J. C. Penney Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 12, 1973

202 N.L.R.B. 1108 (N.L.R.B. 1973)

1108 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
J. C. Penney Company , Inc. and Walter Gray Ho-
cutt . Case 11-CA-5055
April 12, 1973
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS JENKINS, KENNEDY, AND
PENELLO
On January 18, 1973, Administrative Law Judge
Joseph I. Nachman issued the attached Decision in
this proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent filed excep-
tions and a supporting brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the record and the
attached Decision in light of the exceptions and brief
and has decided to affirm the, rulings, findings,' and
conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge and to
adopt his recommended Order.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National . Labor
Relations Board adopts as its Order the recommend-
ed Order of the Administrative Law Judge and
hereby orders that Respondent, J. C. Penney Compa-
ny, Inc., Wilson, N.C., its officers, agents, successors,
and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the said
recommended Order.
1 The Administrative Law Judge credited employee Walter Hocutt's
testimony that Service Manager Joyner told him that he had not received a
wage increase because he had been "trying to get the union in " In making
this finding, the Judge relied on Joyner's alleged failure to deny making the
statement and a similar statement made to employee Page We find the
record shows that Joyner did in fact deny the statement attributed to him by
Hocutt However, we believe that Page's credited testimony is sufficient to
support the Judge's crediting of Hocutt
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
JOSEPH I. NACHMAN, Administrative Law Judge: This
case, tried before me at Wilson, North Carolina, on
November 9,1 with all parties present and duly represented,
involves a complaint z pursuant to Section 10(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, which alleges
that J.C. Penney Company, Inc., (herein Respondent or
Penney), interfered with, restrained, and coerced its
I This and all dates herein are 1972, unless otherwise stated
2 Issued September 29 on a charge filed August 14
3 No issue of commerce or labor organization is presented The
complaint alleges and the answer admits facts which establish these
jurisdictional elements I find those facts to be as pleaded The Board has
since its early days exercised j unsdiction over the operations of Respondent
See J C Penney Company, 31 NLRB 877, where the nature of the
Company's business is set forth in detail
employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed by Section 7
of the Act, and denied employee Walter Gray Hocutt a
wage increase because of his assistance to or support of
Retail Clerks International Association (herein Union or
Retail Clerks), and thereby violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3)
of the Act. By answer, Respondent admitted certain
allegations of the complaint, but denied the commission of
any unfair labor practice. For reasons hereafter detailed, I
find the allegations of the complaint sustained by the
evidence, and recommend an appropriate remedial order.
At the trial, full opportunity was afforded all parties to
introduce relevant evidence, to examine and cross-examine
witnesses, to argue orally on the record, and to submit
briefs. Oral argument was waived. Briefs submitted by the
General Counsel and Respondent, respectively, have been
fully considered. Upon the pleadings, stipulations of
counsel, the evidence, including my observation of the
demeanor of the witnesses while testifying, and the entire
record in the case, I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACTS
A. Background
Respondent's store at Wilson, North Carolina, is the
only one involved in this proceeding. In connection with
and as a part of said store, Respondent operates a service
center for the repair of automobiles and the sale of
automobile parts and accessories. Ross C. Jenkins is
manager of the entire Wilson operation, and Robert Joyner
manages the service center, and is responsible only to
Jenkins. The Charging Party, Walter Hocutt, was hired- in
August 1969 as a "service man," or "associate," at the
center at a starting rate of $2 an hour.
To guide store managers in granting or withholding wage
increases for employees under their supervision, the
Company provides them with a personnel manual which
states the criteria for action in that regard. In substance,
the manual provides that an increase in pay may be
granted only for one of two reasons, namely, promotion to
a higher paying job, or meritorious performance of present
duties. With respect to merit increases, the manual
provides that an employee's performance will be reviewed
6 to 12 months after hire, and each 12 months thereafter,
with consideration given to various specified criteria; and,
if an increase is indicated, such will be granted in an
amount of 4 to 8 percent of the employee's then current
rate. In preparing the rating sheet, the rating supervisor
uses a numerical rating for each category.4 In addition to
the rating for the specific criteria, the form calls for a "total
performance summary" rating that is arrived at subjective-
ly.5
Sometime in April 1970, Hocutt spoke to Joyner about
increased pay. Joyner on April 15, 1970, prepared a
performance rating sheet on Hocutt, evaluating the latter's
4 Category I indicates that the employee' s performance far exceeds job
requirements, category 2 that he exceeds requirements ; 3 that he meets
requirements, 4 that he meets minimum requirements only, and 5 that, he
fails to meet minimum requirements
5 Store Manager Jenkins testified that the total performance rating is
entirely subjective, there being no formula for translating the ratings for
individual categories to a total performance rating
202 NLRB No. 167
J. C. PENNEY COMPANY 1109
performance in 23 categories. As to 18 of these he gave
Hocutt a 3 rating, and on the remaining 5, a 4 rating; with
a rating of 3-minus for a total performance summary.
Under comments Joyner wrote that Hocutt had improved
in his performance, could perform additional tasks, and
"suggest[ed] a $10 a week [25-cent-an-hour] increase in
salary beginning immediately." Joyner's rating of Hocutt
was reviewed and approved by Store Manager Jenkins,
and the wage increase was made effective as indicated .6
On January 15, 1971, Hocutt's performance was rated
again.? Of the 25 categories for which Hocutt was rated on
this occasion, he was rated 3 on 22 categories, and 4 on the
remaining 2, with a total performance summary rating of
3-minus.8 In connection with this rating, Joyner recom-
mended that Hocutt be sent to the next wheel-alignment
school and that, upon return from that school, he be given
a pay increase of $10 a week. Joyner's recommendation in
this regard never became effective. Jenkins testified that he
withheld approval thereof because he could not justify
spending the Company's money on an employee who
demonstrated so little promise of improvement. The basis
for this conclusion Jenkins did not explain.
On June 23, 1971, the Board conducted an election
among Respondent's employees in a unit which included
the employees of the service center, on a petition filed by
the Union. Hocutt was very active in the Union's
campaign. He signed a union card, urged other employees
to do so, and acted as an observer for the Union at the
election. The Union lost the election. Respondent concedes
that it was aware of Hocutt's activities on behalf of the
Union. Both Jenkins and Joyner testified that they were
unaware of any union activity subsequent to the election.
On some undisclosed date in July 1971, Hocutt was rated
again. On this occasion, he was rated in 26 categories, on
15 of which he was rated 3, and on the remaining 9 he was
rated 4. The total performance summary rating was 4. It
may be noted that in six categories in which Hocutt was
rated 3 on January 15, 1971, he received a rating of 4 in
July 1971.9
In December 1971, Hocutt approached Service Manager
Joyner and asked the latter why he had not received a
6 Respondent 's action in that regard is not entirely in accord with
Jenkins' testimony as to the manner in which the rating system worked He
testified that under the personnel manual a merit increase is not permissible
if the Total performance summary rating is 3-minus, because that does not
indicate meritorious performance, and that if an increase is granted the
maximum allowable is 8 percent Under that formula , of course, the
maximum increase permissible at Hocutt's then $2 rate of pay was 16 cents
an hour, or $6 40 for a 40-hour week, instead of the $10 weekly raise granted
him
r Why this rating was made at the end of 9 months, instead of the 12
months required by the manual, the record does not indicate
8 The categories in which he received a rating of 4, were "neatness and
care of tools and shop area ," and "recommends improvements in procedure
or products." Why the total performance rating was 3-minus, the record
does not explain
9 The six categories referred to were attendance, punctuality , performs
work satisfactorily, work meets service productivity, utilization of time,
deals effectively with associates , and solicits add-on sales As will hereafter
be noted, certain work deficiencies exhibited by Hocutt just prior to this
rating, played a part in the less favorable rating
10 Although Joyner denied making a similar statement to employee Page,
as hereafter detailed , and testified that he could not remember making such
statement to any other employee, he did not specifically deny the statement
attributed to him by Hocutt Because of such lack of denial and the fact that
raise . Joyner replied that the reason was that Hocutt had
been "trying to get the Union in." 10 Dissatisfied with
Joyner's response, Hocutt requested and received permis-
sion to see Store Manager Jenkins, which meeting, the
parties stipulated, occurred on December 17, 1971. Hocutt
asked Jenkins why he (Hocutt) had not received a raise.
Jenkins told Hocutt that what is past is past, and that he
preferred to talk about conditions at the time. Jenkins then
referred to an incident when Hocutt was reprimanded for
taking considerably more time than necessary to install a
set of shock absorbers; to another incident when Hocutt in
tuning an engine installed new points and left them closed,
and that two other men had to work several hours to locate
and correct the trouble.ii After explaining the Company's
policy of granting a pay increase only by reason of a
promotion or for merit, Jenkins told Hocutt to return to
work and, if his performance demonstrated merit, in about
6 months he might be considered for a raise.12
B. The Unfair Labor Practice Alleged
On June 13, Service Manager Joyner prepared another
performance rating on Hocutt. Although he claimed to be
unaware of any union activity in progress at the time, or
for that matter since the election in June 1971, Joyner
admitted that he discussed Hocutt's union activity with
Store Manager Jenkins "pretty often," and did so before he
prepared the rating form on June 13.13 Joyner also
admitted that in a conversation with employee Page in
about March or April, he told the latter that Hocutt would
probably solicit him to sign a union card, and that he
hoped Page would listen to both sides before he made up
his mind whether or not to sign a card.14 On the June 13
rating, Joyner rated Hocutt in 26 categories, fixing a
numerical rating of 3 in 20 of those categories, and a
numerical rating of 4 on the remaining 6, with a total
performance rating of 3-minus. Although Joyner testified
that the normal procedure was for him to make a
recommendation on the rating form that the rated
employee be given or not given a wage increase , he made
no recommendation in that regard at the time. He did
make the following notation on the rating form, "There has
I find Joyner made a similar statement to Page , as hereafter related, I credit
Hocutt in this regard
11 The record shows that the incident about the points occurred on July
30, 1971, the exact date of the shock absorber incident is not shown in the
record, but appears to have occurred about the same time To this point the
testimony of Hocutt and Jenkins is not in dispute . In addition , Jenkins
testified that he also referred at this time to the incident when Hocutt
allegedly in putting on a set of seat covers installed the front seat backwards
putting the Company to the expense of having another man spend the time
necessary to correct the error, and an incident when Hocutt allegedly failed
to report for work because of intoxication The first of these incidents
allegedly occurred on July 28, and the second on April 13, both in 1971
Hocutt denied that Jenkins mentioned either of these two incidents to him
However, he did not deny that they occurred. I do not consider it necessary
to resolve this credibility issue.
12 The General Counsel does not contend that anything said in the
meeting of December 17, 1971, constituted a violation of the Act
13 Why he considered it necessary to discuss this with Jenkins when there
had been no union activity for about a year, Joyner did not explain
14 Joyner gave no testimony as to the time of this conversation Page
testified that it occurred in March or April 1972, and I so find With respect
to this incident also Joyner gave no explanation as to why he deemed it
necessary to initiate such a conversation with Page
1110 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
been a noticeable improvement in Mr. Hocutt's work in
the past few months." Additionally, Joyner admitted that
on the basis of the June 13 rating, he regarded Hocutt as a
satisfactory employee, but that this did not necessarily
mean that a pay increase should be granted, and that the
final decision on this would have to be made by Jenkins.
The testimony also shows that on June 5, Joyner called
to his office part-time employee, Page, and told the latter
that he was receiving a 10-cent-an-hour wage increase
effective the following week, and that, if he continued to
do as well as he had, he would probably get a full-time job
when he finished school. After thanking Joyner, Page
remarked that Hocutt had worked for Respondent some 3
years and had never gotten a raise, and asked Joyner why
this was so. Joyner replied that the chief reason Hocutt had
not received a raise was because of his pushing the Union.
There was no further conversation on the subject.15
Learning from Joyner on June 13 that the latter was not
going to ,recommend him for a raise, Hocutt sought and
obtained an audience with Jenkins, seeing the latter that
day. Hocutt reminded Jenkins that the 6 months since their
last conversation had passed, and he was again asking
about the raise.16
Contrary to Joyner, Jenkins testified that on the basis of
the June 13 rating, Hocutt was not a satisfactory employee
because of the six criteria on which he was rated 4, and the
overall performance rating of 3-minus. He also admitted
that had Hocutt's performance been satisfactory he would
have granted the latter an increase of 4 to 8 percent.
C. Contentions and Conclusions
Having found upon the credited testimony of Page that
the latter was told by Joyner that Hocutt was denied a
wage increase because he had been pushing the Union, it is
clear that said statement violated Section 8(a)(1) of the
Act. It plainly was a threat that Respondent would
retaliate against an employee who engaged in union
activity by withholding wage increases, and constituted the
interference, restraint, and coercion proscribed by Section
8(a)(1) of the Act. I so find and conclude.
On the second aspect of the General Counsel's case,
namely, the failure to grant Hocutt a wage increase, the
critical issue is, of course, Respondent's motive in denying
Hocutt a wage increase. If, as Respondent contends, its
action in that regard was nothing more than an exercise of
its business judgment uninfluenced by Hocutt's union
activity, plainly no violation of the Act occurred. On the
other hand if, as the General Counsel contends, Respon-
dent denied Hocutt a wage increase in June 1972, because
of his activity on behalf of the Union, then a violation of
15 Based on the credited testimony of Page Joyner admits that Page
asked the question above-indicated , but claims that his only reply was that
Hocutt knew why he had not received a raise This presents the one
credibility issue of any consequence requiring resolution I have credited
Page for several reasons In the first place , Page impressed me as an honest,
straightforward witness, while Joyner gave me the impression that he was
holding back Secondly, Page no longer works for Respondent, having been
inducted into the Army in October There is nothing in the evidence to
indicate whether under the facts Page will have reemployment rights
following his discharge from the service If he does, then he is in the position
of having testified against his employer , if he does not have such rights, then
he has no self-interest There is no showing that Page has any animus
against Respondent, or that he and Hocutt are particularly friendly, and
Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act is clear because it was
discrimination which had the effect of discouraging
membership in the Union. Upon consideration of the
entire record, I find and conclude that in June 1972,
Respondent denied a wage increase to Hocutt because of
his activity on behalf of the Union. I do so for the
following reasons:
1. Joyner's statement to Page, that Hocutt was denied a
wage increase because of his pushing the Union, being an
admission, is sufficient standing alone to establish that
Respondent's action in that regard was motivated by
Hocutt's assistance and support of the Union. But my
decision need not, and does not, rest solely on that narrow
ground, because there is additional evidence which leads to
the same conclusion.
2. I do not credit Jenkins' testimony that the total
performance rating of 3-minus given Hocutt on June 13
precluded granting him a wage increase because a rating of
less than 3 meant that Hocutt did not meet the require-
ments of the job, a condition precedent to granting an
increase . I do so because the record evidence shows that in
April 1970, Jenkins himself approved Joyner's recommen-
dation that Hocutt be granted an increase of $10 a week
(25 cents an hour on a 40-hour week), when the rating
sheet showed a rating of 4 in 5 of the rated categories, and
a total performance rating of 3-minus. Jenkins gave no
explanation of this. And it may be noted that the increase
granted at that time was 4 1/2 percent greater than what
Jenkins claimed was the maximum permissible under the
manual.
3. Having rejected Jenkins' reason for withholding of a
wage increase from Hocutt in June 1972, it is reasonable to
infer, as I do, that he was motivated by, some other
consideration which he has purposely failed to reveal, and
the only motive apparent from this record is antipathy for
Hocutt's union activity. This is made abundantly clear, I
find, by Joyner's admission that he discussed Hocutt's
union activity with Jenkins just prior to preparing the June
13 rating. At that time, the election had been over for
about a year, and both Jenkins and Joyner admit that no
union activity was in progress. As the Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit stated the principle in Shattuck Denn
Mining Corporation v. N.L.R.B., 362 F.2d 466, 470:
If he [the trier of fact] finds that the stated motive for a
discharge is false, he certainly can infer that there is
another motive. More than that, he can infer that the
motive is one that the employer desires to conceal-an
unlawful motive-at least where, as in the instant case,
the surrounding facts tend to reinforce that inference.17
Accordingly, for the reasons stated, I find and conclude
that he did what he did as part of some plan or scheme to hurt Respondent
or to assist Hocutt
16 Here again a credibility issue is presented , but one I do not consider
necessary to resolve According to Hocutt, the question he put got
sidetracked, he became angry and walked out, but he did not get the raise.
According to Jenkins, he explained to Hocutt that while his job
performance had improved in the past 2 or 3 months, and if it continued he
would certainly be considered for a wage increase, his performance at the
time did not warrant an increase
17 Although Shattuck Denn, supra, involved a discriminatory discharge, I
regard the principles there stated equally applicable to any other form of
discrimination where motive is the determinative factor.
J.C. PENNEY COMPANY
that Jenkins withheld a wage increase from Hocutt in June
1972 to retaliate against the latter for his support of and
assistance to the Union, and that by such conduct
Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact and the entire record
in the case, I state the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Respondent is an employer within the meaning of
Section 2(2) of the Act, and is engaged in commerce within
the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. The Union is a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. By Joyner's statement to Page that Hocutt had been
denied a raise because of his pushing the Union, Respon-
dent interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees
in the exercise of rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act,
and thereby engaged in, and is engaging in, unfair labor
practices proscribed by Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
4. By denying Hocutt a wage increase because of his
concerted and union activities, Respondent discriminated
against Hocutt in regard to his hire and tenure of
employment, discouraging membership in a labor organi-
zation, and interfered with, restrained, and coerced
employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed by Section 7
of the Act, and thereby engaged in, and is engaging in,
unfair labor practices proscribed by Section 8(a)(3) and (1)
of the Act.
5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor
practices affecting commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent interfered with, re-
strained , and coerced its employees in the exercise of their
Section 7 rights, I shall recommend that it be required to
cease and desist from such conduct and take certain
affirmative action designed and found necessary to
effectuate the policies of the Act . The unfair labor
practices found being of a character which goes to the very
heart of the Act, an order requiring Respondent to cease
and desist from in any manner infringing upon employee
rights is warranted , and I shall so recommend . N.L.R B. v.
Entwistle Mfg. Co., 120 F.2d 532 (C.A. 4); California
Lingerie, Inc, 120 NLRB 912, 915.
Having also found that Respondent discriminatorily
denied Hocutt a wage increase , and as Hocutt is no longer
employed by Respondent for reasons not related to this
case , it will be recommended that Respondent be required
to make him whole for any wages he lost by the reason of
18 The record before me is inadequate to make a determination as to the
amount of increase Hocutt would have received had Respondent acted
nondiscriminatonly Would it have been 25 cents an hour as was the case in
1970 or would it have been the minimum of 4 percent, or the maximum of 8
percent provided in the manual, or perhaps some figure in between With all
applicable records of Respondent before him, the compliance officer should
have little problem in determining the amount of the increase Hocutt would
have received had Respondent acted nondiscriminatorily, and then
compute the amount due In making such determination, compliance must,
of course, give due consideration to the limitations imposed by law under
the program for stabilization of wages in effect on June 13, because
Respondent cannot be required to pay any amount in violation of law
the discrimination against him, in the period between June
13, 1972, and the date his employment terminated, with
interest at the rate of 6 percent per annum as provided in
Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716.18 The
computations necessary in this regard can best be made at
the compliance stage of this proceeding. To facilitate such
computations, it will be recommended that Respondent be
required to preserve and, upon request, make available to
authorized agents of the Board, all records necessary or
useful in determining compliance with the Board's Order,
or in computing the amount of backpay due.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law,
and the entire record in the case, and pursuant to Section
10(c) of the Act, I hereby issue the following recommend-
ed:
ORDER 19
Respondent, J.C. Penney Company, Inc., Wilson, North
Carolina, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Telling employees that it withholds wage increases
from employees because they assist or support a labor
organization.
(b) Withholding wage increases from employees because
they have assisted or supported a labor organization.
(c) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or
coercing employees in the exercise of their 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 or
protection, or to refrain from any, and all such activities.
2. Take the following affirmative action found neces-
sary and designed to effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Make whole Walter Gray Hocutt for the wages he
lost by reason of its failure to grant Hocutt a wage increase
on June 13, 1972, to be computed in accordance with the
section hereof entitled "The Remedy."
(b) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the
Board and its authorized agents for examination and
copying, all records necessary or useful in determining
compliance with the provisions of this Order, including,
but not limited to, social security payment records,
timecards, personnel records, and reports.
(c) Post at its retail store operation at Wilson, North
Carolina, copies of the attached notice marked "Appen-
dix."20 Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the
Board's Regional Director for Region 11 (Winston-Salem
North Carolina), shall, after being signed by an authorized
representative be posted as herein provided immediately
is In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102 46 of the
Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the findings,
conclusions, and recommended Order herein shall, as provided in Sec
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
20 In the event 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 read "Posted Pursuant to a
Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the
National Labor Relations Board "
1112 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
upon receipt thereof , and be so maintained for a period of
60 consecutive days thereafter , in conspicuous places,
including all places where notices to employees are
customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken to
insure that said notices are not altered , defaced , or covered
by any other matenal.
(d) Notify the Regional Director for Region 11, in
writing, within 20 days from the date of receipt of this
Decision , what steps it has taken to comply herewith.
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
After a full trial in which both sides had the opportunity to
present their evidence , the National Labor Relations Board
has found that we, J.C. Penney Company, Inc., Wilson,
North Carolina, violated the National Labor Relations
Act, and ordered us to post this notice. We will carry out
the Order of the Board, the Judgment of any court based
thereon , and comply with the following:
The Act gives all employees these rights:
To organize themselves
To form, join, or help unions
To act together for collective bargaining or
other mutual aid or protection
To refuse to do any or all these things.
WE WILL NOT do anything to interfere with you in
the exercise of said rights , and all our employees are
free to become or remain a member of any union, or
not to become or remain a member of any union.
WE WILL NOT tell employees that we denied a wage--
increase to another employee because the latter assisted
or supported a union.
WE WILL NOT refuse to grant an employee a wage
increase because he assisted or supported a union.
As it has been found that we violated the law when
we refused to grant Walter Gray Hocutt a wage
increase because he assisted or supported a union, WE
WILL make up to him the pay he lost with interest at the
rate of 6 percent per annum.
Dated By
J. C. PENNEY COMPANY,
INC.
(Employer)
(Representative) (Title)
This is an official notice and must not be defaced by
anyone.
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days
from the date of posting and must not be altered , defaced,
or covered by any other matenal. Any questions concern-
ing this notice or compliance with its provisions may be
directed to the Board's Office , 1624 Wachovia Building,
301 North Main Street , Winston-Salem, North Carolina,
27101, Telephone 723-9211.