down.
On August 12 an election was held which the Union
won by a vote of 18-4 with 2 ballots void.
On the evening of August 13, Valley, who had been
attending a meeting in Winston-Salem, North
Carolina, at the time of the election, returned.
During the early afternoon of August 14, floor fans,
which had been run 24 hours a day in an effort to keep
the employees cool in the unair-conditioned facility,
were removed by the day shift foreman, Larry Stone.
Generally no explanation for this action was offered
any of the employees and admittedly the fans were
dangerous. However, employee Bowen, who offered to
tie the fans to the ceiling where there would be no
danger from lack of safety shields, was told by the
foreman that the action was probably taken because the
Union won the election by such a large majority. The
temperature inside the plant reached 125 degrees after
the fans were removed.
Shortly after 4 p.m. on August 14, all second shift
employees were individually informed that they would
be required 'to .,sign immediately a document .entitled
"Employee Invention and Gonfidentiality Agreement''
or they would be41red. No explanation was given any,-
employee for the urgency of this document, and it was
not presented to first shift employees until the following
day or to third shift employees until the following
week. Two of the four paragraphs read:
499
2. I WILL DISCLOSE PROMPTLY AND IN
WRITING TO AN OFFICER OF THE COM-
PANY, OR AS DIRECTED BY THE COM-
PANY, ALL INVENTIONS OR DISCOVER-
IES CAPABLE OF USE IN CONNECTION
WITH THE BUSINESS OF COMPANY, AND
I HEREBY ASSIGN AND AGREE TO AS-
SIGN ALL MY RIGHT, TITLE AND INTER-
EST IN AND TO ALL DISCOVERIES AND
TO ANY PATENTS THEREON, U. S. OR FOR-
EIGN, TO COMPANY OR ITS NOMINEE.
4, I AGREE THAT THE SALARY PAID ME
TOGETHER WITH ANY COMPANY BENE-
FIT PLANS IN WHICH I PARTICIPATE
CONSTITUTE FULL AND COMPLETE
COMPENSATION TO ME FOR ALL MY OB-
LIGATIONS AND SERVICES AND FOR ALL
GENERAL AND SPECIFIC ASSIGNMENTS
UNDER THIS AGREEMENT, AND THAT
MY EMPLOYMENT MAY BE TER-
MINATED BY ME OR BY COMPANY AT
ANY TIME.
Employee Dorothy Johnson did not understand the
document, specifically paragraph 4, which seemed to
her to "completely nullify the union which had just
been voted in." She asked to be allowed to wait until
the next day before signing the document since this was
her first job and she was "not familiar with anything
like this." Pace denied her request, and she was re-
quired to clock out. First shift employee Glen Bowen
had just clocked out at 4:33 p.m.' when Pace asked him
to read and sign the confidentiality agreement. As
Bowen did not understand the impact of paragraph 2,
he asked to be allowed to take the document home so
he could digest it better. Pace told him "No, you will
have to sign it now or you can't work here any more,"
even though Bowen offered not to return to work until
it had been signed. Third shift employee Arthur
Strange came to the plant about this time to pick up his
paycheck. He was asked to sign the agreement, which
was read to him. He was discharged upon his refusal
to sign. Second shift employee Kathelene Strange was
shown the document at the beginning of her shift and
asked to sigp it., When she informed Pace she did not
understand it, she was told she would have to sign it or
he would have to let her go. She asked if she,could take
it'home, and let her husband look it over, returning it
signecL'the next morning, but her request was denied
and she was told to clock out.
' The Trial Examiner's reference to a meeting held on the evening of July ° See fn 6, supra.
26 is incorrect.
500 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Shortly after 1:30 p.m. on August 15, while the out-
side temperature was 97 degrees, six female employees
began requesting permission of their foreman to leave
work, after one employee became physically ill because
of the heat. The six employees all clocked out within a
few minutes of each other with the permission of the
only management official present, Foreman Larry
Stone. An employee who attempted to contact Pace by
telephone was unsuccessful.
On the morning of August 17, Bowen reported to
work and clocked in at 8 a.m. as usual. The signed
confidentiality agreement was in his pocket. He offered
the document to Pace upon his arrival at 9 a.m., but
was told to wait until Valley arrived. When Valley
arrived around lunchtime he immediately informed
Bowen he no longer had a job and Bowen clocked out.
Shortly before 2 p.m. on the afternoon of August 17,
Valley began calling in the five female employees who
left work early on August 15.9 Each employee was
discharged that afternoon for failing to notify the
proper member of management that they were leaving.
Considering the total conduct of Respondent be-
tween June 11 and August 17, together with the admit-
ted union animus of its president, we find that the
events set forth above were part of a continuous effort
to undermine the employees' adherence to and selec-
tion of a bargaining representative in violation of Sec-
tion 8(a)(1) of the Act. It is in the light of the total
conduct of Respondent that the alleged 8(a)(3) dis-
charged must also be viewed.
A closer examination of the June 23 layoffs reveals
that Respondent had made reservations for its manage-
ment officials to attend a June trade conference the
preceeding February. Respondent had adequate time to
prepare itself and its employees for the fact that the
plant would be shut down during the time management
officials were out of town, if that had been its intention.
Failure of Respondent to give its employees prior no-
tice of an event it well knew would occur; the fact that
management official Hall was not only in town, but at
the Englewood plant during the shutdown; the timing
of the shutdown with respect to the union activities of
Respondent's employees together with the threat of
plant closure; and the failure of Respondent to give the
employees any reason for the closure or estimate of its
duration give rise to no other inference than that the
sudden plant closure was designed to discourage mem-
bership in a labor organization and interfered with the
Section 7 rights of the employees in violation of Section
8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act, and we so find.10
' The employee who became physically ill had not returned to work, and
was still on sick leave at the time of the hearing
10 The fact that Respondent actually used this period of time to refurbish
its machinery which admittedly was operating in an inefficient manner, we
deem immatenal in light of the facts presented . Neither are we persuaded,
as is the Trial Examiner , that the employees lost little in wages since they
In defense of its discharge of four employees on, Au-
gust 14, Respondent asserts that this action was re-
quired because the employees had failed to sign the
"Employee Invention and Confidentiality Agreement,"
which in turn was a requirement of its prime contrac-
tor, R. J. Reynolds Company.
The evidence indicates that Reynolds had repeatedly
requested Respondent to have all its employees sign the
confidentiality agreement, and insure that all new em-
ployees sign, at least as early as February 27. All em-
ployees of Respondent's Brookville facility had signed
the agreement prior to August 14, as had all manage-
ment personnel at the Engelwood plant. There was no
need for the remaining employees at the Englewood
plant to sign, since no "confidential" work was being
done there. On the afternoon of August 14, Respondent
found that it was unable to produce a new filter, consid-
ered "confidential" by Reynolds, at its Brookville
facility, and was forced to move the necessary equip-
ment to Englewood. In order to conform to the require-
ments of Reynolds, Respondent requested all those em-
ployees who would be present while the sample filter
was being produced, those on the second shift, to sign
the agreement immediately. No meeting of the em-
ployees was called to explain the circumstances, and
the credible evidence indicates no employee was told
other than that this document had to be signed, or else.
Viewing this situation in isolation, we might be in-
clined to agree with the Trial Examiner that legitimate
business reasons required Respondent to insist that the
agreement be immediately signed under penalty of dis-
charge. However, since the events of August 14 did not
occur in isolation, neither should they be so viewed.
As has been shown, Respondent waged a vigorous
antiunion campaign' since it first became aware of its
employees' union activity. In spite of this, the em-
ployees overwhelmingly chose the Union as their bar-
gaining representative . In retaliation, Respondent
removed the floor fans from the employees' work area.
The resulting atmosphere, as testified to by several wit-
nesses, was sheer confusion. This atmosphere prevailed
at least through the beginning of the second shift, and
it was in this atmosphere that the confidentiality agree-
ment was presented to individual second shift em-
ployees.
We recognize the duty of Respondent to comply with
the requirements of Reynolds; however, in our view,
the action taken of discharging four employees for fail-
ing to sign the agreement in the atmosphere in which
it was presented to them on August 14 far exceeded
that necessary to protect Reynolds' interest, and could
were able to work overtime following their return on June 29. As overtime
wages represent payment for additional hours worked , we cannot allow an
employer to justify an illegal layoff and thus mitigate its backpay obligation
through the use of overtime.
VALLEY MOLD COMPANY, INC.
only serve to undermine the employees' faith in their
recently chosen bargaining representative.
The protection of Reynolds' interest did not require
the discharge of first shift employee Bowen when other
first shift employees were not required to sign the agree-
ment until the following day. The protection of Rey-
nolds' interest did not require the discharge of third
shift employee Arthur Strange when other third shift
employees were not required to sign the agreement
until the following week." Nor did the protection of
Reynolds' interest require that Johnson and Kathelene
Strange not be allowed to leave and return the next
morning with the document signed.t2
We conclude that by its actions of August 14 Re-
spondent sought to discourage membership and par-
ticipation in the newly chosen bargaining representa-
tive of the employees and that the discharges were in
violation of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act, and we
so find.
THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent engaged in unfair
labor practices in violation of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of
the Act in addition to those violations found by the
Trial Examiner, we shall order it to cease and desist
therefrom and take certain additional affirmative action
including payment to Mary Dafler, Juanita Evans, Eve-
lyn Good, Shirley Hangen, Elmer Harden, Joanne In-
nis, Dorothy Johnson, Judith Mast, Rita Mast, Mary
Meadows, LaDonna Mefford, Gloria Standafer, Stella
Stone, Kathelene Strange, Martha Williams, Lana
Woodgeard, and Sylvia Watson a sum of money equal
to that which each normally would have earned as
wages from June 23, 1970, to June 28, 1970, less net
earnings during that period with interest at 6 percent
per annum as prescribed in Isis Plumbing & Heating
Co., 138 NLRB 716. We shall also order Respondent
to offer Dorothy Johnson, Glen Bowen, Arthur
Strange, and Kathelene Strange immediate and full
reinstatement to the jobs they would have occupied
absent the discriminatory discharges, or if those jobs no
longer exist, to substantially equivalent positions, with-
out prejudice to any seniority rights or privileges, and
make each whole for any loss of earnings each may
have suffered as a result of the discrimination, by pay-
ment to each of a sum of money equal to that which
each normally would have earned as wages from Au-
gust 14, 1970, to the date of Respondent's offer of
reinstatement, less net earnings during such period,
with backpay and interest thereon to be computed in
the manner prescribed by the Board in F. W. Wool-
" Both Bowen and Strange were on their own time when the agreement
was presented to them.
` Valley's confidential secretary testified that at least one employee did
not sign the agreement until several weeks later.
501
worth Company, 90 NLRB 289 , and Isis Plumbing &
Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716. As we feel that the unfair
labor practices commited by the Respondent are of
such a character as to reflect a predisposition on its part
to thwart by other means as well employees' efforts to
engage in legitimate concerted activities for the purpose
of self-organization or other mutual aid or protection,
we shall issue a broad order enjoining all forms of
unlawful interference with employee rights guaranteed
by Section 7 of the Act.
ADDITIONAL CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Delete the Trial Examiner's Conclusion of Law 5
and add the following:
5. By laying off the 17 named discriminatees under
the circumstances previously described, Respondent
has discriminated with respect to their hire and tenure
of employment, thereby discouraging membership in
the Union, and has thereby engaged in unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(3) of the
Act.
6. By the foregoing conduct, Respondent has also
interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees
in the exercise of their statutory rights guaranteed by
Section 7 of the Act and thereby has engaged in unfair
labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of
the Act.
7. By discharging Dorothy Johnson, Glen Bowen,
Arthur Strange, and Kathelene Strange under the cir-
cumstances previously described, Respondent has dis-
criminated with respect to their hire and tenure of
employment, thereby discouraging membership in the
Union, and has thereby engaged in unfair labor prac-
tices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act.
8. By the foregoing" conduct, Respondent has also
interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees
in the exercise of their statutory rights guaranteed by
Section 7 of the Act and thereby has engaged in unfair
labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of
the Act.
9. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair
labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning
of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Re-
lations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations
Board hereby orders that the Respondent, Valley Mold
Company, Inc., Englewood, Ohio, its officers, agents,
successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Laying off or discharging employees or otherwise
discriminating in regard to their hire, tenure of employ-
ment, or any term or condition of employment, because
502 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
they have engaged in work stoppages or other pro-
tected, concerted activity.
(b) Engaging in surveillance of the union activities of
its employees.
(c) Coercively interrogating its employees with re-
gard to their or other employees' union activities.
(d) Threatening that the plant would be shut down
in the event employees chose to be represtnted by Dis-
trict Lodge No. 13 of the International Association of
Machinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO.
(e) In any other manner interfering with , restraining,
or coercing its employees in the exercise of their rights
to self-organization, to join, form , or assist the Union
or any other labor organization , to bargain collectively
through a representative of their own choosing, and to
engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collec-
tive bargaining or other mutual aid or protection or to
refrain therefrom.
2. Take the following affirmative action which is
necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Offer to Dorothy Johnson, Glen Bowen, Arthur
Strange , and Kathelene Strange immediate and full
reinstatement to the jobs they would have occupied
absent the discrimination against them or, if those jobs
no longer exist , to substantially equivalent positions,
without prejudice to seniority rights or privileges, and
make them whole for any loss of pay suffered by reason
of the discrimination against them by their discharge
on August 14 in accordance with the method set forth
above in the section entitled "The Remedy."
(b) Notify immediately the above-named individuals,
if presently serving in the Armed Forces of the United
States , of the right to full reinstatement , upon applica-
tion after discharge from the Armed Forces, in accord-
ance with the Selective Service Act and the Universal
Military Training and Service Act.
(c) Make whole the 7 discriminatees named in the
remedy for any loss they may have suffered by reason
of the discriminatory layoff in accordance with the
method set forth above in the section entitled "The
Remedy."
(d) Make whole Shirley Hangen, Mary Dafler,
Joanne Innis, Eula Brown , and Lana Woodgeard for
any loss they may have suffered by reason of the dis-
crimination against them in the manner set forth in the
section of the Trial Examiner's Decision entitled "The
Remedy."
(e) Preserve and, upon request , make available to the
Board or its agents , for examination and copying, all
payroll records, social security payment records, time-
cards, personnel records and reports , and all other
records necessary to analyze the amount of backpay
due under the terms of this Order.
(f) Post at its plant in Englewood , Ohio, copies of the
attached notice marked "Appendix .""Copies of said
notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for
Region 9 , after being duly signed by the Respondent's
representative , shall be posted by it immediately upon
receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecu-
tive days thereof, in conspicuous places, including all
places where notices to employees are customarily
posted . Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent
to insure that said notices are not altered , defaced, or
covered by any other material.
(g) Notify the Regional Director for Region 9, in
writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order,
what steps the Respondent has taken to comply here-
with.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that those portions of the
complaint as to which no violations have been found
are hereby dismissed.
" In the event that this Order is enforced by a Judgment of a United
States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "POSTED BY
ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD " shall 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 EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
The Act gives all employees these rights:
To engage in self-organization
To form, join , or help unions
To bargain collectively through represent-
atives of their own choosing
To act together for collective bargaining or
other mutual aid or protection
To refrain from any or all of these things.
WE WILL offer to Dorothy Johnson, Glen
Bowen , Arthur Strange , and Kathelene Strange
immediate and full reinstatement ' to the jobs they
would have occupied absent the discrimination
against them or, if those jobs no longer exist, to
substantially equivalent positions , without preju-
dice to any seniority rights or privileges, and WE
WILL make up to them the pay they lost, since
their discharge on August 14, with 6 percent inter-
est.
WE WILL reimburse Mary Dafler, Juanita
Evans, Evelyn Good , Shirley Hangen, Elmer
Harden , Joanne Innis, Dorothy Johnson , Judith
Mast , Rita Mast , Mary Meadows, LaDonna Me-
fford , Gloria Standafer , Stella Stone , Kathelene
Strange, Martha Williams, Lana Woodgeard, and
Sylvia Watson for any loss they may have suffered
VALLEY MOLD COMPANY, INC. 503
by reason of their discriminatory layoff with 6
percent interest.
WE WILL pay Shirley Hangen , Mary Dafler,
Joanne Innis, Eula Brown, and Lana Woodgeard
for the earnings they lost as a result of their dis-
charge on August 17, 1970, plus 6 percent interest.
WE WILL NOT do anything that interferes with,
restrains, or coerces employees with respect to
these rights.
WE WILL NOT interrogate the employees coer-
cively with regard to their union activities nor
threaten them with loss of their jobs if the Union
gets into the plant or if they engage in union activi-
ties.
WE WILL NOT engage in surveillance of the
union activities of our employees.
WE WILL NOT threaten that the plant would be
shut down in the event employees chose to be
represented by District Lodge No. 13 of the Inter-
national Association of Machinists and Aerospace
Workers, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organiza-
tion.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere
with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the exer-
cise of their rights set forth above.
VALLEY MOLD
COMPANY, INC.
Dated By
(Representative) (Title)
We will notify immediately the above-named individu-
als, if presently serving in the Armed Forces of the
United States, of the right to full reinstatement, upon
- application after discharge from the Armed Forces, in
accordance with the Selective Service Act and the Uni-
versal Military Training and Service Act.
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, Room 2407 Federal Office Building, 550 Main
Street, Cincinnati, Ohio 45202, Telephone 513-684-
3686.
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
PAUL E. WEIL. Trial Examiner: On July 14, 1970,1 District
Lodge No. 13 of the International Association of Machinists
and Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO, hereinafter called the
' All dates hereinafter are in the year 1970 unless otherwise stated.
Union, filed a charge alleging that Valley Mold Company,
Inc.,. hereinafter called Respondent, violated Section 8(a)(1)
and (3) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, by
various acts of threats, interrogation, discrimination and sur-
veillance and by laying off its employees because of their
union activities. On August 27, the Union filed a second
charge (Case 9-CA-581 1) against Respondent alleging viola-
tions of Section 8(a)(1), (3) and (5) of the Act in that Re-
spondent terminated eight named employees and refused' to
bargain collectively with the Union. On August 31, the Gen-
eral Counsel, by the Regional Director for Region 9 of the
National Labor Relations Board (Cincinnati, Ohio), issued a
complaint alleging that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3)
by laying off its employees on June 23, and Section 8(a)(1) by
the same conduct and by acts of threats and interrogation of
employees concerning their union activities. On October 14
the said Regional Director issued a complaint on the second
charge alleging additional acts of discrimination in that Re-
spondent discharged eight named employees and additional
acts or interference, restraint and coercion consisting of
threats, interrogation and surveillance of employees' union
activities. On the same day the Regional Director issued an
order consolidating the two cases. On September 10 and Oc-
tober 20, respectively, Respondent answered the two com-
plaints admitting the jurisdictional allegations and denying
the commission of the unfair labor practices alleged. On the
issues thus joined the matter came on for hearing before me
in Dayton, Ohio, on November 12 and 13. All parties were
represented and had an opportunity to adduce evidence, to
call witnesses, to argue on the record and to submit briefs.
The parties waived oral argument at the close of the hearing.
Briefs have been filed by the General Counsel and the Re-
spondent.
At the hearing the General Counsel amended the com-
plaint by deleting the names of some of the employees alleged
to have been discriminated against by the layoff on June 23
and adding two additional names thereto. Respondent admit-
ted the layoff of the employees but denied the motivation
attributed to it by the General Counsel. On the record herein
and in consideration of the briefs, I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT
Respondent is an Ohio corporation with two plants, one in
Brookfield , Ohio , where it engages in the design and building
of injection molding tools and one in Englewood, Ohio, where
it produces plastic products. Respondent from its Ohio enter-
prise annually imports into the State of Ohio and exports
from the State of Ohio products valued in excess of $50,000.
Respondent is an employer within the meaning of Section
2(2) of the Act, engaged in commerce as defined in Section
2(6) and (7) of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The Union is a labor organization as defined in Section 2(5)
of the Act.
III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
At its Englewood plant Respondent is engaged in the
manufacture of plastic products by the injection molding
method. Apparently its chief product, perhaps its only
product, is plastic filters which it manufactures for the R. J.
Reynolds Tobacco Company for use in cigarettes. There are
some 25 to 30 employees, including 3 foremen and 3 assistant
foremen (the latter apparently are not supervisory in nature).
Sometime prior to June 11 the Union engaged in an organiz-
ing campaign among the employees. The campaign came to
504 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the attention of Respondent which immediately reacted by
attempting to ascertain the extent of its success and to contest
it. On June 11, according to the testimony of employee Good,
she was taken to Respondent's Brookfield plant where she
was interviewed in an automobile by William Hall, the plant
manager. During the interview Hall asked if union cards were
being passed out, who started the Union and whether Mrs.
Good was involved in the union organization. She informed
him that she did not know who started it. Hall discussed the
possible consequences of the Union coming into the plant and
remarked that if the Union came in that the doors to the plant
would be closed. The conversation lasted about 45 minutes.
The next day Hall interrogated another employee, Juanita
Evans, in approximately the same fashion.
Hall admitted the conversation with Evelyn Good, stated
that he had no recollection of such a conversation with
Juanita Evans but testified that had an almost identical con-
versation with Mary Dafler.
On June 12 the Union filed a petition for an election in a
production and maintenance unit.
On or about June 19 Mrs. Dafler and Rita Mast, another
employee, were interviewed by Earl Valley, the president of
the corporation, in his office.' In this interview Valley told the
ladies that Shirley Van Dyke, another employee, did not
receive a 50-cent hourly raise but that she was worth it, that
he knew that there was talk of the Union, that there would
be no union in the shop and that if the Union came in he
would close the doors. He displayed to them a contract with
the Reynolds Tobacco Company which provided that it could
be rescinded on 30 days' notice by either party and showed
them a profit-and-loss statement showing that the corpora-
tion had a net profit in the prior year of less than $1,000.
On June 23 at the close of the first shift at approximately
4:30 p.m., the employees arriving for the second shift were
informed that the plant was closed and they should go home.
The employees who had already gone home from the first
shift were called and told not to report to work the following
day, that the plant was closed. No explanation was given any
of the employees.
The following day Superintendent Pace was at the home of
employee Joanne Innis on a social occasion. Miss Innis asked
Pace whether the layoff was occasioned by the union organi-
zation. He said it was not but there would not be a union in
the Company, the Company would close the doors before
they had a union. On Friday, June 26, the employees were
telephoned and told to report back to work the following
Monday.'
President Valley testified that efficiency in the shop had
been decreasing as a result of the fact that certain portions of
the machines, identified as the cavities, which are inserted in
the mold cores were becoming worn, also that the molds
needed refurbishment. Because during the week of June 23 all
of the management of the Company was supposed to be at a
trade convention in South Carolina, he determined that the
plant should be shut down and the machines refurbished so
that on the return of himself and the other managerial person-
nel more efficient production could resume.
3 The only substantial difference in the accounts of Mrs. Dafler and Mr.
Valley concerned how the ladies got to his office. According to Mrs. Dafler,
she was called into Valley's office by Superintendent Pace, according to Mr.
Valley, she came to his office to ask whether a fellow employee had received
a 50-cent hourly raise.
' At least one employee testified that she reported back to work on June
26; however , the circumstances would seem to indicate that she was in error
in this regard.
Valley's testimony with regard to the inefficiency of the
plant prior to June 23 was substantiated by that of Mrs.
Dafler and other employees. It appears that while the em-
ployees were laid off a crew consisting of the foremen and
their assistants worked under the supervision of Hall, the
plant manager from the Brookfield plant. Hall testified that
during the period between June 23 and 28 all of the machines
were refurbished and new cavities installed. As a result, when
the plant reopened on the following Monday, production was
measured and it was determined that efficiency had been
raised from around 60 percent to something over 96 percent.
On the evening of July 26 the Union held a meeting of
Respondent's employees. During the course of the meeting
James Ronto, the Union's organizer, was informed that Presi-
dent Valley and Superintendent Pace were in a car parked
outside the union hall. He went out and accosted them and
a conversation ensued in the course of which they asked if
they could attend the meeting and he told them they could
not. They stayed through the meeting and left after the last
employees left. At about the same time Respondent caused a
closed circuit television monitor to be set up in the shop
equipped with a "fish eye" lens which enabled any person
sitting in the office where the receiving set was located to
moniter up to 95 percent of the plant floor. Also at that time
loudspeakers were set up in the plant which contained con-
cealed microphones which enabled any person in the office to
hear what was being said in the plant at two locations where
employees normally gathered. The General Counsel contends
that the television and microphones were installed for the
purpose of surveillance of employees in the plant.
On July 30 a consent-election agreement was signed by
Respondent and the Union providing for an election to be
conducted on August 12. The election resulted in 18 votes
cast for the Union, 2 void ballots and 4 votes cast against
representation . The second day thereafter all of the fans in the
plant were removed. The only explanation for this act was
that some of them were dangerous because they lacked ade-
quate guards. Inasmuch as the weather at this time was warm
and the plant was warmer, because of the necessity of heating
the plastic for use in the molding machines, the temperature
in the plant became oppressive to the employees. On the same
day, August 14, all employees in the plant were required to
sign documents referred to as invention and confidentiality
agreements , which in essence provided that each employee
would disclose any inventions or discoveries and assign all his
interest in such to the Company and he will maintain confi-
dence in all matters relating to the business of the Company
which was of a secret or confidential nature. The Respondent
produced evidence that such agreements had been in use by
the Company for at least 2 years and that all employees at the
Brookfield plant had already signed them. Respondent's
president, Valley, testified that it was required by the Rey-
nolds Company that the Respondent's employees sign these
agreements before they worked on a new filter then being
developed by Respondent for the Reynolds Company. Ac-
cording to Valley's testimony, he determined that the em-
ployees in the Englewood plant would have to sign the docu-
ments during the afternoon of June 14 when he moved a
machine containing molds for the new filters from the other
plant in order to produce prototypes at the Englewood plant.
He testified, corroborated by his secretary, that the decision
to have all employees sign these documents was made during
the afternoon of August 14. Four employees declined to sign
the agreements on that date and were discharged. These four
employees, Johnson, Bowen, Arthur Strange, and Kathelene
Strange, were confused by the terminology and asked for an
opportunity to consider the matter further but were dis-
charged summarily. Two of them later attempted to return
VALLEY MOLD COMPANY , INC. 505
to work after signing the documents but they were not per-
mitted to do so.
On Saturday, August 15 employee Van Dyke became ill,
possibly because of the heat, and was seen to vomit as she
made for the restroom. Five other employees, Dafler, Innis,
Hangen, Brown, and Woodgeard, within the space of a few
minutes individually went to Foreman Larry Stone and in-
formed him that they were sick. He permitted each of them
to leave and they did so. Mrs. Dafler attempted to call Plant
Superintendent Pace whom she believed to be at Valley's
home but was unable to reach him. Pace testified that in fact
the foreman had attempted to reach him and was unable to
do so, but that the foreman called the office supervisor who
knew where to find Pace and called and told him that the girls
had left. The following Monday morning, August 17, Pace
called each of the five women' into Valley's office where
Valley asked each of them why they went home on Saturday.
Pace then discharged them. Pace told some if not all of them
that they were discharged because they had not told the
proper member of management that they were leaving. Pace
testified, however, that he discharged them because he did not
"find any sincere legitimate excuses." None of the employees
furnished doctors' excuses. He also testified that he told Miss
Innis that he thought she had let him down being involved
in a group that walked out and that he could not allow that
kind of condition to continue.5
President Valley testified that he had Pace call the five
women into his office on Monday, August 17, and he asked
each of them what happened to them on Saturday. They all
said they were sick. He asked them if they went to the doctor.
They all said they did not. He testified also that he offered
each of them reinstatement on September 10. A letter was
mailed to each offering unconditional reinstatement com-
mencing September 14.6
Discussion and Conclusions
It is not denied that the incidents of interrogation and
threats, as well as the surveillance set forth above, actually
took place and in fact Respondent 's witnesses testified to
incidents in addition to those alleged in the complaint and
supported by General Counsel's evidence. I find that by the
interrogation of employees Good, Evans, Dafler, Mast, Ar-
thur Strange and Kathelene. Strange by Respondent's top
management and and by the reiterated threats to shut down
in the event the Union came in, Respondent independently
violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. In addition, I find that by
the surveillance of the union meeting on July 26 and by the
installation of the television monitor and microphone system,
Respondent attempted additional surveillance of its em-
ployees in the activities in which they may have engaged in
the plant.
The General Counsel contends that the layoff of all em-
ployees during the week of June 23 violated Section 8(a)(3)
of the Act. It is clear that the machinery had gotten into bad
shape . Respondent normally ran six machines and had a
seventh available as a spare in the event one of the six broke
down, a frequent occurrence. The General Counsel contends
that Respondent could have repaired the machines one at a
time without laying off all of the employees.
4 Mrs. Van Dyke did not return and in fact at the time of the hearing was
still on sick leave.
' There appears to be no plant rule requiring persons who are sick to
present doctors ' excuses. Pace testified that usually the employees did so
without being told to.
6 It appears that the employees went on strike sometime after August 17
and were still on strike on September 16.
My function is not to decide whether Respondent con-
ducted its business in the most advantageous means but
whether it acted to the employees' disadvantage in retaliation
for or for the purpose of discriminating against them because
of their union activities. It is undenied that while the em-
ployees lost several days of work during the repair of the
machines most if not all of the wages that they would have
lost thereby were made up to them by the fact that they were
permitted overtime work in the ensuing week as a result of
which each employee received 9 days' pay for, the week's
work. The increase in the efficiency of the machines appears
to corroborate the testimony of Respondent that the repairs
were necessary. In addition, the factor that all of the top
management of Respondent were at a trade convention in
South Carolina during that week supports Respondent's de-
fense. I find that the record does not contain sufficient evi-
dence to override Respondent's defense which appears to be
substantiated by the record as a whole. Accordingly, I shall
dismiss the complaint insofar as it alleges a violation in the
June 23 layoff.
The General Counsel contends that by the discharge of
employees Johnson, Bowen, and Arthur and Kathelene
Strange for refusing to sign the confidentiality agreement,
Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3) of the Act. There is no
contradiction to Respondent's evidence that the necessity for
signing the confidentiality agreement was imposed on Re-
spondent by Reynolds, Respondent 's principal customer.
Equally it is clear that prior to the occasion when the newly
developed filter was placed in production at the Englewood
plant no effort had been made to have the employees at the
Englewood plant sign these documents, at least within the
memory of those witnesses who took the stand . It is equally
clear that the four employees who declined to sign the docu-
ment, although it appears that they are all members of the
same family, were not acting in concert in any respect or that
Respondent had any occasion to consider that they were
acting in concert . Each of the employees declined at first
request and after repeated explanations and requests to sign
the document and each of them was discharged in his turn.'
In the absence of any surrounding circumstances indicat-
ing that the actions of Respondent in discharging the four
employees who refused to sign the agreement was motivated
by antiunion considerations and in the absence of any evi-
dence that these four were in any way outstanding in their
union' activities,9 I cannot conclude that the General Counsel
has proved by a preponderance of the evidence that the dis-
charges were unlawful under the Act. Accordingly, I shall
recommend that the complaint be dismissed with regard to
that allegation.
Finally with regard to the five women who were discharged
on August 17 for leaving work on August 15, the General
Counsel contends that their discharges were violative under
the Act and Respondent contends that they were discharged
Arthur Strange is Kathelene's son.
An inconsistent factor appears here. Arthur Strange testified that he was
asked at noon on August 14 to sign the document and was discharged when
he refused to do so on that occasion. President Valley and his secretary, Zita
Swayne, both testified that the order by Valley to have the confidentiality
agreements signed immediately was issued shortly before the machine was
brought to the plant and that this took place in the afternoon. No explana-
tion appears for the fact that Johnson was asked to sign it at noon. In the
absence of any other suspicious circumstances , I can conclude only that
either Strange was mistaken in his testimony that he went to the plant at
noon for his paycheck or Valley and Swayne were mistaken that the hour
at which Valley decided to give the order to have the confidentiality agree-
ments signed was earlier than they recall.
' I do not ignore the fact that Bowen was elected shop steward; it does
not appear that he ever took any action as a result of his election to that post.
506 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
for cause. It is clear from the testimony of Pace and from the
surrounding circumstances that Respondent discharged the
five women because it disbelieved their story that they were
sick and considered that they had acted in concert to stage
a wildcat walkout . Pace as much as said so to Miss Innis,
according to his own testimony. I do not consider it necessary
to determine whether in fact the ladies were sick. Under all
the circumstances I think it quite likely that they were. Mrs.
Daffier testified that after she left the plant she heard on her
automobile radio that the outside temperature was 97 degrees
and everyone agreed that the temperature within the plant
was always considerably warmer than outside the plant. In
addition, the fans had been removed only the day before and
no other provision had been made for cooling or giving any
comfort to the employees. But, on the other hand, the fact
that they left all within a few minutes could very well raise
the inference that their action constituted a concerted protest
against the working conditions. I consider the avowed reason
given the employees that they were discharged either for
failure to notify the proper supervisory employee, when it is
clear that they notified the only supervisory employee who
was available to them, or that they failed to bring a doctor's
certificate, when it is admitted that doctors' certificates had
never been rigidly required of the employees, to be no more
than pretext. The question then remains whether it is viola-
tive for Respondent to discharge the employees for engaging
in a wildcat strike. It must be recalled that the election had
already taken place and the Union had won it; the certifica-
tion had not yet issued at the time of the occurrence. The duty
of the Employer was to bargain with the Union. Under these
circumstances the Board has sometimes found that em-
ployees who go on strike not called by their collective-bar-
gaining agent engage in an unprotected activity. However,
under the circumstances that the work stoppage is not incon-
sistent with the collective-bargaining agent and does not serve
to undercut it in its representation duty, the fact that it is a
"wildcat," in that it is not called by the Union, does not
remove its protection.10 I find that Respondent discharged the
employees for engaging in protected, concerted activity in
violation of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act." and I shall recom-
mend that they be made whole for any pay they lost as a result
of its action.12
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON
COMMERCE
The activities of Respondent set forth in section III, above,
occurring in connection with its operations described in sec-
tion I, above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relation-
ship 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.
THE REMEDY
In order to effectuate the policies of the Act, I find that it
is necessary that Respondent be ordered to cease and desist
from the unfair labor practices found and from like and
related invasions of employees' Section 7 rights, to take cer-
tain affirmative action including the payment to employees
Shirley Hangen, Mary Dafler, Joanne Innis, Eula Brown and
Lana Woodgeard backpay for the period between August 17,
1970, and September 14, 1970, plus the interest at 6 percent
per annum as prescribed in Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138
NLRB 716, and to post appropriate notices.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and the
entire record in the case, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAw
1. Respondent is an employer within the meaning of Sec-
tion 2(2) of the Act and is engaged in 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. Respondent discriminatorily laid off Shirley Hangen,
Mary Dafler, Joanne Innis, Eula Brown 'and Lana Wood-
geard in retaliation for their protected , concerted activities in
violation Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act.
4. By interfering with, restraining and coercing its em-
ployees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7
of the Act, the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging
in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1)
of the Act.
5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor
practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section
2(6) and (7) of the Act.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law
and the entire record and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the
Act, I hereby issue the following recommended:"
ORDER
Respondent Valley Mold Company, Inc., its officers,
agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Discharging employees for engaging in work stoppages
or other protected, concerted activity.
(b) Engaging in surveillance,of the union activity of its
employees.
(c) Coercively interrogating its employees with regard to
their or other employees' union activities.
(d) Threatening that the plant would be shut down in the
event employees chose to be represented by District Lodge
No. 13 of the International Association of Machinists and
Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO.
(e) In any like or similar manner interfering with, restrain-
ing or coercing its employees in the exercise of their rights to
self-organization, to join, form or assist the Union or any
other labor organization, to bargain collectively through a
representative of their own choosing and to engage in con-
certed activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or
other mutual aid or protection or to refrain therefrom.
2. Take the following affirmative action which is necessary
to effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Make whole Shirley Hangen, Mary Dafler, Joanne In-
nis, Eula Brown and Lana Woodgeard for any loss they may
have suffered by reason of the discrimination against them in
the manner set forth in the section of this Decision entitled
"The Remedy."
(b) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the
Board or its agents, for examination and copying, all payroll
records, social security payment records, timecards, person-
nel records and reports, and all other records necessary to
See discussion in Lee Consaul Co., 175 NLRB No. 93
" It is irrelevant whether Respondent was mistaken or not. System
Analyzer Corp., 171 NLRB No. 11.
11 The record reveals that the five ladies were offered reinstatement on
September 10 effective September 14. This serves to toll the backpay liabil-
ity.
11 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.
VALLEY MOLD COMPANY, INC. 507
analyze the amount of backpay due under the terms of this
recommended Order.
(c) Post at its plant in Englewood, Ohio, copies of the
attached notice marked "Appendix."" Copies of said notice,
on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 9,
after being duly signed by the Respondent's representative,
shall be posted by it immediately upon receipt thereof, and
be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in
conspicuous places, including all places where notices to em-
ployees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be
taken by Respondent to insure that said notices are not al-
tered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(d) Notify said Regional Director, in writing, within 20
days from the receipt of this Decision, what steps have been
taken to comply herewith."
IT IS ALSO ORDERED that the complaint be dismissed inso-
far as it alleges violations of the Act not hereinabove specifi-
cally found.
" 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 OR-
DER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD."
15 In the event that this recommended Order is adopted by the Board
after exceptions have been filed, this provision shall be modified to read:
"Notify the Regional Director for Region 9, in writing, within 20 days from
the date of this Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply
herewith."
To form, join or help unions
To bargain collectively through representatives
of their own choosing
To act together for collective bargaining or other
mutual aid or protection
To refrain from any or all of these things.
WE WILL NOT do anything that interferes with, re-
strains or coerces employees with respect to these rights.
WE WILL NOT interrogate the employees coercively
with regard to their union activities nor threaten them
with loss of their jobs if the Union gets into the plant or
if they engage in union activities.
WE WILL NOT engage in surveillance of the union ac-
tivities of our employees.
WE WILL NOT threaten that the plant would be shut
down in the event employees chose to be respresented by
District Lodge No. 13 of the International Association
of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO, or
any other labor organization.
WE WILL pay Shirley Hangen, Mary Dafler, Joanne
Innis, Eula Brown and Lana Woodgeard for the earn-
ings they lost as a result of their discharge on August 17,
1970, plus 6 percent interest.
WE WILL NOT in any like or similar manner interfere
with, restrain or coerce our employees in the exercise of
their rights set forth above.
VALLEY MOLD
COMPANY, INC.
(Employer)
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
After a trial in which all sides had a chance to give evidence,
The National Labor Relations Board has found that we vi-
olated the National Labor Relations Act and has ordered us
to post this notice.
The Act gives all employees these rights:
To engage in self-organization
Dated By
(Representative) (Title)
This is an official notice and must not be defaced by any-
one.
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, Room
2407 Federal Office Building, 550 Main Street, Cincinnati,
Ohio 45202, Telephone 513-684-3686.