Storack Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 17, 1964

147 N.L.R.B. 493 (N.L.R.B. 1964)

STORACK CORPORATION 493
the company does not have to pay that if you're union shop ." 4 While there can be no
doubt that such threat clearly constitutes interference , restraint , and coercion within
the meaning of Section 8(a) (1) of the Act, it must be pointed out that: (1) Chief
Operator Miller is now deceased ,5 and (2) in a plant with a complement of 169 em-
ployees at the time of the election , this is the sole incident during the ent ire organiza-
tional campaign , insofar as the record discloses , that Respondent may be said to
have engaged in any conduct proscribed by the Act. Accordingly, in view of the
isolated nature of the remark made by a supervisor now deceased , I find that it would
not serve any useful purpose to issue a remedial order in this case,6 and I shall there-
fore recommend that the complaint be dismissed in its entirety.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Leonard Refineries, Inc., is an employer engaged in commerce within the mean-
ing of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
2. Local 7-540, OR, Chemical and Atomic Workers International Union, AFL-
CIO, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. Except for the isolated incident found in subparagraph numbered 3 of paragraph
III, above, the Respondent has not engaged in any other unfair labor practices as
alleged in the complaint.
4. A cease and desist order will not serve any useful purpose in the circumstances
of this case.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law , and upon
the entire record in this case , it is hereby recommended that the complaint herein be
dismissed in its entirety.
4 The credited testimony of Ropp , as corroborated by Batchelder and Davenport. Al-
though the Respondent has pointed to some minor variance in the testimony of these em-
ployees , I have no doubt , and I find , that the essence of Miller ' s statement on this occasion
was essentially that as set out above.
s Miller was deceased on November 10, 1963, which was prior to the hearing herein.
9 See Becker & Sons, Inc., 145 NLRB 1788.
Storack Corporation and International Brotherhood of Boiler-
makers, Iron Shipbuilders, Blacksmiths , Forgers and Helpers,
AFL-CIO. Case No. 13-CA-5780. June 17, 1964
DECISION AND ORDER
On January 23,1964, Trial Examiner Stanley Gilbert issued his De-
cision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent
had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices and
recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain af-
firmative actions, as set forth in his attached Decision. Thereafter,
the General Counsel and the Respondent filed exceptions to the De-
cision with supporting briefs.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with
this case to a three-member panel [Members Fanning, Brown, and
Jenkins].
The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner
at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed.
147 NLRB No. 164.
494 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the De-
cision, the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record in this case,
and hereby adopts the Trial Examiner's findings, conclusions, and
recommendations.'
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor. Relations Act, as
amended, the Board hereby adopts as its Order, the Order recom-
mended by the Trial Examiner and orders that Respondent, Storack
Corporation, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the
action set forth in the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order.
1 The Respondent's request for oral argument is hereby denied as, in our opinion, the
record, Including the exceptions and briefs, adequately presents the issues and the posi-
tions of the parties.
TRIAL EXAMINER'S * DECISION .
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon a charge filed July 31, 1963, as amended, September 18, 1963, by the In-
ternational Brotherhood of Boilermakers, Iron Shipbuilders, Blacksmiths, Forgers
and Helpers, AFL-CIO (hereinafter referred to as the Boilermakers), the complaint
herein was issued September 26, 1963. The complaint alleges, in essence, that
Storack Corporation (hereinafter referred to as Respondent) violated Section 8(a)(1)
and (5) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, by interrogating its em-
ployees concerning the Boilermakers, by refusing to bargain collectively with the
Boilermakers as the exclusive bargaining representative of its employees, and by
permitting and assisting two officials of Machinery, Scrap Iron, Metal and Steel
Chauffeurs, Warehousemen, Handlers, Helpers and Alloy Fabricators Union Local
No. 714, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and
Helpers of America (hereinafter referred to as the Teamsters) to solicit Respond-
ent's employees to join the Teamsters in order to undermine and destroy the majority
status of the Boilermakers. In its answer Respondent denied said allegations.
Pursuant to due notice, a hearing was held in this matter in Chicago, Illinois, on
November 4 and 5, 1963, before Trial Examiner Stanley Gilbert. At the close of
the hearing, oral argument was waived. Within the time designated therefor, briefs
were submitted by General Counsel and Respondent.
Upon the entire record herein, and from my observation of the witnesses, I make
the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT
Respondent, an Illinois corporation with its office, plant, and place of business in
Evanston, Illinois, is engaged in the manufacture, sale, and distribution of steel stor-
age racks and related products. During the year preceding the issuance of the com-
plaint, Respondent, in the course and conduct of its, business operations, received
at its plant goods and materials valued in excess of $70,000, transported directly
from States other than the State of Illinois. During said year, Respondent, in the
course and conduct of its business operations, manufactured at said plant and sold
products valued in excess of $475,000, of which products valued in excess of
$225,000 were shipped from said plant directly to States other than the State of
Illinois.
As is conceded by Respondent, it is now, and has been at all material times herein,
an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of
the Act. -
H. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
As is conceded by Respondent, the Boilermakers and the Teamsters are labor
organizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
W. THE UNFAIR PRACTICES
The record discloses few contradictions in the testimony and there is little dispute
as to the facts material herein. The findings of fact set forth herein are not in
dispute except in those instances which are indicated.
STORACK CORPORATION 495
A. Background information and sequence of events
Bernard Gordon 1 is president of Respondent, as well as president of another cor-
poration, International Gordon Steel Company, which occupies a portion of the same
plant as does Respondent. The production and maintenance employees of Interna-
tional Gordon Steel are, and have been since 1956, represented by the Teamsters.
James Gordon, son of Bernard Gordon, is the secretary and general manager of
Respondent. John McNurney 2 is Respondent's plant superintendent.
During the period from July 18 to 23, 1963, 16 of the 24 production and main-
tenance employees of Respondent signed authorization cards for the Boilermakers.
By letter dated July 25, Michael Wood, International representative of the Boiler-
makers, wrote a letter to Respondent in which he stated, inter alia, that the Boiler-
makers represented a majority of Respondent's production and maintenance em-
ployees,3 and requested recognition as their exclusive bargaining representative.
The letter further stated that, in the event Respondent had any doubt as to its
claim of majority representation, the Boilermakers would be willing to submit signed
authorization and membership cards to a neutral third party to substantiate its claim.
The letter was received by Respondent on July 26, 1963. The parties entered into
the following stipulation:
On or about [July] 26, 1963, the Respondent received a request from the union
to bargain collectively with respect to rate 'of pay, wages, hours of employment
and other terms and conditions of employment, that . on or about that
date the Respondent refused to bargain collectively with the union.
Early on the morning of July 29, 1963, McNurney learned of the Boilermakers'
request for recognition. He testified that he had been on vacation for 2 weeks, and
that, when he arrived that morning, James Gordon said to him, "Well, look [what]
you come back to, the Boilermakers are trying to organize and the place is in a
mess." He also testified that Gordon told him about the letter which had been
received from the Boilermakers. Later that morning, McNurney called William
Huey, an employee,4 into his office and, in the presence of two foremen, asked him
if he had any knowledge of, or had anything to do with, the Boilermakers, to which
questions Huey replied in the negative.
In the latter part of the morning of July 29, 1963, Bernard Gordon summoned
McNurney to his office and introduced him to two, representatives of the Teamsters
who were in his office. Gordon admitted that the Boilermakers' letter requesting
recognition was "one of the things that prompted", him to invite the Teamster
representatives to his office. Out of the presence of the Teamster representatives,
Gordon and McNurney held a conversation. They discussed the advisability of
having the Teamsters represent Respondent's employees instead of the Boilermakers.
According to Gordon's testimony he suggested that, since the Teamsters represented
International Gorden Steel Company employees in the same building, "It might be
more feasible to have better harmony throughout the plant that the shop discuss
with the Teamsters Union whether they wanted to consider them instead of the Boil-
ermakers Union." According to McNurney, Gordon asked him, "As long as the
Boilermakers are trying to get in . . . should we see . . . if they [the Teamsters]
would want to solicit the plant?" To continue with McNurney's testimony, "It was
decided that we would take these gentlemen [the Teamster representatives] around
the plant and introduce them to the employees." McNurney escorted them around
the plant and introduced them to "almost all" of the employees individually. The
representatives talked to the employees individually and solicited their signatures on
authorization cards.
Considerable testimony was introduced as to how the introductions were effected
and where McNurney was during the course of the conversations between the Team-
ster representatives and each of the employees. It appears that in most instances
employees were interrupted at their work . It also appears that McNurney introduced
1 Referred to in the transcript as Bernhardt Gordon.
3 Referred to in a portion of the transcript as John Mclnerny.
8 Respondent admitted in its answer that its production and maintenance employees con-
stituted an appropriate unit for the purposes of collective bargaining, and stipulated the
names of the 24 employees who were in the unit for the period from July 16 through and
including July 26, 1963.
A All persons referred to herein as employees were employees of Respondent during the
period material to the factual issues litigated herein and were within the aforesaid unit.
496 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATION S BOARD
the representatives as officials of the Teamsters and stated that the representatives
wanted to talk to them. It further appears that, in some instances, McNurney walked
away and, in other instances, he remained sufficiently close to hear the conversations.
Some of the employees testified to statements made by McNurney in addition to an
introduction of the Teamster representatives. Employee Jerry Underwood testified
that, after the introduction, McNurney said to the representatives, "There he is boys,
give him the works," and that McNurney also stated, "We have been trying to get
the Teamsters Union in here for the last couple of years or so." Employees Charles
Jones, Archie Watson, and Okey McClanahan testified to similar statements by
McNurney with respect to trying to get the Teamsters in for 2 years. Although Mc-
Nurney denied that he made any statement to the effect that the Respondent wanted
to get the Union in for 2 years, I do not credit his denial, in view of the fact that four
employees testified to such statements, and in view of the obvious desire on the part
of Bernard Gordon and McNurney to have the Teamsters, instead of the Boiler-
makers, as the bargaining representative of Respondent's employees. Employee
William Malone testified, without contradiction, that McNurney told him to stop
work and talk to the Teamsters; that, when he replied that he did not have time
because he was behind in his work, McNurney said, "Well, take time off and talk to
them anyway"; and that, when he replied that he was not interested, McNurney said,
"Listen to the arguments . . they give a good argument."
In the early part of the afternoon of the same day, July 29, 1963, Wood called
James Gordon and sought an answer to the Boilermarkers' request for recognition.
Since it was stipulated that Respondent refused to recognize the Boilermakers, it
does not appear necessary to evaluate the details of the testimony with respect to
their telephone conversation. It appears that in the course of their conversation
Gordon indicated that he doubted the Boilermakers represented a majority of the
employees and that Respondent would require an election as proof thereof.
According to Supervisor Howard Graves' testimony which was not contradicted by
McNurney, Graves stated to McNurney "on or about July 29" that "the Union [the
Boilermakers] is in and I don't think there is any way I can stop it," and MeNurney
replied that "they will not get in here . the Labor Board is not going to get them
in here and the Union is not going to get them in here."
B. Concluding findings
The record clearly demonstrates that, as of July 26, 1963, the date when Respond-
ent received the Boilermakers' letter requesting recognition, the Boilermakers did, in
fact, represent a majority of Respondent's production and maintenance employees.
Respondent took no action with respect to said letter on that date. The next workday
was a Monday, July 29. On the morning of July 29, Respondent asked the Team-
sters to organize its employees, and assisted the organizational efforts of the Teamster
representatives through its plant manager McNurney, who admittedly introduced
the Teamster officials to "almost all" of the employees. McNumey's conduct and
statements in introducing the Teamster officials clearly indicated to the employees
Respondent's preference for the Teamsters. Patently, Respondent was attempting to
undermine the majority status which the Boilermakers claimed. Later that day when
Wood called James Gordon to ascertain Respondent's position with respect to the
Boilermakers' request for recognition, he was informed by James Gordon that the
Respondent doubted its majority status and would require an election, rather than a
card check, as proof of majority status. There is nothing in the record to indicate
upon what factor or factors Respondent based a doubt of the Boilermakers ' claim, or
reasonably could have based such doubt.
Respondent contends, in essence , that it is not an unfair labor practice for an
employer to require an election as proof of majority status. However, it is well
established that while an employer may in good faith insist on a Board election as
proof of a union's claim of majority status, it unlawfully. refuses to bargain if its
insistence on such an election is motivated, not by a bona fide doubt as to the union's
majority, but rather by the desire to gain time in which to undermine the union.5
Not only is there nothing in the record from which it may be inferred that Respondent
had a good-faith doubt of the Boilermakers' majority status, but, on the contrary, the
existence of a good-faith doubt is negated by the invitation extended to the Team-
ster representatives to organize its employees and by McNurney's assistance of the
Teamster representatives in soliciting the employees, which invitation and assistance
constituted interference and coercion within the meaning of Section 8(a)( I) of the
5 See, e.g., Joy Silk Mills, Inc., 85 NLRB 1263, and Peterson Brothers, Inc., 144
NLRB 679.
STORACK CORPORATION 497
Act. Salmirs Oil Company, 139 NLRB 25, 26. The Teamster representatives were
introduced to the various employees and were permitted .to solicit them in the plant,
apparently , in all instances but one , on company time..' Respondent 's preference for
the Teamsters was made evident to the employees at the-time by McNurney . Further-
more, in a number of instances , McNurney remained in ,a position to listen to the
conversation between the Teamster representatives and the employee which must
have reasonably added to the coercive effect on such employees . McNurney's con-
duct did not constitute merely an expression of opinion within the meaning of Section
8(c) of the Act and a permissive act of courtesy to the Teamsters, as contended
by Respondent..
This course of conduct , which was obviously designed to induce employees to
transfer their adherence from the Boilermakers to the Teamsters , demonstrates that
Respondent 's refusal to bargain with the Boilermakers and insistence upon an elec-
tion were not motivated by a good -faith doubt of the Boilermakers ' majority status,
but rather by the desire to gain time to undermine its majority status. Therefore, I
conclude that Respondent unlawfully refused to bargain with the Boilermakers within
the 'meaning of Section 8(a) (5) and ( 1) of the Act.
It is alleged in the complaint that . Respondent engaged in unlawful interrogation
of its employees . The record discloses interrogation of only one employee , William
Huey, and that , in the- course of McNurney 's interrogation of him , there were no
threats or promises of benefits uttered . It is my opinion that the interrogation of Huey
should be evaluated in the context of the subsequent conduct of McNurney in
assisting the Teamster representatives to solicit Huey and the other employees.
Questioning him in an executive office in the presence of two other supervisors and
McNurney's assistance of the Teamster representatives in soliciting , him and the
other employees shortly after the interrogation tended to make such interrogation
coercive within the meaning of Section 8 ( a) (1) of the Act.
Although it was not alleged in the complaint , nor referred to in General Counsel's
brief as constituting a violation of the Act, an incident was litigated involving a'
threatening statement made by 'McNumey to three employees . Jones testified
that McNurney stated to him and two other employees on July 29, "The fellows
that signed these union cards, were stupid . There will - be no . more long weekends 6
And that's out." In his direct examination , counsel for Respondent questioned
McNurney . with- respect to this statement . While he testified that he did not recall
making the statement , he admitted ,, when questioned by the Trial Examiner, that it
is possible that-he did: Therefore , I credit Jones ' testimony. McNurney 's state-
ment, to my mind, constituted a threat to take away from the employees'the privilege
of "long weekends" because of their adherence to the •Boilermakers , in violation of
Section 8 (a) (1') of the Act.
IV. THE ' EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES - UPON COMMERCE •
The activities of the Respondent as set forth in section III, above ; occurring in
connection with the operations of 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
commerce and the free flow thereof.
V. THE REMEDY
Iii view of the findings detailed above that Respondent engaged in unfair labor'
practices, I shall recommend that Respondent be, required to cease and desist from
such unfair labor practices , and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate
the policies of the Act.
In its , brief Respondent urges that its "conduct was not so reprehensible as to-
warrant 'imposition of the extreme xemedy [apparently that of ordering recognition
of, and directing • Respondent to bargain with, the Boilermakers ]," but that, instead;
a representation election should be ordered . It is pointed out that a number of the'
employees who signed authorization cards for the Boilermakers are no longer in the '
employ of ' Resporident , and it is argued , "Even if the , Company's conduct did at some
point cross ' the threshold from the privileged to the illegal, its technical breach-of
conduct was not so condemnable as to warrant imposition of an unwanted 'union on
the present employees merely for the sake of penalizing the Company."
e Jones defined "long weekends" as follows: "'That's when a holiday comes on like Fri-
day. We work that Saturday before so we can get off Friday , Saturday , and' Sunday,
something like that." '
756-236-65-vol. 147--33
498 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Inasmuch as it was clearly demonstrated that the Boilermakers did represent.
a majority of the employees at the time of its request for recognition and prior to
the commission of the unfair labor practices found herein, it appears appropriate to
recommend that Respondent recognize and bargain with the Boilermakers, in order
to effectuate the purpose of the Act by achieving "a restoration of the situation, as
nearly as possible to that which would have obtained but for the commission of
the unfair labor practices." Greystone Knitwear Corp. and Donwood, Ltd., 136
NLRB 573, 575.'- Not-to order Respondent to recognize and bargain with the-Boiler-
makers would enable Respondent. to profit by its unfair labor practices, a result
which, to my mind,. outweighs the effect of the possibility that the Boilermakers
might not be the choice of the employees, if an election were now conducted. In
addition, Respondent's unfair labor practices might very well have adversely affected
the freedom of choice of the present employees. Respondent's unfair labor prac-
tices were more than merely "technical" violations, as Respondent contends in its
brief.
In view of the nature of the unfair labor practices which I have found to have,
been committed, I shall recommend that Respondent be required to-cease and desist
from interfering in any way with employees' rights, protected under Section 7 of
the Act.
On the basis of the foregoing findings of facts, and upon the entire record in this
case , I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Respondent is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act.
2. The Boilermakers and the Teamsters are labor organizations within the meaning
of .the Act.
3. All production and maintenance employees of Respondent, excluding office
clerical employees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act, constitute a unit
appropriate for the purpose of collective bargaining within the meaning of the Act.
4. At all times since July 26, 1963, the Boilermakers Union has been, and now is,
the exclusive' representative of all the employees in the aforesaid appropriate unit
for the purpose of collective bargaining within the meaning of the Act.
5. By refusing to recognize and bargain with the Boilermakers on and after
July 26, 1963, Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices
within the meaning of Section 8(a) (5) and (1) of the Act.
6. By interrogating an employee with respect to his sentiments toward, and
activities with respect to, the Boilermakers , by threatening its employees with loss
of privileges because of their adherence to the Boilermakers, and by inviting the
Teamsters to organize its employees and assisting Teamster representatives in their
organizational efforts in an attempt to undermine the majority status of the Boiler-
makers, Respondent has' engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of
Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the entire record herein , and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, as
amended , it is hereby ordered that Storack Corporation, the Respondent , and its
officers, agents, successors , and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Refusing to recognize and bargain collectively concerning wages , hours, and
other terms and conditions of employment with International Brotherhood of Boiler-
makers , Iron Shipbuilders, Blacksmiths , Forgers and Helpers, AFL-CIO, as ..the
exclusive representative of all its employees in the following appropriate unit: A11I
production and maintenance employees , exclusive of all office clerical employees,
guards; and supervisors as defined by the Act.
(b) Interfering with , restraining , and coercing its employees in the exercise of.
their rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act by unlawful interrogation , by threats
of economic reprisal for union activity , and by unlawful assistance of a labor organi-
zation in the solicitation of its employees for membership.
(c) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees
in the exercise of the right to self-organization , to form labor organizations , to join
or assist the above-named Union , or any other labor organization , to bargain col-
lectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in other con-
certed activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid -or
protection , or to refrain from any and all such activities , except to the extent that
such right may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor orga-
nization as a condition of employment , as authorized in Section 8(a) (3) of the Act,
as amended.
STORACK CORPORATION 499
2. Take the following affirmative action.to effectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Upon request, bargain collectively with the above-named Union as the ex-
clusive representative of employees in the above-described unit.
(b) Post at its plant, in Evanston, Illinois, copies of the attached notice marked
"Appendix." 7 Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for
the Thirteenth Region, shall, after having been duly signed by Respondent's rep-
resentative, be posted by Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and be main-
tained 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. Rea-
sonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered,
defaced, or covered by any other material.
(c) Notify the Regional Director for the Thirteenth Region, in writing, within
20 days from the receipt of this Recommended Order, what steps the Respondent has
taken to comply herewith.8
7In the event that this Recommended Order be adopted by the Board, the words "a
Decision and Order" shall be substituted for the words "the Recommended Order of a
Trial Examiner" in the notice. In the further event that the Board's Order be enforced
by a decree of a United States Court of Appeals, the words "a Decree of the United States
Court of Appeals, Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the words "a Decision
and Order."
I In the event that this Recommended Order be adopted by the Board, this provision
shall be modified to read: "Notify said Regional Director, in writing, within 10 days
from the date of this Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith."
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor
Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, we hereby notify our employees that:
WE WILL, upon request, bargain collectively with International Brotherhood
of Boilermakers, Iron Shipbuilders, Blacksmiths, Forgers and Helpers, AFL-
CIO, as the exclusive representative of all production and maintenance em-
ployees with respect to wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employ-
ment, and, if agreement is reached, we will embody it in a signed agreement.
Excluded from the bargaining unit are office clerical employees, guards, and
supervisors as defined in the Act.
WE WILL NOT unlawfully interrogate our employees concerning, or threaten
our employees with reprisal because of, their adherence to the' above-named
Union, or any-other labor organization.
WE WILL NOT unlawfully assist any ' labor organization to solicit our em-
ployees for membership.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our
employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to form labor organi-
zations, to join or assist the abovenamed Union, or any labor organization,
to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to
engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or
other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any and all such activities,
except to the extent that such right may be affected by an agreement requiring
membership in a labor organization as a condition of employment, as authorized
in Section 8(a) (3) of the Act, as amended.
STORACK CORPORATION,
Employer.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------
(Representative) (Title)
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. ,
Employees may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, Midland
Building, 176 West Adams Street, Chicago, Illinois, Telephone No. Central 6-9660,
if they have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions.