Graphic Arts Finishing Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 6, 1970

182 N.L.R.B. 318 (N.L.R.B. 1970)

318 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
IQ
Graphic Arts Finishing Co , Inc and Bookbinders & bargain collectively with the Union, which had been
Bindery Women 's Union Local 44 , affiliated with Inter - certified by the Board, in violation of Section 8(a)(1)
national Brotherhood of Bookbinders , AFL-CIO Case and (5) of the Act
5-CA-4501
May 6, 1970
DECISION AND ORDER
By CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS FANNING
AND JENKINS
On February 4, 1970, Trial Examiner Louis Libbin
issued his Decision in the above entitled proceeding,
finding that the Respondent had engaged in certain unfair
labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5)
and (1) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended,
and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom
and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the
attached Trial Examiner's Decision Thereafter, the
Respondent filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's
Decision and a brief
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
Act, 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 made by the
Trial Examiner at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial
error was committed The rulings are hereby affirmed
The Board has considered the Trial Examiner's Decision,
the exceptions, the brief, and the entire record in this
case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and
recommendations of the Trial Examiner
A hearing was held before me at Baltimore, Maryland,
on December 16, 1969 All parties were given full oppor-
tunity to participate in said hearing On January 16,
1970, the Respondent filed a brief and the General
Counsel filed a memorandum, both of which I have
fully considered For the reasons hereinafter indicated,
I find that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) and (5)
of the Act, as alleged in the complaint as amended
Upon the entire record in the case,' and from my
observation of the demeanor of the witnesses while
testifying under oath, I make the following
FINDINGS OF FACT
1
I THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
Respondent Graphic Arts Finishing Co , Inc , is a
Maryland corporation with its principal place of business
in Baltimore, Maryland, where it is engaged in the
finishing of print materials During the 12-month period
preceding the issuance of the instant complaint, a repre-
sentative period, Respondent received revenues in excess
of $50,000 for services performed on products which
it shipped to points and places outside the State of
Maryland
Upon the above admitted facts, I find, as Respondent
admits in its answer, that Respondent is engaged in
commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7)
of the Act
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations
Board hereby adopts as its Order the Recommended
Order of the Trial Examiner, and hereby orders that
the Respondent, that Graphic Arts Finishing Co , Inc ,
Baltimore, Maryland, its officers, agents, successors,
and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Trial
Examiner's Recommended Order
II THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The complaint alleges, the answer admits, the record
shows, and I find, that Bookbinders & Bindery Women's
Union Local 44, affiliated with International Brotherhood
of Bookbinders , AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within
the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Louis LIBBIN, Trial Examiner Upon charges filed
on September 16, 1969, by Bookbinders & Bindery
Women's Union Local 44, affiliated with International
Brotherhood of Bookbinders, AFL-CIO, herein called
the Union, the General Counsel of the National Labor
Relations Board, by the Regional Director for Region
5 (Baltimore, Maryland), issued a complaint, dated Octo-
ber 31, 1969, against Graphic Arts Finishing Co , Inc ,
herein called the Respondent With respect to the unfair
labor practices, the complaint as amended at the hearing,
alleges in substance, and Respondent's answer as amend-
ed at the hearing denies, that Respondent refused to
' On January 19 1970 I received from the General Counsel a motion
to correct the transcript in 20 specific respects In his brief counsel
for Respondent concurs in the General Counsels motion to correct
the transcript as to items 1-16 18-19 which involve obvious errors
As to items 17 and 20 he states that he has no independent recollection
of either the versions in the transcript or the versions suggested by
counsel for the General Counsel and would be satisfied to accept
as authoritative the version of this testimony as independently recalled
by the Trial Examiner As my independent recollection coincides
with the version suggested by the General Counsel I hereby grant
his motion in toto I have accordingly made the requested changes
and have placed the General Counsel s motion in the official exhibit
folder as G C Exh 18 Counsel for Respondent further moved in
his brief to correct the transcript in six additional specific respects
This motion is hereby granted without objection and I have made
the requested corrections I also note and correct the obvious error
of the date stated on the teletype message (G C Exh 8) to read
12/16/69 Additional obvious inadvertent errors in the typewritten
transcript of testimony are noted and corrected in Appendix A [Appendix
A omitted from publications ]
182 NLRB No 47
GRAPHIC ARTS FINISHING CO. 319
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Introduction; the Issues
Following a hearing on a petition for an election
filed on April 14, 1969, by the Union in Case 5-RC-6795,
a Decision and Direction of Election was issued on
May 14, 1969, by the Regional Director for Region
5 (Baltimore , Maryland), pursuant to which a secret-
ballot election was conducted under his supervision on
June 19, 1969, in a specified appropriate unit of employ-
ees at Respondent ' s plant . Of 187 eligible voters, 92
cast votes for the Union , 80 cast votes against the
Union , and 10 ballots were challenged . No investigation
was conducted with respect to the challenged ballots
as they could in no event affect ther results of the
election. On June 26, 1969, Respondent filed timely
objections (seven in number) to conduct affecting the
results of the election . Thereafter , the Regional Director
caused an investigation to be made of said objections.
On August 5, 1969, the Acting Regional Director2 issued
a Supplemental Decision and Certification of Representa-
tives, in which he overruled Respondent's objections
and, as the Union had received a majority of the valid
votes cast, certified the Union as the exclusive collective-
bargaining representative of all the employees in the
appropriate unit.
Thereafter, on August 26, 1969, Respondent filed with
the Board in Washington, D.C., a request for review
of, and exceptions to, Regional Director ' s Supplemental
Decision and Certification of Representatives . In said
request , Respondent contended that the Acting Regional
Director "erred, not only with respect to the substantial
legal conclusions '. . but also by his failure to recognize
the substantial credibility conflicts which appear through
the body of evidence and by his failure to order a
hearing to resolve such conflicts ." It argued that "a
hearing should be ordered in the circumstances of this
case in order to fill in the large voids left by the Board's
inadequate ex parte investigation and to resolve the
issues raised in objections 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and,6 ," emphasiz-
ing that "only then would counsel be able to cross-
examine the statements of sworn witnesses and only
then would the Board have the benefit of `demeanor
evidence ' in resolving credibility issues raised therein."
Respondent concluded with a request that "the Board
overrule the Regional Director ' s conclusions and recom-
mendations , sustain the objections in their entirety, set
aside the election conducted herein and reschedule a
second election . . . or, in the alternative, that the
Board order an evidentiary hearing be conducted to
resolve substantial and material issues raised in the
Employer's (Respondent's) objections." On September
5, 1969, the Board denied Respondent's request for
review "as it raises no substantial issues warranting
review."
By letter dated September 8, 1969, and addressed
to Respondent's President Joseph Paul, Union President
P The title of Regional Director and Acting Regional Director are
hereinafter used interchangeably
Edward Allen reminded him of the Union's recent certi-
fication and requested certain relevant data and : informa-
tion "in order for the union to intelligently draw up
our collective bargaining agenda " and "to help expedite
our negotiations ." By reply letter dated September 15,
1969, Respondent ' s counsel advised that Respondent
"contests the validity of the alleged certification referred
to in your letter on both substantive and procedural
grounds, doubts that your Union represents an uncoerced
majority, of its employees, and therefore cannot comply
with the request set forth in your letter."
The next day, the .Union filed with the Board's Region-
al Office the 8(a)(1) and (5) charge in the instant case.
,As previously noted, the instant complaint, alleging that
Respondent's above-described refusal constitutes a viola-
tion of Section 8(a)(1) and .(5) of the Act, was issued
against Respondent on October 31, 1969 , originally
scheduling the instant hearing for November 24, 1969.
Pursuant to orders rescheduling hearing, dated Novem-
ber 4 and 26, 1969, the instant hearing was rescheduled
to December 16, 1969.
Meanwhile , about 3 or 3'h weeks prior to December
16, 1969 , the General Counsel in the instant case advised
Respondent ' s counsel that he would not object to
Respondent " litigating or relitigating his objections"
in the representation case in the instant complaint case.
On December 11, 1969, Respondent filed with the Board
in Washington , D.C., a motion to revoke certification
and for other relief . In said motion , Respondent request-
ed the Board to revoke the Union ' s certification, to
order a de novo hearing on Respondent ' s objections
in the representation case and to order the withdrawal
of the complaint in the instant case . In support of
its motion , counsel for Respondent admitted that he
had been advised by counsel for the General Counsel
"that Respondent w ill be permitted to present evidence
in support of its objections " in the representation case
"at the hearing in Case No. 5-CA-4501 (the instant
case), to be conducted on 'December 16, 1969." He
contended however that "a fair hearing on the objections
,or on issues raised by the objections " in the instant
case "would be impossible " because "the Trial Examin-
er would be bound, under prevailing Board doctrine,
to support automatically the validity of the certification
as the ' law of the case .' " At 9:30 a.m. on December
16, 1969 , 1ti2 hours before the scheduled commencement
of the hearing in the instant case , a teletype message
was received from the Board, denying Respondent's
motion "with leave to the Employer Respondent to
request the Trial Examiner to permit the issues raised
in its objections and exceptions filed in Case 5-RC-6795
to be heard in Case 5 -CA-4501," the instant case.
The message further stated that the "Employer Respond-
ent's contention that litigation of such issues in a com-
plaint proceeding would substantially prejudice its right
is found to be without merit ." Shortly after the opening
of the instant hearing , I advised Respondent's counsel
that, in view of the Board's rulings in the teletype
message , which was received as G.C. Exh. 6, I would
permit him to litigate the objections and the issues
320 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
raised by the objections and to adduce whatever evidence
he had available in support thereof.
All parties are in agreement that , as Respondent's
counsel stated , "the central issue in this proceeding
is whether the certification is valid ." This issue, in
turn , depends on whether there is merit to any of
Respondent ' s first six objections to the conduct of the
election . Thus, counsel for Respondent correctly stated
at the opening of the hearing that " if the certification
is a valid certification , we're guilty - of committing and
8(a)(5). If it ' s an invalid certification , we're not guilty
of committing an 8(a)(5)."
B. The Nature of the Instant Hearing
It is now settled that "adjudication" of representation
issues, such as the instant objections, "in the 8(a)(5)
proceeding does not" "substantially prejudice the Com-
pany's rights."' Shortly after the opening of the instant
hearing, I advised Respondent's counsel, and thereafter
frequently reiterated, that I would make an independent
determination of the validity of Respondent's objections
based upon a consideration of whatever evidence was
adduced in the instant hearing, including the Supplemen-
tal Decision of the Regional Director, "regardless of
whether or not the decision I reach agrees with or
is contrary to what the Regional Director decided."
I emphasized that his Decision "isn't my finding," that
"I'm not passing judgment on what the Regional Director
did" and that "I'm here in a de novo capacity, to
determine whether or not on the evidence . . . you
have made out a case warranting sustaining one or
more of the objections." Again, I emphasized that "my
position would be, whether or not I agree with the
inference drawn by" the Regional Director, that "I'm
not bound by what he did." I further pointed out that
to the extent that the Respondent was willing to accept
the Regional Director's factual findings based on uncon-
troverted statements in affidavits submitted to him, then
"the issue before me is whether or not to agree with"
his findings and conclusion "that there's no merit to
the objection," that I would also consider whatever
additional evidence Respondent would adduce before
me in the instant hearing, and that in any event "I'm
going to make that decision independently of what he
did." I further pointed out that to the extent that the
Regional Director merely assumed the truth of disputed
statements or conduct mentioned in the affidavits before
him, I would have to resolve the credibility issue to
ascertain the true facts and that I could not do that
on the basis of statements contained in affidavits.
Counsel for Respondent states in his brief, as he
also stated at the instant hearing, that "the real issue
in this case was whether the Regional Director properly
overruled the Employer's objections and certified the
Union." He therefore argues, "Obviously, the Regional
Director's action cannot be evaluated by a reviewing
body unless that body has before it the totality of
4)
9 N.L.R B v Bata Shoe Company, Inc , 377 F 2d 821, 826 (C A
evidence considered by the Regional Director in making
his decision." For that purpose, counsel for Respondent
offered into evidence the affidavits and statements which
the Regional Director had before him and in addition
served a subpoena duces tecum upon the Regional
Director to produce all "affidavits and/or other signed
statements in the file in Case No. 5-RC-6795 taken
in connection with the investigation of objections to
election" in said case, all of which he also proposed
to offer into evidence. Counsel admittedly was not claim-
ing that the Regional Director had misrepresented or
misinterpreted the contents of the affidavits submitted
to him. Nor, he confessed, did he expect me to make
credibility findings, as in fact I could not, on the basis
of disputed statements or versions appearing in said
affidavits. I further pointed out that the affidavits which
counsel was offering were not relevant to the issues
before me and in any event at most were cumulative,
as they admittedly are already recited in the Regional
Director's Supplemental Decision. His sole admitted
purpose in offering these documents was to show what
was before the Regional Director and to support his
further contention that the Regional Director had not
made a complete and full investigation.
However, counsel for Respondent has misconceived
"the real issue in this case." The "real issue" before
me is not whether the Regional Director conducted
a full and proper investigation or properly overruled
Respondent's objections on the basis of the affidavits
which he stated were submitted to him. The Regional
Director's conduct and findings are not on trial in the
instant proceeding. What is on trial is the validity of
Respondent's first six objections to the election. That
is the "real issue" and that issue is to be determined
initially by me upon my independent consideration of
the entire record, including the Regional Director's Deci-
sion, made in the instant case.
Perhaps, Respondent's counsel has confused the rep-
resentation proceeding, involved in the instant case with
one pursuant to an "Agreement for Consent Election"
in which the parties agree that objections and challenges
are to be resolved by the Regional Director whose
rulings "shall be final" and where the agreement provides
that the "method of investigation of objections and
challenges, including the question of whether a hearing
should be held in connection therewith, shall be deter-
mined by the Regional Director whose decision shall
be final" (see Bata Shoe, supra at fn. 9), or with
a proceeding where the election is pursuant to a "Stipula-
tion for Certification upon Consent Election" such as
was present in the Bata Shoe case (ibid., §102.62(b)
of the Board's Rules and Regulations ). In the first type
(the "Agreement for Consent Election"), the only issue
before the reviewing body, be it Trial Examiner, Board,
or circuit court, is whether or not, on the basis of
the evidence before the Regional Director , his findings
were arbitrary or capricious or repugnant to Board policy
or the Act. And this is so regardless of whether a
hearing had been conducted or whether the reviewing
body would have reached a different result on the same
GRAPHIC ARTS FINISHING CO.
evidence were the matter initially before it ." In the
second , type (the "Stipulation for Certification upon
Consent Election"), the Regional Director issues a report'
of objections in which he merely makes findings'and
recommendations such as, for example, that the objec=
tions be overruled . Thereafter , following the filing of
exceptions , the Board makes an independent review
of such findings and recommendations and, only- if the
Board arrives at the same conclusions beased on its
own independent considerations , does the Board then
issue its own Decision and Certification of• Representa-
tive. It was for that reason that the Trial Examiner
in the Bata Shoe case considered himself bound by
the Board ' s findings in the absence of any additional
evidence having been adduced before him (157 NLRB
1, 7).
Neither of these procedures was used in the instant
case. Here, the parties did not enter into any type
of consent agreements . The Regional Director proceeded
in accordance with Section 102.63 and 102.67 of the
Board ' s Rules and Regulations which provide for the
issuance by the Regional Director of, a decision in which
he "shall set forth his findings , conclusions , and order
or direction " and which further provides that "the deci-
sion of the regional director shall be final" unless the
Board grants a party's request for review "where com-
pelling reasons exist therefore ." In the instant case,
the Board denied the Respondent ' s request for review
of the Regional Director ' s supplemental decision. Thus,
in the instant case , there has been no independent deter-
mination by the Board that, based on its own independent
consideration of the Regional Director ' s supplemental
decision , it reached the same conclusions and therefore
agreed with him . This then is the function which I
initially will perform in this Decision . I therefore again
reiterated to Respondent's counsel that if "I feel that
there is merit to your objections , my position is that
I have that authority " so to find and that I would
so find.
I also called the attention of counsel for Respondent
to specific pages and portions of the-Regional Director's
decision wherein he states that the affidavit discloses
a dispute in the statements or versions related by employ-
ees with respect to certain described incidents and that,
without ' making any credibility findings, he merely
assumed for, purposes of his decision the correctness
of the statements or versions most favorable to Respond-
ent and nevertheless concluded that based thereon there
was no merit to the objection . In're 'sponse to my question
as to what would happen if I and the Board were'
to make the same disposition in such instances and
if a circuit court later disagreed with that conclusion,
counsel for Respondent replied that "either the Court
of Appeals could decide that the matter is so stale
that they could simply deny enforcement or they can
order the case remanded for the • taking of testimony
' See, e g , N L R B v Capitol Greyhound Lines, 140 F 2d 754,
758 (C A 6), cert denied 322 U S 763, Semi-Steel Casting Co of
St Louis 'v N L R B. 160 F 2d 388, 391 (C A 8), and N L R B
v General Armature & Mfg Co , 192 F 2d 316,= 317, In I '(C A
3) .
321
at that time when the credibility issue is the crucial
factor " That indeed would 'be a d'esireable procedure
for anyone interested in delaying a final, determination
for at least an additional year or so. Moreover, counsel's
position is directly contrary to the one he took before
the Board in. his request for review of the Regional
Director's decision. For in that request counsel argued,
among other things, that the Regional Director had erred
"by his failure to recognize the substantial credibility
conflicts which appear through the body of evidence
and by his failure to order a hearing to reslove such
conflicts," and requested that the Board direct such
a hearing because "only then would the Board have
the benefit of `demeanor evidence' in resolving credibility
issues raised therein."
I therefore announced that "that's the purpose of
this hearing now. You are being permitted-and the
General Counsel does not object, in fact has notified
you sufficiently in advance, to put in your evidence
on that. And you won't get another opportunity, if
any higher tribunal disagrees with the conclusions, to
put in evidence in- order to resolve the conflicts. And
I'm not going to make a resolution of credibility on
the basis of affidavits. I just wanted you to know that
that's my position."
Overruling the General Counsel's objections, I finally
received the affidavits in evidence but emphasized that
"I'm not accepting them as evidence of the truth of
the statements contained therein. I received them and
I told you, as far as I can see, it's nothing but a
repetition of what's already in the Regional Director's
Supplemental Decision. You feel its necessary in sup-
port of your case. -I'm saying, `all right. Let them
come in.' But I clearly. outlined where I stand with
respect to it. "5 - -
- My position with.respect to the lack of relevancy
of the affidavits and my. view of the nature of the
instant hearing and my functions therein, all as previously
detailed,, were relevant considerations in my granting
the General Counsel' s petition to revoke subpoena duces
tecum served on the Regional Director. Contrary to
the assertion of counself for Respondent in his brief,
lack of relevancy- to the issues herein is one of the
specific grounds set forth in the General Counsel's peti-
tion as a basis for revoking said subpoena. [Resp. Exh.
1(A).] As grounds- for granting said petition as well
as the . petitions to revoke subpoenas served on two
other Board agents, I openly stated at the instant hearing
that "I've sustained the petition of course on the basis
set forth in the petition." Another basis set forth in
each petition for revoking the subpoena is Respondent's
failure to seek prior permission of the General Counsel
in Washington, D.C., or the Board, as the case may
be, for the Board personnel to comply with the subpoena.
There is no showing that,, had such a request been
made, it would not have been granted.' That the failure
' I have decided to adhere to this ruling, after further consideration
pursuant to the General Counsel's request in his memorandum
b I adhere to my ruling in sustaining the petitions to revoke on
the grounds stated therein, after reconsideration pursuant to Respond-
ent's request in its counsel's brief, and again deny counsel's repeated
(Cont )
322 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
to make a prior request for such permission is a valid
basis for granting a petition to revoke subpoena, had
been held by every Circuit Court of Appeals before
which the question has arisen.'
Unlike the situation in the Bata Shoe, supra (at p.
824), counsel for Respondent made no statement at
the instant hearing of the nature of the evidence it
was prepared to offer of alleged irregularities in the
conduct of the election to support Respondent 's objec-
tions. The Regional Director's decision clearly identifies
by name the employees who were the specific source
of the evidence which he considered, except in one
instance where reference is made to an unidentified
rank-and-file employee (p. 8, par. 4 of his decision).
However, this unidentified employee is identified as
Evelyn Lyons in the affidavit of Evelyn Lomax who
served as Respondent's election observer, a copy of
which affidavit was in the possession of counsel for
Respondent and appears in the record as Resp. Exh.
6. Although "it is settled that the burden is on the
party objecting to the conduct of a representation elec-
tion to prove that there has been prejudice to the fairness
of the election" (Bata Shoe, supra, at p. 826), Respond-
ent's counsel failed to call a single employee to testify
on his behalf in the instant case. And this is so despite
the fact that many of the statements in the affidavit
of Respondent's observer Lomax are noted in the
Regional Director's decision as having been denied by
the named persons to whom they were attributed and
were in fact denied by them through sworn testimony
when called as witnesses by the General Counsel in
the instant hearing and despite the additional fact that
both union observers were present in the hearing room.
He contended himself merely with calling Respondent's
vice president who testified to a telephone call received
about a week before the election from an employee
who explained that he was not at work that day because
of fear of bodily harm and also testified with respect
to objection 6 relating to alleged union misrepresentation.
He then called two union representatives to adduce
testimony as to the authority and duties of the inplant
employee organizing committee in support of his conten-
tion that the Union was responsible for their statements
and conduct during the election campaign.
From all the foregoing, it is abundantly clear, as
I find, that the instant hearing "satisfied the requirements
of due process" and "is fundamentally fair." Bata
Shoe, supra at p. 827.
C. Objections to the Election
In its request for review submitted to the Board,
Respondent was seeking review only of its first six
objections.
untimely request for an adjournment to enable him to request such
permission.
' N.L.R.B. v Jamestown Sterling Corp., 211 F 2d 725, 726 (C A
2), Davis v Braswell Motor Freight Lines, Inc , 363 F 2d 600 , 602-603
(C A 5), and North American Rockwell Corporation v. N.L R B ,
389 F 2d 866 , 873 (C. A 10) See also General Armature & Manufacturing
Co , 89 NLRB 654, fn 5
Objections I and 2
In these two objections, Respondent states that the
Union (petitioner in the representation proceeding), "by
its agents and adherents," (1) "misrepresented to
employees that they were required to vote in the election
and that they did not have the option of not voting,"
and (2) "coerced employees into voting in the election."
In its request for review of the Regional Director's
decision, filed with the Board,' Respondent "emphasizes
the absolute necessity for an evidentiary hearing in
open court so that witnesses might testify under oath"
in support of these objections, and urges the Board
to direct such an "evidentiary hearing" so that there
could be "a full and fair development of the evidence
in this matter." Yet, when afforded that opportunity
in the instant hearing, counsel for Respondent, for undis-
closed reasons, failed to adduce a scintilla of evidence
in support of these objections. If Respondent is relying
on the Regional Director's treatment of the statements
in the affidavit of Respondent's Vice President Paul,
the only affidavit submitted to him with respect to these
objections, I find that the statements to which the Region-
al Director refers in his decision are hearsay of the
rankest sort and do not constitute probative evidence
in support of the objections.' Although Respondent's
Vice President Paul testified as a witness for Respondent
in the instant hearing, no evidence was adduced with
respect to these objections. I find the objections to
be unsupported and therefore without merit, and direct
that they be overruled.
Objection 3
In this objection, Respondent states that the Union,
"by its agents and adherents, caused a large number
of ineligible individuals to appear at the polls, although
Petitioner (the Union) and the individuals involved knew
they were not eligible to vote, the effect being to create
confusion in the minds of the eligible voters and fear
that the results of the election could be determined
by non-employees."
Again, in its request for review Respondent urges
upon the Board that "an evidentiary hearing is obviously
warranted to establish the facts and servey (sic) their
impact on the election." Again, Respondent adduced
not a scintilla of evidence in support of this objection
when it was offered the opportunity to do so at the
evidentiary hearing which it was so vigorously request-
ing. Surely, Respondent's election observers, both of
whom were present in the polling area and obviously
friendly to Respondent, would have been competent
witnesses in support of this objection if the matters
alleged therein did in fact occur. Respondent made
no claim that they were unavailable. Under these circum-
stances, Respondent's unexplained failure to have these
" In his brief before me, counsel for Respondent states that "Respond-
ent hereby reiterates and incorporates by reference the arguments con-
tained in its Request for Review in Case No 5-RC-6795 "
B See Consolidated Edison Co of New York, Inc, v N L.R B ,
305 U S 197, 230
GRAPHIC ARTS FINISHING CO. 323
friendly witnesses testify leads to the inference that
their testimony would have been adverse to Respondent's
position on this objection.' If Respondent is relying
on the facts recited in the Regional Director's decision
based on the affidavits before him, these recited facts
are that a union representative at the election location
on election day urged one, Stamper, to vote despite
Stamper ' s statement that he had just voluntarily quit
his employment, that the union representative had heard
from employees that Stamper had been coerced into
quitting, that Stamper's name had not been designated
as a "quit" on the Employer's list of names and address-
es, that Stamper did not vote despite a Board agent's
explanation that he could vote under challenge, that
it was discovered that two female nonemployees attempt-
ed to cast ballots when one stated that she had been
terminated a month before the election and the other
that she had never been employed here, and that neither
intimated that any union representative had requested
them to attempt to vote.
I find that the foregoing does not support the allega-
tions in Respondent's objection that the Union "caused"
a large number of clearly ineligible persons to appear
at the polls. I further find that the foregoing does not
demonstrate that "a large number" of clearly "ineligible
persons" did in fact appear at the polls, as also alleged
in the objection. Finally, I find no evidence or warrant
for any inference that the foregoing incidents created
or tended to "create confusion in the minds of eligible
voters and fear that the results of the election could
be determined by nonemployees," as further alleged
in the objection. I therfore find no merit to this objection
and direct that it be overruled.
Objections 4 and 5
In these two objections, Respondent states that the
Union, "by its agents and adherents," (1) "did inject
a racial theme into the campaign in an intemperate
and irrelevant manner," and (2) "threatened and intimi-
dated employees known or suspected to be unsympathet-
ic to Petitioner's (the Union's) cause."
The Regional Director's decision states that the
Employer Respondent submitted to him two affidavits
in support of these objections. One was from Respond-
ent's election observer Evelyn Lomax and the other
from employee Taylor. The decision recites from
Lomax's affidavit statements made to her containing
threats and appeals to her race and interrogations as
to her voting intentions, all of which conduct is attributed
by Lomax to Dorothy Brown and union observer Ruth
Tillman, both members of the Union's inplant organizing
committee. Other statements recited from Lomax's
affidavit relate to remarks made to her in person and
on the telephone by unidentified persons, accusing her
of turning against her race and being promised a bribe
10 Interstate Circuit, Inc , et al v U S., 306 U S 208, 226, Staub
Cleaners, Inc , 148 NLRB 278, 284, enfd 357 F.2d I (C.A. 2), and
Benevanto Sand & Gravel Co , 131 NLRB 358, 364, enfd 316 F 2d
224 (C A 1)
by Respondent. The Regional Director's decision further
recites that Brown and Tillman denied having made
the statements or engaged in the conduct attributed
to them in Lomax's affidavit. However, he concluded
that, assuming that such statements and conduct did
in fact occur, they could not be attributed to the Union
merely because Brown and Tillman were members of
the inplant organizing committee, as there was no show-
ing that the Union had authorized or ratified such state-
ments or conduct.
With respect to the affidavit of Taylor, the Regional
Director's decision recites the statements contained the-
rin to the effect that he was accused by numerous
unidentified employees of having sold out to the Employ-
er, was told by unnamed employees that "they heard"
he would be beaten up for selling out to the Employer,
that about a week before the election he went home
early one day because of fear of violence but returned
to work the next day and that no one at the plant
ever harmed him. The Regional Director concluded that
the foregoing allegations did not constitute evidence
that the Union or any of its agents threatened or intimi-
dated him and that accusations of improper conduct
by rank-and-file employees was not a basis for setting
the election aside. He further concluded that all the
foregoing incidents, even if they occurred, did not create
a general atmosphere of confusion or fear of reprisal
as to make a free election impossible.
I find that at least some of the disputed statements
mentioned in the Regional Director's decision as having
been alleged in Lomax's affidavit to have been made
to her by Brown and Tillman are coercive and objectiona-
ble. Therefore the issues which these objections pose
for my resolution are (1) whether the Union would
be responsible or liable for the alleged disputed state-
ments and conduct of Brown and Tillman, if they had
in fact occurred; (2) if the answer is in the affirmative,
the credibility resolution as to whether Brown and Till-
man did in fact make the alleged disputed statements
attributed to them in Lomax's affidavit; and (3) if the
answer is in the negative, whether the remaining indicents
related in the Regional Director's decision as being
attributed to unidentified persons in the affidavits of
Lomax and Taylor created such an atmosphere of confu-
sion and fear as to prevent the employees from exercising
a free choice in the selection of a bargaining representa-
tive. I now turn to a consideration and disposition of
these issues.
1. As to the Union's liability
At the instant hearing, counsel for the Respondent
called as adverse witnesses Union President Edward
Allen and Union Representative William Hightower and
adduced the following undisputed evidence concerning
the duties and functions of the inplant organizing commit-
tee:
The inplant organizing committee consisted of a volun-
teer group of rank-and-file employees, including Dorothy
Brown and Ruth Tillman, who volunteered to serve
when Allen asked for volunteers at a union meeting.
324 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Their duties were to "try to help" and "organize the
plant." They were to try to get employees to sign
authorization cards. After the petition for an election
had been filed, their function was no longer to get
cards signed, according to Allen, but, according to High-
tower, they continued to get cards signed because of
turnover. Allen admitted that "they assisted me all
the way through." Both agreed that the committee was
used as a conduit for relaying from the Union to the
employees information about union benefits and ques-
tions from the employees to the Union, that they were
to try to make "sure" of and to "encourage," employee
attendance at union meetings, and that they were "to
find out where the interest was there in reference to
whether they wanted to be organized or not." Allen
admitted that the employees "automatically knew who
was on the committee." Allen testified that he said
nothing to the committee "one way or another" about
interrogating employees as to their voting intentions
or about threatening employees with physical reprisals
but "let them use their own common sense" and depend-
ed on their "good judgment" as a guide to their conduct.
Hightower testified that the committee members "were
instructed not to interfere with anyone" and that "they
can't interrogate" employees about their, voting inten-
tions, but admitted that "we didn't tell them yes or
no" with respect to coercing other employees in connec-
tion with the Union because "this thing was not going
to happen."
Upon consideration of all the foregoing, I find that
the Union was liable for any statements and conduct
relating to the Union which Dorothy Brown and Ruth
Tillman did in fact make during the organizing and
preelection campaign, even in the absence of any specific
authorization or ratification by the Union.
2. As to the credibility resolution
Dorothy Brown and Ruth Tillman testified as witnesses
for the General Counsel. In reponse to separate and
detailed questions relating to the specific conduct attrib-
uted to them, each unhesitatingly and vigorously denied
having made each of the statements attributed to them
in Lomax's affidavit, denied making or hearing such
alleged statements directed to Lomax or to any other
employee, denied interrogating, or hearing the interroga-
tion of, Lomax or any employees as to their voting
intentions, denied making any telephone calls or threats
to employees in connection with the election, 'denied
ever asking Lomax why she did not attend union meet-
ings and denied ever asking Lomax about the contents
of any conversation she might have had with Respond-
ent's Vice President Paul.
Despite the foregoing testimony, despite 'my previous
repeated admonitions that I could not make credibility
resolutions on the basis of affidavits, a position in which
Respondent's counsel openly concurred, and despite
Respondent's prior vigorous appeal to the Board in
its request for review for an evidentiary hearing to
"resolve substantial credibility, conflicts" because "only
then would the Board have the benefit of 'demeanor
evidence' in resolving credibility issues" counsel for Res-
pondent did not call Lomax as a witness, made no claim
of her unavailability, and adduced no evidence at all relat-
ing to the alleged improper conduct of Brown and Till-
man. Moreover, counsel for Respondent did not even
cross-examine Brown and Tillman or request the General
Counsel to give him their affidavits, to which, the
General Counsel concedes, he was rightfully entitled
upon request
Thus, the only probative evidence appearing in the
record on this issue are the previously detailed denials
of Brown and Tillman, both of whom impressed me
as candid and forthright witnesses entitled to full cre-
dence. I accordingly credit their denials and find that
Dorothy Brown and Ruth Tillman did not make any
of the statements or engage in any of the conduct
attributed to them in Lomax's affidavit.
3. As to the remaining incidents
The only evidence adduced at the instant hearing
on this aspect of the 'objections is the testimony of
Vice President Paul that one afternoon prior to the
election he received a telephone call from employee
Taylor who stated that he had not reported for work
that day because he had been threatened with physical
violence "by two men" for having "sold out to the
Company. "'Counsel for Respondent stated at the hearing
that this testimony was not being offered for the truth
of the contents of the statement related by Taylor but
only to show Taylor's state of mind. The only other
matter in the record are the previously related statements
appearing in- the Regional Director's decision about
Lomax's affidavit containing remarks made to her in
person and on the telephone by unidentified persons,
accusing her of turning against her race and of having
been promised a bribe, and about Taylor's affidavit
containing bribery accusations made to him by unnamed
persons and hearsay rumors of physical violence by
unnamed persons. The Regional Director's decision fur-
ther recited from Taylor's affidavit his admission that
the day he stayed out of work 'because of fear of
violence was about a week before the election, that
he returned to work the next day and that no one
at the plant ever harmed him.
There is no evidence tending to show that other
employees became aware of the above-mentioned state-
ments and telephone calls made by unnamed persons
or that Lomax or Taylor or any other employee failed
to vote because of them. Under all the circumstances,
the record before me does not warrant a finding or
inference that the statements and telephone calls by
unnamed persons to two employees created, or even
tended to create, a general atmosphere. of fear and
reprisal among Respondent's,employees so as to prevent
them from exercising a free choice in the election."
Thomas Lanier, et al, d/bla Happ Manufacturing Company, 124
NLRB 202, 206, N L.R B v Bill's Institutional Commissary Corpora-
tion , 418 F 2d 405 (C A 5)
GRAPHIC ARTS FINISHING CO. 325
4. Conclusion
I find no merit in Respondent ' s objections 4 and
5 and direct that they be overruled.
Objection 6
In this objection Respondent states that the Union,
"by its agents and adherents , misrepresented to the
employees the alleged accomplishments of Petitioner
(Union) and the benefits to be gained through organiza-
tion by Petitioner ." The undisputed facts adduced at
the instant hearing are as follows:
At a meeting with the inplant organizing committee
about 3 weeks before the election of June 19, 1969,
the Union distributed a six -page leaflet (attached as
Appendix I to the Regional Director ' s decision) which
represented the rates of pay and benefits appearing
in the Union's commercial contract covering the Balti-
more , Maryland, area. The committee members were
instructed to visit employees ' homes with this leaflet
to tell them that "this is what was achieved in collective
bargaining and negotiations and that if the people had
a union , they could take and probably negotiate for
the same benefits ." At the next regular meeting with
all employees near the end of May, the leaflet was
"read out."
At the end of the leaflet on page 6 appears the
statement that "A signed contract guarantees these ben-
efits and wages . What guarantees do you now have?"
The wage rates appearing on page 3 of the leaflet are
for skilled classifications , and the categories of "Loader
on Folding Machine " and "Fork Lift Operator" are
listed on that page among the male, skilled classifications.
However , in the Union ' s commercial contract for the
Baltimore area, the category of "Loader on Folding
Machine " is classified as "Semi - Skilled ," and the catego-
ry of "Fork Lift Operator " is not listed at all. Neverthe-
less the contract did cover a forklift operator at the
plant of Young & Selden and he was paid at "a skilled
worker ' s rate."
On Friday, June 13, 6 calendar days before the elec-
tion , one of Respondent ' s male maintenance employees
gave Vice President Paul a copy of this leaflet and,
in response to Paul's query , stated that a union represent-
ative came to his home and gave it to him together
with an "organizational pitch ." For some time prior
to June 13 , Paul had had in his possession a copy
of the Union ' s commercial contract in the Baltimore
area. He compared the contents of the leaflet with
this contract and at that time became aware of the
discrepancy with respect to the classifications of "Loader
on Folding Machine " and "Fork Lift Operator" but
did nothing about it . On Monday, June 16 , a second
copy of the leaflet was given to Paul by a female
employee. On Tuesday , June 17 , a third copy of the
leaflet was given to him by another female employee.
He admittedly at no time made any effort to point
out to employees the above -described discrepancy.
Counsel for Respondent contends that the leaflet con-
tains two misrepresentations , one relating to the discre-
pancy with respect to the two above -described categor-
ies, and the other with respect to the last sentence
appearing at the end of the leaflet on page 6. With
respect to the latter , counsel contends that the misrepre-
sentation consists of a failure to mention "the necessity
for collective bargaining ." However , it seems to me
that the meaning which this statement reasonably con-
veys, as well as its intended meaning according to Union
President Allen, is that when you have a "signed con-
tract " you have a "guarantee " that the benefits appearing
in the signed contract will continue for the term of
the contract . This was posed in contrast to the then
existing situation where the employees had no guarantee
as to how long Respondent would maintain the benefits
then in effect.
In any event, the Board has held , with court approv-
al,12 that it will set aside an election on the basis of
a misrepresentation only if the misrepresentation
"involves a substantial departure from the truth, at
a time which prevents the other party or parties from
making an effective reply, so that the misrepresentation,
whether deliberate or not, may reasonably by expected
to have a significant impact on the election." Hollywood
Ceramics Company, Inc., 140 NLRB 221, 224. In the
instant case, the admitted facts disclose that Respondent
had ample time , opportunity, and the requisite knowledge
effectively to reply to the contents of this leaflet. As
early as 6 calendar days before the election , Vice Presi-
dent Paul became aware of the asserted misrepresenta-
tions and was put on notice that a union representative
was visiting employees at their homes with this leaflet.
This fact was further made known to him on two subse-
quent occasions by two different employees on the third
and second day before the election , respectively.
Respondent ' s Vice President Paul admitted that no busi-
ness decision and no union representative prevented
him from informing the employees of these asserted
discrepancies . His only admitted reason for not doing
so was "the fact that it seemed to me at the time
it was such 'a limited item " and he was not aware
that the leaflet had been given such wide distribution.
Having elected to take the risk that the leaflet would
not be widely distributed , he may not be heard to
complain when it turned out that he had guessed wrong.
Moreover, from May 28 through June 17, 2 days
before the election , Respondent carried on a vigorous
campaign against the Union through the distribution
to its employees , both in person and through the mail,
of leaflets which contained statements clearly neutraliz-
ing any alleged misrepresentations in the Union ' s leaflet
here in issue . Thus, the leaflet distributed on May 28
states, among other things:
These are the TRUE FACTS. There are no automat-
ic wage increases or improved benefits just because
a union wins an election . All a union gets, when
it wins an election , is the right to come in and
ask the company for things. But, as long as a
company bargains in good faith , the company does
" See, e g , Bill's Institutional Commissary Corporation , supra, and
cases cited therein
326 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
not have to give in to a single union demand or
make a single concession to the union
Another leaflet sets forth a comparison of job rates
under the Union's contract at Moore & Co in Baltimore
with Respondent ' s existing rates This comparison shows
Respondent s job rates to be higher for the classifications
listed, which also include that of "Folding Machine
Loader " The leaflet then states in bold type
DON'T FORGET-IN BARGAINING WITH THE BOOK
BINDERS, THE COMPANY HAS THE RIGHT TO PROPOSE
A REDUCTION IN RATES DOWN TO THE LEVEL AT
MOORES'S
DON'T FORGET-THE UNION CANNOT GUARANTEE
THAT YOU WOULD NOT END UP EARNING LESS
MONEY UNDER A UNION CONTRACT THAN YOU EARN
NOW
Another leaflet, mailed to the employees' homes, warns
the employees that
When you hear the Union's empty promises and
phony claims, remember one important TRUE FACT
Under a union, you get no wage increases, no
improvements in benefits, no changes in working
conditions unless the Company agrees to them
As long as a company bargains in good faith, the
company does not have to give in to a single union
demand or make a single concession to the union
A final booklet was distributed to the employees on
June 17, 2 days before the election It is entitled "Here
Are the Facts" and states that it contains "Questions
and Answers of importance to you " Among the ques-
tions and answers are the following
8
Q If the union wins the election, will we auto-
matically get the things the union has been promising
us')
A There is no way for the union to force this
company to fulfill the promises that the union has
made to you The company does not have to agree
to fulfill any promises made by the union which
it does not believe to be in its best interest The
company is only required to bargain with the union
in good faith
I find that the employees were fully apprised of the
issues in the campaign and could properly evaluate
the respective material of the parties A consideration
of all the foregoing warrants the conclusion, which
I herein make , that there is no merit to Respondent's
objection 6 Accordingly, I hereby direct that said objec-
tion be overruled
D Concluding Findings
Having found no merit in any of Respondent's objec-
tions, which I have directed be overruled, it follows,
as I further find, that the Union was validly certified
by the Acting Regional Director on August 5, 1969,
as the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of
all the employees in the admitted appropriate unit I
therefore find that by refusing on and after September
15, 1969, to supply the Union with the requested data
and information and refusing to recognize and bargain
with the Union as such exclusive representative,
Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices within
the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act
6 IV THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON
COMMERCE
Q Can the union guarantee me a wage increase)
A No Only management can give you a wage
increase It is the company which furnishes your
job and your pay check-not the union The union
will never furnish you a day's work nor a cent
of pay
The acts of the Respondent set forth in section III,
above, occurring in connection with its operations as
described in section I, above, have a close, intimate,
and substantial relation 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
7
Q Will the law compel the company to reach
an agreement with the union9
A Absolutely not' The company does not have
to agree to a single thing the union proposes so
long as we bargain in good faith As we have
advised you, the law itself provides that bargaining
in good faith does not require the company to
agree to any union demands or to make any conces-
sions to the union Thus, we do not have to sign
any contract which we don't believe to be in the
company's best interest There is no law that forces
us to agree with the views and demands of the
union
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1 All production and maintenance employees at
Respondent's plant located at 3801 Southwestern Boule-
vard, Baltimore , Maryland, including shipping and
receiving employees, stockroom employees, leadmen and
leadladies, the work order clerk, setup men and machine
operators, but excluding truckdrivers, office clerical
employees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the
Act, constitute a unit appropriate for the purpose of
collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b)
of the Act
2 At all times since June 19, 1969, the Union has
been, and continues to be, the exclusive bargaining
representative of all the employees in the aforestated
GRAPHIC ARTS FINISHING CO.
unit for the purpose of collective bargaining within the
meaning of Section 9 (a) of the Act.
3. By refusing on and after September 15, 1969, to
supply the Union with the data and information requested
in the Union's letter of September 8, 1969, and to
recognize and bargain with the Union as the exclusive
bargaining representative of all the employees in the
aforestated appropriate unit , Respondent has engaged
in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 8 (a)(5) and ( 1) of the Act.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor
practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Sec-
tion 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent engaged in certain
unfair labor practices , I will recommend that it cease
and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative Iction
designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
I will recommend that , upon request , Respondent
supply the Union with the data and information requested
in the Union's letter of September 8, 1969, as well
as with any like or related requested information and
data, and that it bargain collectively with respect to
wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, and other
conditions of employment, and, if an understanding
is reached, embody such understanding in a signed agree-
ment.
Upon the foregoing findings and conclusions and
the entire record, I hereby issue the following:
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Respondent Graphic Arts Finishing Co., Inc., Balti-
more, Maryland, its officers, agents, successors, and
assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Refusing to supply the Union with its requested
data and information and from refusing to recognize
and bargain with it as the exclusive bargaining representa-
tive of all the employees in the following appropriate
unit:
All production and maintenance employees at
Respondent's plant located at 3801 Southwestern
Boulevard , Baltimore, Maryland , including shipping
and receiving employees, stockroom employees,
leadmen and leadladies , the work order clerk, setup
men and machine operators, but excluding truckdri-
vers, office clerical employees, guards, and supervi-
sors as defined in the Act.
(b) In any like or related manner interfering with,
restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of
their rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which is nec-
essary to effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Upon request, supply the Union with the data
and information requested in the Union ' s letter of Sep-
tember 8, 1969, and with any like or related requested
information and data.
327
(b) Upon request, bargain collectively with the Union
as the exclusive representative of all the employees
in the unit above set forth with respect to wages, rates
of pay, hours of employment, and other conditions
of employment, and, if an understanding is reached,
embody such understanding in a signed agreement.
(c) Post at its place of business in Baltimore, Mary-
land, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix
B."13 Copies of said notice, on forms to be provided
by the Regional Director for Region 5, shall, after being
duly signed by an authorized representative of Respond-
ent, be posted by it immediately upon receipt thereof,
and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days there-
after, in conspicuous places, including all places where
notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable
steps shall be taken by said Respondent to insure that
said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by
any other material.
(d) Notify the Regional Director for Region 5, in
writing, within 20 days from the receipt of this Decision,
what steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith.'"
" In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Section 102 46
of the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board,
the findings , conclusions , recommendations , and Recommended Order
herein shall, as provided in Section 102.48 of the Rules and Regulations,
be adopted by the Board and become its findings , conclusions, and
order, and all objections thereto shall be deemed waived for all purposes
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 "
" In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the
Board, this provision shall be modified to read "Notify said Regional
Director, in writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what
steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith "
APPENDIX B
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL, upon request , supply Bookbinders
& Bindery Women ' s Union Local 44, affiliated with
International Brotherhood of Bookbinders,
AFL-CIO, with the data and information requested
in its letter of September 8, 1969 , and with any
like or related requested data and information.
WE WILL, upon request , bargain collectively with
the above -named Union as the exclusive representa-
tive of all the employees in the following appropriate
unit and , if and understanding is reached , we will
embody such understanding in a signed agreement.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner
interfere with , restrain , or coerce our employees
in the exercise of their rights guaranteed by Section
7 of the Act.
The appropriate bargaining unit is:
328 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
All production and maintenance employees
at our plant located at 3801 Southwestern Bou-
levard , Baltimore , Maryland , including ship
ping and receiving employees , stockroom
employees, leadmen and leadladies, the work
order clerk , setup men and machine operators,
but excluding truckdrivers, office clerical
employees , guards, and supervisors as defined
in the Act
Dated By
(Representative ) (Title)
GRAPHIC ARTS FINISHING
CO , INC
(Employer)
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 Building, Room 1019, Charles Center,
Baltimore , Maryland 21202, Telephone 301-962-2822