Richardson Brothers, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 28, 1970

182 N.L.R.B. 922 (N.L.R.B. 1970)

922 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Richardson Brothers , l,Inc and Local 800, United Furniture
Workers of America , AFL-CIO Cases 30-RC-1 124
and 30-CA-1121
May 28, 1970
DECISION, ORDER AND DIRECTION OF SECOND
ELECTION
By MEMBERS FANNING, BROWN, AND JENKINS
On March 6, 1970, Trial Examiner Thomas A Ricci
issued his Decision in the above entitled proceeding,
finding that the Respondent had engaged in certain unfair
labor practices and recommending that it cease and
desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action,
as set forth in the attached`Trial Examiner's Decision
He further found that certain conduct by the Respondent
interfered with and affected the results of the election
of October 16, 1969, in Case 30-RC-1124, and recom-
mended that the election be set aside and that a second
election be directed Thereafter, the Respondent filed
exceptions 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 powers in con-
nection with this case to a three-member panel
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Exam-
iner made at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial
error was committed The rulings are hereby affirmed I
The Board has considered the Trial Examiner's Decision,
the exceptions brief, and entire record in this case,
and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recom-
mendations of the Trial Examiner as modified herein 2
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations
Board adopts as its Order the recommended Order of
the Trial Examiner, as modified below, and hereby orders
that the Respondent, Richardson Brothers, Sheboygen,
Falls, Wis , its officers, agents, successors, and assigns,
shall take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's
recommended Order, as herein modified
I Add the words "threatening employees with dis-
charge if they engage in union activity," to paragraph
1(a) of the Trial Examiner's recommended Order after
the words "interrogating employees concerning their
union activities,"
2 Insert the following paragraph after the first para-
graph of the Appendix
WE WILL NOT threaten employees with discharge
if they engage in union activity
Ir IS FURTHER ORDERED that the election conducted
on September 15,1969, in Case 30-RC-1124 be and
it hereby is, set aside, and that Case 30-RC-1124 be,
and it hereby is, remanded to the Regional Director
for Region 30 for the purpose of conducting a new
election at such time as he deems that circumstances
permit the free choice of a bargaining representative
[Direction of Second Election3 omitted from publication ]
9 In order to assure that all eligible voters may have the opportunity
to be informed of the issues in the exercise of their statutory right
to vote all parties to the election should have access to a list of
voters and their addresses which may be used to communicate with
them Excelsior Underwear Inc 156 NLRB 1236 N L R B v Wyman
Gordon Company 394 U S 759 Accordingly it is hereby directed
that an election eligibility list containing the names and addresses
of all the eligible voters must be filed by the Employer with the
Regional Director for Region 30 within 7 days after the date of issuance
of the Notice of Second Election by the Regional Director The Regional
Director shall make the list available to all parties to the election
No extension of time to file this list shall be granted by the Regional
Director except in extraordinary circumstances Failure to comply with
this requirement shall be grounds for setting aside the election whenever
proper objections are filed
TRIAL EXAMINER ' S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
THOMAS A Ricci , Trial Examiner A hearing in the
above-entitled proceeding was held before the duly desig-
nated Trial Examiner on January 20, 1970 , at Sheboygan
Falls, Wisconsin , on complaint (Case 30-CA-1121) of
the General Counsel against Richardson Brothers, Inc ,
herein called the Respondent or the Company, and on
objections filed by Local 800, United Furniture Workers
of America , AFL-CIO, herein called the Union, in
a representation proceeding (Case 30-RC-1124) The
charge was filed on October 21, and the complaint
issued on December 16, 1969 The issues are whether
the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Statute,
and whether its conduct warrants an order setting aside
the results of a Board conducted election Briefs were
filed after the close of the hearing by all parties
Upon the entire record and from my observation
of the witnesses , I make the following i
FINDINGS OF FACT
' The Respondent s request for oral argument is hereby denied because
the record exceptions and brief adequately present the issues and
the positions of the Respondent
4 As the Respondent points out in his exceptions and brief the
Trial Examiner erroneously states that Ten Pas told the three young
men that no union shop employed part timers The record is clear
that Ten Pas told the three that only one union shop employed part
timers and the others had discontinued the practice However we
are of the opinion that this factual error does not affect the Trial
Examiners finding that this statement within the context of the total
conversations is cle irly an implied threat of retaliation for union activi
ties
I THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
Richardson Brothers, Inc , a Wisconsin corporation,
has its principal office and plant at Sheboygan Falls,
Wisconsin, where it is engaged in the manufacture and
sale of wood furniture and related products During
' In the absence of any opposit ion a motion by the General Counsel
to correct the transcript in minor detail is hereby granted
182 NLRB No 134
RICHARDSON BROTHERS , INC. ' 923
the past calendar year, a representative period, it pur-
chased and received in interstate commerce goods and
materials valued in excess of $50,000 from points outside
the State of Wisconsin. During the same period, it
sold and shipped goods valued in excess of $50,000
from its plant to points located outside the State of
Wisconsin. I find that the Employer is engaged in com-
merce within the meaning of the Act and that it will
effectuate the policies of the Act to exercise jurisdiction
herein.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
I find that the Union is a labor organization within
the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
On August 29, 1969, the Union, active in ,organizing
the approximately 130 production and maintenance
employees, filed its petition for a Board election. The
parties signed a stipulation for certification upon consent
election on September 15 and the election, duly publi-
cized, was held on October 10. Fifty-four employees
voted in favor and sixty-one against union representation.
Notices detailing the time and the place for the balloting
had been posted on the plant bulletin boards. The'activi-
ties by supervisors, now said to have improperly inter-
fered with the election, and to have constituted coercive
conduct in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act,
occurred for the most part a day or two before the
election.
Five young people were at work during the night
shift starting about 4:30 p.m., on October, 9. Robert
Ten Pas, assistant plant superintendent, came back to
the plant and spoke to each one of them about • the
imminent election. Wesley Huibregtse, a college student
part-timer working alone in a department, testified that
in this conversation Ten Pas told him that the Company
had favored him by finding' work for him to do when
it could have laid him off instead, that he, therefore
owed a loyalty to the Company, and that by inquiring
about other employers in the area the Respondent had
learned that of five companies, all having unions, only
one employed part-time employees, and that as part-
timers here were permitted to vote, Huibregtse should
do so.
In another department, on another floor, Ten Pas
spoke to John Littman and David Thill, high school
students who were also part-timers. Littman testified
the superintendent told them there was an election com-
ing, it would be close, most people did not want the
election, they should be sure to vote, and a vote in
favor of the Company was equal to two for the Union.
Still according to Littman, Ten Pas continued that he
was not trying to force the boys to vote for the Company,
that the problem must have been poor "communications
between the management and the employees," and that
in the future something would be done about this. He
then asked did the boys have any questions, because
if there was anything he could do for them in 'their
work, if their foreman could not do it, he would. Littman
said he would like to have a radio, which Dulmes,
the superintendent, would not permit. He also told Ten
Pas he would like to purchase a set of chairs wholesale,
whereupon the assistant superintendent answered he
would see what he could do about this. Thill also testified
that 'Ten Pas advised, them of the Company's inquiry
of other employers and having learned that in the union-
ized plants only one had part-time employees. And
finally, Ten Pas also said there would be a 10-cent
raise across-the-board the following January 1.
There was talk of the Company's 'profits being very
small. The Union had distributed leaflets saying the
Company did business in the millions and must have
great profits. Earlier that 'same day, at 3 p.m., Vice
President Richardson had assembled the employees in
the plant to deliver his last of several talks about 'the
Union and the next day's election. With a large circular
graph he illustrated how small a percentage of profits
there had been in the past year; the purpose of the
talk was to rebut the Union's propaganda and to persuade
the employees to reject the Union when they voted.
Somewhere along the conversation Ten Pas was having
with the part-timers in'the evening, Littman asked was
it true the Company's profits were only 3 percent, and
Ten Pas answered it was more like I percent, and
then Littman commented that in' such circumstances
the Union. "could hardly -give us any benefits," and
it was really not worth while voting in its favor. It
was at this point that Ten Pas added things were expected
to pick up, the Company knew it was "behind in raises,"
and that there would be a' 10-cent raise across-the-board
the following January 1.2 1
As Thill recalled, the assistant superintendent told
them "he would appreciate it if we would vote for
the Company." Thill also testified that somewhere during
the talk-Ten Pas said it lasted "twenty minutes to
a half hour"-the boys asked why two certain employees
had been laid off; as to one Ten Pas answered because
there was no work for him, but as to the other, Gary
Schorendroch, he "was seen talking to Union representa-
tives on the property." And finally, still according, to
Thill, at one point Ten Pas said ". . . they would
go out of business and have to close down because
the Union's demands couldn't be' met by the company
with the small profit they make." '
That night Ten Pas also visited with two women
who were working in the lunchroom to inform them,
as he said, of the election the next day. In his testimony
he denied saying the Company would go out of business'
because of union demands or eliminate the night shift
because of increased costs. His explanation for all this
was that he often, returned to the plant and that he
did so this time because Huibregtse had been having
trouble with certain steam bending work. And it is
true the young man had for some time had difficulties
f
' The record indicates there had 'been an earlier commitment by
the Respondent to grant this raise the following year The complaint
does not allege the statement to have Been improper, and no contention
to that effect is made in the General Counsel's brief
924 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
with that process, whatever it was, and the assistant
superintendent did discuss it with him that night. Ten
Pas also conceded, however, that there are times when
he only goes to the plant at night once a month and
then added an additional reason for his visit on October
9 was to inform all these employees of the time and
place of the scheduled election. ". . . I realized that
they didn't, have an opportunity to hear the speech
in the afternoon and I didn't even know whether they
knew where the voting was going to take place. So,
I went up to explain to them where it was." "Q.
Were you up there to tell them about the speech or
tell them about the election? A. No, to tell them where
it was going to be. This is my main purpose for going
up, where it is going to be held. I don't believe they
understood where it was going to be held."
As to the business of }other plants, union shops,
having or not having part-time employees, Ten Pas'
story is that it was the employees-all three of the
young men-who asked him what other employers were
doing with part- timers. In the face of his repeated state-
ment that one of his reasons for speaking to them
was because they had not had opportunity to hear Vice
President Richardson that afternoon, he said it was
the employees who asked what the company profits
were, not he who informed them.
I do not credit Ten Pas. The clearest thing on this
record is that Richardson's "talk to the employees that
day was for the purpose of defeating the self-organiza-
tional campaign. In Richardson's own words at the
hearing: "I certainly did"-advise them to vote against
the Union. This was the speech the night shift employees
had not heard and which'Ten Pas said he wanted them
to know about. But if the takeoff of Richardson' s antiun-
ion talk was the meager profit margin, and if Ten Pas'
intent was to be sure the rest of the, employees got
the point , it is precisely the matter.. of profits that he
would talk to them about. Littman asked about the
profit margin, and, as Ten Pas would have it, the boy
wanted to know "whether it was true" the Company
earned only 1 percent. If this is the way Littman phrased
it, he was repeating the thought put into the minds
of all the employees by the vice president. And the
assistant superintendent simply pursued the idea intended
to be implanted by Richardson, that between small profits
and union demands the Company might not continue
the business at all. Nor is there logic to the assistant
superintendent's further insistence that the part-timers-
all of them and separately-should have wanted to know
whether other, unrelated companies hired part-time
employees.
Most revealing of all, on this question of credibility
between Ten Pas and the employees, is the superintend-
ent's clear statement, not once but several times, that
in his talk, which Ten Pas heard in its entirety, Richard-
son did not urge the employees to vote against the
Union, indeed that he never referred to the election
at all. "Trial Examiner: Did he give his opinion about
the union, whether he thought it was a good thing
or bad thing? The Witness: No. Trial Examiner: Nothing
at all? The Witness: No, not that I know of." "Q.
Did he ask them to vote for the company? A. Not
that I know of." "Trial Examiner: Now, you recall
before that he [Richardson] also said tomorrow there
is an election, right, he did say that? The Witness:
I don't know. Trial Examiner: Don't you recall his
talking about the election at all during the speech?
The Witness: All I remember is his making the statement
about the profits."
Accordingly I find: (1) Ten Pas told Huibregtse the
Company had been good to him and could have laid
him off, and he told all three young men that the
union shops do not have part-timers. In the context
of his total talk, these were clearly implied threats
of retaliation for union activities and therefore violations
of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. (2) He told Littman and
Thill they should bring any requests for improved condi-
tions to their foreman, or to him, and he would attempt
to satisfy them. He also promised Littman he would
look into the possibility of letting him have company
products at a wholesale price. These were promises
of benefits in return for voting against the Union and
therefore amounted to coercion prohibited by the statute.
And it is immaterial that Littman may first have asked
the favor, before the superintendent agreed to oblige
him.3 (3) Ten Pas spoke to these employees of the
measure of company profits and then threatened the
plant could be closed if the Union prevailed in the
election. The indirect technique of voicing the threat
does not remove it from the ambit of unfair labor
practices under Section 8(a)(1).4 (4) He told Littman
and Thill one employee had been laid off because he
had been seen talking to a union representative; the
statement constituted direct coercion in violation of
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
Littman also testified about a somewhat similar con-
versation while he was at work the night before, on
October 8, with Glenn Dulmes, the plant superintendent.
Generally, there is a like conflict in testimony on just
about the same subject matter. According to the employ-
ee, the superintendent started by complimenting him
on his work, saying he liked to see him earn money,
but then added the Company had inquired of other
companies where there were unions and found none
but one used part-timers. Dulmes then also said there
was no intention here of eliminating part-time help,
but with a union in the picture there might be added
costs such as to make it economically advisable to
have a full-time employee in place of two part-timers.
Littman is a schoolboy who worked nights. Like Ten
Pas, Dulmes' story was that the employees had asked
him, a week before the election, "what other companies
do in part-time work, how they handle this part-time
help," that he asked Richardson to find out, and that
all he reported back was that there were two companies,
one having part-time help and one having discontinued
it. He said he passed this word around to four employees.
He also admitted that in talking to them he did say
Medo Photo Corp v N L R.B., 321 U S 678
Amalgamated Clothing Workers v N L R B ., 424 F 2d 818
(CADC)
RICHARDSON BROTHERS , INC. i 925
other plants were union shops. Dulmes did not contradict
the testimony of Wayne Reimes, a former supervisor
with the Respondent, that 2 weeks before the election
Dulmes told him he had been requested to talk to
those employees he felt might be opposed to the Union
and to attempt to prevail on them to persuade others
to their view.
I credit Littman. This was the same approach used
by Ten Pas the next day, and Dulmes' assurance to
Littman, and, it must be supposed, to others also, that
the Respondent had no present intention to release part-
timers, could not remove from his total remarks the
suggestion things might be different if the shop went
union. I find he effectively, albeit obliquely, threatened
an economic disadvantage if the employees should vote
in favor of the Union and therefore violated Section
8(a)(1).
There is also evidence of illegal interrogation by two
other supervisors. Huibregtse testified that at the start
of his shift, early in the evening of October 9, Leroy
Schuricht, his supervisor, asked had he decided how
to vote the next day, and when the employee said
no Schuricht said "the answer better be no." Schuricht
said he only asked whether the man would be in the
next day and that he should vote before starting to
work. The balloting was scheduled to begin at 4 p.m.
on the 10th. Schuricht denied asking how the man intend-
ed to vote or threatening him in any way. Shirley Debeck-
er testified that her supervisor, Reimes, asked during
the morning of election day how she felt about the
afternoon election. She answered she was indifferent,
and Reimes then added, as she recalled, "why don't
you vote against the Union and talk to your other
fellow members and see if you can get them to vote
against it too. . . ." Reimes said at the hearing he
was inquisitive, and that he did ask Debecker how
she felt about the Union and added he would appreciate
it if she voted for the Company.
Despite Schuricht 's denial , I must credit this testimony
by Huibregtse and Debecker, in which they quoted
minor foremen, for it comports, in kind, with the activi-
ties of the superintendents aimed at defeating the organi-
zational campaign. This was interrogation without objec-
tive justification or the protective safeguards of which
the Board decisions speak. Struksnes Construction Co.,
165 NLRB 1062. 1 find that by questioning these two
employees, and by Schuricht's threat that Huibregtse
had better vote no, the supervisors violated Section
8(a)(1) of the Act.
The Objections
The real burden of this consolidated case-a single
hearing on both objections to an election and complaint
of 8(a)(1) violations-is that the election should be set
aside, a new one held, and the Employer enjoined
from again engaging in the unlawful coercive activities
that were carried on before the last one. I find there
is merit to the objections, for clearly the unfair labor
practices committed by management representatives dur-
ing the period immediately preceding the afternoon of
October 10 precluded a fair election and effectively
denied the employees their statutory right freely to
express their views. I shall therefore recommend that
the results of the election be set aside and a new
one held.
The Respondent must also be ordered to cease and
desist from hereafter engaging in this kind of unlawful
conduct and not to interfere with the'employees' attempt
to establish collective bargaining through a union if
that be their desire.
An incident took place on October 21, after the elec-
tion, during which, according to; an allegation added
to the complaint at the start of the hearing, another
illegal threat was voiced. Bertha Cook, a lady who
has two daughters and a son also working in this plant,
was moved, during the workday, from one assignment
to another. She was doing piecework and was placed
on other duties 'paid at day rate, which brings less
money per hour. The General Counsel contends that
Aubrey Reichert, her foreman, knew Mrs. Cook's daugh-
ters had distributed union literature at the gate before
the election and in fact shifted her at that moment
to lower paying work because he believed she had
favored the Union. The lady objected to the foreman's
order; she was doing certain chair sanding, for which
she said she had been hired, and protested this was
her work. Reichert told her to 'do something else-
cleaning of some sort-and gave the piecework sanding
to. one Loretta Destrote. There seems to have been
quite a discussion, and at one point the foreman told
Cook if she did not care to do what daywork he had
for her she could go home for the rest of the day
and come back in the morning. She chose to stay,
never lost any time, and was still employed at the
time of the hearing.
In her recital of the incident, Cook said that at one
point as she protested Reichert said to her "you voted
for the Union now take the consequences." The foreman
denied saying anything like that or having any knowledge
of union activities by Mrs. Cook or any of her children.
There is not sufficient reason for believing Cook's testi-
mony putting these words into Reichert's mouth. There
was no way he could know how anyone had voted
in the election and there is no evidence Mrs. Cook
engaged in union activities at all. At best the foreman's
conviction that she was union minded would have to
rest on knowlege, which he disputed, that her daughters
had assisted the union campaign.
Mrs. Cook was an angry witness. She argued that
she had been hired to do the sanding, the more desirable
work, and this is what she kept telling the foreman
that day. And it is true she was tested, before starting
with the Company, to see whether she could perform
that chore. But the evidence also shows, and she did
not question the fact, that there are other employees,
senior to her, who also do this work and that she
was told at the initial hiring she was to do it when
there was more than the other girls could do. Destrote,
who was put on sanding the day in question, was one
of the senior sanders. Moreover, it has always been
a normal aspect of Cook's employment that she goes
926 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
from one assignment to another during the day, some-
times doing piecework and sometimes daywork. This
went on all the time before October 21 and -continues
regularly now. I am convinced all that happened was
a little spat between the lady and the foreman, not
an uncommon thing when more desirable and less desir-
able work must be distributed, within a department.
I credit Reichert's critical denial.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON
COMMERCE f
The activities of the Respondent set forth in section
III, above, occurring in connection with the operations
of the Respondent described in section I, above, have
a close, intimate , and substantial relation to trade , traffic,
and commerce among the several States and tend to
lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing com-
merce and the free flow thereof.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact,
and upon the entire record, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Respondent is engaged in commerce within
the meaning of the Act.
2. The Union is a labor organization within the mean-
ing of the Act.
3. By interrogating employees concerning their union
activities , by threatening to discontinue part-time
employment and to close the plant entirely in retaliation
for union activities , and by promising better consider-
ation of economic demands to discourage union activi-
ties, the Respondent has interfered with the rights of
its employees to self -organization and to bargain through
representatives of their own choosing , within the mean-
ing of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor
practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Sec-
tion 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act it is hereby ordered that Richardson Brothers,
Inc., Sheboygan Falls, Wisconsin, its agents , officers,
successors, and assigns , shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
Coercively, interrogating employees concerning their
union activities, threatening to discontinue part -time em-
ployment and to close the plant in retaliation for union
activities, promising better consideration of employees'
economic demands , or in any like or related manner
interfering with, restraining , or coercing employees in
the exercise of their right to engage in or to refrain
from engaging in any and all activities specified in
Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which I find
will effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Post at its place of business in Sheboygan Falls,
Wisconsin, copies of the attached ' notice marked
"Appendix."' Copies of said notice, to be furnished
by the Regional Director for Region 30, after being
signed by the Respondent 's representative , shall be post-
ed by Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof
and maintained by it for 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 material.
(b) Notify the Regional Director for Region 30, in
writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order,
what steps the Respondent has taken to comply here-
with."
IT IS HEREBY FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the
Union's objections to the election held by the Board
in Case 30-RC-1124 be sustained and a new election
held with the discretion of the Regional Director.
5 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 , recommendations , 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
In the event that the Board's Order is enforced by a Judgment of
a United States Court of Appeals , the words in the notice reading
"Posted by Order of the National Labor Relations Board " shall be
changed to read "Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of the United States
Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations
Board "
'' In the event that this recommended Order is adopted by the Board,
this provision shall be modified to read : "Notify the Regional Director
for Region 30, in writing , within 10 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 coercively interrogate our employ-
ees concerning their union activities.
WE WILL NOT threaten to discontinue part-time
employment or to close the plant in retaliation
for the union activities of our employees or to
discourage such activities on their part.
WE WILL NOT promise to give better consider-
ation to our employees ' demands for improved
conditions of employment in order to discourage
their union activities.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner
interfere with, restrain , or coerce our employees
in the exercise of the right to self -organization,
to form labor organizations , to join or assist Local
800, United Furniture Workers of America,
AFL-CIO , or any other labor organization , to bar-
gain collectively through representatives of their
own choosing , and to engage in concerted activities
for the purposes of collective bargaining or other
mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from engaging
in any or all such activities , except to the extent
RICHARDSON BROTHERS , INC 927
that such a right may be affected by an agreement This is an official notice and must not be defaced
requiring membership in a labor organization as by anyone
a condition of employment in conformity with Sec- This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive
tion 8(a)(3) of the Act, as amended f d t b It drt
Dated By
no e a e edays from the date o posting an mus
RICHARDSON BROTHERS,
defaced, or covered by any other material
INC Any questions concerning this notice or compliance
(Employer) with its provisions may be directed to the Board's Office,
Second Floor, Commerce Building , 744 North Fourth
Street, Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53203 Telephone
(Representative) (Title) 414-272-8600, Extension 3861