Von Der Ahe Van Lines, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 15, 1967

164 N.L.R.B. 606 (N.L.R.B. 1967)

606 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL
Von Der Ahe Van Lines, Inc. and Local 13,
Office and Professional Employees'
International Union, AFL-CIO. Case
14-CA-3982.
May 15, 1967
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS FANNING, JENKINS, AND ZAGORIA
On February 13, 1967, Trial Examiner Gordon J.
Myatt issued his Decision in the above-entitled
proceeding, finding that the Respondent had
engaged in certain unfair labor practices and
recommending that it cease and desist therefrom
and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in
the attached Trial Examiner's Decision. 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 Respondent's exceptions
and brief, and the entire record in the case, and
hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and
recommendations of the Trial Examiner.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board adopts as its Order the
Recommended Order of the Trial Examiner and
hereby orders that the Respondent, Von Der Ahe
Van Lines, Inc., Fenton, Missouri, its officers,
agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action
set forth in the Trial Examiner's Recommended
Order.
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
GORDON J. MYATT, Trial Examiner: Upon a charge filed
May 25, 1966,i and upon an amended charge filed July 26,
1966, by Local 13, Office and Professional Employees'
International Union, AFL-CIO (hereinafter referred to as
the Union), a complaint was issued on July 26 against Von
Der Ahe Van Lines, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as the
Respondent). The complaint alleges that the Respondent
violated Section 8(a)(1), (3), and (4) of the Act. The
Respondent's answer admits certain allegations of the
complaint, but denies the commission of any unfair labor
All dates herein refer to 1966, unless otherwise indicated
z At the time of the trial of the prior case, Patterson was
unmarried and was known as Rosetta Whitehead
LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
practices. The case was heard at St. Louis, Missouri, on
September 21 and 22. The General Counsel and the
Respondent submitted briefs in support of their positions,
and these briefs have been duly considered by me in
arriving at my decision in this matter.
Upon the entire record in this case, and upon my
evaluation of the witnesses, based on my observation of
their demeanor and on the credible evidence herein, I
make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. JURISDICTIONAL FINDINGS
The Respondent, a Utah corporation, maintains its
principal office and place of business in Fenton, Missouri,
and is engaged in the business of storing and transporting,
in interstate commerce, personal effects and household
goods. During the year ending June 1, 1966, a
representative period, the Respondent performed services
valued in excess of $50,000 for various enterprises located
in States other than the State of Missouri. On the basis of
the above, I find that the Respondent is engaged in, and, at
all times material herein, has been engaged in, a business
affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and
(7) of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Local 13, Office and Professional Employees'
International Union, AFL-CIO, is,a labor organization
within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Background Facts
The parties in this case were involved in a prior unfair
labor practice case in which the Board held that the
Respondent committed certain violations of the Act. This
case is reported at 155 NLRB 126. One of the
discriminatees in the prior case, Rosetta Patterson 2 was
found to have been unlawfully discharged by the
Respondent, and her reinstatement was ordered by the
Board.
B. The Events Leading to the Present Allegations
After her reinstatement as ordered in the prior case,
Patterson worked for the Respondent until January 12. On
this date she began a maternity leave of absence.
Patterson's leave of absence came about in the following
manner. On January 3, Patterson sent a letter to Mr. Von
Der Ahe requesting a leave of absence starting January 12
because of her pregnancy. The letter stated that she would
not be able to return to work until so advised by her doctor.
Because she had not received a reply from Von Der Ahe,
Patterson asked her supervisor, June Shoulders, if there
had been any action on her request. Shoulders informed
Patterson that Von Der Ahe said she could take her leave
as planned. On her last day at work, Patterson was
presented a gift by her coworkers. Shoulders, who was
present at this gathering, told Patterson that she would be
missed. She also told Patterson that the Respondent was
looking forward to her return to work.
164 NLRB No. 91
VON DER AHE VAN LINES 607
Betty Trail, the other alleged discriminatee, went on
maternity leave before Patterson. Sometime in November
1965, Trail informed her supervisor, Shoulders, that she
was going to quit because of her pregnancy. According to
Trails' undisputed testimony, Shoulders replied, "No, you
aren ' t quitting , you are going on a leave of absence."
Shortly after beginning her leave at the end of November,
Trail received a letter from the Respondent containing a
check in payment for a weekend that she had worked, a
leave-of-absence form, and a handwritten note indicating
that she was to fill out the form and return it to the
Respondent. Trail did so, and the form (G.C. Exh. 4)
indicates that Trail's leave of absence was approved by
Shoulders on December 12, 1965.3
There is undisputed testimony in the record that the
Respondent, through its Supervisor Shoulders, considered
the employment of both Patterson and Trail to be
temporarily interrupted by their pregnancies, and that
each of these employees would eventually return to work.
Employee Shirley Gortney testified that she overheard
Shoulders talking to one of the Respondent's truckdrivers.
The driver made an inquiry concerning Trail, and
Shoulders told him that Trail was on maternity leave.
Another employee, Lucille Wilson, testified that she asked
Shoulders if Trail was coming back or if she had quit. In
response to this question Shoulders stated that Trail had
not quit , that she was on maternity leave, and that she
would return. Sometime in January 1966, Wilson was
engaged in a conversation with several employees and
Shoulders. Someone mentioned during this conversation
that a number of the "girls had left," and cited Patterson
and Trail as examples . According to Wilson, Shoulders
stated, "Oh, Betty [Trail] is on maternity leave the same
as Rose [Patterson]. She will be back." Another
employee, June Skaggs, testified that she overheard
Shoulders tell an unidentified person in the drivers' room
that both Patterson and Trail were on maternity leave.4
Trail's baby was born March 15, and about 6 weeks after
that date Trail stopped by Respondent's office to show the
infant to the employees. While there, Shoulders asked
about her future plans for working. Trail indicated that she
hoped she would not have to return to work, but that she
might. During this same visit , Trail was standing beside
the desk of employee Skaggs. Shoulders, whose office
opened into the area where Skaggs' desk was located,
called out to Trail and asked when was she returning to
work. Trail replied, "Pretty soon."
On May 9 Patterson called the Respondent's office and
talked with Herman Schulte, the controller. Patterson
asked Schulte about returning to work and was told that
there were no openings at the moment , but that the
Respondent would contact her as soon as a job was
available. The following day Patterson called again and
spoke to Schulte. She informed Schulte that she had
talked with the Union, and the Union wanted to know
when she was to return to her job. Schulte again replied
that there were no vacancies in her section and that he
would contact her when a vacancy occurred. On May 18
Schulte sent Patterson an application for employment with
a covering letter requesting that she complete the
application and return it to him. Patterson did not fill out
the application as she thought it was unnecessary to do so.
On May 25 Patterson filed a charge with the Regional
Office.
Sometime in May,5 Trail called Respondent's office and
spoke to Shoulders. Trail told Shoulders that she wanted
to return to work around June 1. Shoulders told Trail that
she -could not take her (Trail) back until she took
Patterson back. When Trail asked what Patterson's return
had to do with her job, Shoulders replied that Patterson
had more seniority. Shoulders then told Trail that she
might be able to find something for her in the claims
department under McAnally. Trail agreed to this as she
had worked in various departments of the Respondent's
office. She also asked Shoulders to see if the Respondent
would grant her a $10-a-week pay increase .6
Several days later , Trail called Schulte and informed
him that she had spoken to Shoulders and that she wished
to return to work around June 1. Trail also told Schulte
that she had asked Shoulders to speak to the Von Der
Ahes concerning a $10-a-week pay increase. She asked
him if he would also make inquiries concerning this
increase . Schulte promised to discuss the matter with the
Von Der Ahes, and he and Trail then talked about
different jobs in various departments in order to determine
Trail's preference. About a week later , Trail called
Shoulders at her home to find out if she had spoken to the
Von Der Ahes. Shoulders told Trail that Mr. Von Der Ahe
said he did not give $10 raises, and asked if she should try
for $5 or something less. Trail agreed, as she was curious
to know whether the Respondent would grant her any sort
of a wage increase. That same evening , Trail called Mrs.
Von Der Ahe at her home and asked if Shoulders had
spoken to her about Trail's return to work. Mrs. Von Der
Ahe indicated that she thought she "heard someone
mentioning something" about Trail's request to come
back. Mrs. Von Der Ahe promised to speak to Shoulders
the following morning and then contact Trail. As she had
received no word from the Respondent, Trail again called
Shoulders several days later . Shoulders indicated that she
had not spoken to Mrs. Von Der Ahe, but she would do so
and call Trail back. Shoulders did not contact Trail, but
McAnally, manager of the claims department , did call her.
McAnally stated that she had an opening in her
department at a mail desk which she intended to fill at $55
a week. Trail became very angry and wanted to know
whether McAnally had been instructed to call and tell her
whether or not she was employed at the Respondent's
establishment. Trail stated that she had not inquired about
McAnally's office, and that the information concerning the
mail job was of "no value" to her. Trail testified that
McAnally never directly offered her the job at the mail
desk, but that she stated, "all I know is that I was told to
call you and tell you that the only opening in my office is
the little mail desk." McAnally told Trail that she could
not understand why there should be so much confusion
' The leave-of-absence forms were initiated by a former
supervisor in October 1965, however, the forms were not
uniformly used by the various departments in the Respondent's
office For example, Annie McAnally, in charge of the
Respondent's claims department, testified that the employees in
her section made oral requests for leaves of absence directly to
her, and if a requested leave presented a problem she would
discuss the matter with Von Der Ahe
' Shoulders was not called as a witness in this proceeding, nor
did the Respondent present any evidence to refute the remarks
attributed to her by the various witnesses I therefore credit all
testimony relating to conversations with or remarks made by
Shoulders
' The exact date of Trail' s initial phone call to Shoulders is
unclear in this record
6 At the time that she left on maternity leave, Trail was earning
$75 a week
608 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
over her returning to work and she promised to speak to
Mrs. Von Der Ahe and have her contact Trail. The
following day Mrs. Von Der Ahe telephoned Trail and
explained that the only opening they had was the mail desk
in McAnally 's department , and that the Respondent
intended to fill that job for $60 a week. According to Trail,
after Mrs. Von Der Ahe mentioned the mail desk job she
added in a very low voice, "if you want that." Trail then
asked Mrs. Von Der Ahe if the mail desk job was being
offered to her at $60 a week. Mrs. Von Der Ahe replied,
"Oh, no, honey, I didn't say that. I just said the only thing I
have opened is the little desk in Annie's [McAnally]
office." Mrs. Von Der Ahe then offered to help Trail
secure another job with a friend of hers.7
The evidence discloses that from May 23 to September
6, the Respondent hired 10 female clerical employees, and
that during this same period 4 female clericals terminated
their employment with the Respondent . There is no
evidence that any of these positions-either those filled by
new hires or those vacated as a result of
terminations-were offered to Patterson or Trail.
C. Contentions of the Parties
The General Counsel contends that the Respondent's
strong union animus and its clear hostility toward
employee supporters of the Union , as evidenced by the
extensive violations in the prior case, caused the
Respondent to refuse Patterson and Trail reemployment.It
is contended that the Respondent 's ire was directed
specifically at Patterson , who testified in the prior case
and who was found to have been unlawfully discharged.
According to the General Counsel , the Respondent
utilized Patterson 's absence due to pregnancy to rid itself
of an acknowledged supporter of the Union , and Trail was
the "innocent victim " caught up in the wake of these
events. Thus, Trail was offered a lesser job , which it was
anticipated would be refused , in order to lend credence to
the claim that there were no jobs available when Patterson
asked to return to work.
The Respondent , on the other hand , takes the position
that there is not a scintilla of evidence to support the claim
that Patterson and Trail were refused reemployment, or,
for that matter , that the Respondent engaged in any
unlawful conduct with respect to these two employees.
D. Concluding Findings
Over the Respondent ' s strenuous objections, I took
official notice of the Board's findings in the prior case. The
Respondent argues that the record in the instant case is
devoid of any evidence of unlawful motivation, and that
the General Counsel cannot supply this essential
ingredient by means of official notice of prior unfair labor
practices . To the extent that this argument denies
admissibility of evidence of prior unlawful conduct , it must
be rejected . Such evidence is particularly relevant in
determining motivation underlying subsequent conduct by
a party. Maphis Chapman Corp. v. N.L.R.B., 368 F.2d 298
(C.A. 4); Paramount Cap Manufacturing Company v.
N.L.R.B., 260 F.2d 109, 112-113 (C.A. 8). Thus, the
Respondent ' s strong union animus and its prior
discriminatory treatment of Patterson are relevant factors
to be considered in determining whether the acts
complained of here are unlawful. Of course, this is not to
suggest that the General Counsel is relieved of the burden
of establishing the current violations by a preponderance
of the relevant evidence, but it does require consideration
of the prior unlawful conduct in deciding whether this
burden has been met.
The record before me clearly indicates that the
Respondent considered the absences of Patterson and
Trail to be of a temporary nature, and that this view was
communicated not only to the two employees involved, but
to all others who inquired about their status. Supervisor
Shoulders told Trail that she was not quitting as a result of
her pregnancy , but that she was "going on a leave of
absence." Similarly , Shoulders told Patterson when she
began her leave that she (Patterson) would be missed and
that the Respondent was "looking forward to her return."
On at least two other occasions , Shoulders told other
employees that Patterson and Trail had not quit , but were
on maternity leave. Nonetheless , when Patterson
indicated that she was ready to return to work, she was
told that there were no positions available at that time. In
addition, she was subsequently asked to fill out a new
application for employment."
When Trail asked to return to work, she was initially
told that she could not return before Patterson because of
the latter ' s greater seniority . There is also the strong
implication that the Union required the Respondent to
follow seniority in these circumstances ." However , George
O'Brien, business representative of the Union, credibly
testified that the Union never asked or demanded that
employees be recalled on the basis of seniority, or that
Patterson return before Trail.
But even if the above were not sufficient to raise serious
doubts concerning the basis for the Respondent 's actions
toward Patterson and Trail, the following factors persuade
me to reject the Respondent 's claim to lawful conduct.
Patterson was employed as a mail-and-file clerk, while
Trail, a former legal secretary, had worked in various
departments in the Respondent 's office as a more skilled
office employee. Despite this fact, obviously known to the
Respondent , Patterson was told that nothing was available
and Trail was offered a lesser job as a mail clerk.10 Not
only was the mail job demeaning in terms of Trail's job
skills, but the rate of pay was far less than she received
prior to going on maternity leave. Furthermore , the record
discloses that between May 23 and September 6 the
Respondent hired female employees in the following
positions: two stenotypists; one PBX operator; two
accounting clerks; three clerk-typists; and two rate clerks.
As in the case of Shoulders, Mrs Von Der Ahe did not testify,
nor was any evidence presented to refute Trail's testimony in this
regard Accordingly, I credit Trail's testimony concerning
statements made by Mrs Von Der Ahe
s Although Schulte testified that he "believed" another
employee , absent from March 1963 to July 1964 due to pregnancy,
did fill out a new application upon her return , there is no evidence
in the record indicating such a requirement was an established
part of the Respondent 's policy Indeed, employee Lucille Wilson
credibly testified that she had taken leaves of absence , once for a
3-week period and again for 6 weeks, and was not required to fill
out a new employment application More significant, however, is
the fact that no such requirement was made of Trail, who was
absent for a longer period of time than Patterson
0 This is based on the unrefuted testimony of employee June
Skaggs She testified that Shoulders told her that Trail could not
return before Patterson "on account of the Union "
10 There is some question as to whether the job was offered to
Trail or whether she was told that the job was the only one
available However, this issue in no way affects my ultimate
conclusions in this case
VON DER AHE VAN LINES 609
Thus, it is evident that the Respondent had positions other
than the mail-desk job available, and that it did not offer
any of these to Trail; nor did the Respondent offer the
mail-desk job to Patterson, although it was similar to the
position she formerly held.
It is apparent from the above that the explanations
given by the Respondent in support of its conduct toward
Patterson and Trail do not stand up under close scrutiny,
and that the true answer lies elsewhere. When considered
in the light of the Respondent's strong union animus and
prior unlawful treatment of Patterson, however, a logical
basis for concluding that the Respondent's present
conduct was discriminatorily motivated becomes
evident. i i It is in this context that I find that the
Respondent did indeed seize upon Patterson's absence
due to pregnancy to rid itself of an employee who actively
supported the Union and who gave testimony against it in
the prior unfair labor practice case. Had the Respondent
reemployed Trail while denying reemployment to
Patterson, the discriminatory motivation underlying its
refusal to allow Patterson to return to work would have
been all too obvious. Therefore, I find that Trail was in fact
the "innocent victim" when the Respondent offered her a
lesser job at a lower wage while other jobs were available. I
find that such conduct violates Section 8(a)(1), (3), and (4)
of the Act.
the policies of the Act. As the nature of the Respondent's
conduct goes "to the very heart of the Act," I shall
recommend a broad cease-and-desist order. N.L.R.B. v.
Entwistle Mfg. Co., 120 F.2d 532, 536 (C.A. 4).
I shall recommend that the Respondent offer immediate
reemployment to employees Rosetta Patterson and Betty
Trail to their former or substantially equivalent positions,
without prejudice to their seniority and other rights and
privileges, and make these employees whole for any loss of
earnings they may have suffered by reason of the
discrimination against them, by payment to each of them
of a sum of money equal to the amount they would have
earned from the date of the discriminatory refusal to
reemploy them (in the case of Patterson, from the date she
was informed that no jobs were available; in the case of
Trail, from the date that she was offered the lesser paying
job) to the date of the offer of reemployment, and in a
manner consistent with the Board policies set forth in F.
W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289. Interest on
backpay shall be computed in the manner set forth in Isis
Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716.
Accordingly, upon the foregoing findings of fact and
conclusions of law, and upon the entire record in this case,
I recommend, pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, the
following:
RECOMMENDED ORDER
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Von Der Ahe Van Lines, Inc., is an employer
engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6)
and (7) of the Act.
2. Local 13, Office and Professional Employees'
International Union, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization
within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. By refusing to reemploy Rosetta Patterson, an
employee on maternity leave, because she was a supporter
of the Union and because she gave testimony against the
Respondent in a prior unfair labor practice case, the
Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices within
the meaning of Section 8(a)(1), (3), and (4) of the Act.
4. By offering Betty Trail, an employee on maternity
leave, a lesser position at a lower rate of pay in order to
camouflage its discriminatory treatment of Rosetta
Patterson, the Respondent has engaged in unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of
the Act.
5. By its unlawful conduct with respect to employees
Patterson and Trail, the Respondent has interfered with,
restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of
the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, and has
engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
6. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in unfair
labor practices violative of Section 8(a)(1), (3), and (4) of the
Act, I shall recommend that it cease and desist therefrom
and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate
II Cf N L B.B. v Griggs Equipment , Inc, 307 F.2d 275, 278
(C.A 5) See also The Wm. H Block Company, 153 NLRB 616,
617-618
12 In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the
Board, the words "a Decision and Order" shall be substituted for
Respondent, Von Der Ahe Van Lines, Inc., its officers,
agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Refusing to reemploy employees, who are on leaves
of absence, because they are supporters of the Union, or
because they have given testimony against the
Respondent in a prior unfair labor practice case.
(b) Refusing to reemploy employees, on leaves of
absence, in order to camouflage discriminatory treatment
of other employees who are supporters of the Union and
who have given testimony against the Respondent in a
prior unfair labor practice case.
(c) Discouraging employees' union activities and
membership by refusing to reemploy employees, on leaves
of absence, because they are supporters of the Union.
(d) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or
coercing its employees in the exercise of their rights
guaranteed under Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which I find
will effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Offer to Rosetta Patterson and Betty Trail
immediate reemployment in their former or substantially
equivalent positions without prejudice to their seniority or
other rights and privileges, and make them whole in the
manner set forth in the section of this Decision entitled
"The Remedy" for the discrimination against them.
(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, personnel records and reports, and all other
records relevant to a determination of the amount of
backpay due under the terms of this Decision.
(c) Post at its establishment in Fenton, Missouri, copies
of the attached notice marked "Appendix."12 Copies of
the words "the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner" in the
notice In the further event that the Board's Order is enforced by
a decree of a United States Court of Appeals, the words "a Decree
of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order" shall
be substituted for the words "a Decision and Order."
610 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for
Region 14, shall, after being duly signed by an authorized
representative of the Respondent , be posted immediately
upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60
consecutive days thereafter, 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 with any other material.
(d) Notify the said Regional Director, in writing, within
20 days from the date of the receipt of this Decision, what
steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith.13
" In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the
Board, this provision shall be modified to read "Notify said
Regional Director , in writing , within 10 days from the date of this
Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith "
APPENDIX
discriminatory treatment of other employees who
support the Union or who have testified against us in a
prior unfair labor practice case.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with
our employees in the exercise of their right to join or
assist a labor organization , to bargain collectively, or
to engage in concerted activities for mutual aid or
protection, or to refrain from any and all such
activities.
WE WILL offer Rosetta Patterson and Betty Trail
immediate reemployment to their former or
substantially equivalent jobs and make them whole
for any loss they may have suffered as a result of our
discrimination against them.
All our employees are free to become or remain, or to
refrain from becoming or remaining , members of any labor
organization except to the extent such right may be
affected by an agreement authorized in Section 8(a)(3) of
the Act.
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 refuse to reemploy employees, on
leaves of absence, because they are supporters of
Local 13, Office and Professional Employees'
International Union , AFL-CIO , or because they have
given testimony against us in a prior unfair labor
practice case.
WE WILL NOT refuse to reemploy employees, on
leaves of absence, in order to cover up our
VON DER AHE VAN LINES,
INC.
(Employer)
Dated By
(Representative ) (Title)
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
directly with the Board's Regional Office, 1040 Boatmen's
Bank Building, 314 North Broadway, St. Louis, Missouri
63102, Telephone 622-4167.