CALIFORNIA CARTAGE COMPANY, LLC; ORIENT TALLY COMPANY, INC.; AND CORE EMPLOYEE MANAGEMENT, INC.

National Labor Relations Board - Administrative Judge Opinions

Sep 9, 2019

21-CA-190500 (N.L.R.B. Sep. 9, 2019)

JD(SF)–29–19
Carson, CA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
DIVISION OF JUDGES
SAN FRANCISCO BRANCH OFFICE
CALIFORNIA CARTAGE COMPANY, LLC;
ORIENT TALLY COMPANY, INC.;
AND CORE EMPLOYEE MANAGEMENT, INC.
Cases 21-CA-190500
21-CA-207939
21-RC-188813
And
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS
CALIFORNIA CARTAGE COMPANY, LLC; ORIENT TALLY COMPANY, INC.; NFI
CALIFORNIA CARTAGE HOLDING COMPANY, LLC; CALIFORNIA CARTAGE
DISTRIBUTION, LLC; CALIFORNIA TRANSLOAD SERVICES, LLC; AND CORE
EMPLOYEE MANAGEMENT, INC.
And
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS
CALIFORNIA CARTAGE COMPANY, LLC; AND
ORIENT TALLY COMPANY, INC., A SINGLE
EMPLOYER, AND NEXEM ALLIED LLC D/B/A
CORE EMPLOYEE MANAGEMENT, INC., A JOINT
EMPLOYER,
EMPLOYER,
NFI CALIFORNIA CARTAGE HOLDING COMPANY,
LLC; CALIFORNIA CARTAGE DISTRIBUTION,
LLC; CALIFORNIA TRANSLOAD SERVICES, LLC;
SUCCESSOR EMPLOYER
EMPLOYER,
And
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS
PETITIONER
Lindsay R. Parker, Esq., and Phuong Do, Esq., for the General Counsel.
J. AL Latham Jr., Esq., and Ryan D. Derry, Esq., (Paul Hastings LLP), for the Respondents.
Hector De Haro, Esq., and Julie Gutman Dickinson, Esq., for the Charging Party.
JD(SF)–29–19
2
DECISION AND REPORT ON OBJECTIONS
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Dickie Montemayor, Administrative Law Judge. This case was tried before me on 5
July 23, 2018, in Los Angeles, California. Charging Party, International Brotherhood of
Teamsters (Union) filed a charge on December 23, 2016, alleging violations by Respondent
Cartage, Respondent Orient and Respondent Core. The original charge was subsequently
amended five separate times. The last amendment occurred on August 31, 2017. A separate
charge was filed by the Union on August 13, 2017 and thereafter amended on March 29, 2018. 10
On April 27, 2018, an Order Consolidating Cases, Consolidated Complaint and Notice of
Hearing was issued. The complaint alleged inter alia that the Respondents demoted an
employee and thereafter terminated him in violation of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act. (See
Complaint Paragraphs 21 and 23). During the pendency of the proceedings, these allegations
were the subject of a settlement agreement. (GC Exh. 2). During the trial, General Counsel 15
withdrew the allegations contained in paragraphs 18, 2,1 and 23. After the hearing was
concluded, the Regional Director issued notification dated November 1, 2018, that the settlement
agreement had been closed on compliance. The notification made clear that other allegations
raised in the complaint (paragraphs 17, 18, 19, and 20) were still in issue. There was an apparent
discrepancy in the letter in that it seemingly contradicted the General Counsel’s withdrawal of 20
paragraph 18 at trial. There is no question however that the General Counsel in fact withdrew
the allegations of paragraph 18 at trial. (See GC Brief p. 2 note 2, See also Tr. 298). The
remaining allegations (paragraphs 17, 19, and 20) allege that the Respondents violated Section
8(a)(1) of the Act. Respondents filed an answer to the complaint denying that they violated the
Act. 25
On May 9, 2018, the Regional Director issued a Report on Objections and Order
Consolidating Cases and Notice of Hearing finding that the Petitioner’s Objections raise
substantial and material factual issues and could be grounds for setting aside the election. The
Order accordingly directed a hearing on Petitioner’s Objections Nos. 1,9,10,11,12,13,14,19 and 30
consolidated the matters with those referenced above.
At the trial in this matter, the parties were given full opportunity to participate, to
introduce relevant evidence, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to file briefs. On
September 28, 2018, the parties filed briefs in the matter. I carefully observed the demeanor of 35
witnesses as they testified, and I rely on those observations here. I have studied the whole
record, including the post-hearing briefs and based upon the detailed findings and analysis
below, I conclude that the Respondents violated the Act essentially as alleged.
40
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. JURISDICTION
The complaint alleges, and I find that:45
JD(SF)–29–19
3
1. (a) At all material times until about October 1, 2017, Respondent Cartage, a California
corporation, with a principal place of business located at 2931 Redondo Avenue, Long
Beach, California, and a warehouse facility located at 2401 East Pacific Coast Highway,
Wilmington, California (Wilmington Facility), was engaged in the business of warehousing,
transloading, and distribution.5
(b) At all material times until about October 1, 2017, Respondent Orient, a
California corporation, with a principal place of business located at 2931 Redondo
Avenue, Long Beach, California, was engaged in the business of providing labor
services and provided labor services for Respondent Cartage at the Wilmington facility.
10
(c) At all material times until about October 1, 2017, Respondent Cartage and
Respondent Orient were affiliated business enterprises with common officers, ownership,
directors, management and supervision, and administered a common labor policy; shared
common premises and facilities; provided services for and made sales to each other;
interchanged personnel with each other; had interrelated operations with common 15
insurance, purchasing, and sales; and held themselves out to the public as a single-
integrated business enterprise.
(d) At all material times until about October 1, 2017, based on its operations,
Respondent Cartage and Respondent Orient constituted a single-integrated business 20
enterprise and single employer within the meaning of the Act.
2. (a) During the 12-month period ending October 1, 2017, Respondent Cartage
and Respondent Orient, in conducting their business collectively derived gross
revenues in excess of $500,000 and performed services valued in excess of $50,00025
directly to customers located outside the State of California.
3. At all material times until about October 1, 2017, Respondent Cartage and
Respondent Orient were an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section
2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.30
4. (a) At all material times Respondent Core, a California corporation, with a
principal place of business located at 20767 South Avalon Boulevard, Carson, California,
and a branch location located at 5230 Benito Street, Montclair, California, has been
engaged in the business of providing temporary staffing services to companies.35
(b) During the 12-month period ending October 1, 2017, Respondent Core, in
conducting its business operation described above in paragraph 7(a), provided services
valued in excess of $50,000 to Respondent Cartage and Respondent Orient.
40
5. At all material times, Respondent Core has been an employer engaged in
commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.
6. (a) At all material times through about October 1, 2017, Respondent Cartage,
Respondent Orient and Respondent Core were parties to a contract which provided that
Respondent Core was the agent for Respondent Cartage and Respondent Orient in45
connection with hiring and employing employees at the Wilmington Facility.
. '
JD(SF)–29–19
4
(b) At all material times through about October 1,2017, Respondent Cartage and
Respondent Orient possessed control over the labor relations policy of Respondent Core,
exercised control over the labor relations policy of Respondent Core, and administered a
common labor policy with Respondent Core for the employees of Respondent Core.5
(c) At all material times through about October 1, 2017, Respondent Cartage
and Respondent Orient and Respondent Core were joint employers of the
employees of Respondent Core.
10
7. (a) Since about October 1, 2017, Respondent NFI, a Delaware limited liability
corporation licensed to do business in California, with a principal place of business located
at 2931 Redondo Avenue, Long Beach, California, and a facility located at 2401 East
Pacific Coast Highway, Wilmington, California has been engaged in the business of
warehousing, transloading, and distribution.15
(b) Since about October 1, 2017, Respondent Cartage Distribution, a· Delaware
limited liability corporation licensed to do business in California, with a principal place of
business located at 2931 Redondo Avenue, Long Beach, California, and a facility located
at 2401 East Pacific Coast Highway, Wilmington, California, has been engaged in the 20
business of warehousing, transloading, and distribution.
(c) Since about October 1, 2017, Respondent Transload, a Delaware limited liability
corporation licensed to do business in California, with a principal place of business located
at 2931 Redondo Avenue, Long Beach, California, and a facility located at 2401 East25
Pacific Coast Highway, Wilmington, California, has been engaged in the business of
warehousing, transloading and distribution;
8. (a) Since about October 1, 2017 Respondent NFI, Respondent Cartage Distribution,
and Respondent Transload have been affiliated business enterprises with common officers, 30
ownership, directors, management, and supervision; have administered a common labor policy;
have shared common premises and facilities; have provided services for each other; have
interchanged personnel with each other; have had interrelated operations with common
insurance; and have held themselves out to the public as a single-integrated business
enterprise.35
(b) Since about October 1, 2017, Respondent NFI, Respondent Cartage Distribution,
and Respondent Transload have constituted a single-integrated business enterprise and a
single employer within the meaning of the Act.
40
9. (a) Since about October 1, 2017, Respondent NFI, Respondent Cartage
Distribution. and Respondent Transload, in conducting their business operations have
derived gross revenues in excess of $500,000 and performed services valued excess of
$50,000 directly to customers located outside the State of California.
45
JD(SF)–29–19
5
(b) Since about October·1, 2017, Respondent NFI, Respondent Cartage
Distribution, and Respondent Transload have been an employer engaged in commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.
10. (a) Since about October 1, 2017, Respondent NFI, Respondent Cartage 5
Distribution, Respondent Transload, and Respondent Core have been parties to a
contract which provides that Respondent Core is the agent for Respondent NFI,
Respondent Cartage Distribution, and Respondent Transload in connection with hiring
and employing employees at the Wilmington Facility.
10
(b) Since about October 1, 2017, Respondent NFI, Respondent Cartage
Distribution, and Respondent Transload have possessed control over the labor relations
policy of Respondent Core, have exercised control over the labor relations policy of
Respondent Core, and have administered a common labor policy with Respondent Core
for the employees of Respondent Core.15
(c) Since about October 1, 2017, Respondent NFI, Respondent Cartage
Distribution, Respondent Transload, and Respondent Core have been joint employers of
the employees of Respondent Core.
20
11. (a) About October 1, 2017, Respondent NFI purchased substantially all the assets
of Respondent Cartage and Respondent Orient, a single employer.
(b) Since October 1, 2017, Respondent NFI, Respondent Cartage Distribution,
and Respondent Transload, a single employer, has continued all operations of 25
Respondent Cartage and Respondent Orient, a single employer, in basically unchanged
form, and has employed as a majority of its employees, individuals who were
previously employees of Respondent Cartage and Respondent Orient.
(c) Before engaging in the conduct, Respondent NFI was on notice about the 30
pending charges alleging unfair labor practices by Respondent Cartage and Respondent
Orient. Respondent NFI, as a single employer with Respondent Cartage Distribution and
Respondent Transload, has continued the employing entity with notice of Respondent
Cartage and Respondent Orient's potential liability to remedy its alleged unfair labor
practices, and is a successor to Respondent Cartage and Respondent Orient.35
12. At all material times, the Union has been a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
13. At all material times until at least about October l, 2017, the following 40
individuals held the positions set forth opposite their respective names and were
supervisors within the meaning of Section 2(11) of the Act and agents of
Respondent Cartage, Respondent Orient, and Respondent Core within the meaning
of Section 2(13) of the Act:
45
JD(SF)–29–19
6
Robert Curry CEO of Respondent Cartage and Respondent
Orient
Hermann Rosenthal General Manager of Respondent Cartage and
Respondent Orient
Lisa Lyons Executive Vice President of Respondent Core
Freddy Rivera Operations Manager of Respondent Cartage
and Respondent Orient
Jesus Ramirez Supervisor of Respondent Cartage and
Respondent Orient
Marco Gonzalez On-Site Supervisor of Respondent Core
Enrique Gonzalez Supervisor of Respondent Cartage and
Respondent Orient
Frank Arias Manager of Respondent Cartage and
Respondent Orient
Jose Ortega Supervisor of Respondent Core
JD(SF)–29–19
7
II. ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
(i) Background
5
Respondents California Cartage Company LLC, Orient Tally Company, Inc. and its
staffing company Core Employee Management Inc. jointly staffed and operated a container
freight station providing ware housing, transloading, and shipping services. (GC Exh. 1(bb) and
(ff)). The above named Respondents admitted that they were joint employers within the meaning
of the Act. (Jt. Exh. 1).1 In 2015, the Union began a campaign to organize the workforce. In 10
furtherance of the campaign, the Union spoke to employees, distributed literature and held
meetings. On September 22, 2015, the Union organized a strike. Thereafter, the Union began
collecting Union authorization cards from employees. Respondents thereafter launched their own
anti-union campaign. (GC Exh. 4, 5,6 Tr. 65-8, 71-2 148, 173). Respondents’ messages were
provided to employees in both English and Spanish. (GC Exh. 4, 9). 15
On November 28, 2016, the Union filed a petition seeking to represent approximately
250 permanent full time, part time, and temporary employees at the Wilmington, CA facility.
An election was set and conducted on December 22, 2016.
20
1. The Rule Prohibiting Discussions Among Employees About the Union
In the workplace it had been a common practice for employees on the docks to speak in a
generally uninhibited manner about both work related and non-work related matters. Like many 25
typical work places, employees conversed about sports, the weather, and leisure activities. These
conversations often took place while employees were on the clock and not during any scheduled
breaktime but rather during the time when employees were waiting for forklift drivers to deliver
the next set of goods for loading. (Tr. 63). Managers knew of this regular practice which was
conducted openly and would sometimes join in the conversations. (Tr. 144, 145). 30
As the election was approaching, Respondents began having employee meetings about
the Union and the election. Sometime in mid-December, before the election was held,
supervisor Enrique Gonzalez held a meeting to discuss the Union, its constitution, and
employees’ concerns. Michael Johnson was employed as a lumper and attended the meeting 35
during which he voiced his concerns about African-Americans being subjected to discrimination
because they were allegedly not being afforded forklift operator training. (Tr. 70, 105, 109).
After the meeting Johnson returned to work and as was customary began discussing issues with
his co-workers Dwayne Wilson, Michael Morris, and Pacifico Bungato. (Tr. 146). The topic of
the conversation was Union dues, how much was paid, and how those dues compared to the 40
monies the workers paid to the staffing agency. (Tr. 146). Supervisor Enrique Gonzalez
overheard the conversation. He then instructed the employees to stop talking and to get back to

1 Respondents also stipulated that since about October 1, 2017 NFI, Cal Cartage Distribution,
California Transload, and Core were joint employers of the employees Core assigned to work at the
Wilmington facility. (Jt. Exh. 1). Respondents further stipulated that Nexem-Allied, LLC was a successor
to Core for all purposes under the Act. (Jt. Exh. 2).
JD(SF)–29–19
8
work. Enrique Gonzalez then directed Johnson to get in his golf cart and proceeded to drive
Johnson to the forklift area to show him that one trainee was an African-American. Johnson
reiterated his position that African-Americans were being discriminated against because only a
single trainee out of six was in fact an African-American. Enrique Gonzalez then took him to
see Core’s on-site supervisor Marco Gonzalez. Enrique directed Johnson to tell Marco what he 5
said during the company’s anti-union meeting and what he was talking about with his co-
workers. Johnson proceeded to recount the earlier events and his discussions with co-workers.
He reiterated his belief that the employer discriminated against African-Americans and advised
that he and his co-workers were discussing matters related to the Union. (Tr. 71, 110). Enrique
called him a liar and Marco ended the meeting by twice directing Johnson to stop talking about 10
the Union during work hours. (Tr. 71).
2. The Mandatory Employee Meeting
On the December 20, 2016, employees were advised individually that they were to attend 15
a mandatory all employee meeting. The meeting involved the employees of the first shift and the
managers. At this meeting, CEO and President Robert Curry spoke along with Operations
Manager Freddy Rivera. Rivera’s role was to translate Curry’s speech into Spanish for the
Spanish speaking employees. The meeting began with Curry speaking first and Rivera speaking
after Curry. Curry had prepared notes but did not strictly follow the notes. (See various drafts of 20
notes Jt. Exh. 3, GC Exh. 11, 12, 13). Rivera was given a copy of notes he was supposed to
translate in advance of the meeting. Curry, however, veered off the prepared notes and Curry’s
speech did not completely conform to the notes Rivera was provided. He began to try to take
notes when Curry veered off but stopped when he could not keep up. (Tr. 341). The actual notes
used by Curry at the morning speech were destroyed after the morning session despite the fact 25
that an afternoon speech was also planned. (Jt. Exh. 3).
An incomplete portion of Curry’s speech was recorded by an employee who is now
deceased on a cell phone. (Resp. Exh. 2). The recording contained an unexplained gap and did
not record the complete speech. During his speech, Curry told employees about his previous 30
history with the Teamsters; that they “broke” him and he had to close up operations; that 175-
200 people lost their jobs, that they [the Teamsters] were a dictatorship; that if the Union won
the election he would have to close, move or sell the company; that if the employees “wanted to
keep their jobs they needed to vote no”; that they would lose their jobs because competitors
would undercut the company; that he could not afford to pay employees more; that because of 35
the Union’s activities the Company had lost the Amazon contract and would have to close the
account. (Resp. Exh. 2, Tr. 74, 113, 150, 158, 164, 166, 178, 182, 183).
Rivera spoke after Curry translating the note cards he was provided.2 Rivera admitted
that he did not directly translate everything that Curry said in the meeting because he “wasn’t 40
sure if it was okay for [him] to say it.” (Tr. 21). Nevertheless Rivera, near the end of his speech,
finished by telling employees that if the Union won the election, the company would have to

2 Rivera maintained very cryptic incomplete notes from the afternoon and the morning meetings.
(Resp. Exh. 4). He also maintained the Spanish version of the note cards from which Curry was supposed
to speak from and from which he was to translate. (Resp. Exh. 5,6).
JD(SF)–29–19
9
close or change location and that “everyone was going to be left without a job.” (Tr. 194, 217,
218, 236).
3. The January 18, 2017, Incident
5
The ordinary work process used by temporary employees who were not guaranteed work
was to show up at the facility and check in. If work is available, the temporary employee is
allowed to enter the work area. If no work is available, they are required to wait inside a fenced
area to wait and see if work may later become available. On January 17, 2017, Michael Johnson
checked in with Marco Gonzalez and was told there was no work available. While he waited, he 10
noticed that other nonAfrican--Americans were being allowed in to work. He protested what he
perceived as discriminatory treatment at one-point yelling, “this is blunt discrimination, and if
y’all don’t do something about it I will start filming.” (TR. 126). Johnson thereafter began to
film with his phone in an effort to document that African-Americans were being denied work.
On January 18, 2017, Johnson again arrived for work and again was told there was no work 15
available. He again yelled that he believed that he and others were the victims of discrimination.
He thereafter began filming with his phone. Upon seeing Johnson filming Marco approached
him and directed him to stop recording. He was told by Marco that it was illegal to film people
without their permission. Johnson stopped recording. After Johnson spoke with his co-workers
and obtained their permission he again began recording. The employees who were recorded all 20
spoke about the discrimination that they perceived to be taking place. (GC Ex. 7). Marco
thereafter approached Johnson told him "you're causing trouble, Mr. Johnson. If you don't stop
filming, we will call the police on you. And if you want to film, you need to go up to the front,
outside the facility, and start filming there." (Tr. 85, 124).
25
(ii) Credibility Resolutions
Credibility determinations by their very nature include examining the totality of the
evidence and the confluence of factors such as inherent interests, demeanor of witness,
corroboration of testimony, consistency with other facts both established and admitted inherent 30
probabilities, and reasonable inferences that may be drawn from the record. Daikishi Corp., 335
NLRB 622 (2001), enfd. 56 Fed. Appx. 516 (D.C. Cir. 2003). Other factors for consideration
include the passage of time, whether some testimony but not all must be credited of a particular
witness as well as the notion that current employees who testify against their employers are often
times particularly reliable because they are testifying against their own immediate and direct 35
pecuniary interest. NLRB v. Universal Camera Corp. 179 F.2d 749 (2d. Cir. 1950); Flexsteel
Industries, Inc. 316 NLRB 745 (1995); and Gold Standard Enterprises, Inc., 234 NLRB 618,
619(1978).
The findings relating to both incidents involving Michael Johnson and Marco Gonzalez 40
are resolved in favor of Johnson. I credit his testimony regarding the incidents in question to be
truthful. Marco Gonzalez was not called to testify and therefore I was unable to determine
whether he disputed any of the facts as presented by Johnson. Although Enrique Gonzalez
denied that he made statements attributed to him by Johnson, I was not persuaded by his
testimony because another employee, Dwayne Wilson, corroborated Johnson’s testimony. In 45
analyzing this corroboration, I took into account that Wilson was a current employee and as the
Board has recognized is likely to be particularly reliable because his testimony is given against
JD(SF)–29–19
10
his pecuniary interest, and weighed it against the self-serving nature of the blanket denials of
Gonzalez. See Portola Packaging, Inc., 361 NLRB 1316 (2014).
The factual findings regarding the Curry speech and the contents of it also hinge directly
on the questions of credibility. Curry did not testify although a partial glimpse of his statements 5
and demeanor can be observed in the recording of the speech that exists. The lack of his
testimony, the incomplete recording with gaps, the destruction of the actual notes that he used in
the speech, as well as the lack of complete notes from Rivera weigh against simply accepting
without critical evaluation the blanket denials regarding what was said at the meeting. What
comes through loud and clear from the record is that Curry had very strong opinions about the 10
Teamsters and that it is not improbable that when he veered off of his scripted speech these
feelings manifested themselves in the comments attributed to him by current employees. Two
current employees Victor Gonzalez and Wilson provided testimony about the threats that were
conveyed to them. I credit their testimony as truthful as offered against their own pecuniary
interest. Moreover, some of that which was relayed by the witnesses was in fact corroborated by 15
the Respondents’ own reactions to the speech. For example, Curry’s statements regarding
Amazon caused Supervisor Lyons to become “concerned” and triggered her reaction and a
required a trip back to the Amazon department with Supervisors Marcos and Enrique Gonzalez
to talk to employees about “losing the Amazon business.” (Tr. 379-382). I also note that the
general consistency of employee testimony supports their version of events. Wilson testified that 20
Curry indicated that if the Union came in they would “probably have to close down the
warehouse.” Victor Gonzalez testified that Curry said, “if the Teamsters came in he would have
to close the company down.” (Tr. 150, 175). Although slightly different in their recollection, the
testimony is generally consistent regarding closing the company down if the Union was voted in.
25
Rivera denied that he made the statements attributed to him regarding closure. This was
directly contradicted by Spanish speaking employees Carbajal, Arenas, and Rodriguez. I credit
the testimony of Carbajal, Arenas and Rodriguez, their demeanor and the conviction of their
version of the truth was convincing and their testimony was generally consistent. (Tr. 194,217,
236). Secondly, they independently and consistently testified that Rivera’s comments were made 30
at the end of his speech thus corroborating each other’s version of events.3
(iii) Analysis
1. The Maintenance and Application of the No-Union Discussions Rule was 35
Unlawful

In The Boeing Co., 365 NLRB No. 154 (2017), the Board delineated the standards
applicable to determine whether or not work place rules are lawful under the Act. In Boeing, the
Board set forth 3 categories of rules. Category 3 rules are those rules that are unlawful to 40
maintain because they prohibit or limit NLRA protected conduct, and they adversely impact on
rights guaranteed by the NLRA outweighing any justifications associated with the rule. see also
(See GC Memorandum 18-04).

3 In other prior litigation before the Board, Rivera was found to have engaged in unlawful conduct in
violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. See Orient Tally and California Cartage Company LLC, 21-CA-
160242; 21-CA-162991 (February 28, 2018).
JD(SF)–29–19
11
The rule in question falls under Category 3 in the Boeing hierarchy as it directly restricts
employees from discussing matters relating to the Union but does not prohibit discussions of
other topics. See Teledyne Advanced Materials, 332 NLRB 539 (2000), Orval Kent Food Co.,
278 NLRB 402 (1986), Liberty House Nursing Homes, 245 NLRB 1194 (1979), Altercare of 5
Wadsworth Ctr. For Rehab. & Nursing Care, Inc., 355 NLRB 565 (2010). Discussing working
conditions and unions during the height of a campaign and while an election is set to be
undertaken is a core NLRA right. There is no legitimate justification in banning discussions that
are sufficient to overcome Section 7 rights. The serious adverse impact of the central NLRA
right to discuss matters relating to the union is not outweighed by any employer interest. 10
Accordingly, I find that the maintenance and application of the “no union discussion”
rule on three separate occasions, once by Enrique Gonzalez and twice by Marco Gonzalez
violates Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
15
2. The Statements Made During the Captive Audience Meeting Were Coercive and
Unlawful
The Board’s standard for determining whether statements are permissible under Section
8(a)(1) as the expression of general views about unionism or whether the statements contain 20
unlawful threats of reprisal or promise of benefit rest upon whether the statements could be
reasonably construed as coercive. Gissel Packing Co., 395 U.S. 575 (1969), Flagstaff Med.
Center, Inc., 357 NLRB 659 (2011).
It takes little imagination to conclude that Curry’s threats to move the business or sell the 25
business or close the business could be reasonably construed as coercive because in fact they
were. The intended purpose of the threats was to coerce the employees into voting no at the
election. So too, Rivera’s closing statement that the company would have to close or move to a
different location and the employees would be “left with no work” is on its face coercive. It was
intended to be coercive and the employees clearly understood the statements to be threats. The 30
coercive nature of the threats is amplified by the fact that the threats were communicated by the
highest-level management officials. In reaching this conclusion, it is important to note that these
statements were made without any objective evidence and or factual basis to support the notion
that unionization would lead to the business catastrophe that Rivera and Curry promised.4 See
Gissel at 617. Rivera’s statement made at the end of his presentation offering employees the 35
threat of job loss to weigh in their voting considerations was openly, and on its face coercive.
The Board has consistently held that such coercive statements violate the Act. See Abramson,
LLC, 345 NLRB 171 (2005); Seville Flexpack Corp., 288 NLRB 518 (1988); Custom Coated
Products, 245 NLRB 33 (1979); Homer D. Bronson Co., 349 NLRB 512 (2007); Electro Wire
Truck, 305 NLRB 1015 (1991); Reeves Bros., Inc., 320 NLRB 1082 (1996); LRM Packaging, 40
308 NLRTB 829 (1992); Marathon Le Tourneau Co., 208 NLRB 213 (1974). Applying these

4 I separately find that Curry’s statement that the Amazon account was lost and had to be closed
violated the Act. There is no objective basis from which to conclude that the entire Amazon account was
lost or closed because of Union activity and therefore violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. In fact, Lyons
herself rushed to speak with individuals in the department to reassure employees and make clear that the
account was not closed.
JD(SF)–29–19
12
applicable precedents, I find that the unlawful threats violate Section 8(a)(1) of the Act and
further find that the unlawful and coercive nature of the statements coming from the company’s
highest level managers interfered with the exercise of the free and untrammeled choice of
employees in the election process. The comments were addressed to hundreds of employees and
given their severity, cannot be said to have been “de minimus.” Bon Appetit Management Co.,5
334 NLRB 1042 (2001).
3. Threats to Call the Police on Michael Johnson Violated the Act
The concept of concerted activity has its basis in Section 7 of the Act. Section 7 of the 10
Act in pertinent part states: “Employees shall have the right to self-organization to form, join, or
assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing
and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other
mutual aid and protection.” In order for the actions to be protected under the statute they must be
both “concerted” and engaged in for the purpose of “mutual aid or protection.” Fresh & Easy 15
Neighborhood Market, 361 NLRB 151, 153 (2014). In general, to find an employee’s activity to
be “concerted,” the employee must be engaged with, or on the authority of, other employees and
not solely by and on behalf of the employee herself. Whether an employee’s activity is
“concerted” depends on the manner in which the employee’s actions may be linked to those of
his coworkers. See NLRB v. City Disposal Systems, 465 U.S. 822, 831 (1984); Meyers Industries, 20
268 NLRB 493, 497 (1984) (Meyers I), remanded sub nom. Prill v. NLRB, 755 F.2d 941 (D.C.
Cir. 1985), cert. denied 474 U.S. 948 (1985), supplemented Meyers Industries, 281 NLRB 882,
887 (1986) (Meyers II), affd. sub nom. Prill v. NLRB, 835 F.2d 1481 (D.C. Cir. 1987), cert.
denied 487 U.S. 1205 (1988). The Supreme Court has observed, however, that “[t]here is no
indication that Congress intended to limit [Section 7] protection to situations in which an 25
employee’s activity and that of his fellow employees combine with one another in any particular
way.” NLRB v. City Disposal Systems, 465 U.S. at 835; Fresh & Easy Neighborhood Market,
Inc., 361 NLRB 151 (2014).
The question of whether an employee has engaged in concerted activity is a factual one 30
based on the totality of record evidence. See, e.g., Ewing v. NLRB, 861 F.2d 353 (2d. Cir. 1988).
The Board has found an individual employee’s activities to be concerted when they grew out of
prior group activity. Every Women’s Place, 282 NLRB 413 (1986). The Board has found that
“ostensibly individual activity may in fact be concerted activity if it directly involves the
furtherance of rights which inure to the benefits of fellow employees.” Anco Insulations, Inc., 35
247 NLRB 612 (1980). An employee’s activity will be concerted when he or she acts formally
or informally on behalf of the group. Oakes Machine Corp., 288 NLRB 456 (1988). Concerted
activity has been found where an individual solicits other employees to engage in concerted or
group action even where such solicitations are rejected. El Gran Combo de Puerto Rico, 284
NLRB 1115 (1987), enfd. 853 F.2d 966 (1st Cir. 1988). 40
It is well settled that employees concerted activities to protest perceived discriminatory
practices is protected under the Act. Fresh & Easy Neighborhood Market, Inc., 361 NLRB 151
(2014). It is also well established that documenting the perceived discriminatory practices as
part of the “res gestae” of protected and concerted activities falls squarely under the umbrella of 45
the NLRA’s protections. White Oak Manor, 355 NLRB 1280 (2010), enfd. 452 Fed. Appx. 374
(2011).
JD(SF)–29–19
13
Applying these principles to the facts presented, I find that Johnson was engaged in
protected and concerted activities which the employer was made directly aware of when Marco
Gonzalez threatened to call the police on him. When an employer responds to protected and
concerted activity by threatening to call the police it violates the Act. Roadway Package System, 5
302 NLRB 961 (1991), All Am. Gourmet, 292 NLRB 1111 (1989), Winkle Bus Co., 347 NLRB
1203 (2006). Respondents therefore violated Section 8(a) (1) of the Act.
(iv) Report and Recommendations on Objections
10
The Board has set forth the general standards to apply in deciding whether the results of
the election should be set aside. In Safeway, Inc., 338 NLRB 525 (2002), the Board set forth the
following:
It is well settled that “[r]epresentation elections are not lightly set aside.” NLRB v. Hood 15
Furniture Mfg. Co., 941 F.2d 325, 328 (5th Cir. 1991) (citing NLRB v. Monroe Auto
Equipment Co., 470 F.2d 1329, 1333 (5th Cir. 1972), cert. denied 412 U.S. 928 (1973)).
Thus, “[t]here is a strong presumption that ballots cast under specific NLRB procedural
safeguards reflect the true desires of the employees.” NLRB v. Hood Furniture Mfg. Co.,
supra, 941 F.2d at 328. Accordingly, “the burden of proof on parties seeking to have a 20
Board-supervised election set aside is a ‘heavy one.’” Kux Mfg. Co. v. NLRB, 890 F.2d
804, 808 (6th Cir. 1989) (quoting Harlan #4 Coal Co. v. NLRB, 490 F.2d 117, 120 (6th
Cir. 1974), cert. denied 416 U.S. 986 (1974),
The proper test for evaluating conduct of a party is an objective one—whether it has “the 25
tendency to interfere with the employees’ freedom of choice.” Cambridge Tool Mfg., 316 NLRB
716 (1995). The Board in Taylor Wharton Division, 336 NLRB 157, 158 (2001), set forth several
factors that should be considered:
In determining whether a party’s misconduct has the tendency to interfere with 30
employees’ freedom of choice, the Board considers: (1) the number of incidents; (2) the
severity of the incidents and whether they were likely to cause fear among the employees
in the bargaining unit; (3) the number of employees in the bargaining unit subjected to
the misconduct; (4) the proximity of the misconduct to the election; (5) the degree to
which the misconduct persists in the minds of the bargaining unit employees; (6) the 35
extent of dissemination of the misconduct among the bargaining unit employees; (7) the
effect, if any, of misconduct by the opposing party to cancel out the effects of the original
misconduct; (8) the closeness of the final vote; and (9) the degree to which the
misconduct can be attributed to the party. See, e.g., Avis Rent-a-Car, 280 NLRB 580, 581
(1986).40
1. Objection No. 1
The Employer interfered with the fair operation of the election and affected the
outcome of the election by holding two mandatory meetings that, collectively, involved 45
most unit employees within 48 hours of the election wherein California Cartage
Company, LLC's President and CEO, Robert Curry, threatened plant closure and job
JD(SF)–29–19
14
loss if the employees voted for the Union, thereby intimidating unit employees in the
exercise of their Section 7 rights.
Applying the standards set forth in Cambridge Tool to the facts, I find: (1) the threats
were severe and were likely to cause fear among the employees; (2) hundreds of employees were 5
subjected to the misconduct; (3) the misconduct occurred in close proximity to the election; (4)
given the timing of the election the threats would have persisted in the minds of the employees;
and (5) the misconduct can be directly attributed to the Respondent and in particular Curry’s
decision to veer off script. The threats made by Curry and Rivera, the highest level officials
during the critical period, had the clear and unequivocal tendency to interfere with the 10
employees’ free choice. Thus Objection No. 1 is sustained.
2. Objection No. 9.
The Employer, its supervisors, agents and/or supporters interfered with the fair 15
operation of the election and affected the outcome of the election by writing an anti-
Union message inside of a polling booth in full view of voters during a busy period in
the polling session, discovered only at the close of the first voting session, thereby
influencing the outcome of the election.
20
Objection 9 revolves around the posting of a message of “No” inside one of the voting
booths. At the hearing, the parties entered into the following stipulation regarding the facts:
1. With respect to Petitioner Objection No. 9 the Board Agent checked the voting
booths 30 minutes prior to the close of the first voting session and the “no” 25
message was not present at that time.
2. After the polls closed for the first voting session the “no” message was observed
in one of the four voting booths. That voting booth was taken out of service
before the second voting session. (GC. Exh. 3).30

As can be gleaned from the stipulation, there is no dispute regarding whether the “No”
message was posted inside the voting booth. The question is whether applying the applicable
standards the objection should be sustained. I find that it should not. In the first instance there is
no evidence in the record from which to conclude that the actions can or should be attributed to 35
Respondents. There is also no evidence to establish that the message stoked fear or reprisal.
More significant is the fact that the message was present for a limited amount of time (less than
30 minute) in a single booth and visible only by limited number of persons who actually used the
booth. Given the limited number of persons potentially affected and the 159-vote margin it is
unlikely that it had any meaningful effect on the election. All of the above facts favor overruling 40
the objection.
3. Objection No. 10
The Employer, its supervisors, agents and/or supporters interfered with the fair 45
operation of the election and affected the outcome of the election by holding an
employer sponsored holiday party wherein the Employer provided lunch, extended
paid break time, and held a raffle for the employees while distributing new anti-
JD(SF)–29–19
15
Union literature within 24 hours of the election, thereby interfering with the
employees' Section 7 rights.
The facts regarding this objection are mostly undisputed. On December 21, 2016, the
employer hosted a holiday party that lasted approximately 2 hours. Respondent in past years had 5
hosted holiday parties since at least 2005. (Tr. 382,362). The party was approximately the same
length as in prior years, the same caterer was used, the same band played at the party as in prior
years, the holiday party was announced prior to the scheduled election and the amount spent on
the party was similar to that spent in prior years. (Union Exh. 2). The Union failed to establish
that anti-union literature was delivered at the party. (Tr. 94, 153). The holiday party would have 10
taken place regardless of whether or not the union was active. United Airlines Service Corp., 290
NLRB 954 (1988). All of the above facts make clear that that this part of the objection related
to the holiday party itself (not including the gift card issue discussed below) should be overruled
as there has been no showing that hosting of a holiday party as had been done in prior years had
the tendency to interfere with the employees’ freedom of choice.15
4. Objection No. 11
The Employer, its supervisors and/or agents interfered with the fair operation of the
election and affected the outcome of the election by offering anti-Union literature 20
within 24 hours of the election directly to employees as they clocked out, permitting
supervisors to assess the employees' support of management in the election, thereby
interfering with the employees' Section 7 rights.
On December 21, 2016, Cal Cartage handed out a pamphlet as the employees were 25
clocking out of their shifts. (Tr. Exh. 1). Respondent asserts that it was within its rights to
distribute the literature and is not prohibited from doing so by the Peerless Plywood rule.5
Although the Union objects to the timing of the literature it admits that the Peerless Plywood rule
prohibiting election speeches does not specifically apply to literature and cites no other authority
to support sustaining the objection. Accordingly, Objection 11 is overruled. 30
5. Objection No. 12
The Employer; its supervisors and/or agents interfered with the fair operation of the
election and affected the outcome of the election by distributing gift cards to unit 35
employees during the critical period, thereby interfering with the employees'
Section 7 rights.
Gift cards in the same total amounts as in prior years were raffled off during the holiday
party. The total value of $50 and $25 dollar increments which was changed from prior years 40
because they wanted more winners. (Tr. 366). Respondent asserts that the gift cards were an
ordinary part of the holiday party tradition. Nevertheless, the Board in Atlantic Limousine Inc.,
331 NLRB 1025 (2000), adopted a per se rule prohibiting raffles by unions or employers if the
raffle is “conducted at any time during a period beginning 24 hours before the scheduled opening
of the polls and ending with the closing of the polls.” There is no dispute that the raffle occurred 45

5 Peerless Plywood, 107 NLRB 427 (1953).
JD(SF)–29–19
16
within the 24 hour period and current Board law requires sustaining the objection and setting
aside the election. As the Board noted in Atlantic Limousine, Inc., “if there is a showing that
such a raffle has occurred during the proscribed period we will set aside the election upon the
filing of a valid objection.” Id. At 1028.
5
6. Objection No. 13
The Employer, its supervisors and/or agents interfered with the fair, operation of
the election and affected the outcome of the election by interrogating workers
regarding how the employees anticipated voting in the election, thereby intimidating 10
employees in the exercise of their Section 7 rights.
Objection 13 revolves around a single incident in which employee Johnson,
approximately two weeks before the election, was approached by a supervisor and questioned
regarding how he was going to vote. (Tr. 86-87). The supervisor also asked other employees 15
who were present how they intended to vote (approximately 4 others were present during the
conversation). Respondent disputes that the conduct occurred but argues in the alternative that
even if it did it was not of such a magnitude that it could possibly have influenced the election
and therefore provides no grounds for setting aside the election. Given the limited number of
employees who were questioned and the lack of any real evidence in the record of threats or 20
intimidation that occurred during this conversation (what occurred after the conversation is
discussed below), I concur with Respondent that this objection should be overruled. See The
Liberal Market, 198 NLRB 1481 (1954).
7. Objection No. 1425
The Employer, its supervisors and/or agents interfered with the fair operation of the
election and affected the outcome of the election by retaliating against temporary
workers by not permitting them to work because of their union support, perceived
union support or protected concerted activities, thereby interfering with the 30
employees' Section 7 rights.
Objection 14 revolves around an incident in which Johnson credibly testified that the day
after the supervisor asked him who he was going to vote for, Gonzalez did not let him sign in and
told him he was “short of work.” (Tr. 88). Johnson further elaborated that he arrived at 4:00 a.m. 35
and that others were allowed to sign in and work while he was told to wait. This practice
continued until approximately sometime before 9:00 a.m. when he was told he could enter and
work. Without question, denying work, (even if it amounts only to one half days work), to an
employee because he or she voiced open support for the Union is objectionable conduct. This
objectionable conduct especially when viewed in the aggregate with other objectional conduct 40
discussed herein warrants sustaining the Union’s objection.
8. Objection 19
The Employer, its supervisors, agents and/or supporters interfered with the fair 45
operation of the election and affected the outcome of the election by providing the
Union with an Excelsior list that contained numerous inaccuracies and omissions,
JD(SF)–29–19
17
which prevented the Union from contacting unit employees, thereby interfering with
the employees' Section 7 rights.
Objection 19 revolves around the issue that the voter list provided to the Union was
defective and did not provide accurate contact information of eligible voters. (Union Exh. 4). 5
The Union asserted that in fact 132 out of the 644 addresses on the voter list were incorrect
addresses or over 20 percent of the eligible voters. (Union Exh. 5). The Employers argue that
this Objection should be overruled. In this vein, the Employers assert that the Union’s proof is
deficient surrounding this issue because the Union’s “bad address” list was incomplete, it had
other information other than incorrect addresses (including admittedly good addresses), the list 10
was used to determine whether to make a return visit to a home, and the Union could not prove
that it in fact ever notified Employers of any deficiency in the addresses. (Tr. 267, 270, 278, 283-
287). I agree and find that the proof offered by the Union regarding the list is insufficient to
establish that the Employers interfered with the fair operation of the election. In fact, Union
official Valenzuela admitted the inherent difficulties with accurate addresses even without any 15
employer interference. He noted the work surrounding the addresses “is very difficult, and it's
tough. We have -- we have people that live in garages. We have people that live in cars. I
mean, it was really -- really different. ” (Tr.65). There is no proof to establish that any alleged
incorrect and/or incomplete information was attributable to the Employers but rather was merely
the result of the inherent difficulties with accurate addresses as Valenzuela testified. I concur 20
with Employers that this Objection should be overruled.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
By maintaining and enforcing a no-union discussion rule, by threatening employees with 25
job loss, facility closing, loss of work and/or the closing or loss of accounts if they voted in favor
of the Union, and by threatening to call the police on an employee, the Respondents engaged in
unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
The unfair labor practices committed by Respondents affect commerce within the 30
meaning of Section 2(6) and 2(7) of the Act.
The Employers’ conduct as alleged in Union objections 1, 12, 13, and 14, was
objectionable and tended to interfere with the election. Union objections 9, 10, 11, and 19 are
overruled. The Respondent’s unfair labor practices and objectionable conduct warrant setting 35
aside the election.
REMEDY
Having found that the Respondents have engaged in certain unfair labor practices, I shall 40
order them to cease and desist therefrom and to take certain affirmative action designed to
effectuate the policies of the Act.
By maintaining and enforcing a no-union discussion rule, by threatening employees with
job loss, facility relocation or closing, loss of work and/or the closing or loss of accounts if they 45
voted in favor of the union, and by threatening to call the police on an employee, the
JD(SF)–29–19
18
Respondents engaged in unlawful practices and Respondents shall be ordered to cease and desist
from these actions.
I will order that the Respondents post a notice in the usual manner, including
electronically to the extent mandated in J. Picini Flooring, 356 NLRB 11 (2010). 5
The General Counsel has also requested a notice reading. I will also order that the
Respondents hold a meeting or meetings, scheduled to have the widest possible attendance, at
which the attached notice marked “Appendix” shall be read to employees in the presence of a
Board agent in both English and Spanish. This remedial action is intended to ensure that 10
employees “will fully perceive that the Respondent[s] and its managers are bound by the Act’s
requirements.” Federated Logistics & Operations, 340 NLRB 255, 258 (2003), enfd. 400 F.3d
920 (D.C. Cir. 2005).
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on the entire record, I issue the 15
following recommended6
ORDER
The Respondents, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall20
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) maintaining and enforcing a no-union discussion rule;
25
(b) threatening employees with job loss, facility relocation or closing, loss of work and/or
the closing or loss of accounts if they vote in favor of the union; and
(c) threatening to call the police on an employee;
30
(d) in any like or related manner, interfering with, restraining or coercing employees in
the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act:
35
(a) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at its facility in Wilmington,
California, copies of the attached notice marked “Appendix”7 in both English and
Spanish. Copies of the notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 21,
after being signed by the Respondents’ authorized representative, shall be posted by the

6 If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the Board’s Rules and Regulations, the
findings, conclusions, and recommended Order shall, as provided in Sec. 102.48 of the Rules, be adopted
by the Board and all objections to them shall be deemed waived for all purposes.
7 If this Order is enforced by a judgment of a United States court of appeals, the words in the notice
reading “Posted by Order of the National Labor Relations Board” shall read “Posted Pursuant to a
Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations
Board.”
JD(SF)–29–19
19
Respondents and maintained for 60 consecutive days in conspicuous places including all
places where notices to employees are customarily posted. In addition to physical posting
of paper notices, the notices shall be distributed electronically, such as by email, posting
on an intranet or an internet site, and/or other electronic means, if the Respondents
customarily communicates with its employees by such means. Reasonable steps shall be 5
taken by the Respondents to ensure that the notices are not altered, defaced, or covered
by any other material. In the event that, during the pendency of these proceedings, the
Respondents have gone out of business or closed the facility involved in these
proceedings, the Respondent shall duplicate and mail, at its own expense, a copy of the
notice to all current employees and former employees employed by the Respondent at 10
any time since November 28, 2016.
(b) Read the Notice to Employees in English and in Spanish to assembled employees at
its Wilmington facility referenced above during paid working time.
15
(c) Within 21 days after service by the Region, file with the Regional Director a sworn
certification of a responsible official on a form provided by the Region attesting to the
steps that the Respondents have taken to comply.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint is dismissed insofar as it alleges 20
violations of the Act not specifically found.
Dated, Washington, D.C. September 9, 201925
____________________
Dickie Montemayor
Administrative Law Judge30
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
Posted by Order of the
National Labor Relations Board
An Agency of the United States Government
The National Labor Relations Board has found that we violated Federal labor law and has
ordered us to post and obey this notice.
FEDERAL LAW GIVES YOU THE RIGHT TO
Form, join, or assist a union
Choose representatives to bargain with us on your behalf
Act together with other employees for your benefit and protection
Choose not to engage in any of these protected activities.
WE WILL NOT do anything to prevent you from exercising the above rights.
WE WILL NOT maintain and/or enforce a no-union discussion rule.
WE WILL NOT threaten employees with job loss, facility relocation or closing, loss of work
and/or the closing or loss of accounts if they vote in favor of the union.
WE WILL NOT threaten to call the police on an employee because he/she exercises his/her
rights guaranteed under Section 7 of the Act.
CALIFORNIA CARTAGE COMPANY, LLC;
ORIENT TALLY COMPANY, INC; CORE
EMPLOYEE MANAGEMENT, INC.; NFI
CALIFORNIA CARTAGE HOLDING COMPANY,
LLC; CALIFORNIA CARTAGE DISTRIBUTION,
LLC; CALIFORNIA TRANSLOAD SERVICES,
LLC; ORIENT TALLY COMPANY, INC., A
SINGLE EMPLOYER, AND NEXEM ALLIED
LLC D/B/A CORE EMPLOYEE MANAGEMENT,
INC., A JOINT EMPLOYER, CALIFORNA
TRANSLOAD SERVICES, LLC; SUCESSOR
EMPLOYER
(Employer)
Dated By
(Representative) (Title)
The National Labor Relations Board is an independent Federal agency created in 1935 to enforce
the National Labor Relations Act. It conducts secret-ballot elections to determine whether
employees want union representation and it investigates and remedies unfair labor practices by
employers and unions. To find out more about your rights under the Act and how to file a charge
or election petition, you may speak confidentially to any agent with the Board’s Regional Office
set forth below. You may also obtain information from the Board’s website: www.nlrb.gov
U.S. Courthouse-Spring Street, 312 N. Spring Street, Suite 10150, Los Angeles, CA 90012
(213) 894-5200, Hours: 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.
The Administrative Law Judge’s decision can be found at www.nlrb.gov/case/21-CA-190500 or by using the
QR code below. Alternatively, you can obtain a copy of the decision from the Executive Secretary, National
Labor Relations Board, 1015 Half Street, S.E., Washington, D.C. 20570, or by calling (202) 273-1940.
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 ABOVE REGIONAL OFFICE’S
COMPLIANCE OFFICER (213) 634-6502.