Healthcare Workers Local 250 (Trinity House)

National Labor Relations Board - Administrative Judge Opinions

Nov 13, 2003

32-CB-005562 (N.L.R.B. Nov. 13, 2003)

JD(SF)–83–03
Sacramento, CA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
SAN FRANCISCO BRANCH OFFICE
DIVISION OF JUDGES

HEALTH CARE WORKERS UNION,
LOCAL 250, SERVICE EMPLOYEES
INTERNATIONAL UNION, AFL-CIO

and Case 32-CB-5562

CATHEDRAL PIONEER CHURCH
d/b/a TRINITY HOUSE

On Behalf of the General Counsel
Gary M. Connaughton, Esq.
Oakland, California.

On Behalf of the Charging Party
Treavor K. Hodson, Esq.
Palmer, Kazanjian & Holden
Sacramento, California.

On Behalf of Respondent
Shirley Lee, Esq.
Weinberg, Roger & Rosenfeld
Oakland, California.

DECISION

Statement of the Case

John J. McCarrick, Administrative Law Judge. This case was tried in Sacramento,
California on August 19 and 20, 2003, upon General Counsel’s complaint1 that alleged Health
Care Workers Union, Local 250, Service Employees International Union, AFL-CIO
(Respondent) violated Section 8(b)(3) of the Act by refusing to sign an agreed upon collective-
bargaining agreement with Cathedral Pioneer Church d/b/a Trinity House (Employer).
Respondent timely denied any wrongdoing.2 On the entire record, including my observation of
the demeanor of the witnesses, and after considering the briefs filed by the parties, I make the
following:

1 At the hearing Counsel for the General Counsel moved to amend the Complaint at
paragraph 8b to allege June 20, 2002 and paragraph 9 to allege August 5, 2002. The
amendments were granted.
2 At the hearing Respondent admitted paragraphs 2(b) and (c), 3, and 5 of the complaint.

JD(SF)–83–03

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Findings of Fact

I. Jurisdiction

The Employer, a California corporation with an office and place of business in
Sacramento, California, has been engaged in the business of operating a skilled nursing facility.
During the past twelve months, the Employer in conducting its business operations derived
gross revenues in excess of $100,000 and purchased and received goods or services valued in
excess of $5,000 which originated from points outside the State of California. Respondent
admits and I find the Employer is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act. Respondent further admits and I find that it is a labor
organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.

II. The Alleged Unfair Labor Practices

A. The Facts

1. Introduction

Since 1998, Respondent has been certified as the exclusive collective bargaining
representative of the Employer’s employees located at its Sacramento, California facility
including:

Certified nursing assistants, assisted living aides, dietary, maintenance,
housekeeping, and laundry department employees and the assistant activity
director, excluding all registered nurses, licensed vocational nurses,
receptionists, medical records directors, confidential and administrative
personnel, guards and supervisors as defined in the Act.

Respondent and the Employer were parties to a collective-bargaining agreement
(Agreement) effective November 1, 2000 through October 31, 2001.3 On October 25, 2001, the
parties entered into a Contract Extension4 extending the Agreement to November 30, 2001.

The parties entered into negotiations for a successor contract on September 18, 2001.
There were a total of 12 bargaining sessions between September 18, 2001 and June 20, 2002.5
From September 18, 2001 until January 17, 2002, the Employer’s chief negotiator was attorney
Floyd Palmer (Palmer). After Palmer’s death in January 2002, his partner Larry Kazanjian
(Kazanjian) became the Employer’s chief negotiator on April 3, 2002. Respondent’s chief
negotiator was Respondent’s Assistant Director, Convalescent Division, Arnold Sails (Sails).
Carol Black (Black), Respondent’s Field Representative assisted Sails. The sole issue for
resolution is whether Respondent unlawfully refused to execute an agreed upon collective-
argaining agreement.

3 General Counsel’s Exhibit 2.
4 General Counsel’s Exhibit 3.
5 The parties stipulated the dates of the bargaining sessions were September 18, October 8,
October 17, October 23, October 31, November 9, December 10, 2001 and January 11,
January 17, April 3, May 3 and June 20, 2002.
2

JD(SF)–83–03

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

2. The Bargaining Sessions

a. The Initial Bargaining

At the parties’ first bargaining meeting on September 18, 2001, both parties submitted
their proposals.6 From the outset the Employer sought numerous changes in the Agreement,
including elimination of the union security clause and preamble. At the October 8, 2001 meeting
the Employer submitted a proposed collective-bargaining agreement7 and the Respondent
offered its counter-proposals.8 There were two tentative agreements on jury duty and leave of
absence. There was a Federal Mediator at the October 17, 2001 bargaining session. From the
Respondent’s bargaining notes of October 17,9 it is clear that all proposals were still on the
table. The October 23, 2001 bargaining session resulted in the one-month contract extension
mentioned above. The October 31, 2001 bargaining meeting resulted in no agreements. At the
November 9, 2001 session, the Employer presented its last, best and final offer (LBFO).10
Respondent told the Employer it would take the LBFO to the membership but would recommend
its rejection. The Employer said that if the LBFO was not ratified by December 1, 2001, it would
be implemented. The Employer indicated that it was not willing to bargain further if Respondent
did not change its position. On November 19, 2001 the membership rejected the Employer’s
LBFO.

b. The January 2002 Bargaining

At the January 11, 2002 bargaining session, Respondent presented a proposal11 that
the parties deal with only four issues: wages, term of agreement, health and welfare and
pension. After Palmer rejected Respondent’s proposal, Respondent made a counter-proposal
to the Employer’s LBFO of November 9, 2001.12 However, there were no new agreements
reached at the January 11, 2002 session.

The January 17, 2002 bargaining session is critical since the Respondent contends that
the Employer agreed to drop all outstanding proposals if Respondent would bargain over
wages, health and welfare, pension, grievance, access and term of agreement. Sails stated
that during the January 17 meeting, the mediator brought Respondent a proposal from the
Employer that if the Union agreed that only health and welfare, wages, grievance procedure,
term of agreement, access and pension remained on the table for negotiation all other issues
would remain as in the expired contract.13 However, contrary to Respondent’s contention in its
brief, Black testified that the proposal the mediator brought from the Employer to Respondent
was that the Employer would drop all their outstanding proposals if the Union agreed to the
Employer’s proposed wages, health and welfare, pension and term of agreement.14 Black’s
testimony is corroborated by her contemporaneous handwritten notes of the January 17
bargaining session. The pertinent portion of Black’s notes for the January 17 bargaining
session provide:
6 Respondent’s Exhibits 4 and 6.
7 Respondent’s Exhibit 9.
8 Respondent’s Exhibit 8.
9 Respondent’s Exhibit 10
10 General Counsel’s Exhibit 4.
11 Respondent’s Exhibit 14.
12 Respondent’s Exhibit 16.
13 Transcript at 274.
14 Transcript at 186-187 and 256-259.
3

JD(SF)–83–03

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Mediator w/ ER position:

Willing to drop all if -wages as ER proposes

-disc. griev/access

-ER prop on H & W

-Pension no money toward pension

-term 2 run from date of ratification not Oct. 31, 2001

-HW remain as is for ER

only item w/ discuss per Union proposal is the term w/ their date of ratification15

Contrary to Respondent’s position stated in its brief, a further notation in Black’s January 17
bargaining notes reflects Respondent’s position that it would only consider the issues the
Employer demanded the Union to concede as proposals:

Union-No problem w/ dealing w/ these as proposals negotiated by the parties and all
other items off the table.16

I do not credit Sails version of the Employer’s January 17, 2002 proposal. Sails was not
credible. He had no independent recollection of the facts and had to have his memory
refreshed repeatedly by Respondent’s counsel. Moreover, his testimony is contradicted by both
Black’s testimony and her contemporaneous bargaining notes. Further, the Employer had
already rejected a similar proposal from Respondent on January 11, 2002. I find that the
Employer proposed that it would drop all their outstanding proposals if the Union agreed to the
Employer’s proposed wages, health and welfare, pension and term of agreement.

It is clear from both the Respondent’s bargaining notes and from the testimony of Carol
Black that the Respondent rejected the Employer’s proposal by submitting its own counter
proposals17 on the subjects of wages, health and welfare, term of agreement and pension.

c. The April, May and June 2002 Bargaining

Due to the death of the Employer’s chief negotiator, Floyd Palmer, there was a hiatus in
bargaining until April 2002. The parties again met on April 3, 2002 with Kazanjian as the
Employer’s chief negotiator. Kazanjian reviewed where the parties stood on April 3 and upon
which items they had tentative agreements. Kazanjian stated that the November LBFO, as
modified by subsequent tentative agreements, was the Employer’s bargaining position. While
Black stated that Kazanjian said the Employer was still in agreement to bargain only on wages,
health and welfare, pension, grievance, access and term of agreement, there is nothing in her
bargaining notes of April 3, 200218 that corroborates her testimony. In fact the Respondent’s
15 Respondent’s Exhibit 17 at page 1.
16 Ibid at page 2.
17 Respondent’s Exhibit 18 and General Counsel’s Exhibit 5.
18 Respondent’s Exhibit 19.
4

JD(SF)–83–03

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

April 3, 2002 bargaining notes reflect that the Employer consistently stated that their proposals
were based on the November 9, 2001 last best and final offer.19 I do not credit Black’s
testimony.

The next meeting took place on May 3, 2002. The Respondent provided its counter
proposals20 and the Employer presented its handwritten last, best and final offer.21 This was
not a complete document and referred only to Respondent’s last counter offer. However, the
handwritten document indicated that all previous tentative agreements were to be integrated
into a final contract to be provided to the Respondent. A list of tentative agreements was
prepared.22

When Respondent had not received the Employer’s May 3, 2002 offer by the morning of
May 7, 2002, Black called Kazanjian’s office between 9 and 10 o’clock and left a message that
Respondent needed the Employer’s last, best and final offer to present to its members for a
ratification vote that day. In response, the Employer had the last, best and final offer hand
delivered to Respondent at about 11:23 that morning.23 The May 7 last best and final offer
(LBFO) was a combination of the November 9 LBFO, the counterproposals in the Employer’s
May 3, 2002 handwritten offer, together with the additional tentative agreements the parties had
reached in the interim as reflected in General Counsel’s Exhibit 11.

By letter dated May 9, 2002, Respondent advised the Employer that the membership
had rejected the Employer’s May 7, 2002 LBFO. On May 13, 2002, the Employer advised
Respondent that they were at impasse and stated that it would implement the May 7, 2002
LBFO.

Notwithstanding the Employer’s position, the parties met again on June 20, 2002, and
engaged in bargaining. Respondent presented additional proposals24 and the parties reached
tentative agreement on two additional issues. The Employer indicated it would implement its
May 7, 2002 LBFO together with the two new tentative agreements on June 27, 2002. The
Respondent agreed to present the May 7 LBFO with the two additional tentative agreements to
its membership. At no time during this meeting did either Sails or Black raise any issue about
the terms of the Employer’s May 7 2002 LBFO.

On June 26 Respondent presented its members with a summary of what it thought was
the agreed upon terms of the collective-bargaining agreement.25 However, the terms of
agreement presented to the members were markedly different from that which Respondent had
agreed upon in bargaining. On July 1, 2002, Respondent advised the Employer that the
membership had ratified the Employer’s offer. On August 5, 2002, the Employer forwarded to
Respondent the proposed collective-bargaining agreement consisting of The Employer’s May 7
LBFO together with the two tentative agreements reached on June 20.26

19 Ibid.
20 General Counsel’s Exhibit 6.
21 General Counsel’s Exhibit 9.
22 General Counsel’s Exhibit 10.
23 General Counsel’s Exhibit 11 and 12.
24 Respondent’s Exhibits 15 and 16.
25 Respondent’s Exhibit 22.
26 General Counsel’s Exhibit 18.
5

JD(SF)–83–03

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50
Having received no signed agreement from Respondent, on October 2, 2002, the
Employer sent Respondent another copy of the August 5, 2002 proposed agreement. However,
Respondent failed to execute the agreement.

There was no contact from Respondent until December 6, 2002, when Respondent sent
its version of the collective-bargaining agreement to the Employer, which included inter alia a
union security clause.27 By letter dated December 18, 2002, the Employer advised Respondent
that its version of the collective-bargaining agreement was unacceptable and did not represent
the agreement the parties had reached and which was ratified by Respondent’s members.

The parties met on January 30, 2003 to discuss differences between the two draft
agreements. Sails said he was there to negotiate a contract. Kazanjian said that there had been
a last, best and final offer agreed to by the parties and there were no further negotiations to be
had. He left the meeting. There have been no further negotiations and Respondent has not
executed the August 5, 2002 draft agreement.

B. The Analysis

General Counsel and the Charging Party contend that Respondent refused to execute
the August 5, 2002 draft agreement after reaching a clear and unambiguous assent to the
Employer’s last offer. Respondent contends that there is no contract because there was no
“meeting of the minds” by the parties concerning the terms of the August 5, 2002 agreement.

1. The Law

Section 8(d) of the Act requires parties to bargain in good faith, which includes “the
execution of a written contract incorporating any agreement reached if requested by either
party.” Either an employer or a labor organization violates the Act if it refuses to sign a
collective-bargaining agreement incorporating terms agreed to by the parties during
negotiations. H.J. Heinz Company v. NLRB, 311 U.S. 514 (1941); Hospital Employees Local
1199 (Lenox Hill Hospital), 296 NLRB 322 (1989).

The question of whether the parties had reached agreement on June 20, 2002, as
embodied in the August 5, 2002 draft agreement depends on whether they reached a “meeting
of the minds” on the terms of the August 5 draft document. Diplomat Envelope Corp., 263
NLRB 525, 535-536 (1982) and Ebon Services, Inc., 298 NLRB 219, 223 (1990). Subjective
misunderstandings or misunderstandings as to the meaning of terms which have been agreed
to are irrelevant, provided that the terms themselves are unambiguous judged by a reasonable
standard. Ebon Services, supra. The Board is not strictly bound by the technical rules of
contact law in deciding whether, in light of all the circumstances, the employer and the union
have arrived at an agreement, which must be reduced to writing and executed by the parties.
Kelly’s Private Car Service, 289 NLRB 908 (1981).

It is well established that the formation of a binding contract may be affected by a
mistake. Thus, a contract may be avoided on the ground of mutual mistake of fact where the
mistake is common to both parties and by reason of it each has done what neither intended.
17 Am Jur 2d, section 146 at 490. If the situation herein is viewed as one of unilateral mistake,
then there is considerable authority to the effect that if in the expression of the intention of one
of the parties to an alleged contract, there is error, and that error is unknown to, and
27 General Counsel’s Exhibit 19.
6

JD(SF)–83–03

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50
unsuspected by, the other party, that which was so expressed by the one party and agreed to
by the other is a valid and binding contract, which the party not in error may enforce. In other
words, a party to a contract cannot avoid it on the ground that he made a mistake where there
has been no misrepresentation, there is no ambiguity in the terms of the contract, and the other
contractor has no notice of such mistake and acts in perfect good faith. 17 Am Jur 2d, section
146 at 492-493.

The Board has held that rescission for unilateral mistake is, for obvious reasons, a
carefully guarded remedy reserved for those instances where the mistake is so obvious as to
put the other party on notice of an error. Apache Powder Company, 223 NLRB 191 (1976).

2. The Discussion

I am persuaded, after reviewing the law applicable to the facts of this case that the
General Counsel has established that the parties had a “meeting of the minds” and reached
agreement on the terms and conditions of a collective-bargaining agreement on June 20, 2002.
In reaching my conclusion I note that both parties were represented by skilled negotiators, that
the parties had the assistance of a mediator at many sessions and that the parties exchanged
written proposals and counter-proposals. It is clear that at all times from November 9, 2001 on,
the Employer negotiated from its LBFO as modified by subsequent tentative agreements,
including the May 7, 2002 LBFO. The June 20, 2002 agreement, as embodied in the
August 5, 2002 draft document, represented the parties’ final agreement, which Respondent’s
membership ratified.

The January 17, 2002 bargaining session is the lynchpin of Respondent’s defense that
there was no agreement reached. Respondent argues that there was no “meeting of the minds”
concerning a collective-bargaining agreement since the Union agreed at the January 17 session
that only specific topics would be “on the table” for negotiations and that all other issues would
remain as they were in the previous Agreement. Hence, Respondent argues it believed that the
Employer’s May 7 LBFO, other than the items dealing with wages, health and welfare, pension,
and term of agreement, included all other terms as provided in the previous Agreement.
However, this position is not supported by the evidence.

Respondent’s bargaining notes reflect that the Employer’s January 17 proposal made
the Union’s acceptance of the Employer’s terms for wages, health and welfare, pension, and
term of agreement the quid pro quo for the Employer dropping all of its other proposals. It is not
credible to argue that the Employer acquiesced to all of Respondent’s other proposals in
exchange for Respondent’s mere promise to bargain regarding wages, health and welfare,
pension, grievance, access and term of agreement. The Employer would have gained nothing
from this position. On January 12, 2002, the Employer’s had just rejected Respondent’s
proposal to bargain only the issues of wages, term of agreement, health and welfare and
pension. It was Respondent who rejected the Employer’s offer to limit bargaining by refusing to
accept the Employer’s terms regarding wages, health and welfare, pension, and term of
agreement. There was no confusion or misunderstanding on the part of Respondent regarding
the issues that were on the table. Moreover, the Employer has consistently taken the position
that it was bargaining from the terms of the November 9 LBFO, a comprehensive set of
proposals that changed many of the provisions of the previous Agreement. The Employer
reiterated at the April 3, 2002 bargaining session that its position on the issues was the
November 9 LBFO. Again Respondent can have no reasonable doubt that the Employer’s
position on May 3, 2002, as embodied in its May 7 LBFO, included numerous changes to the
previous Agreement. Since May 7, 2002, Respondent had in its possession a comprehensive
draft document that represented the Employer’s last, best and final offer, which modified
7

JD(SF)–83–03

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50
substantial portions of the previous Agreement. The agreement reached on June 20, 2002 and
ratified by Respondent’s members, represented the May 7 LBFO together with two additional
tentative agreements. At no time from May 7, 2002 until December 6, 2002, did Respondent
dispute the terms of the draft agreements the Employer provided. I find that the terms of the
Employer’s final offer of June 20 are clear and unambiguous.

Moreover, there is no evidence that there was either a mutual or unilateral mistake as to
the terms of the June 20 agreement. The evidence establishes that the Employer’s final offer to
Respondent on June 20 was clear and unambiguous. There was no basis for a mutual
misunderstanding as to the Employer’s final offer. There was no fact or issue upon which both
Respondent and the Employer were in error nor did both do what neither intended. The
Employer made no mistake concerning the terms of its final offer. Assuming arguendo there
was a misunderstanding, it was unilateral on the part of Respondent. However, Respondent
has no basis to argue its mistake voided the contract since there was no misrepresentation by
the Employer, no ambiguity in the terms or the Employer’s final offer, no notice to the Employer
of Respondent’s misunderstanding until months after the membership ratified the agreement
and no evidence that the Employer acted in bad faith. Respondent’s misunderstanding was
based on its subjective misunderstanding of the contents of the Employer’s offer unknown to the
Employer and not on its face so palpable as to put a person of reasonable intelligence on their
guard. Apache Powder Company, 223 NLRB 191,195 (1976).

On the basis of the foregoing, I conclude that Respondent has violated Section 8(b)(3) of
the Act by refusing to execute the August 5, 2002 agreement.

Conclusions of Law

1. Cathedral Pioneer Church d/b/a Trinity House is an employer engaged in commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6) and (7) of the Act.

2. Health Care Workers Union, Local 250, Service Employees International Union, AFL-
CIO is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.

3. The following employees of the Employer constitute a unit appropriate for the purpose of
collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act:

All full time and regular part-time certified nursing assistants, assisted living aides,
dietary, maintenance, housekeeping, and laundry employees, and assistant activity
directors employed by the Employer at its 2701 Capital Avenue, Sacramento,
California facility; excluding all other employees, registered nurses, licensed
vocational nurses, receptionists, medical records directors, guards and supervisors as
defined in the Act.

4. At all times material herein, Respondent has been the exclusive representative of all the
employees in the above described unit for the purpose of collective bargaining within the
meaning of Section 9(a) of the Act.

5. By refusing since on or about August 5, 2002, to execute the agreed upon collective-
bargaining agreement embodied in the August 5, 2002 draft document, Respondent has
been, and is engaging in, unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(b)(3) of
the Act.

8

JD(SF)–83–03

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

6. The unfair labor practices affect commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of
the Act.

The Remedy

Having found that Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning
of Section 8(b)(3) of the Act, I shall recommend it cease and desist therefrom and take certain
affirmative action designated to effectuate the policies of the Act. Respondent shall be ordered
to execute the August 5, 2002 draft agreement.

On these findings of fact and conclusions of law, I issue the following recommended28:

ORDER

Health Care Workers Union, Local 250, Service Employees International Union, AFL-
CIO, its officers, agents, successors and assigns shall:

1. Cease and desist from:

a. Refusing to execute the August 5, 2002 draft collective-bargaining agreement.

b. In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining or coercing employees in
the exercise of the rights guaranteed them in Section 7 of the Act.

2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act:

a. Execute the August 5, 2002 draft collective-bargaining agreement.

b. Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at its union office in Sacramento,
California copies of the attached notice marked ”Appendix.”29 Copies of the notice,
on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 32, after being signed by the
Respondent’s authorized representative, shall be posted by the Respondent and
maintained for 60 consecutive days in conspicuous places including all places where
notices to members are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the
Respondent 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,
Respondent has gone out of business or closed its offices, Respondent shall
duplicate and mail, at its own expense, a copy of the notice to all current and former
employees employed by the Employer at any time since February 3, 2003.

28 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.
29 If this Order is enforced by a Judgment of the United States Court of Apeals, 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.”
9

JD(SF)–83–03

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50
c. Sign and return to the Regional Director sufficient copies of the notice for posting
by the Employer, if willing, at all places where notices to employees are customarily
posted.

d. 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 Respondent has taken to comply.

Dated, November 13, 2003, San Francisco, California.

______________________________
John J. McCarrick
Administrative Law Judge
10
JD(SF)–83–03
Sacramento, CA

APPENDIX

NOTICE TO MEMBERS

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.

WE WILL NOT refuse to execute the terms of the collective-bargaining agreement embodied in
the August 5, 2002 draft prepared by Cathedral Pioneer Church d/b/a Trinity House.

WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner restrain or coerce you in the exercise of the rights
guaranteed you by Section 7 of the Act.

WE WILL execute the terms of the collective-bargaining agreement embodied in the
August 5, 2002 draft prepared by Cathedral Pioneer Church d/b/a Trinity House.

HEALTH CARE WORKERS UNION, LOCAL 250,
SERVICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNION,
AFL-CIO
(Labor Organization)

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.

1301 Clay Street, Suite 300N, Oakland, California 94612-5211
(510) 637-3300, Hours: 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

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,
(510) 637-3270