Kaiser Engineers

National Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsSep 30, 1974

213 N.L.R.B. 752 (N.L.R.B. 1974)

752 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Kaiser Engineers and David Allen . Case 20-CA-8705 September 30, 1974 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS FANNING AND JENKINS On March 29 , 1974, Administrative Law Judge Stanley Gilbert issued the attached Decision in this proceeding . Thereafter , the 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 Na- tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au- thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. The Board has considered the record and the at- tached 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 Rela- tions Board adopts as its Order the recommended Order of the Administrative Law Judge and hereby orders that the Respondent , Kaiser Engineers, Oak- land, California , its officers , agents , successors, and assigns , shall take the action set forth in the said rec- ommended Order. DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE STANLEY GILBERT , Administrative Law Judge : Based upon a charge filed herein by David Allen , an individual, on November 2, 1973 , the complaint herein was issued January 3, 1974 . Said complaint alleges that Kaiser Engineers , herein referred to as Respondent or the Company , violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act. Respondent , by its answer, denies that it committed the unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint. Pursuant to notice , a hearing was held in San Francisco, California, on February 12, 1974 , before me . Appearances were entered on behalf of General Counsel and Respondent and briefs were received from said parties which have been carefully considered. Upon the entire record I in this proceeding and my obser- 1 It is noted that in the transcript of the proceeding on page 122, lines 13-15, there is a reference to "Mr . David Allen" as being "Manager of Labor Relations and Safety ." It is clear from the record that this is an error and, therefore , there are deleted from lines 14 and 15 the words "Mr. David Allen." vation of the witnesses as they testified , I make the follow- ing: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT Respondent , a California corporation and a division of Kaiser Industries Corporation with offices and place of business in Oakland , California , is engaged in the business of providing engineering and construction services through- out the world . During the 12 months preceding the issuance of the complaint , Respondent , in the course and conduct of its business operations , provided goods , services and sup- plies valued in excess of $50 ,000 directly to customers locat- ed outside the State of California. As is admitted by the Respondent , it is , and at all times material herein has been , an employer engaged in com- merce and in operations affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (2), (6), and (7) of the Act. II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED It is alleged in the complaint that Civil Engineering Soci- ety (KE), is, and at all times material herein has been, a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act. Respondent , by its answer , denied the allegation. For the reasons set forth hereinbelow , it is found that the Society is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES It is alleged that on or about July 6, 1973 , Respondent unlawfully interrogated employees regarding their activities on behalf of the Society and unlawfully threatened to disci- pline them because of their activities on behalf of the Soci- ety. It is also alleged that on or about August 6, 1973, Respondent unlawfully discharged Allen because of his ac- tivities on behalf of the Society and/or because he engaged in other protected activities . Although the Respondent de- nied the above allegations of unfair labor practices, in the course of the hearing it admitted that it forced Allen to resign from its employ and that its action was tantamount to a discharge . However , it takes the position that its said action with respect to the employment of Allen was not violative of the Act . Respondent further contends that Allen was a supervisor and not an employee within the meaning of the Act at the time of his discharge. Allen commenced his employment with Respondent in March 1965 as a senior engineer and at the time of his termination had the title of associate engineer . During the period immediately preceding his forced resignation from the Company he headed a group of 5 to 7 employees (3 or 4 engineers and 2 or 3 draftsmen ). According to Allen's credited testimony he did not exercise , nor was he author- ized to exercise , any supervisory function. Respondent's witness , Donald Mauser , vice president and chief design engineer , testified that Allen had the au- 213 NLRB No. 108 KAISER ENGINEERS 753 thority "to recommend to his supervisor matters affecting the employees under his direction." Mauser was unable to recount any instance when such a recommendation was made, nor was any written evidence introduced indicating that Allen was delegated any supervisory function.2 Allen credibly testified without contradiction that, on the one occasion he did make a recommendation with respect to one of his group, the recommendation was not acted upon. There is no showing, therefore, that Allen had the authority to effectively recommend action with respect to employees in his group. Consequently, it is concluded that Allen was, at the time of his resignation, an employee within the mean- ing of the Act. There is no dispute as to the facts material to the disposi- tion of the remaining issues in this proceeding. The findings of fact set forth hereinbelow are based upon credited and contradicted testimony. It appears that Allen was the principal leader in the for- mation of the Society and its subsequent activities. It further appears that Respondent was aware of the role he played with respect to the Society. In June of 1972 Allen discussed with a number of his fellow employees matters relating to their terms and condi- tions of employment and the possibility of forming the Soci- ety. Allen drafted a notice which was circulated among the employees designed to determine whether there was support for the organization contemplated. When there was a favor- able response, he organized the first meeting which was held in June of 1972 on Respondent's premises after working hours. At the meeting it was decided to form the Society, that an executive committee be elected to preside over the Society and that a constitution be drafted. At the meeting five members were elected to the executive committee among whom was Allen. A committee was appointed to draft the constitution which was circulated among the mem- bers and was approved at the general meeting of the Society in October of 1972. The constitution and by-laws which were adopted provided, inter alia, that the objectives of the Society were to increase the greater professional stature of the employees in the field of engineering, to increase their knowledge of technological developments in the field, to investigate, analyze and disseminate information pertinent to the terms and conditions of their employment, and to work in cooperation with other organizations toward the solution of mutual problems. It further provided: that mem- bership be limited to employees of the Company, that the Society be managed by a five-member executive committee, methods for nominating and electing executive committee members, that there be a minimum of one general meeting per month, the method of voting at the meetings, and that dues be set on a yearly basis. A substantial number of employees became members of the Society. The Society apparently met at least once a month on the Company premises during off duty hours. The Society re- quested permission for such meetings. At times permission was granted and at other times there was no response to the requests. It further appears, however, that at no time was permission denied and at no time did Respondent prevent 2 On the other hand, Respondent maintains a schedule of admitted super- a meeting from being held. It is noted that frequently super- visors attended the meetings and that they generally fea- tured a speech on technical matters of interest to the engineering profession. At first, notices of the meeting were posted on the bulletin boards, but later such notices were removed from the bulle- tin boards by management. No significance is attached to this, since there is credible testimony that the posting of such notices was contrary to the general policy of Respon- dent with respect to the use of its bulletin boards. In August 1972, Allen and another member of the Society drafted a questionnaire to determine from its members what goals they believed the Society should attempt to achieve. This questionnaire was circulated among the members and, based upon the information obtained therefrom, Allen for- mulated a number of questions which he gave to Kirit Shah, assistant to Don Mauser, vice president of Respondent. Allen was informed that Donald Spiker, Respondent's per- sonnel manager, would be available to respond to the ques- tions. Allen telephoned Spiker and arranged a meeting of the Society in August 1972 so that he could answer ques- tions of the members. Among the matters troubling mem- bers of the Society was a formal agreement between Respondent and Bechtel Corporation, a competitor of Re- spondent, which was designed to prevent them from raiding each other's personnel and also called for clearance with each other before hiring engineers. At the August meeting Spiker admitted that there was such an agreement. It ap- pears that the main objection to the agreement was that it limited the opportunity of engineers employed by one of the companies to obtain employment with the other. At said August meeting Spiker also discussed the pension plans available to the employees of Respondent. At the October 1972 meeting of the Society the aforemen- tioned agreement between Bechtel and Respondent was dis- cussed and a resolution was ultimately passed to ask Respondent to rescind said agreement. In February 1973 Allen and another member of the Society met with Mauser and handed him the resolution concerning the Bechtel agreement. The resolution requesting that the agreement with Bechtel be rescinded was set forth in a petition which had been circulated among all the employees and was- signed by a considerable number of members and nonmem- bers of the Society. Shortly thereafter Respondent modified its agreement with Bechtel by rescinding the provision for clearance but retaining the prohibition against raiding. Early in 1973 the Society decided to make a study of pension plans in general and Respondent's plan in particu- lar. Also early in 1973, Allen had several telephone conver- sations with Spiker in which he sought to obtain information about Respondent's pension plans. Spiker had been giving lectures about the pension plans to the Society and to other employees but Spiker was unwilling to obtain for Allen the additional information which he sought. At about this time, according to Shah's credited testimony, he had a conversation with Spiker regarding Allen's questions about the pension plans and during the course of the con- versation, according to Shah's testimony, Spiker jokingly asked him "when are you going to fire Dave Allen." On March 15, 1973, the executive committee of the Soci- visors with delegations of authority set forth in considerable detail ety sent a letter to Spiker raising a number of questions with 754 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD respect to the pension plans. On May 2, 1973, Mauser sent a memorandum to the executive committee in reply thereto, answering one of the questions, deferring an answer to other questions and explaining why the other questions were not answered. Also, he stated that the personnel department was developing a further study of various plans and that it was expected that the results of the study would be commu- nicated to the employees at the end of July. On June 18, 1973, the executive committee sent a letter to Respondent setting forth a resolution of the Society urging certain revi- sions in the pension plans. The record fails to reveal what action, if any, was taken by Respondent subsequent thereto with respect to the pension plans. In the June 1973 meeting of the Society Allen informed the members that it had been learned that Bechtel was applying to the Department of Labor to ease restrictions on the importation of foreign engineers. The matter was dis- cussed at the meeting and a conclusion was reached that such action was contrary to the interest of the engineering profession. Allen made a formal proposal to send a letter to United States legislators stating the Society's position and his proposal was approved by the Society. Allen then draft- ed a letter which was signed by the executive committee and which he mailed to three United States senators and two congressmen. The letter, in its entirety, was as follows: Civil Engineering Society (KE), Kaiser Engineers, 300, Lakeside Drive Oakland, Ca 94604. 2 Jul 73 Dear Sir, We write on behalf of a group of about 70 civil engineers at Kaiser Engineers. It has come to our attention that Bechtel Corp. is seeking authorisation [sic] from the Dept of Labor to obtain resident visas for any engineers they may recruit outside the country. We realise [sic] that at the minute engineers are in demand. However, to import engineers at this time of boom will be extremely shortsighted for as the market is bound to ease, engineers will be made redundant, and we could have conditions that existed immediately after the big cut-back in the aerospace industry recently. Engineers as a profession are not well organised [sic] at present and so cannot influence such matters as, say, the unions of the AMA can. So it is to our legislators that we must look for some protection from the indis- criminate importation of engineers by large companies. We hope that you can exert some influence on our behalf. On July 3, C. R. Fitzgerald, manager of industrial rela- tions for Respondent saw a copy of the above-mentioned letter to the legislators and met with Jack Hughes, executive vice president of the Respondent, concerning the letter. They decided to investigate the matter. On July 6, Mauser, Hughes, and Fitzgerald interviewed each of the above-men- tioned signatories to the aforesaid letter individually. It ap- pears that the interviews follow virtually the same pattern. Allen credibly testified that he was asked for a list of all the employees who may have read the letter and people to whom it was sent. It was made clear to Allen that the Re- spondent considered the letter embarrassing and a very seri- ous matter because it might be construed as indicating that Respondent advocated discrimination against foreign engi- neers and that the letter was considered grounds for termi- nation . Allen was asked on whose authority the letter was written and Allen told him that it was authorized by the Society. He was told not to discuss his interrogation with any member of the executive committee and that he would be called back later in the day. Allen apologized for any embarrassment that the letter may have caused the Respon- dent and offered to write to the legislators to "clarify Kaiser Engineers' position with respect to the Society." His offer was rejected and he was told that the Respondent would send a letter itself to the legislators? After the four had been interviewed, Hughes, Mauser, and Fitzgerald discussed what was to be done. They decided that Allen was the principal party in the action of sending the letter and the four were then called back later in the day. Allen was told that he was considered "more to blame than the other people who had signed the letter" and that no decision would be made about the matter until Allen re- turned from his vacation of approximately a month. Fre- theim was told that personnel action would be taken against him by sending a letter of censure to him with a copy to be put in his personnel file. On August 6, Fretheim was called into Mauser's office and was told that the Respondent had decided not to issue the letter of censure, that the matter was closed as far as he was concerned. Apparently the same decision was made with respect to two of the other signato- ries. Allen was called in to Mauser's office and was told that he would have the opportunity to resign or be fired, and that he was required to make this choice because of his principal responsibility for the aforesaid letter to the legislators. Allen decided to accept the alternative of resigning. Fitzgerald testified that Allen's principal role in drafting and sending the letter to the legislators was the sole motivation for forc- ing Allen's resignation. Concluding Findings General Counsel points out in his brief that the Society held only one more meeting after the resignation of Allen. No significance is attached to this fact since the issue of why the Society ceased to hold meetings was not fully litigated Yours truly, /s/D. Allen /s/ I. Fretheim; /s/ Willard Tissue /s/ A. Zainuddin Executive Committee i Respondent sent such a letter to Senator Tunney and received a letter from the Department of Labor that there was no record of an application by Bechtel for alien engineers That the Society was mistaken in the belief that Bechtel was taking such action is of no moment in the disposition of the issues herein KAISER ENGINEERS 755 before me. In any event the resolution of said issue would not affect the resolution of the issues raised herein. While it appears from its constitution and by-laws that the objective of the Society with respect to matters concern- ing the terms and conditions of employment is to dissemi- nate information with regard thereto, the Society did not confine itself to that limited objective. Prior to the letter of July 2, 1973, the Society by vote of its members took posi- tions with regard to Respondent's agreement with Bechtel and with regard to pension plans and urged Respondent to take action in accordance with said positions. While it can- not be said that the Society represented employees as a "bargaining agent" in the full sense of the phrase, it is found that it did attempt to cause Respondent to modify its poli- cies with respect to terms and conditions of employment respecting matters which were apparently of considerable concern not only to the Society and its members but also to other employees who were nonmembers of the Society." The Supreme Court, in N.L.R.B. v. Cabot Carbon Co., 360 U.S. 203 (1959), stated on page 210-211: Section 2(5) includes in its definition of "labor orga- nization" any "employee representation committee or plan . .. which exists for the purpose, in whole or in part, of dealing with employers concerning grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employ- ment, or conditions of work." [footnote deleted] (Em- phasis added) certainly nothing in that section indicates that the broad term "dealing with" is to be read as synonymous with the more limited term "bar- gaining with." It appears that the above-mentioned activities of the Society fall within the ambit of the phrase "dealing with," and it is, therefore, concluded that the Society is a labor organization within the meaning of the Act. The General Counsel contends that Allen's forced resig- nation was motivated not only by his activities with respect to the letter to the legislators but also by his other activities on behalf of the Society, particularly with respect to the matter of the pension plans. While it appears that Spiker indicated annoyance with Allen over his efforts concerning the pension plans by his query of Shah as to when Allen was going to be fired, there is no other evidence of any animosity toward Allen prior to the aforesaid letter. The aforesaid inquiry of Shah by Spiker is considered too remote in time (some 6 months or more previous to Allen's resignation) to be considered of much significance. Furthermore, Respondent's concern with respect to the letter does not appear to have been so ill-founded as to warrant an infer- ence that it was used as a pretext for forcing Allen's resigna- tion. While it is clear from the letter that is was not a communication from the Company itself, it was not unrea- sonable for Respondent to fear that it might be construed as having been instigated or encouraged by Respondent, particularly in view of the fact that its major competitor, Bechtel, was accused of making the effort to relax immigra- tion restrictions. Also, Respondent must have been dis- turbed by the letter because it set forth a position regarding importation of engineers contrary to that which Respondent As above stated, it did succeed in persuading Respondent to modify its agreement with Bechtel on employment procedures. supported. Thus, it is concluded that there is insufficient evidence upon which to predicate a finding that his activity prior to the sending of the letter to the legislators constituted a factor in Respondent's determination to terminate Allen's employment. It is found that it was the letter which was the motivating factor (as admitted by Respondent). The principal issue in this case upon which the disposition of all the allegations of unfair labor practices in the com- plaint is predicated is whether or not the sending of the letter to the legislators constituted protected activity within the meaning of Section 7 of the Act. (There can be no dispute that the action constituted concerted activity.) It appears that the reason for the letter was a fear on the part of the Society and its members that relaxing immigra- tion laws to permit increased importation of alien engineers might affect the job security of the members of the Society and their fellow engineers. It is concluded that the action to persuade legislators to prevent the increased influx of alien engineers was for the mutual aid or protection of the mem- bers of the Society as well as their fellow engineers in the profession. In G & W Electric Specialty Company, 154 NLRB 1136, 1137 (1965),5 the Board stated: Additionally, although the mandatory subjects of col- lective bargaining designated in Sections 8(d) and 9(a) relate only to working conditions and the employment relationship, Section 7 provides that employees shall have the right, inter alia, to engage in "concerted activi- ties for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection." [Emphasis supplied.] To con- strue this provision as protecting only activities directly and immediately involving the employment relation- ship would therefore be to read the phrase "or other mutual aid or protection" out of the Act. In Bethlehem Shipbuilding Corporation, Ltd., et al. v. N.L.R.B., 114 F.2d 930, 937 C.A. 1, 1940) 6 the court stated as follows: But the right of employees to self-organization, and to engage in concerted activities, now guaranteed by Sec- tion 7 of the National Labor Relations Act, is not limit- ed to direct collective bargaining with the employer, but extends to other activities for "mutual aid or pro- tection", including appearance of employee representa- tives before legislative committees. [Emphasis supplied.] Certainly writing to legislators can be equated with testify- ing before a legislative committee. Consequently, it is con- cluded that the action of sending the letter to the legislators to protect the job security of Society members and their fellow engineers constituted protected concerted activity within the meaning of Section 7 of the Act. It follows, there- fore, that Respondent's action in forcing Allen's resignation because he was the one chiefly responsible for the drafting and sending of the letter to the legislators on behalf of the Society, a labor organization, constituted a discriminatory discharge in violation of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act.7 The record discloses that the Respondent extensively in- s Although this case was reversed by the Seventh Circuit in its decision repsorted in 360 F.2d 873 (1966), 1 am bound by the Board Decision. Enforcing 11 NLRB 105, cert. denied 312 U.S. 710. 7 Even if the Society had not been found to be a labor organization, the forced resignation would be violative of Section 8(a)(l) of the Act and the Continued 756 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD terrogated the four signatories to the letter of July 2 particu- larly Allen and Fretheim. The interrogation clearly was aimed at establishing the extent of their responsibility and affixing blame for the drafting and sending of the aforesaid letter and was accompanied by threats of disciplinary action for their involvement in said activity. Since such activity constituted protected concerted activity, the Respondent interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by unlawful interroga- tion and by unlawful threats in reprisal for having engaged in such activity. IV THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The unfair labor practices of the Respondent set forth in section III, above, occurring in connection with its opera- tions set forth 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 burden- ing and obstructing commerce and the free flow thereof. V THE REMEDY It will be recommended that the Respondent be ordered to cease and desist from engaging in the unfair labor prac- tices found herein and take certain affirmative action, as provided in the recommended Order below, designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. It having been found that David Allen was unlawfully forced to resign from his employment, it will be recom- mended that Respondent be ordered to offer him immediate and full reinstatement to his former job, or, if his job no longer exists, to a substantially equivalent position without prejudice to his seniority or other rights and privileges. It will be further recommended that Respondent be ordered to reimburse him for any loss he suffered in the manner set forth in F W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289, 291-293 (1950), together with 6 percent interest thereon in accor- dance with Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716 (1962). Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record in this proceeding, I make the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 2. The Society is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3. Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by un- lawfully interrogating employees with respect to their pro- tected concerted activity and by threats of economic reprisals against employees for engaging in such activity. 4. Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act remedy for the unlawful conduct would be the same as that recommended herein by forcing the resignation of David Allen on August 6, 1973. Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law and upon the entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, I hereby issue the following recommended: ORDERS Respondent, Kaiser Engineers, its officers, agents, suc- cessors, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Unlawfully interrogating employees with respect to their protected concerted activities. (b) Threatening employees with economic reprisals for engaging in protected concerted activities. (c) Discouraging membership in Civil Engineering Soci- ety (KE) or protected activities on its behalf by discriminat- ing against its employees in regard to hire or tenure of employment or any other term or condition of employment. (d) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of rights under Section 7 of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action which is deemed necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Offer to David Allen immediate and full reinstate- ment to his former job, or, if his job no longer exists, to a substantially equivalent position without prejudice to his seniority or other rights and privileges. (b) Make him whole foi any loss of pay suffered by him by reason of the discriminatory action taken against him in the manner set forth in the section hereinabove entitled "The Remedy." (c) Upon request, make available to the Board or its agents for examination and copying all payroll and other records containing information concerning its backpay obligation under this recommended Order. (d) Post at its place of business in Oakland, California, copies of the notice attached hereto and marked "Appen- dix." 9 Copies of said notice on forms to be furnished by the Regional Director for Region 20, shall, after being duly signed by an authorized representative of Respondent, be posted by Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof and maintained by it for a period of at least 60 consecutive days thereafter in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reason- able steps shall be taken by Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (e) Notify the Regional Director for Region 20, in writ- ing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith. 8In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec 10246 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 9 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 " KAISER ENGINEERS APPENDIX NOTICE To EMPLOYEES POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government WE WILL NOT unlawfully interrogate employees with respect to their protected concerted activities. WE WILL NOT threaten employees with economic re- prisals for engaging in protected concerted activities. WE WILL NOT discourage membership in the Civil En- gineering Society (KE) or protected activities on behalf of said Society by discriminating against employees in regard to their hire or tenure of employment or any other term or condition of employment. WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, re- strain or coerce employees in the exercise of rights under Section 7 of the Act. WE WILL offer to David Allen immediate and full reinstatement to his former job , or, if his job no longer 757 exists , to a substantially equivalent position without prejudice to his seniority or other rights and privileges. WE WILL make David Allen whole for any loss of pay suffered by him by reason of our discriminatory action against him. Dated By KAISER ENGINEERS (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 material . Any questions concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions may be direc- tion to the Board's Office , 13018 Federal Building, 450 Golden Gate Avenue , Box 36047 , San Francisco , California 94102 , Telephone 415-556-0335.