Woolco Department Store, No. 6040

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 25, 1971

189 N.L.R.B. 322 (N.L.R.B. 1971)

322 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
F. W. Woolworth Co., d/b/a Woolco Department
Store, No. 6040 and Local 1099, Retail Clerks
International Association , AFL-CIO. Case
9-CA-5629
March 25, 1971
DECISION AND ORDER
By Members Fanning , Jenkins, and Kennedy
On October 23, 1970, Trial Examiner Herbert
Silberman issued his Decision in the above-entitled
proceeding, finding that the Respondent had engaged
in and was engaging 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 Decision, together
with 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 recom-
mendations of the Trial Examiner.I
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board adopts as its Order the Recommend-
ed Order of the Trial Examiner, and hereby orders
that the Respondent, F. W. Woolworth Co., d/b/a
Woolco Department Store, No. 6040, Hamilton,
Ohio, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall
take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's
Recommended Order.2
Respondent has excepted to certain of the Trial Examiner's credibility
findings As the clear preponderance of the relevant evidence does not
persuade us that the Trial Examiner's resolution of credibility issues was
incorrect. we find insufficient basis for disturbing his credibility findings
Standard Dry Wall Products, Inc, 91 NLRB 544. enfd 188 F 2d 362 (C A
3)
2 In footnote 16 of the Trial Examiner's Decision, substitute "20" for
"10" days
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
HERBERT SILBERMAN, Trial Examiner: Upon a charge
filed on May 4, 1970, by Local 1099, Retail Clerks
International Association, AFL-CIO, herein called the
Union, a complaint, dated June 22, 1970, was issued
alleging that F. W. Woolworth Co., d/b/a Woolco
Department Store, No. 6040, herein also called the
Company, has engaged in and is engaging in conduct
constituting unfair labor practices within the meaning of
Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the National Labor Relations Act,
as amended. Respondent duly filed an answer to the
complaint generally denying that it had engaged in the
alleged unfair labor practices. In substance, the complaint,
as amended at the hearing, alleges that the Company
unlawfully discharged Stephanie Ballinger on April 6, 1970,
because of her sympathy for, membership in, and activities
on behalf of the Union and in order to discourage
membership in the Union, and, by reason of said discharge
and other conduct set forth in the complaint Respondent
also has interfered with, restrained, and coerced employees
in the exercise of rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act.'
A hearing in these proceedings was held in Hamilton, Ohio,
on August 4, 5, 6, and 7, 1970. Subsequent to the hearing,
General Counsel and Respondent filed briefs which have
been carefully considered.
Upon the entire record in the case, and from my
observation of the witnesses and their demeanor, I make
the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY
The Company, a New York corporation, operates retail
stores in various States of the United States, including its
Store No. 6040 in Hamilton, Ohio, the only facility of
Respondent which is involved in these proceedings. During
the 12 months preceding the issuance of the complaint,
which period is representative of Respondent's business
activities, the gross volume of sales at said store exceeded
$500,000 and Respondent purchased and received at said
store goods and products valued in excess of $500,000 which
originated from points outside the State of Ohio and were
shipped to Respondent's facility in Ohio through channels
of interstate commerce. Respondent admits, and I find, that
it is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section
2(6) and (7) of the Act.
11. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The Union is a labor organization within the meaning of
Section 2(5) of the Act.
111. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
The Company operates a retail establishment located in a
I Respondent 's motion made at the hearing to dismiss paragraph 5(c)(i)
of the complaint was granted
189 NLRB No. 47
WOOLCO DEPARTMENT STORE
shopping center at the outskirts of Hamilton, Ohio. The
store employs approximately 85 full-time and part-time
sales clerks and other nonmanagerial personnel. Hugh M.
King is the general manager. He succeeded to that position
on January 29, 1970, after having served as the store's
assistant general manager for approximately 2 years. Judy
Burke is the personnel coordinator and has been employed
in that capacity at the store since July 1966. The assistant
general manager is Gordon Layton. The additional
supervisory personnel includes 13 division or department
managers2 plus a number of assistant division or depart-
ment managers . General Manager King holds weekly
meetings with the department managers at which personnel
matters as well as other operational subjects are discussed.
The assistant division managers customarily do not attend
these meetings.
On February 17, 1970, the Union began an effort to
organize the Company's Hamilton store. Four union
representatives in teams of two visited the employees at
their homes. Approximately 40 to 45 employees were
contacted in this manner . In addition some employees were
contacted in the parking lot adjacent to the store and in a
hamburger restaurant across the street from the store. So
far as the record shows all solicitations of authorization
cards were made by the union representatives and no
company employee engaged in any such activity or in
passing out handbills. A single union meeting was held on
March 27, 1970, at the home of employee Diana Eldridge
which was attended by 10 employees. Although the
employees did not engage in overt organizational activity,
the Union's campaign was the subject of much discussion
among them at the store, particularly in the ladies' lounge
and in the restaurant located at the back of the store.
King learned of the Union's campaign about February
26, 1970. He promptly informed Burke and Layton that
union representatives were visiting employees at their
homes. At the next regular management meeting King told
the department managers of the organizational campaign
and covered with them what their conduct should be. He
explained what was unlawful for them to do, such as
interrogating employees, threatening employees, or making
promises, and what was lawful for them to do. Thereafter,
particularly during the month of March, King almost on a
daily basis spoke with each of the managers regarding his
belief as to how many employees in his department
supported or opposed the Union. Although King testified
that he could not recall that any specific names were
mentioned in these conversations, Burke testified that "a
good many girls," about 15 to 18, reported to her that they
had been visited by union representatives and that she in
turn relayed such reports to King.
King also notified Respondent's executive office of the
Union's organizational drive. On March 13 King posted in
the ladies' lounge and over the timeclock the following
notice which was prepared by and furnished to him by
Respondent's executive office:
1 The men's and boys' clothing wear section is a leased department
operated by Rockower Brothers, Inc Pursuant to the terms of its lease
Rockower undertakes that is employees will conform to certain policies
established by the Company It was stipulated that the Company and
Rockower are joint employers of the employers of Rockower working at
Respondent's Hamilton, Ohio. store James Earl Stahl, who is employed by
NOTICE
323
It has come to my attention that paid organizers from
Local 1099, Retail Clerks International Association,
AFL-CIO are once again trying to sign up the
employees of this store.
If they follow the same tactics they did two years ago,
they may approach you as you leave work, they may try
to bother you while you are at work, and they may try to
invade the privacy of your home to try to sign you up.
Remember one thing, you have no obligation at all to
talk to these paid organizers and in no circumstances do
they have any right to enter your home.
If one of the professionals ask you to sign a card, no
matter what they say to you, signing a card can require
you to:
1. PAY PART OF YOUR WAGES FOR UNION
DUES, FINES AND ASSESSMENTS.
2. REGULARLY ATTEND UNION MEETINGS
ON YOUR OWN TIME.
3. PARADE THE STREETS AS A PICKET WHEN-
EVER THE UNION SEES FIT TO MAKE YOU DO
SO.
4. STRIKE WITHOUT WAGES WHENEVER THE
UN [ON DECIDES ON MAKING YOU DO SO.
If you don't want to be forced to pay dues, attend
meetings, picket and strike, there are two courses of
action you can take-either you may refuse to sign up
with the union, or you may insist that you won't sign up
unless you can obtain a written guarantee that you
won't have to do any of these.
Do not hesitate to come to me with any questions. I
will do my level best to answer all your questions
honestly, and in your best interest.
/s/ H. M. King
Manager
At a meeting of employees held the same day Personnel
Coordinator Burke called the employees' attention to the
notice and directed them to read it.
A. The Discharge of Stephanie Ballinger
Stephanie Ballinger was hired on May 8, 1969, as a
cashier at the hourly rate of $1.65. On July 10, she received
an automatic increase of 10 cents per hour and subsequent-
ly on February 19, 1970, she was given a merit increase of
7-1/2 cents per hour. According to Personnel Coordinator
Burke, merit increases are authorized by the general
manager and Ballinger was given a merit increase in
February because of the length of time she had been
working for the store and because she was doing a good job.
Burke, who was Ballinger's immediate supervisor, also
testified that between February 19 and April 6, when
Ballinger was discharged, no complaints about Ballinger
were registered with her and she was pleased with Ballinger's
work. From time to time during her employment Ballinger
Rockower Brothers, Inc., is the manager of the men's and boys' wear
department As such manager he attends the meetings of the store's
division managers regularly held by General Manager King I find that
insofar as it is material to this case Stahl's conduct is attributable to the
Respondent to the same extent as if he were a direct supervisory employee
of the Company
324 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
was given special assignments . Thus, from February 9 to 22,
1970, she substituted for the merchandise shopper while the
regular shopper was on vacation. For another period of 2
weeks she prepared signs for the store. (When she asked
Ballinger to do this, Burke told Ballinger that she and King
had selected Ballinger because Ballinger was quick to learn
and fast at her job. After the assignment was completed
Burke complimented Ballinger for having done a good job.)
Also, during inventory periods Ballinger assisted in that
operation. Mrs. Burke sought to deprecate the importance
of these assignments by testifying that in selecting a
substitute shopper "we tried to find someone who had a car
and drove" and that making signs was a simple operation.
Similarly, Burke explained that when she asked Ballinger to
assist Respondent with the opening of a new store in
Indiana in November 1969 she tried to choose girls who
didn't have too many family obligations and who drove.3
While the special assignments may not have required
unusual or outstanding abilities, it is unlikely that Ballinger
would have been selected unless the Company believed her
to be competent and trustworthy. Thus, Ballinger testified
that when she completed the assignment as shopper,
Assistant General Manager Layton told her that she had
done a good job and that he appreciated her work Layton
corroborated Ballinger insofar as he testified that there
were occasions when he complimented Ballinger on her
performance.
Ballinger learned of the Union's campaign late in
February 1970 when she heard other employees talk about
union representatives having visited them at home.
Thereafter, Ballinger participated in discussions about the
Union which usually took place in the ladies' lounge or in
the store restaurant. Primarily she discussed the subject
with employees Diana Eldridge, Linda Walton, Jeanette
Farmer, and Sharon Black. Ballinger freely expressed her
opinion that the Union would be desirable at the store
because it would bring improvements in wages, holiday
pay, and hospitalization and insurance benefits. In
addition, Ballinger frequently worked at the cash register
closest to the accomodation desk where Diana Eldridge
worked. Between these two stations is the tower platform
where an assistant department manager normally stands
when the store is open to the public. The location of these
three stations is such that the employees assigned to them
can converse easily without having to raise their voices. On
at least one occasion when Ballinger and Eldridge were
discussing the Union, Elliott Lambert, an assistant
department manager, who was in the tower, participated in
the discussion . During the conversation Ballinger expressed
her sentiments regarding the Union so that Lambert
learned that she favored the Union.4 Ballinger and Eldridge
3 Ballinger testified that she was unable to comply with the request and
did not go to Indiana to help with the opening of the new store
4 Eldridge corroborated Ballinger's testimony concerning their
conversation about the Union in the presence of Elliott The testimony of
Ballinger and Eldridge differs as to when the conversation took place
Ballinger testified that the conversation took place in March prior to the
posting of the notice , while Eldridge testified that it occurred after the
notice had been posted Eldridge testified that such three-way conversation
took place only once (Eldridge testified to two other conversations with
Lambert about the Union In one of these conversations, according to
Eldridge, Lambert told her that the Union was a good idea and it is just
what we need here) Ballinger testified that she told Lambert how she felt
signed union authorization cards on March 24 at the latter's
home.
Stephanie Ballinger was discharged on April 6 by Mrs.
Burke upon the direction of General Manager King. The
purported reason is that during the week preceding her
termination Ballinger made an excessive number of
mistakes in filling out credit media.
Approximately 25 percent of the Company's sales are
credit transactions. For each such sale the cashier prepares
a form, referred to as credit media, for the customer's
signature. Each form, which is 3-1/2 by 7-1/2 inches, is a
self-contained unit of three sheets separated by carbon
paper so that it automatically is filled out in triplicate. The
first step in a credit sales transaction requires the cashier to
place the media in a lot in the cash register. For each item
of merchandise she rings the cost, the store's department
number, and symbols indicating whether or not tax is
charged. (King's and Burke's testimony suggest that certain
of the store's departments handle only taxable merchan-
dise.) This information automatically is printed in colum-
nar form on the media together with the state tax and the
total charge which appear at the foot of the column. The
next operation involves the use of another mechanical
device called the imprinter. The customer's credit card and
the media, which is removed from the cash register, are
placed one on top of the other in designated positions in the
imprinter. The total amount of the sale (which corresponds
to the total rung upon the cash register) is dialed into the
imprinter through a wheel device. The head of the
imprinter, which is connected by hinges, is pulled down by
hand and automatically locks in closed position. A lever
then is moved from left to right which causes the raised
characters on the charge plate (only consisting of the
customer's account number and the customer's name), plus
the date and the amount of the sale, to be printed on the
media. The lever automatically returns to its original
position and the head of the imprinter is raised so that the
media and the charge plate may be removed. The operator
initials the media in a box designated for such purpose and
the customer signs the media above a line at the nght side
of the form. This completes the operation. One copy of the
media is given to the customer, another copy is kept at the
store, and the third copy, at the end of each day, is mailed
to the Company's central accounting office in Milwaukee
which handles the credit transactions for 130 of Respon-
dent's stores. Where the customer does not have a
permanent credit card the cashier is required to copy from
the customer's temporary credit card the customer's
account number, name , and address onto the media by
hand.
The Company normally employs four full-time cashiers
about the Union on at least four different occasions Her testimony does
not indicate that all these conversations, according to Ballinger , Lambert
said that he wished the Union would get in here Lambert denied having
had any conversation with Ballinger or Eldridge about the Union He also
denied that he knew anything about the Union's organizational campaign
until he was informed in April 1970 that he had been "implicated in this
hearing" This is difficult to believe in the light of the notice, quoted above,
which Lambert admitted that he had read when it was posted on March 13
Even General Manager King testified that he was sure the assistant
department managers became aware of the Union 's campaign . Lambert
generally impressed me as being an unreliable witness I do not credit his
denial of knowledge of Ballinger's sentiments regarding the Union
WOOLCO DEPARTMENT STORE
and about seven part-time cashiers. In addition, 20 to 25
salesladies, including part-time salesladies, are called upon
to function as cashiers as they are needed. The employees
are instructed in the operation of the cash registers and in
the preparation of credit media by Mrs. Burke and
Kathleen McFadden.5 Mrs. Burke at regular intervals holds
meetings with the store employees and from time to time at
these meetings she gives the employees further instructions
in the operation of cash registers and in the preparation of
credit media and calls their attention to mistakes that have
been made. Mrs. Burke is the immediate supervisor of the
full-time cashiers.
According to General Manager King, beginning about
February 18, approximately 2 weeks after he assumed his
new position, Mr. Laird, the credit manager, "was
constantly hounding me and bringing . . . to my attention"
problems about credit media. He did not describe the
nature of the complaints other than that they were "nothing
more than the people just being careless." King advised
Burke of Laird's complaints and instructed her to bring up
the subject of credit media at employee meetings and to
reemphasize to the employees the importance of properly
handling every phase of the credit transactions. Such
meetings were held and before each meeting Burke
discussed with King some of the matters she intended to
cover with the girls and after each meeting reported to King
what had been accomplished. Nevertheless, no improve-
ment followed. According to King, "the Credit Manager,
Mr. Laird, continued griping." In mid-March King told
Laird that once the store is back in shape after the Easter
season rush (Easter Sunday fell on March 29) he would
personally review the media to "see what [Laird] was
griping about, and if there was excessive mistakes being
made, as [Laird] said there was, then action would be taken
to correct it."
Also, in March, Laird told King that Stephanie Ballinger
was "one of the worst offenders" in regard to credit media
mistakes. This is the only employee who Laird referred to
by name. Despite this King did not then speak to Ballinger
or call Laird's complaints about Ballinger to Mrs. Burke's
attention, although Burke testified that she discussed credit
media with King "[e]very day." Not until the day that
Ballinger was fired did Mrs. Burke know that there was any
dissatisfaction with the way Ballinger handled credit
transactions or with Ballinger's work in any other respect.
In the morning on Monday, April 6, which was the first
opportunity he had to do so after the Easter season, King
spent about an hour reviewing the previous week's credit
media in the presence of Mrs. Burke. According to King, in
going through the media "it became very obvious ... that
Miss Ballinger had several mistakes. As I thumbed through
them I just pulled them out and laid them aside, as I did
some of the other mistakes I found." Respondent
introduced in evidence 18 media slips prepared by Ballinger
which King separated on that occasion .6 Of the 18, one
group of 12 are media prepared for customers with
permanent charge plates. These 12 show the following
5 The record does not identify the position held by Kathleen
McFadden
6 Respondent also introduced in evidence two additional media slips
which were not identified on April 6 as having been prepared by Ballinger
325
mistakes: In one instance a 97-cents item was rung on the
cash register as nontaxable when it should have been
punched as taxable. At most, this represents a loss to the
store of 5 cents. Furthermore, this is an error in cash
register operation rather than in the preparation of media.
A second media for a $5.14 sale does not have the
customer's signature. In a case such as this the customer is
billed for the amount of the sale. If the customer later
should claim that he did not buy the merchandise
represented by the unsigned media the Company will
accept his protest and will cancel the charge. The other 10
items reflect identical mistakes: In each case the customer's
account number, instead of appearing above the designated
line, straddles the line. King explained that credit
transactions are billed through Respondent's central
accounting office in Milwaukee by the use of computers
and related equipment. An early step in this operation at
the central accounting office is to scan the media
electronically. Where the account number is printed in the
wrong place it cannot be scanned and the necessary entry
has to be made by hand rather than by machine. In such
case the media would be treated as if the customer had had
a temporary charge plate where the scanning equipment
cannot be used and the necessary entries also are made by
hand. The large number of identical mistakes suggests a
defect in the imprinter which Ballinger was using. The
imprinter is constructed in such manner that the charge
plate is held in one particular position. To prevent the
charge plate from sliding down so that the account number
will straddle the line, there are two flexible metal tabs which
hold the bottom of the charge plate in position. Each time
the imprinter is operated these two metal tabs are
depressed. It is possible that on the machine Ballinger was
using the tabs were broken off or otherwise did not function
in accordance with their design so that a charge plate could
easily move below its proper position. This, however, would
be no excuse for permitting defective media from being
issued. Whenever a cashier makes a mistake in filling out
media or is otherwise responsible for media being defective
she is supposed to void the media in question and make out
a new credit transaction. Thus, even if the imprinter which
Ballinger was using was defective, Ballinger would be
subject to criticism for permitting improperly prepared
media to be issued. However, Ballinger testified she had
never been informed that when a customer's account
number straddles a line it was a mistake and the media
should be voided. Her testimony in this respect is
uncontradicted. This explains why so many media with the
identical mistakes were issued. Ballinger was never told and
did not know mistakes were being made. Before he reached
his decision to discharge Ballinger , King made no attempt
to ascertain whether the imprinter Ballinger had used was
defective and he did not ask Mrs. Burke, who was sitting
alongside him, whether the cashiers had been instructed to
void credit media if the account number is printed on rather
than above the designated line.
The six other mistakes involve media which Ballinger
because the cashier's initials were omitted According to King, these two
slips did not influence his decision to discharge Ballinger because he did
not then know that Ballinger had been responsible for the mistakes
appearing theron
326 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
filled out by hand because the customers did not have
permanent charge plates. On the left side of the media are
four parallel lines 2-1/8 inches long and spaced one-fourth
inch apart. The lines call for the account number, account
name, address, and city and state. In one instance Ballinger
left out the street address. In two instances the claim is that
a figure in the account number is written unclearly and one
cannot tell whether it is a 4 or a 7. I find no difficulty in
deciphering the two figures. Moreover, upon reviewing all
the media in evidence I find that Ballinger writes quite
legibly and I believe that the Company has no legitimate
complaint in regard to her ciphers or other writing. In two
other instances it is alleged that the writing extends beyond
the lines. One of these cases is the name "Joseph J.
Archdeacon" which extends three-eighths inch past the
line. Considering the length of the name I would say
Ballinger did well to write it neatly without going further
beyond the line than she did. In the other case an address
extends three-sixteenths inch beyond the line. This
probably could have been avoided with a little more care on
her part. However, the credit media form does not have any
side margins to warn the cashiers that the writing should
not extend beyond the parallel lines. King explained that, if
the writing extends so far beyond the parallel lines that it
overlaps other information printed on the media, the
scanner at the central accounting office will not be able to
read the printed information, the media will be rejected,
and the information will have to be handposted. With
respect to the two media in question the written informa-
tion was not close to any of the printed information so that
there was no possibility that, for the reason mentioned, the
scanner would have any difficulty reading them. Further-
more, Ballinger testified without contradiction that she was
not instructed to void media if handwritten information
goes past the parallel lines.
The final criticism of Ballinger is for misspelling the name
of the customer so that it appears as "Madder" instead of
"Madden." According to King, the only time the name and
address becomes significant is if the cashier makes an error
in writing the account number so that the central
accounting office has to locate the proper account number
by checking through a register of names and addresses.
King testified that so far as he knows the Company has
lost no money from Ballinger's alleged mistakes. Further-
more, he has received no complaint from the central
accounting office relating to Ballinger's alleged mistakes
When he completed reviewing the media, King said to
Mrs. Burke, "I'm not going to tolerate this type of
operation, and I want you to call Miss Ballinger in, point
them [her mistakes] out, explain them to her, and then
dismiss her because after a year's operation she certainly
should know better than this." King further testified that
"[b]ecause after all the emphasis I had put on the proper
operation, I just wasn't going to tolerate it any more." In
directing Ballinger's discharge King did not consult with
Burke, who was Ballinger's immediate supervisor, about the
matter, did not ask Burke her opinion of Ballinger as an
7 Burke testified that, in addition, on August 4, 1969, she reprimanded
Ballinger for improper cash register operation because Ballinger had rung
up an item as taxable when it wasn't taxable Again on October 16, 1969.
she criticized Ballinger for punching on the cash register the wrong
employee, and did not suggest that Ballinger should be
afforded an opportunity to explain her mistakes.
That afternoon Burke terminated Ballinger. Burke
testified that during the exit interview, "I showed her her
mistakes, and I told her that I was sorry, that I had no other
alternative but to dismiss her because she had too many
mistakes, and she had been reprimanded before for some of
these same mistakes." This reason given to Ballinger does
not comport with the true state of facts. After referring to
the Company's personnel history card for Ballinger, Burke
testified that only once did she criticize Ballinger regarding
media and this occurred on June 10, 1969, about I month
after Ballinger was hired by the Company.?
Ballinger testified without contradiction that she never
was advised that credit media should be voided if the
printed account number straddles the line or, in case of
media for a customer using a temporary credit card, if the
handwritten information extends beyond the parallel lines.
Thus, 12 of the 18 alleged mistakes are mistakes which
Ballinger had no idea that she had made. Significantly, not
only is Ballinger's testimony uncontested but King testified
that there is no written manual which is available for use in
instructing the employees on the proper method of filling
out credit media or to which employees can refer from time
to time for review. Two of the other alleged mistakes I do
not believe are fairly advanced because it is claimed that
Ballinger wrote the figure 4 so that it might be mistaken for
the figure 7. However, I find that her writing was readily
dicipherable. Thus there remain only four pieces of credit
media for which Ballinger might fairly have been criticized.
In one Ballinger left out the street address of the customer
and in another Ballinger made a slight mistake in the
spelling of the customer's name As it is not contended that
Ballinger made any mistake in writing the account numbers
of these customers these two mistakes are without any
financial consequence to the Company nor would they
cause any difficulty in posting at the central accounting
office. The third mistake made by Ballinger was to ring up a
97-cent item as nontaxable when it should have been
taxable. And the fourth mistake was her failure to obtain
the customer's signature. These four mistakes do not appear
to be of a character which normally would impel an
employer peremptorily to discharge an em-
ployee-particularly one who was considered a good
employee and who recently had been given a merit
increase. Furthermore, King testified that when he
reviewed the media on April 6 he found "a couple [of
mistakes] for Miss Habron and . . . a few for Bonnie
Wuerst," both of whom were full-time cashiers. King did
not instruct Mrs. Burke to discipline them in any manner or
even to show them their mistakes. If a "couple" of mistakes
by one cashier and a "few" mistakes by another, bearing in
mind there were only four full-time cashiers, did not
warrant even a reprimand it is not probable that, absent
other considerations, Ballinger would have been discharged
merely because of the four mistakes that she made.
There are other circumstances which impugn King's
department number for an item On October 24, 1969, she criticized
Ballinger for improper handling of voids The last reprimand was on
October 30, 1969, because Ballinger spent too much time conversing with a
friend
WOOLCO DEPARTMENT STORE 327
explanation for Ballinger's discharge. According to King, in
mid-March dust before the busy Easter season Laird
specifically complained to him about Ballinger's credit
media mistakes. Yet King did not ask the nature of the
mistakes, and did not suggest to Laird or to Mrs. Burke
with whom he spoke every day about credit media that
Ballinger should be told about the mistakes and should be
given corrective instruction or even that Ballinger should be
removed from the cashier's post. If Ballinger were so poor
in handling credit media it would seem that some
affirmative action would have been taken before the Easter
season when one might anticipate that the rate of mistakes
would be enormously increased under the press of the
heavy business volume. In contrast, Burke testified that on
March 6 she reprimanded Sharon Black, a part-time sales
employee, with respect to her work at the checkout
counters.
Another incongruity in King's explanation is that he
undertook to review the credit media in order to take
corrective action if he found an excessive number of
mistakes. He reviewed the media for the week preceding
April 6. He testified that he found mistakes in addition to
Ballinger 's, including a "couple" by Miss Habron and a
"few" by Bonnie Wuest, yet except for discharging
Ballinger he took no corrective action at that time.8
Furthermore, despite the fact that, according to King, the
events leading to Ballinger's discharge were initiated by
Laird, the latter was not called as a witness. Thus, not only
is corroboration of significant parts of King's testimony,
which Laird might have given, absent but also absent from
the record is Laird's description and assessments of the
media mistakes, the extent of Ballinger's responsibility, and
what impelled him in March to report Ballinger as the
"worst offender."
The reason given by King for Ballinger 's discharge is not
fairly supported by the facts. She made only four mistakes
during the period reviewed for which she can justly be
blamed. This was not an excessive amount when compared
to the number of mistakes made by two of the other three
full-time cashiers. Furthermore, the mistakes neither
appear to be serious nor appear to have caused the
Company any loss. The other 14 media to which King
points as having impelled his decision tend to detract from
rather than to support his claim. Ten have identical errors
as to which some further inquiry either from Ballinger or
Burke would seem to have been in order before assuming
Ballinger's culpability. Two alleged mistakes, i.e., where the
writing extends beyond the parallel lines, do not appear to
have a reasonable basis and the last two alleged mistakes,
i.e., the unclear ciphers, are without merit. This exaggera-
tion of the number of mistakes chargeable to Ballinger
suggest not innocent error on the part of King but rather a
conscious endeavor to overwhelm any possible accusation
of unfairness in directing Ballinger's discharge by the large
number of allegedly bad media issued by her. King may
A King had received specific complaints about Sharon Black, a
part-time sales employee , who also functioned as a cashier Because she did
not operate the cash register during the week between March 30 and April
6 King specially had brought to him for his review her media for the
preceding week He found several mistakes and directed Burke to
reprimand Black Black testified that about 2 weeks later Burke discussed
credit media at one of her regular meetings with employees
even have hoped that his direction to Burke to point out
and explain to Ballinger her alleged mistakes would
discourage Ballinger from seeking vindication . Further
impinging upon the credibility of King's explanation is that
purportedly he peremptorily directed Burke, who was
Ballinger 's immediate supervisor and who was charged with
training the cashiers , to discharge Ballinger without the
courtesy of inquiring whether Burke agreed with the action
and Burke , who until that very day considered Ballinger a
good employee , made no murmur in defense of Ballinger.
Furthermore, when Burke informed Ballinger of her
termination , Burke explained to Ballinger that there was no
alternative to dismissal because she had made too many
mistakes , "and she had been reprimanded before for some
of these same mistakes," which was not the fact. An
employer who has nothing to conceal normally does not
give an employee a false reason for discharge.
The Act does not limit an employer's freedom to
discharge employees except only to the extent that he may
not discharge an employee for union activity or for
exercising his rights under the Act. In a case such as this,
where an employer is opposed to an organizational
campaign being conducted among his employees , where the
employer discharges an employee who vocally has support-
ed the Union, and where the employer offers a perceptibly
specious explanation for his action ,9 then it is reasonable to
infer that the explanation has been advanced to conceal the
true but unlawful reason for the discharge; namely, the
employee 's union sympathies . 10 Respondent contends that
it had no knowledge of Ballinger 's union sympathies when
she was discharged . It is true that there is no direct evidence
which establishes that King or Mrs. Burke was personally
advised of Ballinger 's union sentiments . However, for a
period of approximately 1 month before Ballinger's
discharge King on almost a daily basis questioned each of
his department managers as to how many of their
employees were for the Union. With 13 department
managers and only 85 employees in the store it is more than
likely that King learned of Ballinger's union leanings. In
any event Assistant Department Manager Lambert knew
that Ballinger favored the Union and his knowledge is
imputed to the Company. In the circumstances, contrary to
the testimony of King and Burke, I find that by April 6 they
were aware of Ballinger 's union sympathies.
I find, therefore, in agreement with General Counsel, that
Respondent discharged Ballinger because of her union
sympathies. I further find that Respondent thereby violated
Section 8(a)(3) of the Act and also interfered with,
restrained, and coerced employees in the exercise of their
statutory rights in violation of Section 8(a)(1).
B Interference, Restraint, and Coercion
Independent of the discharge of Stephanie Ballinger the
complaint alleges various violations of Section 8(a)(1) of the
9 See Hickory Chair Manufacturing Company v N L R B , 131 F 2d 849,
850 (C A 4), where the court stated "The excuses given for his discharge
were trivial in the extreme and the presumption that the real reason was his
union activities , which must have been known to his employers, is
practically conclusive "
10 Magic Chef, inc, 181 NLRB No 146
328 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Act arising out of incriminatory conduct by Respondent's
management personnel.
1. By James Earl Stahl
Linda Walton testified that in mid-March during a
conversation with her department manager, James Stahl, he
told her that General Manager King had asked him
whether or not any of his girls were for the Union and he
had replied that he did not believe any were for the Union.
Stahl denied having had such conversation with Walton
although Stahl testified that King inquired of him about
"the tendencies [towards the Union ] of my people," if any
of them were for the Union. According to Stahl, these
inquiries were made about five times each week during the
month of March.
Resolving a conflict in testimony where there are no
witnesses to the conversation and no objective criteria
against which to measure the conflicting versions is not
easy under the best of circumstances. The difficulty is
compounded here because Stahl was a relatively brief
witness and his testimony was not impeached. However,
Linda Walton, whose testimony was more extensive and
who was subject to a more rigorous cross-examination than
Stahl favorably impressed me with her frankness and
sincerity. Furthermore, as of the time of the hearing she was
on an extended leave of absence to remain home with her
children. Superficially, it would appear that she has less
reason to distort her testimony than Stahl, although I do
not discount the possibility that she might feel a personal
obligation to support the cause of her former coworkers
who favor the Union. I am of the opinion that Walton was a
truthful and reliable witness and where it is necessary to
choose I credit her versions of her conversations with Stahl.
General Counsel cites to me no case in support of this
theory that the conversation summarized above constitutes
a violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. It was no violation
of the Act for King to consult with other managerial
personnel regarding the progress of the Union's organiza-
tional campaign or to speculate with them as to which
employees favored the Union and which did not. The
alleged vice in this case purportedly arises from the fact that
Stahl by telling Walton of King's inquiries tends to leave
the impression that management was spying upon the
employees. This is farfetched. Even unsophisticated
employees today understand that employers are curious
about and would want to know what headway a union
campaign is making in their plants To be advised of the
existence of such curiosity is far from suggesting that the
employer is engaged in unlawful surveillance. Another
argument is that Stahl by telling Walton that he had
informed King that none of the employees in his
department favored the Union was seeking to elicit from
Walton her attitude and that of other employees towards
the Union. Such disguised questioning hardly approached
the stature of unlawful interrogation. Furthermore, accord-
ing to Walton, about 2 weeks earlier she voluntarily had
informed Stahl that she did not believe the Union would be
good for the store and that she had no intention of signing a
union card. In these circumstances, it would be exaggerat-
ing the effect of Stahl's remark to suggest that it was
coercive interrogation . Contrary to General Counsel, I find
that the remarks by Stahl, described above, do not
constitute a violation of the Act.
2. By Elliott Lambert
Diana Eldridge testified that approximately a week after
Ballinger had been discharged Assistant Division Manager
Elliott Lambert, in a conversation with her, remarked that
he had come upon Mrs. Burke in the division I stockroom
listening at the wall which separates the stockroom from the
ladies' lounge and that Mrs. Burke might have overheard
Ballinger in the lounge talking about the Union. I credit
Eldridge's testimony in regard to this conversation despite
Lambert's denial. The amended complaint alleges that
Lambert's statements to Eldridge created the impression
that the Company was spying upon its employees' union
activities. Regardless of whether Burke in fact had engaged
in the conduct of which she was accused by Lambert,11 his
statement to Eldridge that Burke was attempting to
eavesdrop employees' conversations is unlawfully coercive
as tending to create the impression among employees that
Respondent was surreptitiously prying into their union
activities. Such conduct is a well-recognized form of
coercion.12 As Lambert is an acknowledged supervisory
employee his incriminatory statement is attributable to the
Respondent and I find constitutes a violation of Section
8(a)(1) of the Act.
3. By Hugh Marshall King
On April 9, 1970, Sharon Black, a part-time employee,
came to the store about 1-1/2 hours before her scheduled
reporting time because she wanted to speak to Mr. King.
The latter was not then in the store. She located Assistant
General Manager Gordon Layton and told him that she
wanted to talk with Mr. King but in his absence she wished
to ask Layton some questions . They went to Layton's office
where Black said, "I had heard all the pros for the union,
and now I wanted to hear the disadvantages. What was
basically wrong with the Union?" Their conversation lasted
more than an hour. Later in the evening King who had
returned to the store came to Black and, according to
Black, said "Sharon, do you need any help? Can I help
you?" Black replied that Layton really had not given her
adequate answers to her questions. The two then engaged in
a conversation about the Union and other matters. It is not
alleged that anything King said to Black during their
conversation was unlawful. However, General Counsel
contends that King by initiating the conversation had
engaged in "an obvious attempt ... to further his
information on individual feelings about the Union by
establishing this opportunity to interrogate Black . This was
not an innocent approach; it was done in the context of the
earlier conversation between Black and Layton in which
the Union and employee benefits were discussed and which
King knew about when he talked with her." I do not agree
11 1 find no merit to General Counsel's argument that Lambert's 12 Kingnnood Mining Company, 166 NLRB 957, enfd 404 F 2d 348 (C A
statement constitutes an admission against interest and therefore proof of 4)
Burke 's surveillance
WOOLCO DEPARTMENT STORE 329
with this argument. Black specifically told Layton that she
wished to speak to General Manager King. It is not
unlawful for an employer to discuss a union 's organization-
al campaign and objectives as well as company benefits and
attitudes with employees who voluntarily solicit his views so
long as he does not make any promises of benefit or threats
in order to affect the employees' future behavior. King did
not intrude himself upon Black but responded to her
expressed desire to speak with him. It may very well have
been that King welcomed the opportunity to speak with
Black hoping that by doing so she might be influenced to
refrain from casting her sympathies on the side of the
Union. But this was not unlawful . The essence of unlawful
interrogation is that it is conducted in circumstances which
tend to make employees apprehend that the employer is
seeking to learn about their organizational interests in order
to take action against them which would discourage such
activity on their part. King's conduct in this situation does
not meet this test . His purported eagerness to discuss the
organizational issues with Black does not demonstrate
unlawful interrogation. Accordingly, I find that General
Counsel has not proved a violation of the Act by reason of
the April 9 conversation between Black and King
4. By Judy Burke
The testimony offered by General Counsel's witnesses
involves Judy Burke more than any other of the Company's
managerial employees This is understandable because as
personnel coordinator, Burke probably was more deeply
and directly concerned with the Union's organizational
campaign than any other supervisor. The Company's
policy, particularly as reflected by the notice posted on
March 13, was to dissuade employees from giving their
support to the Union. This coincided with Burke's own
view that "we do not need a union." From time to time
during the campaign General Manager King discussed with
Burke the progress the Union was making in its organiza-
tional drive and in attempting to estimate the Union's
strength they took into account the information they
received from the employees. Burke testified that 15 to 18
employees told her that they had been visited by union
representatives and she reported this to King She testified
that she reported conversations she had had with employees
to King and specifically conversations with Linda Walton
It is reasonable to infer that Burke believed that she would
be given part of any credit or blame that might be
attributed to the store's management by Respondent's
home office officials for the outcome of the Union's
organizational campaign . Burke is accused of having
engaged in the incriminatory conduct discussed below
Some of the accusations she completely denied and in other
instances her versions of the events differ from those of
General Counsel's witnesses . Although Mrs. Burke gave her
testimony without the appearance of dissembling, she has a
clear interest that the disposition of this litigation shall
favor the Company and more particularly that her conduct
shall not be the basis for any unfair labor practice findings.
An assessment must be made as to the reliability of Burke's
testimony to the extent that it conflicts with testimony of
Linda Walton and Diana Eldridge . Here again , each of the
relevant conversations were between two persons alone so
that there is no possibility of any direct corroboration. In
determining these issues, therefore , I must rely primarily
upon the impressions left with me by the named witnesses.
Other criteria such as loyalty to employer , loyalty to fellow
employees , self-interest , fear of reprisals , etc., tend to
balance one another . Upon consideration of all the
circumstances , I conclude that Burke was a less reliable
witness than either Walton or Eldridge . To the extent that
there are differences in testimony the events summarized
below reflect the versions of Walton and Eldridge whom I
credit against the conflicting versions of Burke.
Very early during the Union's organizational drive Linda
Walton , a saleslady in the men's and boys' wear
department , had informed her departmental manager,
James Earl Stahl , that she did not believe the Union would
be good for the store and that she had no intention of
signing a union card . About 2 weeks later, in mid -March,
Mrs Burke engaged Walton in a discussion on the
salesfloor . The conversation turned from store operations
to the Union . They discussed the pros and cons. Burke
mentioned that everyone had a right to their own opinions.
Burke inquired if Walton knew any girls who had been
visited by union representatives and Walton said she did
not. However, in the course of the conversation Walton told
Burke that the union men had been to see Jeanette Farmer
but that Mrs. Farmer was not for the Union. Burke asked
Walton if she knew of any girls who were for the Union.
Burke said she would like to keep the girls who were for the
Union from influencing the ones that were against the
Union. Walter replied that Burke knew who they were as
well as she did Walton told Mrs Burke that she was not for
the Union and did not think that the Union would be good
for a store of the Company' s size . At the conclusion of the
conversation Burke told Walton if the latter ever felt she
could talk to Burke she should see her.
Several days later as Walton passed Mrs. Burke's office
on her way to the ladies' lounge Mrs. Burke motioned for
her to come into the office. Mrs Burke asked if the union
men had visited her yet.13 Walton said that they had and
that her husband had told them that she was not interested.
Burke then asked if Walton felt that she could talk to her
now Walton responded, "You've got to be kidding. I
wouldn ' t tell you the names of any girls because I don't
want to violate their confidence ." Burke again said that if
Walton ever felt she could talk to her to come to see her
Diana Eldridge testified to an occasion early during the
Union's campaign when Mrs. Burke asked her if she had
heard that union men had been visiting the employees'
homes. Eldridge replied in the affirmative. Burke then
asked if they had been to see her and she replied that they
had not Before the conversation concluded Burke said that
she believed the girls were treated fairly and that they didn't
need a union.
I find Burke 's inquiries of Eldridge and Walton regarding
whether they had been visited by union representatives and
inquiries of Walton as to whether she knew of other
i i Contrary to General Counsel, I find that this question and a similar
question directed to Diana Eldridge do not create an impression that the
Company was engaged in surveillance of the employees ' union activities
330 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
employees who had been visited, in the posture of
Respondent's announced opposition to the Union's
organizational campaign, constituted unlawful interroga-
tion in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.14
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent set forth in section III,
above, occurring in connection with Respondent's opera-
tions described in section I, above, have a close, intimate,
and substantial relationship 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.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in unfair
labor practices, I shall recommend that it cease and desist
therefrom and that if take certain affirmative action
designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. For reasons
which are stated in Consolidated Industries, Inc., 108 NLRB
60, 61, and cases there cited, I shall recommend a broad
cease-and-desist order.
Having found that the Respondent unlawfully discharged
Stephanie Ballinger on April 6, 1970, I shall recommend
that the Respondent offer her immediate and full
reinstatement to her former job or, if that job no longer
exists, to a substantially equivalent position, without
prejudice to her seniority or to other rights and privileges,
and make her whole for any loss of earnings she may have
suffered by reason of the discrimination against her by
payment to her of a sum of money equal to that which she
normally would have earned from the aforesaid date of her
discharge to the date of the Respondent's offer of
reinstatement less her net earnings during such period. The
backpay provided for herein shall be computed on the basis
of calendar quarters, in accordance with the method
prescribed in F W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289.
Interest at the rate of 6 percent per annum shall be added to
such net backpay and shall be computed in the manner set
forth in Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon
the entire record in the case, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. By discriminatorily discharging Stephanie Ballinger
on April 6 , 1970, thereby discouraging membership in the
Union , Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in
unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(3)
and (1) of the Act.
2. By coercively questioning employees about their or
other employees ' union sympathies and activities and by
conveying the impression that the union activities of its
ii See L C Cassidy & Son, Inc v NLRB, 415 F 2d 1358. 1361 (C A
7), where the court observed that although "mere interrogation of
employees without threat or intimidation concerning union membership is
not per se a violation of the Act (absent antiunion background and not
associated as part of a pattern of conduct hostile to unionism)
inquiries made by supervisory employees [occurring] in an atmosphere
employees are the object of Respondent's surveillance,
Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in further
unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1)
of the Act.
3. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor
practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section
2(6) and (7) of the Act.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and
conclusions of law, and upon the entire record in the case,
and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, I hereby
recommend that F. W. Woolworth Co. d/b/a Woolco
Department Store, No. 6040, its officers, agents, successors,
and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Discouraging membership in Local 1099, Retail
Clerks International Association, AFL-CIO, or any other
labor organization, by discharging or by otherwise
discriminating in regard to the hire, tenure of employment,
or other terms and conditions of employment of any of its
employees.
(b) Coercively interrogating its employees regarding their
or other employees' union sympathies or activities.
(c) Conveying the impression of surveillance of the union
activities of its employees by statements to employees or by
other conduct.
(d) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or
coercing employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed
to them by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action, which is
deemed necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Offer Stephanie Ballinger immediate and full
reinstatement to her former job or, if that job no longer
exists, to a substantially equivalent position, without
prejudice to her seniority and other rights and privileges,
and make her whole for any loss of earnings she may have
suffered by reason of the unlawful discrimination against
her 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,
personnel records and reports, and other records relevant to
a determination of the amount of backpay due to Stephanie
Ballinger.
(c) Notify Stephanie Ballinger if presently serving in the
Armed Forces of the United States of her 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 Force.
(d) Post at its store in Hamilton, Ohio, copies of the
attached notice marked "Appendix." 15 Copies of said
of restrained but clearly evident disapproval of a union" are unlawful
i" 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
WOOLCO DEPARTMENT STORE 331
notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for
Region 9, after being duly signed by its authorized
representative, shall be posted by Respondent immediately
upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60
consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, includ-
ing all places where notices to employees are customarily
posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent
to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or
covered by any other material.
(e) Notify the Regional Director for Region 9, in writing,
within 20 days from the receipt of this Decision, what steps
have been taken to comply herewith 16
all objections thereto shall be deemed waived for all purposes 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 Order of the National Labor Relations Board "
ib In the event that this Recommended order is adopted by the Board
this provision shall be modified to read Notify said Retional Director, in
writing within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps Respondent
has taken to comply herewith "
APPENDIX
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with,
restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of their
right to self-organization, to form labor organizations,
to join or assist Local 1099, Retail Clerks International
Association, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organiza-
tion, to bargain collectively through representatives of
their own choosing, or to engage in concerted activities
for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual
aid or protection, or to refrain from any and all such
activities.
WE WILL offer Stephanie Ballinger reinstatement to
her former job or, if that job no longer exists, to a
substantially equivalent position without prejudice to
her seniority or other rights and privileges, and we will
make her whole for any loss of earnings she may have
suffered by reason of our unlawful discrimination
against her.
WE WILL notify Stephanie Ballinger if presently
serving in the Armed Forces of the United States of her
right to full reinstatement upon application in accord-
ance with the Selective Service Act and the Universal
Military Training and Service Act, as amended, after
discharge from the Armed Forces,
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT by statements to our employees or by
other conduct give the impression that we have engaged
in the surveillance of the union activities of our
employees.
WE WILL NOT question our employees about their
union membership or about their union sympathies or
about the union membership or union sympathies of
other employees.
WE WILL NOT discourage membership in Local 1099,
Retail Clerks International Association , AFL-CIO, or
any other labor organization , by discharging or
otherwise discriminating against any of our employees
in regard to their hire , tenure of employment, or any
term or condition of employment.
F. W. WOOLWORTH CO.
D/B/A WOOLCO DEPARTMENT
STORE, No. 6040
(Employer)
Dated By
(Representative ) (Title)
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,
Federal Office Building, Room 2407, 550 Main Street,
Cincinnati, Ohio 44199, Telephone 513-684-3686.