Loggins Meat Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 26, 1972

199 N.L.R.B. 291 (N.L.R.B. 1972)

LOGGINS MEAT CO. 291
Robert D . Loggins, Ronny M. Loggias and Randy Par-
ker d/b/a Loggins Meat Co . and Meatcutters Local
No. 540. Case 16-CA-6423
September 26, 1972
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS JENKINS, KENNEDY, AND PENELLO
On June 20, 1972, Administrative Law Judge I
Harry H. Kuskin issued the attached Decision in this
proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent filed exceptions
and a supporting brief, and the General Counsel filed
an answering 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
attached Decision in light of the exceptions and briefs
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 Respondent , Robert D. Loggins, Ronny
M. Loggins and Randy Parker d/b/a Loggins Meat
Co., Tyler, Texas, its officers , agents , successors, and
assigns , shall take the action set forth in the said rec-
ommended Order.
t The title of "Taal Examiner" was changed to "Administrative Law
Judge" effective August 19, 1972
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
HARRY H. KuSKIN, Trial Examiner: This case was heard
at Tyler, Texas, on April 11 and 12, 1972. A complaint
issued herein on February 29, 1972, based on a charge filed
on January 24, 1972, by Amalgamated Meat Cutters &
Butcher Workmen of North America, AFL-CIO, Local
Union 540, herein called the Union. It alleges that Robert
D. Loggins, Ronny M. Loggins, and Randy Parker d/b/a
Loggins Meat Co., herein called Respondent, violated Sec-
tion 8(a)(1) of the Act by interrogating its employees con-
cerning their union membership, activities, and desires, and
those of their fellow employees; and by threatening its em-
ployees with discharge, loss of employment, or other repris-
als for engaging in union activity or other concerted
activities; and also violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the
Act by discharging, and failing and refusing to reinstate,
employee Bennie K. McKeever because of his union con-
nected activities or because of his concerted activities for
purposes of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or
protection. In its answer and amended answer, Respondent
denies that it has violated the Act in any respect alleged
herein.
Upon the entire record, including my observation of
the witnesses and their demeanor while on the witness
stand, and after due consideration of the briefs of the
General Counsel and of Respondent, I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
The complaint alleges, and Respondent admits, that
Respondent consists of three partners, namely, Robert D.
Loggins, Ronny M. Loggins, and Randy Parker, doing busi-
ness under the trade :ame and style of Loggins Meat Co.;
that it engaged in the processing of meats at its facility in
Tyler, Texas; that, during the preceding year, which is rep-
resentative of all times material herein, it received goods
and material valued in excess of $50,000 directly from out-
side Texas; and that, during the same period, it sold and
distributed from this facility directly to customers outside
Texas meats processed by it valued in excess of $50,000. I
find upon the foregoing, as Respondent also admits, that
Respondent is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act.
11 THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Respondent further admits , and I find , that Amalga-
mated Meat Cutters & Butcher Workmen of North America,
AFL-CIO, Local Union 540, is a labor organization within
the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Some Background Facts
1. The plant setup
Respondent's meat processing operations at its Tyler,
Texas, facility consist of the following five production de-
partments: steak,' boning, cutlets, ground beef, and frozen
foods .2 At all times material herein, there were 8 to 10
employees in the steak department, 3 in the cutlets depart-
ment, 4 to 5 in the ground beef department, and 4 in the
frozen foods department. Of these five departments, only
the boning department had an employee denominated a
supervisor by Respondent; each of the others had a lead-
man. Shine Vega, also referred to in the record as Angel
Vega and Joe Vega, was that supervisor;3 and two of the
leadmen, the others not being named in the record, were
John Thompson in the ground beef department and Bennie
I Fresh cut steaks are prepared in this department
2 Frozen cut steaks are prepared in this department
3Randy Parker, one of the partners of Respondent, referred to herinaf-
ter also as Parker, testified that "Shine Vega is the foreman or supervisor,
whichever you prefer to call him in the boning room
199 NLRB No. 38
292 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
K. McKeever, the alleged discrimmatee herein, in the steak
department. Above the foreman and leadmen were Bob
Mitchum, the production foreman, and Charlie Clarkston,
the plant superintendent.4 In addition, Parker, whom I have
just mentioned, took an active role in the production phase of
the enterprise during such times as he was in the plant .5
Respondent admits in its answer that Mitchum is a super-
visor within the meaning of Section 2(11) of the Act. It
would appear, and I find, that Clarkston, his superior, is
likewise a supervisor within the Act's meaning. It is
Respondent's position that McKeever was at all times mate-
rial herein a statutory supervisor, and it was therefore privi-
leged to discharge him, as it did, because of his union
activity.
Production at the plant proceeds along the following
lines : Mitchum comes to work at 6 a.m., opens the plant,
and takes care of the presamtation inspection to see that
everything is sanitary and ready for work. He then puts out
the towels and aprons for the employees. The employees in
the ground beef department are the first to arrive, since their
department begins work at 6:30 a.m. By that time, Mitchum
has gotten hold of the meat to be processed as hamburgers
and placed it in a ready position for them. He also does the
same thereafter for the steak department. The employees in
the latter department report to work at 7 a.m. Those in the
boning department report at 7:30 a.m. Other employees
arrive as late as 8 a.m. under this staggered schedule. After
Mitchum has attended to the above, he repairs to the pro-
duction office, which is partly glassed in so that he can see
into the plant when he stands up. There, he makes out the
production schedules , based on orders which came in from
customers the day before, but arrived too late for processing
that day. On Tuesdays and Fridays, Mitchum also includes
in the group of orders to be filled those sent in by
Respondent's salesmen by bus, and picked up by him at the
bus station. By 7:30 or 7:45 a.m., Mitchum usually has the
orders made up and brings them to the appropriate depart-
ment for processing. In the interim, those employees who
reported for work at 7 a.m. spend their time either finishing
up what they were working on the day before, or filling
some advance orders, or "making a little stock." Mitchum
repeats the practice of making out production orders and
bringing them to the appropriate department at least once
an hour. In this way, he takes care of orders which come into
the plant in time to be processed and delivered the following
day. Thus, orders are taken up to 3 p.m. for delivery in
It appears that Clarkston has had some experience cutting steaks while
in Respondent's employ, but Mitchum has not.
5 Parker testified that he did "quite a bit" of traveling for Respondent, that
some of his trips took an entire day, and that when he was at the facility, he
spent about an hour a day in the plant proper. This latter testimony would
seem to imply that Parker spent considerably less than an hour a day in the
steak department. However , I find more credible the testimony of Aaron
Dalton , a butcher in the steak department who took McKeever 's job after
McKeever was discharged He testified that Parker would come in the de-
partment "many number" of times a day and that the longest of such visits
lasted 10 to 15 minutes. Parker testified further that ( 1) Robert D . Loggms,
one of the other partners , did not supervise production, and did not spend
any time "to speak of"in the plant, i.e., he might walk through the plant twice
one week, three times another week, and not at all for 2 weeks at a time; and
(2) Ronny M. Loggins, the remaining partner, spent about 95 percent of his
working time "on the road."
Houston, Texas, the following morning, with delivery start-
ing at 7 a.m. Respondent also takes orders and delivers in
Dallas, Freeport, and Texarkana, making deliveries 4 days
a week to the latter two cities. According to Mitchum, he
spends about 4 hours a day making up the orders described
above, delivering them, and talking to the various people,
who are the heads of the respective operations, about the
production lists; he also spends about 30 to 40 minutes
talking to the leadman in the frozen cut steak room, and
about 1 to 1- 1/2 hours consulting with Randy Parker in the
main office of the facility, and in going to pick up orders.
In contrast to Mitchum's hours which are from 6 a.m. to
4 p.m., Clarkston's hours are from 8 or 9 o'clock in the
morning to about 6 or 7 o'clock in the evening. He takes
care of any problems that Respondent may have with the
Federal inspector; keeps abreast of changes in regulations
on packaging and labeling, and makes adjustments as re-
quired; checks to see whether equipment needs changing or
modifying; keeps Randy Parker posted as to the need for
the "raw product," and when it should arrive;6 and sees to
it that the shipping department functions smoothly and ef-
fectively. According to Parker,7 except for the fact that the
employees in the ground beef department are usually super-
vised by Mitchum, with Clarkston also doing so at times,
and the further fact that the employees in the frozen cut
steak room are supervised by Mitchum , no time is spent by
either Mitchum or Clarkston in personally supervising pro-
duction employees. Thus, as will appear hereinafter, Re-
spondent contends that in the steak department this
supervisory function was performed by McKeever at all
times material herein, whereas the General Counsel con-
tends that he was no more than a leadman and did not meet
the statutory test of a supervisor.
It would appear that Respondent regards the boning and
steak departments as the crucial areas of its operation. As
already found, each of these departments has about the
same number of employees and their complements are
larger than those in the other departments. With respect to
the boning department, Parker testified that the boners sep-
arate the "sub-primal cuts" from the bone, that the work is
very exacting in that the boner has to be careful not to score
the meat too deeply, and has to make sure that he cuts the
meat in the proper place;8 and that this calls for a lot of
supervision. And as to the steak department, he testified
that 30 percent of the gross sales comes from this depart-
ment; that the butchers therein portion the steaks into fil-
lets; that when the order calls for a 5-ounce fillet it is
important that the steakcutter "hit those portions" within a
quarter of an ounce, because if a 5-ounce fillet sells at 60
cents, each ounce overweight represents a loss of 12 cents
and each half ounce a loss of 6 cents to Respondent; that,
if the order calls for steak by weight and it is cut by the
butcher so as to weigh too much, Respondent makes the
customer unhappy because his unit cost is too high; and
6 Parker deals with Respondent 's suppliers of the "raw product."
7 Clarkston did not testify in this proceeding
8 Parker pointed out how important moneywise it was that the cut be a
correct one, as follows- "But if they cut that hind quarter , we'll say, if they
don't put the right break on it ... we leave meat on a bottom butt which sells
for 55 cents, versus a round , which sells for 80 cents."
LOGGINS MEAT CO. 293
that, for these reasons, this department also needs "real
close supervision."9
Respondent takes the position that Vega, denominated
by it as a foreman of the boning department, had superviso-
ry status under the Act. However, his claimed supervisory
status was not litigated in this proceeding, and I therefore
find it unnecessary to, and do not, make any finding as to
Vega in this regard. The supervisory issue with respect to
McKeever, who was, in effect, denominated by Respondent
as a leadman of the steak department until 2 days before his
discharge, when he was told that he was a supervisor, will
turn upon his own duties and functions in the steak depart-
ment and his authority and role vis-a-vis the other employees
therein, notwithstanding Respondent's efforts, during the
hearing to cast Vega and McKeever into the same supervi-
sory mold.
2. The organizational activity
Organizational activity at the plant was initiated by Ben-
nie McKeever, the discriminatee herein, about the first week
in January 1972.10 At that time, he and his brother, Joe, an
employee of Respondent, attended a meeting of the Amal-
gamated Meat Cutters & Butcher Workmen of North
America, AFL-CIO, being held in connection with an or-
ganizing effort among the employees at the K Mart store
and the Allied Foods store in the area. While there, Bennie
McKeever spoke to Fred Tilson, the business agent of the
Union and its representative at the instant hearing, and
solicited his help in organizing Respondent's employees.
Tilson agreed to help, and thereupon told the McKeevers
how to proceed, and furnished Bennie McKeever with un-
ion authorization cards. Beginning around January 7, Ben-
nie McKeever passed out cards to employees at the facility
during break periods and during the 30-minute lunch peri-
od, doing so on the parking lot, on the shipping dock, and
in front of the office door. He succeeded in signing up about
28 or 30 employees. Within the next 2 weeks, there occurred
the conduct alleged herein to be violative of Section 8(a)(1),
and the discharge of Bennie McKeever, which is alleged to
have contravened Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act. I shall
treat with these matters in detail hereinafter.
B. The Allegations of Section 8(a)(1)
1. The interrogation
The complaint alleges that Mitchum and Parker interro-
gated employees as to their union membership, activities,
and desires, and those of their fellow employees.
With respect to Mitchum, the record reveals two epi-
sodes . The first one occurred on January 14. On that day,
according to McKeever, Mitchum approached him at his
work block where he was cutting meat and asked him what
"those things" were that he was handing out. When he
9 Parker pointed out that Respondent has done its best to hire experienced
butchers, but the fact that a butcher is experienced does not mean that he
is an experienced steakcutter and, if that proves to be the case , he needs a
lot of training and a lot of practice . The record fails to establish , however,
that, during relevant times herein , any of the butchers in the steak depart-
ment was not an experienced steakcutter.
10 All dates hereinafter are in 1972.
answered that they were union cards, Mitchum asked him
if he had signed one. He replied that he was the first one to
do so. At this, Mitchum asked for a card but he refused to
give Mitchum one, with the explanation that Mitchum was
not eligible to sign a union card as he was a supervisor.
Mitchum's testimony was substantially in accord with the
above, except that his account did not include any reference
to an inquiry by him as to whether McKeever had signed
a card, and he denied that McKeever indicated to him why
he was not eligible. In all the circumstances above, and as
McKeever impressed me as a more reliable witness than
Mitchum, I credit McKeever's version and find that the
content of this conversation was as testified to by him. The
second episode also occurred in January and involved a
conversation between former employee Eddie Roy Free-
man and Mitchum. In the course thereof, according to the
testimony of both of them, Mitchum asked Freeman if he
had signed a union card and Freeman replied that this was
a personal matter.
With respect to Parker, the record shows that after ad-
dressing a meeting of all the employees, which he convened
at about 8 a.m. on January 17, the contents of which address
will be discussed shortly, he summoned McKeever to his
back office and held a conversation with him. The relevant
credible testimony of McKeever, which was corroborated to
a considerable degree by Parker, indicates, and I find, that
the following then occurred: Parker told McKeever that he
wanted to find out what the Union wanted and "who was
behind all of this." McKeever replied that he had brought
the authorization cards into the plant and had gotten them
signed; that, if Parker was going to do anything to anybody,
he should do it to him; and that the Union wanted a fair
share of the profits. Parker then said that he "figured [Mc-
Keever] was the one, and that the rest of the people would
be all right if it wasn't for [McKeever] stirring them up." In
addition, Parker accused McKeever of being against man-
agement from the start of his employment, and reminded
McKeever that he had offered McKeever a job as a supervi-
sor, which McKeever had turned down." Parker also told
McKeever that he was going to watch him as he had never
been watched before, that he was going to demand perfec-
tion from McKeever in his work,' and that he was "going
to get [McKeever] out the door."
In view of all the foregoing, and in light of my finding
hereinafter that McKeever was not a supervisor within the
Act's meaning, I conclude and find that, during the afore-
said conversations with McKeever and Fielding, Respon-
dent engaged in interrogation of its employees as to their
union membership, activities, and desires, and those of their
fellow employees, in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the
Act.13
11 According to McKeever, Parker offered him the job of plant superin-
tendent about 8 months before his discharge , and he declined the offer.
12 Parker admitted saying that he would be watching McKeever "pretty
close" and that he meant thereby that "if [McKeever] was the one that was
causing [Respondent] trouble with the Union, well, we were just going to
need to do something about it." He admitted further that there had been no
problem about McKeever's production up to that time, that he had no
knowledge that McKeever was organizing on company time, and that he was
in the steak department "a couple or 3 times" later that day weighing boxes
with steaks as they were processed.
13 See Little Rock Downiowner, Inc., 168 NLRB 107; and Davis Wholesale
Co., Inc, 166 NLRB 999.
294 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
2. The threats
The complaint alleges that on or about January 17, Par-
ker orally threatened employees with loss of employment or
other reprisals for engaging in union or concerted activity.
The record shows, as I have just indicated, that Respondent
convened the employees on the morning of January 17 and
spoke to them. A composite of the testimony, which I find
credible, of McKeever, of employees Dalton and Patricia
Mosely, and of Parker establishes the following: Parker
began his remarks by complimenting the employees on their
work. He then said he had heard about the Union, that the
business belonged to Robert Loggins (who was present at
the meeting), that Robert Loggins had always run the busi-
ness and will continue to do so, that if anyone wants to come
in and talk about it, the door was always open, and that if
anybody didn't like it, "there is the door." In all the circum-
stances , including the heretofore discussed episode between
Parker and McKeever which followed shortly after the
speech, and in which, as I have found, Parker told Mc-
Keever that he was going to watch McKeever as he had
never watched McKeever before, and that he was "going to
get [McKeever] out the door," I conclude, and find, that, in
context, Parker's remark of "there is the door" impliedly
threatened employees with discharge or other reprisals in
violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.14
C. The Allegation of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) in the Dis-
charge of Bennie K McKeever
As already noted, Respondent does not deny that it dis-
charged McKeever because of his union activity. However,
it claims that it did not contravene the Act thereby because
McKeever was a supervisor within the Act's meaning. The
sole issue relating to McKeever's discharge is therefore his
status under the Act. Before dealing with what, Respondent
claims , are McKeever's attributes of supervision, I shall
discuss McKeever's employment history and how the steak
department functions.
McKeever was employed by Respondent during two
separate periods, i.e., for a period of a year starting in Septem-
ber 1968 and for about 16 months starting in September
1970. During the second period he was hired as a steakcutter
at $3.75 an hour. Shortly thereafter, Parker came to Mc-
Keever and told him that he needed someone to take the
lead in the steak room and see to it that the orders were
filled to the customer's satisfaction. Parker added that Mc-
Keever was qualified to do so and that the pay in that job
would be $4 an hour if McKeever would agree to take the
job. McKeever accepted. About November 1970, his pay
14 See Charlena Lobianco, an individual, d/b/a Loby's Cafeteria, 187 NLRB
No. 54.
The General Counsel asserts in his brief that "another reprisal threatened
by Parker at a later meeting was that if the employees joined the Union, their
wages would be cut." Although this conduct was not alleged in the complaint
to be violative of the Act , it was litigated herein. However, as the testimony
of the witnesses of the General Counsel relating thereto was unclear as to
exactly what was said by Parker, and as McKenney's testimony in this regard
indicates that , when there was talk about the cut in wages, it was in the
context of the Union 's requesting him to sign a dues deduction authorization
card, I conclude , and find , that the record fails to preponderate in favor of
a finding that Respondent contravened the Act by Parker's comment about
wages during the aforesaid meeting with the employees.
was increased to $4.25 an hour, and the pay of the rest of
the steak cutters was raised from $3.75 to $4 an hour. Mc-
Keever made an unsuccessful request of Parker for a raise
during the first week in January 1972. Shortly thereafter,
McKeever commenced the organizational activity, here-
tofore described, among Respondent's employees. On Janu-
ary 17, also as heretofore described, McKeever was called
to the back office by Parker where he was interrogated
concerning the Union and his role therein, and was told in
effect (1) that, but for him, there would be no union organi-
zational activity in the plant; (2) that he would be watched
at work as he had never been watched before; and (3) that
Parker was "going to get [him] out the door." About 30
minutes thereafter, according to the undenied testimony of
McKeever, Parker called him into a little shipping office
and said, "All right. Now, I have found out that I don't have
many rights in this matter. But, I do have a few, and I intend
to use them to the fullest extent .... OK. Now, you are the
supervisor out there, right?" At this point, McKeever inter-
jected, "whatever you say." Whereupon, Parker continued
with, "Now I don't want this man back here cutting any
more steaks he is not a qualified Class A butcher. I want you
to cut the steaks. I don't want him to cut anymore. You
move him back there on the back table and let him skin
tenders."15 Thereafter, on January 19, about an hour after
McKeever had started work, Parker came to the steak de-
partment and told McKeever that Loggins wanted to see
him in Loggins' office. When McKeever arrived at the of-
fice, Robert Loggins and Johnny Copeland, the bookkeeper
and office manager, greeted him. Loggins then read from
the following prepared statement to McKeever:16
Discharge of Mckeever
Reason:
He has violated the law, (National Labor Relations
Act, by soliciting employees to join a union. Being a
supervisor he binds the Company by his actions. His
actions have destroyed the neutrality of the Company,
by interfering with the rights of the employees. Employ-
ees have the right to join or not to join a union without
interference from the Company. For a supervisor to
solicit employees to join he interferes with their rights
which is a violation of the law.
According to McKeever, Loggins also said, "Bennie, I have
always run this business . This business belongs to me. No-
body is going to tell me how to run it." And when he
protested that he did not understand why he had been dis-
charged, Loggms suggested that, if he wanted an explana-
tion, he should get a lawyer to explain it. At this, he went
15 I note, in this connection, the credible testimony of McKeever ( 1) that
he was not told, during management's prior conversations with him about his
union activities , that he was a supervisor and should not be engaging in such
activities; (2) that when he told Mitchum that he (Mitchum) was ineligible
to get a union authorization card because of his supervisory status, Mitchum
did not then say to him (McKeever) that he was a supervisor; and (3) that,
at the time he was made a leadman in September 1970, Parker did not tell
him that he was a supervisor nor did Parker tell him that he had authority
to hire, fire, transfer, discipline , recall employees, or adjust grievances.
16 Loggins did not testify herein I received the statement in evidence as
Resp . Exh. 2, pursuant to the agreement of the parties hereto that it was to
serve in lieu of testimony by Loggins and that its contents were not disputed.
LOGGINS MEAT CO.
back to the plant to pick up his tools, with Loggins' permis-
sion, and left.
As to the, manner in which work proceeds in the steak
department, the General Counsel adduced testimony by
McKeever, by Dalton, by Lindell Eugene McKenney, a
skin tender, as well as a steakcutter in that department, and
Patricia Mosely, a meatwrapper in the same department. On
the basis of a composite of their credited testimony, which
was in substantial part mutually corroborative, I find the
following: The complement, at all material times, consisted
of between 8 and 10 employees." The butchers either work
on making fillets or on cutting steaks. Parker makes the
original assignments, determining who works at the fillet
table and who works at steak cutting. During McKeever's
tenure, there were two to four people working on fillets.
They worked as a team , with one doing the cutting of the
fillet, and the other one putting bacon around the steak, also
placing them in trays, putting the order number on them,
and then taking them to the wrapper. It would appear that
the fillet cutting was done by a butcher, while the bacon
wrapping etc. might or might not be performed by a butch-
er. The remaining butchers did steak cutting, which ap-
peared to be a more skilled operation. The amount of work
to be done in the steak department would depend on the
orders that came to the department from Mitchum. Thus,
when McKeever would arrive for work in the morning,
Mitchum would usually hand him a work list upon which
were listed items to be produced by the steak department.18
At the same time , Mitchum would tell McKeever what
meat was available for filling these orders. Thereafter, dur-
ing the day, Mitchum would check with the office to see if
salesmen or customers had telephoned in any orders. If so,
he wrote up the order and brought it into the steak depart-
ment or any other department to which it pertained. The
number of orders received by Mitchum in a day varied
between 35 and 50. In the case of the steak department, the
order was directed to McKeever. Usually Mitchum handed
the order to McKeever and would give McKeever any spe-
cial instructions that he had.19 If McKeever was not there,
Mitchum would lay the order on the table 20 At times, Mitch-
um might hand the order to one of the butchers. After
getting the order from Mitchum, McKeever would lay the
order down on the saw, which was positioned behind him,
so that "everybody could get to it and get their order num-
bers and see whatever they needed to get off of it." If, for ex-
ample, upon checking the list when it came in from Mitch-
um, McKeever noticed that it carried an order for 20 boxes
of fillets, McKeever might call out to the butchers at the
fillet table, "you have an order for 20 boxes of fillets." The
personnel involved would then approach where McKeever
had laid down the work order, and take down the applicable
17 According to Parker , when McKeever was first hired for the steak de-
partment, the complement consisted of three employees.
18 On infrequent occasions , Parker would do this.
19 Special instructions mught be given by Mitchum directly to those work-
mg on an order for fillets . And in those instances where the customer's name
appeared along side the order , that alone was enough to constitute special
instructions to an experienced butcher.
20 Although Mitchum testified that he never laid the production list on the
table but has always handed it to McKeever whether McKeever was in the
department or the freezer at the time , I do not credit him in this respect in
view of the more convincing contrary testimony herein.
295
order number and check the order for any special instruc-
tions pertaining thereto. After the order for a specific item
had been filled, the one filling it would scratch that item off
the order which came from Mitchum.
Under the established routine, if an order or orders re-
quired more steaks than two butchers could cut on one table
that day, then the steaks had priority and the butchers work-
ing on fillets would leave that operation and would assist
with the cutting of the steaks. And if as a result of this
situation, the required number of fillets had not been cut
toward the latter part of the day, all of them would help to
fill the order relating to fillets.
In addition to all the foregoing, McKeever testified credi-
bly that he would spend 90 to 95 percent of his time cutting
steaks in the department, and the remainder working on call
orders, i.e., orders which are prepared and stored in freezers
in anticipation of orders to be received. Thus, if an order
could be filled from the precut meat in the freezers, he
would, upon checking the list as it came from Mitchum, go
to the freezers and fill the order and bring it to the shipping
department. He acknowledged that he was in charge of
production, in that if the production did not go out proper-
ly, he was going to be the man who would have to answer
therefor; and that, in keeping with that responsibility, he
checked the boxes of orders occasionally to make sure that
the correct number of steaks were in the boxes ; and also,
when the whole order was filled for a customer and stacked
out on the floor, he would look to see whether the order was
filled in accordance with the customer's request. However,
there is further credible testimony by him that orders being
worked on by employees in the steak department were not
checked by him as to the quality of the cut or anything of
that nature, unless he was specifically requested to do so by
Parker.
I come now to the contention of Respondent that Mc-
Keever had, in addition to the above, the following respon-
sibilities vis-a -vis the employees in the steak department,
which were attributes of supervision: ( 1) making assign-
ments; (2) granting time off; (3) recommending raises; (4)
recommending hire; (5) recommending against layoff; (6)
recommending transfers ; and (7) training of personnel. I
shall deal with them seriatim.
As to (1), as already noted, the employees did not need
special instructions from McKeever , as a rule, since such
instructions were written on the work order and were made
available to the employees actually doing the cutting. Fur-
ther, each employee kept track of his own work and Mc-
Keever did not check the cuts made by other employees
unless Parker asked him to do so. Also, according to the
credible testimony of McKenney, the usual practice when
help was needed by an employee was for the other employ-
ees to help voluntarily when they finished their own work.
In consequence, an employee would not have to be told
what else to do when he finished a job. And according to
Mosely, a wrapper, she did not work from the instructions
written by the butcher cutting the meat on a flag accompa-
nying each tray she wrapped. So far as appears, it was only
when there was an order for a large amount of steaks or
fillets, which could not be handled in time by those who
regularly performed these tasks, that McKeever would de-
cide how many butchers would work on fillet cutting and
296 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
how many on steak cutting. This was not the normal situ-
ation, and when Parker brought in a big order that had to
be filled promptly, either Parker or he would make the
decision . It is thus apparent, and I find, that McKeever's
responsibilities as to making assignments of work were in-
substantial.
As to (2), McKeever testified that he had never granted
employees in the department time off; that employees
would take such matters up with either Mitchum, Clarkston,
or Parker; that one or the other of them granted the time
off, without checking the matter out with him, and that he
might or might not be told of the action taken. He testified
further that, if an employee would ask him for time off, he
would tell him to check with either Mitchum, Clarkston, or
Parker, and that, if it was all right with one of them, it was
all right with him. In partial corroboration of McKeever,
Mosely testified that, on one occasion, her son was sick and
she wanted to get the day off, that she telephoned Clarkston
from home in the morning,21 that Clarkston was not there
so she spoke to Mitchum, and that Mitchum granted her
request. She added that she never asked the leadmen in the
steak department for time off and does not know of any
occasion when they have granted time off. Further, accord-
ing to McKenney, he has never seen McKeever give anyone
time off. In addition, according to Dalton, while McKeever
was the leadman in the steak department, he had an acci-
dent in which he cut off some fingers and lost 5 weeks from
work. When he returned to work, the front office knew that
he would have to leave work once a week in order to see his
doctor, but he would not ask McKeever for leave to do so,
he would just tell McKeever that he was leaving for that
purpose; and this occurred during 4 weeks. The countervail-
ing testimony in behalf of Respondent was given by Mitch-
um. However, he did not deny McKeever's testimony that
employees go either to Clarkston, Parker, or him concerning
granting time off; nor did he deny Mosely's testimony as to
the one instance in which he granted her a day off. And
while he did testify as to separate incidents in which em-
ployees Joe McKeever, Captola Medlock, and Alice Jacobs
left the steak department early, assertedly with permission
from McKeever, this was denied by McKeever. In this state of
the record, and as Mitchum was not a forthright witness,22
and as I have found that McKeever was a credible wit-
ness, I find that the record fails to establish by a preponder-
ance of the evidence that McKeever had effective authority
to grant time off to employees in the Steak Department.
As to (3), McKeever testified that he had, on occasion,
mentioned to management something about employees'
getting raises . However , he added that management, in
those instances, did not tell him when favorable action was
taken, and it was usually the employee involved who told
him about it. In this connection, McKenney testified credi-
bly that when he received a raise in January 1972 during
McKeever's incumbency, McKeever never told him that he
had recommended him for a raise; instead, it was Parker
who came to him and told him that "[he] will try to get [him]
some more money." I note, in this connection, Parker's
21 Mosely also testified that she considered Clarkston to be her supervisor.
22 See reference hereinafter to Mitchum's claimed limited role in the steak
department as well as other production departments , notwithstanding that he
was the production foreman.
testimony that there were instances when McKeever made
a recommendation for a raise for an employee but the raise
was not granted; and that, in general, raises depended not
only upon the opinion of the supervisor as to the recom-
mended employee but also on whether Respondent could
afford the raise financially. It was Parker's further testimo-
ny that, on McKeever's recommendations, he granted a
raise to Anna Hunter and two raises to Dalton. With
particular reference to the second raise of Dalton, according
to Parker, McKeever told him that Dalton should get that
raise so as to earn as much as employee Charles Fielding.
However, it was Dalton's rebuttal testimony that he was
hired at the rate of $3 an hour with the understanding that
he was to get a raise to $3.50 an hour within 30 days, and
further that he received his second raise to $4 an hour at the
same time as Fielding received his raise to $4 an hour. And
it was McKeever's testimony rebuttal that the raise for
Hunter was not initiated by him, as Parker testified, but
came about in the following manner: Parker commented to
him that Hunter was really learning the job fast and that she
was going to be a fast meatwrapper. He replied that she had
reached that stage already, and added that he did not think
that she was going to stay long as he had heard her and other
employees say that she was planning to leave because she
was working too hard for the money she was getting. Where-
upon, Parker told him to tell Hunter that she would get a
raise the following week, and he so informed Hunter. In all
these circumstances, and as I find that the above testimony
of McKeever and Dalton was more reliable than that of
Parker, I credit them in all instances where their testimony
conflicts with that of Parker. Accordingly, I find that the
record fails to establish that McKeever had the authority
effectively to recommend raises for employees in the steak
department.
As to (4), there was conflicting testimony by Parker and
McKeever as to the part played by McKeever in the hirings
of George Ellis, McKenney, Dalton, Fielding, Joe Ruther-
ford, and Joe McKeever. However, in view of my findings
heretofore that McKeever was a more reliable witness than
Parker, and as McKeever's testimony relating to the above
seemed to be more consistent with the logic and probabili-
ties of the situation, I credit McKeever's version. Thus,
according to McKeever, when Ellis was hired, he did not
know him. His only involvement in the hiring was a conver-
sation he had with Parker at the time Parker was conducting
an employment interview with Ellis. Parker came to him in
the steak department, told him that Ellis was applying for
a job, and asked what he "had heard about [Ellis] down at
Brookshires," the latter being a company which employed
Ellis. He indicated what he had heard, and Parker said that
he had heard the same thing. Parker then inquired about a
certain personal habit of Ellis, and he pleaded ignorance. In
the case of McKenney , as in the case of Ellis, it is Mc-
Keever's testimony that he made no recommendation to
Parker that McKenney be hired; that he did not know
McKenney at the time he was hired; and that, just prior
thereto, Parker had asked him for suggestions on how "to
get the production out on the fillets," and he suggested that
it would help if Respondent had an employee "who would
do nothing but skin tenders to get the fillets built out of."
Thereafter, McKenney was hired by Parker to skin tenders.
LOGGINS MEAT CO. 297
In the case of Dalton, McKeever testified as follows: Parker
inquired from him whether he knew of possible hires for the
steak department. At this, he mentioned that Dalton, who
had worked for Respondent before, was out on strike, and
he agreed to tell Dalton that Respondent was going to hire
a steakcutter. Later, he spoke to Dalton and suggested to
Dalton, who was noncommittal, that he talk to Parker and
apply. Following this, Parker came to him one day and said
that Dalton was in the office talking about a job and that
he (Parker) was thinking of hiring Dalton. Parker continued
by asking whether he (Parker) could rely on Dalton to stay
on as a meatcutter once the strike at Dalton's place of
employment was over. He answered that Dalton was honest
and, if Dalton said that he would stay, he would keep his
word. In the case of Fielding, McKeever testified to the
following: He had a conversation with Fielding in which he
told Fielding, in response to Fielding's inquiry, that Re-
spondent was hiring at that time. Thereafter, Parker came
to him and asked whether he knew Fielding. He answered
in the affirmative, adding that he had worked with Fielding
"for several years at Safeway." To a further inquiry as to
what kind of a person Fielding was, he replied, inter alia,
that Fielding was a good man, owned his home, had a good
job and was a finished meatcutter. However, he never rec-
ommended that Fielding be hired. In regard to Rutherford,
McKeever also testified that he made no recommendation
that Rutherford be hired. In addition, according to Mc-
Keever, he knew of Rutherford at the time and knew that
Rutherford had worked for Safeway, but he did not know
him personally. He did not recall whether Parker mentioned
anything to him about laying off Rutherford 3 months after
Rutherford was hired, remembering only that Parker told
him, after Rutherford was laid off, that it was nice having
Rutherford in the department to skin tenders, but that Re-
spondent did not really need Rutherford's services. And,
finally, in the case of his brother, Joe, McKeever testified
to the following: He had mentioned to Parker that his
brother was dissatisfied with the job he held and was think-
ing of quitting. About that time, he told his brother, just as
he had told Dalton, that Respondent was looking for steak-
cutters and, if he was interested, he should go to
Respondent's facility and apply. Thereafter, his brother did
apply and Parker came to him and asked whether he had
any personal objections to the hiring of his brother and to
his working in the steak department. He replied that he had
no objection, as he and his brother did get along together.
In addition to the foregoing, McKeever testified that he had
told Parker, at times, that he needed additional help; that
he had volunteered the names of several individuals who
were interviewed by Parker but were not hired; and that
Parker had, on several occasions, come into the steak de-
partment and asked if any of the employees knew of any
steakcutters who would be interested in employment with
Respondent. Further, Parker admitted that he generally in-
terviewed applicants before they were hired, and further
that he had asked employees other than McKeever if they
knew of anyone who would like to work for Respondent. In
all these circumstances, I conclude, and find, that the record
fails to preponderate in favor of a finding that McKeever
effectively recommended the hire of employees.
As to (5), Respondent appears to rely on the testimony of
Parker that it delayed the layoff of Rutherford, discussed
above, at the urging of McKeever. However, as McKeever
had no recollection of being spoken to by management
beforehand about laying off Rutherford, and as Parker's
testimony in this regard was not convincing, I find that, here
too, the record fails to preponderate in favor of a finding
that McKeever effectively recommended a delay in laying
off Rutherford.
As to (6), the record testimony relates to the transfers,
during McKeever's incumbency as leadman, of Vega, Wil-
liam Stewart, and Alice Jacobs from the steak department.
With respect to Vega, I find, as heretofore, that McKeever's
testimony was more reliable than that of Parker. Thus, ac-
cording to McKeever, it was Jack Cook, the predecessor of
Plant Superintendent Clarkston, rather than he, who initiat-
ed the action against Vega which resulted in the latter's
transfer by Parker. McKeever gave the following details of
the episode: It began when Vega reported to work one
Saturday morning in a drunken state. Vega was so drunk
that he could not cut meat properly and Cook noticed that
he had "mess[ed] up" a bunch of knuckles while cutting
them. Thereupon, Cook told Vega, whose car was on the
parking lot, to go there and he down. When Parker came
into the steak department and noticed Vega's absence, Par-
ker inquired from him (McKeever) as to Vega's wherea-
bouts, and he told Parker of the above developments. He
also added that he thought that Vega had gone home.
Whereupon, Parker said that this was not the first time that
this had happened and that he was tired and sick of it.
Thereafter, Parker transferred Vega out of the steak depart-
ment to the boning department. In regard to Stewart, Mc-
Keever admitted that he had asked Mitchum to get Stewart
out of the department because of Stewart's odor problem,
namely, "[Stewart] would wear these smocks and cut liver
for several days at a time without changing them. So, it
would just-well, it smelled real bad." It also appears from
the credible testimony of McKeever that he put the matter
on a personal basis, telling Mitchum that he "couldn't hard-
ly stand it ... that something was going to have to be done
with [Stewart] or him, that one of [them] was going to have
to go." Thereafter, according to Mitchum, "[he] talked to
Parker and decided to move [Stewart]." With respect to
Jacobs, there was testimony only by Mitchum, to the follow-
ing effect: McKeever came to him and complained that
Jacobs, who was wrapping steaks, brought too many per-
sonal problems to work with her, that employees in the steak
department were tired of listening to her personal problems,
and that he (McKeever) would like her to be moved out of
the department, as a result, she was moved to a new steak
room,23 opening up next door. It is apparent from the above,
and I find, that the above testimony as to the episodes
involving Vega and Stewart fail to establish that McKeever
effectively recommended their transfers. And while the un-
controverted testimony of Mitchum as to the episode in-
volving Jacobs points to such authority by McKeever, in
view of the fact that I have discredited Mitchum in other
respects herein, and have found generally that he was not
a forthright witness, I conclude, and find, that the record
23 `Fresh ' frozen steaks were prepared in this room.
298 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
fails to preponderate in favor of a finding that McKeever
effectively recommended the transfer of Jacobs.
As to (7), the record shows that the training of personnel
by McKeever was minimal . Those hired by Respondent as
steakcutters already knew how to cut steaks. All that was
required of McKeever was to show the new hires how Re-
spondent "wanted [its] steaks cut for this customer or that
customer." In this connection, he would go over orders to
be handled by new hires with them and show them such
things "as how much tail to leave on the T-bone [steak]."
And in regard to newly hired meatwrappers, if they were
inexperienced, they were usually shown how to wrap by the
experienced wrappers in the department. It is thus apparent
from all the foregoing that Respondent's claimed training of
personnel by McKeever consisted only of imparting to new-
ly hired skilled employees in his craft such information
relating to customer requirements in filling orders as he or
any other butcher of Respondent had gained through expe-
rience on the job. Accordingly, I find that McKeever acted,
in this regard, as no more than a conduit of work-related
information from management to newly hired butcher
craftsmen and not as a trainer of personnel.
Accordingly, (1) as I have found immediately above that
McKeever lacked any of the indicia of supervision which
Parker and Mitchum attributed to him; (2) as I find that,
in his day-to-day role in production in the steak department,
McKeever spent about 90 percent of his time in cutting
steaks at his worktable, and the rest of his time acting both
as a conduit of work orders for the department, including
special instructions relating thereto, from Mitchum to em-
ployees in the department, and as an expediter and checker
of production; (3) as I find that the operations in the depart-
ment were so routinized that there was very little need for
McKeever to exercise any independent judgment in direct-
ing the work done there; (4) as the record shows, I find that
Mitchum, Parker, and Clarkston were in and out of the
department during the day, with Mitchum doing this on a
very frequent basis, so that they could oversee its opera-
tions;24 and (5) as McKeever, like the rank-and-file employ-
ees, was hourly paid, and received insurance benefits which
did not cover his dependents, whereas Respondent's super-
visors were salaried and received the more comprehensive
coverage, I conclude, and find, that McKeever neither had
nor exercised any supervisory authority dung his tenure
with Respondent, and that he was at all relevant times an
employee under the Act 25
I am cognizant, in this connection, of the fact that Re-
24I regard as rather strange, and find incredible, Mitchum's testimony
that, although , as production foreman, he is in charge of all production in
the plant, he does not have authority over the steak department as far as
production is concerned.
25 See Precision Fabricators v. N L R B, 204 F.2d 567, 569 (C A 2), enfg.
101 NLRB 1537, where the court in referring to a leadman said-
We will assume that he was the room "boss" or "leadman ," but the
discretion given him appears to be "routine" in the natural sense of that
word. As Judge Magruder said in NL.R.B v. Quincy Steel Casting Co,
I Cir, 200 F.2d 293, 296• "The legislative history of Sec. 2(11) tends to
support the Board's view that certain employees with minor supervisory
duties, such as straw bosses and leadmen, were not intended to be
excluded from the coverage of the Act."
See also Skaggs Transfer, Inc., 185 NLRB No. 91, Cosby-Hodges Milling
Company, 170 NLRB 1137; UTD Corporation, 165 NLRB 346, Morris Weiss
d/b/a Mook Weiss Meat Packing Company, 160 NLRB 546; John C Stalfort
& Sons, Inc., 156 NLRB 84; and Security Guard Service, Inc., 154 NLRB 8.
spondent informed McKeever that he was a supervisor 2
days before his discharge. However, as this change in title
'left unaltered McKeever's duties and functions, and as "the
important thing is the possession and exercise of actual super-
visory duties and authority and not the formal title," 26 It fol-
lows therefrom that this attempt of Respondent to
"beef up" McKeever's job through a title change, which
occurred after the Union commenced its organizational ac-
tivity and after it learned of McKeever's part therein, did
not result in a genuine change in his status either in fact or
in law.27
Accordingly, as I have found that McKeever was an em-
ployee under the Act, and as Respondent admittedly dis-
charged him for his union activities, I find that Respondent
violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act thereby.
Upon the basis of the entire record, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Respondent is an employer 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 interrogating its employees as to their union mem-
bership , activity , and desires , and those of their fellow em-
ployees, Respondent has violated Section 8 (a)(l) of the Act.
4. By discharging Bennie K . McKeever on January 19,
1972, because of his union activity, Respondent discrim-
inated against the hire and tenure of its employees and has
engaged in, and is engaging in, unfair labor practices within
the meaning of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act.
REMEDY
Having found that Respondent engaged in unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of
the Act, I shall recommend that a broad order issue that it
cease and desist therefrom, and that it affirmatively take
such action as will dissipate the effects of its unfair labor
practices. In the latter connection, having found that Re-
spondent violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act by
discharging Bennie K. McKeever, I shall also recommend
that Respondent offer him immediate and full rein-
statement to his former job or, if that job no longer exists,
to a substantially equivalent position without prejudice to
his seniority or other rights and privileges, and make him
whole for any loss of earnings he may have suffered during
the period of this discrimination against him by payment to
him of a sum of money equal to that which he would have
earned as wages from the date of such discrimination to the
date of Respondent's offer of reinstatement, less his net
earnings during such period, with backpay and interest there-
on to be computed in the manner prescribed by the Board
in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289, and Isis Plum-
bing & Heating Co. Inc., 138 NLRB 716. .
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and con-
clusions of law, and upon the entire record in the case, I
hereby issue the following recommended:28
26 See N L.R B v. Southern Bleachery & Print Works, Inc, 257 F 2d 235,
239 (C A 4), cert. denied 359 U.S 911
27 See Ross Porta-Plant, Inc, 166 NLRB 494; also Ward-McCarty Hot
Oil-Paraffin Service, 171 NLRB 731.
28 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the
LOGGINS MEAT CO.
ORDER
Respondent, namely, Robert D. Loggins, Ronny M.
Loggins and Randy Parker d/b/a Loggins Meat Co., their
officers , agents , successors , and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Interferingwith, restraining, or coercing employees in
the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act
by interrogating them as to their union membership, activi-
ties, and desires, and those of their fellow employees.
(b) Discharging employees because of their union activi-
ties.
(c) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or
coercing employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed
in Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which will effec-
tuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Offer to Bennie K. McKeever immediate and full
reinstatement to his former job or, if that job no longer
exists, to a substantially equivalent position without preju-
dice to his seniority or other rights and privileges, and make
him whole for any loss of earnings he has suffered, in the
manner set forth in the section hereof entitled "The Reme-
dy."
(b) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the
Board, or its agent, for examination and copying, all payroll
records, social security records, timecards, personnel rec-
ords and reports, and all other records necessary or useful
to determine or compute the amount of backpay due, as
herein provided.
(c) Notify Bennie K. McKeever, if presently serving in
the Armed Forces of the United States, of his right to full rein-
statement upon application, in accordance with the Selec-
tive Service Act and the Universal Military Training and
Service Act of 1948, after discharge from the Armed Forces.
(d) Post at its facility in Tyler, Texas, copies of the at-
tached notice marked "Appendix." 29 Copies of said notice
on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 16,
after being signed by a representative of Respondent, shall
be posted by Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof
and be maintained for 60 consecutive days thereafter in
conspicuous places, including all places where notices to
employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall
be taken by Respondent to insure that said notices are not
altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(e) Notify the said Regional Director, in writing, within
20 days from the date of the receipt of this Trial Examiner's
Decision, what steps Respondent has taken to comply here-
with 30
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
29 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 read "Posted Pursuant
to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of
the National Labor Relations Board."
30 In the event that this recommended Order is adopted by the Board after
299
exceptions have been filed , this provision shall be modified to read : "Notify
said Regional Director, for Region 16, in writing , 20 days from the date of
this Order, what steps Respondent 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
WE WILL NOT interfere with, restrain, or coerce our
employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed un-
der the Act by interrogating them as to their union
membership, activities, and desires, and those of their
fellow employees.
WE WILL NOT discharge our employees because of
their union activities.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, re-
strain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL offer to Bennie K. McKeever immediate
and full reinstatement to his former job or, if that job
no longer exists, to a substantially equivalent position
without prejudice to his seniority or other rights and
privileges, and make him whole for any loss of pay
suffered as a result of his discriminatory discharge.
Dated
ROBERT D. LooGINS, RONNY M. Lo-
GINS AND RANDY PARKER , d/b/a LOG-
GINS MEAT CO
(Employer)
By
(Representative) (Title)
Note: We will notify Bennie K. McKeever, if presently
serving in the Armed Forces of the United States, of his
right to full reinstatment upon application, in accordance
with the Selective Service Act and the Universal Military
Training and Service Act of 1948, after discharge from the
Armed Forces.
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 question concerning
this notice or compliance with its provisions may be direct-
ed to the Board's Office, Federal Office Building, Room,
8-A-24, 819 Taylor Street, Fort Worth, Texas 76102, Tele-
phone 817-334-2921.