28 day free trial

 

 

  

LawMemo - First in Employment Law

Home MyLawMemo About Us   Arbitration Articles

Search arbitrators | National Arbitration Center | Search awards 

 

Title: Snap on Tools and PACE / 5591
Date: June 1, 2004
Arbitrator:  Phyllis Almenoff
Citation: 2005 NAC 103

 

FEDERAL MEDIATION AND CONCILIATION SERVICE

----------------------------------------------------------X

In the Matter of the Arbitration

                           - between –    

Snap on Tools

                                    “Employer/ Company"

                           -and-

PACE / 559l

                                    “Union” 
----------------------------------------------------------X











Case No.:  04-50110
Re:          Grievance Dispute

APPEARANCES

For the Company

Stephen M. Darden, Attorney

Hunter, Smith & Davis, LLP

1321 Sunset Drive, Building B, Suite 201

Johnson City, Tennessee 37604

For the Union

James Carvin

International Representative

Paper, Allied-Industrial, Chemical & Energy Worker International Union

3130 No Pone Rd. N.W.

Georgetown, TN 37336

BEFORE:   DR. PHYLLIS ALMENOFF, ARBITRATOR

DECISION AND AWARD

WITNESSES TESTIFYING

            COMPANY

Called by the Company

John Keith Whitehead
Human Resources Manager, Snap – on – Tools (Johnson City & Elizabeth)       

Connie Archer
Supervisor

Also Present

Cathy Fleenor
Human Resources Administrator

         UNION

Called by the Union

Janice Crawford, Grievant

Charles Mark McGill
Vice President,  PACE, Local 5-0591

Darrel Percell
Financial Secretary,  PACE, Local 5-0591

Also Present

Thomas Warren
President, PACE Local 5-0591

Carla Lyon
Recording Secretary PACE Local 5-0591

Harry Anderson
Committee

Mike Bryant
Committe

INTRODUCTION

The grievance was submitted to Arbitrator Phyllis Almenoff pursuant to the terms set forth in Article 5 of the Collective Bargaining Agreement between the parties (Joint Exhibit 1) for a final and binding resolution of the issue.  The Arbitrator was jointly selected by the parties from a list submitted to them by the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service of the United States Government.

The grievance had been filed on August 13, 2003 and was appropriately processed through the steps of the grievance procedure without a satisfactory resolution (Joint Exhibit 2).  The grievance was properly before the Arbitrator.

The hearing took place on April 6, 2003 at the Holiday Inn in Johnson City, Tennessee. At that time both parties were afforded full opportunity to present testimony, offer evidence and arguments in support of their respective positions and cross-examine witnesses.  The Company and the Union each presented its closing arguments through post hearing briefs postmarked May 10, 2004 and received by the Arbitrator on May 14, 2004 at which time the record was closed.  The Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service of the United States Government allows the arbitrator sixty (60) days to render a decision and award.  This time frame was acceptable to the Company and the Union although Article 5 of the Labor Agreement provides a limit of thirty (30) days from the receipt of the post hearing briefs, (Joint Exhibit 1) 

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE

The Company and the Union did not agree on the issue to be determined.  Each party submitted its own issue and it was agreed that the arbitrator would frame the issue.  The issues submitted were as follows:

Union’s Statement of Issue:

“Did the Company violate the Labor Agreement, Absenteeism control Policy and Past Practice when it forced Ms. Janice Crawford to take vacation days for her nine (9) days personal business absences in July and August 2003 (July 29, 30, 31, August 1, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8).”

            Remedy: “That the Company be directed to provide Ms. Crawford with vacation time it forced her to use.”

Company’s Statement of Issue:

“Was the Collective Bargaining Agreement violated by the Company?
 If so, what shall be the remedy?”

After due consideration, the Arbitrator framed the issue as follows:

Did the Company violate the Collective Bargaining Agreement when the Grievant was required to use vacation days to extend her leave of absence?

        If so, what shall be the remedy?

           

The grievance (Joint Exhibit 2) dated August 13, 2003 states:

   Contract Violation:                                        Article 4, Article 14, Article 21

   State what happened:

On August 11, 2003, the Grievant was informed by the company that she had not been given an occurrence for her previous absence of 9 days personal business, but instead was being forced by the company to take vacation days for the absence.  This is a ridiculous and flagrant violation of both the Contract between the company and the union and the company’s absenteeism policy.  The contract states that employees will not be forced to take more than one week’s vacation.  Under the absentee policy, which is bound by the contract (Article 21), an employee must have approved to take vacation, but may take an occurrence (excused or unexcused) any day on which they are scheduled to work.  Such blatant disregard for the contract is destroying the company’s credibility with the union as well as harmonious relations between the two.

   Remedy (sought):     

Union demands that the company give grievant one (1) occurrence for the 9 days absence, restore to the grievant her vacation days and make whole in all ways

 

The supervisor’s answer to the grievance on August 18, 2003 was as follows:

Article 11, Section 2, states that an employee will return to work at the expiration of a Leave of Absence unless an extension is granted. No extension was granted.  Grievant had agreed to return to work at the end of her leave, but failed to do so.  It was communicated to the employee that personal business would not be allowed and that if the employee chose to remain off work they would be charged vacation.  Grievance is denied.

The answer of the Company at the second step (2) dated September 17, 2003 was as follows:

Article 11, Section 2, states that an employee will return to work at the expiration

of a Leave of Absence unless an extension is granted.  No extension was granted.  The original grievant had agreed to return to work at the end of her leave, but failed to do so.  The grievance is denied.

The third step response by the Plant Manager was as follows:

In this case, the employee requested a 30-day leave of absence for an extended trip.  The company’s HR Manager granted a 10-day leave and told the employee that they would need to cover the remaining time with vacation and the employee agreed.  It was the expectation of the HR Manager that the employee was returning to work after a one-week shutdown vacation period followed by the 10 (day) leave.  The employee, at a later time contacted her supervisor requesting personal business in an attempt to extend the time off.  The employee misrepresented their intentions to the Company and was denied the personal business. I concur with the second step answer.  The grievance is denied.

The Union demanded arbitration.

 

 Relevant sections of the Collective Bargaining Agreement in effect 12/16/00 through 12/17/04 which relate to the issues are as follows:

ARTICLE 2 – RECOGNITION

Section 1:  The Company recognizes the Union as the exclusive representative of the employees at the Johnson City Plant as defined in Section 2 of this Article for the purpose of collective bargaining with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of work and other conditions of employment as contained herein and enumerated under the collective bargaining agreement.

Section 2:  Whenever the term “employee” is used in this contract it shall mean all production and maintenance employees as defined by National Labor Relations Board Case No. 10RC10833 employed at the employer'’ Johnson City, Tennessee operation, excluding all office clerical employees, professional employees, guards and supervisors as defined in the National Labor Relations Act, as amended.

* * * *

ARTICLE 4 – MANAGEMENT RIGHTS

The parties recognize and agree that the rights to manage the plant and direct the working forces are vested in the Company and that such rights are retained by the Company except as they are modified by provisions of this Agreement.  Such management rights include the right to hire, discipline, discharge for just cause, lay-off, assign and promote; to determine the starting and quitting times and the hours to be worked; to establish reasonable production standards….to establish or continue policies, practices and procedures for the conduct of the business and, from time to time change or abolish such policies, practices or procedures;….to make and enforce

reasonable rules; to plan, schedule and determine the work to be performed;….

The Company will provide the Union President with a copy of any new plant rules, and/or rules changes not less than three (3) working days prior to their adoption, not including safety rules, and during that period the Union will upon request, be given an opportunity to express its views regarding same….

ARTICLE 5 – GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE

* * *

Section 2: For the purpose of this Agreement, the term “grievance is limited to any disagreement between the Company and the Union, or between the company and employee regarding the interpretation or application of the specific provisions of this Agreement….

STEP 4 – ARBITRATION

* * *

The arbitrator shall not have the authority to amend, modify, nullify, ignore or add to the provisions of this Agreement. He shall not have jurisdiction to determine that the parties by implication or practice have amended or supplemented this Agreement unless the parties shall expressly submit the issue as to whether such an agreement, by practice or implication, was made. 

* * * *

ARTICLE 11 – LEAVE OF ABSENCE

Section 1: A leave of absence without pay shall be granted to an employee, upon application in writing for personal illness, Union business, illness in the immediate family, and disability.

* * * *

A personal leave of absence not to exceed 30 days may be granted if legitimate reason satisfactory to the Company is provided to support the request.  Such leaves may be extended an additional 30 days if approved by management when operational requirements permit…

            A leave of absence is defined as a period of ten (10) or more consecutive work days.

Section 2: Employees will return to work at the expiration of a leave of absence unless an extension is granted….

Section 3: During a leave of absence of thirty (30) days or less,  the position may be filled on a temporary basis by a qualified employee assigned by the Company.  the employee on leave will return to his position upon the expiration of the leave…. 

ARTICLE 14 – VACATIONS

* * *

Section 2: Vacations will be scheduled consistent with the requirements of efficient operations….

The Company may schedule a shutdown for the purpose of scheduling vacations consistent with operational requirements.  The length of the vacation shutdown will be at the Company’s discretion.  Unless operational requirements dictate otherwise, the vacation shutdown will be between June 1 and August 31.  The time of the vacation shutdown will be announced as early as possible but in no event less than thirty (30) days prior to the shutdown.  Employees will not be required to take more than one week of vacation during a shutdown of more than one week, but they may if they so choose.

* * * *

ARTICLE 21 – MISCELLANEOUS

* * *

Section 12 – Absenteeism Policy: The parties mutually agree to endorse the terms and consistent enforcement of the present absenteeism policy.

* * * *

ARTICLE 23 – ZIPPER CLAUSE

This contract sets forth all the understanding and agreements existing between the Company and the Union at the date of the signing of this Agreement, and it is further agreed that the Company is not bound by any terms and conditions of employment not included in this Contract, except when such terms and conditions are reduced to writing in supplementary agreement form and thereby becomes a part of this Agreement.

STANDARD PRACTICE INSTRUCTIONS - ABSENTEE CONTROL

Article 1. Purpose

Consistent attendance is one of the most important aspects of each employee’s job at Snap-on Incorporated.  Perhaps the most adverse effect of absenteeism is the unfairness to the majority of employees who are consistent in their attendance and who carry the burden of schedule changes, temporary transfers, and the confusion that results when other employees are not available to perform their regular duties.

Attendance is a fundamental condition of the employment contract.  Each employee is hired as an important and necessary part of the organization to do a job on a regular basis.  If that employee is not available for work, then the very reason for the hire is negated.

Management has responsibility to the Company, and to all employees in the area of absenteeism control.  For this reason, clearly defined attendance standards and a consistent policy for the handling of excessive absenteeism are necessary.

Article II. Definitions

A. Absence – Any instance of missed time including tardiness, early departure or full days.

D. Occurrence – One day or two or more consecutive workdays missed for reason such as self-illness, or illness in the immediate family.

E.     Non-chargeable absence: An occurrence of absenteeism that is the result of an…approved holiday or vacation and approved leave of absence….

BACKGROUND

The Paper Allied-Industrial, Chemical and Energy Workers Union (Local 5-591), hereinafter referred to as the “Union” is the exclusive representative of the employees at the Johnson City, Tennessee Plant of Snap-on Tools Corporation, hereinafter referred to as the “Company”.  The Company recognizes the Union as such exclusive representative. The Union represents all production and maintenance employees. As a representative of the employee, the Union is empowered to process, adjust or settle grievances through the grievance procedure, including arbitration, in accordance with the Agreement.

Snap-on Tools is a Company that manufactures hand tools. The Johnson City, Tennessee plant  opened in 1974 and has approximately 150 employees.

Janice Crawford, the Grievant, has been employed by the Company for eleven years.  She currently works in the molding department of the Company. In a letter dated June 4, 2003, the Grievant requested a leave of absence commencing on July 14, 2003 through August 11, 2003 to visit her son who is in the United States Navy and is stationed in Hawaii. (Company Exhibit 1) Her son flies secret missions to conduct radar surveillance. She stated that she saw him briefly in 2002 and has not seen him since.  After a rest period, he would be leaving for a six-month deployment to fly radar in North Korea. His mother wished to visit with him and his family for as long a period as possible since she has not seen him for a year and was concerned about the danger he faces. The requested leave of absence was discussed at a meeting on June 12, 2003 by the Grievant and the Human Resource Manager (HR Manager) who is responsible for granting or denying requests for leaves of absence.  At this meeting the Grievant was told that the Company would authorize a leave of absence for ten (10) days rather than the twenty (20) days she requested.  The Company had previously announced that there would be a plant shutdown from July 7 through July 11, 2003 so that she would have three weeks to visit her son. The HR Manager testified that he had consulted with the Plant Manager previous to this meeting and it was determined that operational needs required her services.   After looking at the calendar, the Grievant indicated that ten days of leave would be sufficient.

The Grievant had not explained to the HR Manager that she had already purchased her airplane tickets and would be leaving for Hawaii on July 8 and returning on August 6 and that a leave of ten (10) days was insufficient to cover her trip. (Union Exhibit 6)  She did not request an extension of her leave. 

Prior to the meeting with the HR Manager, the Grievant had met with CA, her supervisor, and discussed various options to cover her trip to Hawaii including vacation, personal business days, etc. Since this was to be a lengthy trip, CA suggested that the Grievant make a written request for a leave of absence to the HR Manager.  This suggestion was made because of the lengthy trip she wished to make.

The Supervisor testified that she was aware that a ten-day leave had been authorized rather than the twenty days that the Grievant had requested.  She also knew that the Grievant would not be returning to her job at the expiration of the leave she had been granted and would not be returning until August 11.

 After the meeting with the HR Manager, the Grievant conferred with Union Officials concerning her need for twenty days to cover her planned trip to visit her son.  They informed her that after the ten leave days that were granted she could take an additional nine (9) personal business days with one occurrence. DP, the Financial Secretary to the Union, suggested that she confer with CA, her supervisor, to work things out.  He testified that he saw them looking at a calendar and writing.  The Grievant testified that she indicated to CA that she didn’t want to be in any trouble.  CA said that she would take it day-by-day.

The Grievant called CA from Hawaii on Monday, July 28th to tell her that she was taking nine days of personal business.  This information was sent to the HR department.  On Tuesday, July 29 the HR Manager and his Assistant called CA to ask her if the Grievant had returned from her leave of absence. When CA indicated to the HR people that the Grievant had called and indicated that she wanted a vacation day and nine days of personal business following the approved ten (!0) day leave, they referred CA to the Contract language in Article 11, Section 2 which  states:  Employees will return to work at the expiration of a leave of absence unless an extension is granted. CA was instructed to contact the Grievant in Hawaii and tell her that she could not use personal business days following a leave of absence but would be permitted to use vacation days if she chose not to return to work.  This arrangement had previously been authorized for another employee in similar circumstances. 

The Grievant and CA, her supervisor had a phone conversation on July 31 (Union Exhibit 7) during which she was told that she could not use personal business days to extend the leave she had been granted and would be required to use vacation days until her return to work.  The Grievant testified that she responded “Whatever, because I couldn’t do a thing about it that may miles away.”

When the Grievant returned to work, she filed a grievance because she was not allowed to use personal business days to extend her leave.

In 2002, the Grievant visited her family in Hawaii for about a month and was allowed to use a combination of vacation days and personal business days.

POSITION OF THE PARTIES

Position of the Union

The Union contends that the Company could not force the Grievant to take vacation days instead of allowing her to use personal business days and receiving an occurrence under the Company’s Absenteeism Control Policy (Union Exhibit 1).  In support of its position, the Union offered the following arguments:

1.      The Company can only require an employee to take one week’s vacation during the plant shutdown.

2.      The Grievant had already been required to take one week’s vacation during the plant shutdown prior to her taking a leave of absence.  She could not be required to take additional vacation time.

3.      The Grievant wished to save her vacation days in case anything happened to her son.

4.      Employees are allowed to take up to nine days personal business and receive one occurrence under the attendance policy.

5.      All that is required by an employee to obtain personal business days is notification to a supervisor about one’s intended absence.

6.      The Grievant had taken nine (9) personal business days during the previous year and had received an occurrence.

7.      A partial list of employees who had taken nine (9) personal business days for which an occurrence was received was presented at the hearing. (Union Exhibit 2)

8.      The Grievant and her supervisor met and worked out the details concerning the extended leave.

9.      The Grievant followed the correct procedure by notifying her supervisor CA that she was going to use personal business days.

Position of the Company 

The Company maintains that the Contract was not violated when it required the Grievant to use vacation days to extend her approved leave of absence while she was visiting her son in Hawaii.  To support its position, the Company asserted the following arguments:

1.      The Grievance is a matter of contract interpretation in which the Union has the burden of proof.

2.      The Grievant requested a four-week leave of absence following a one-week plant shutdown in order to visit her son who is serving in the military and was stationed in Hawaii.  She was granted a two-week leave of absence that commenced July 14, 2003 and ended July 28, 2003.  The HR Manager met with the Grievant and explained that the company could not grant her the four-week leave she sought due to production needs following a shutdown.  The HR Manager asked if the three weeks were sufficient to meet her needs.  She responded that it was sufficient.

3.      The Grievant had already purchased her airline tickets and knew that the leave she had been granted would not accommodate her travel plans.  She did not provide this information to the HR Manager thereby misrepresenting her situation.

4.      The concept of “personal business” does not appear in the Contract or in written policy.

5.      The Contract states: Employees will return to work at the expiration of a leave of absence unless an extension is granted. (Joint Exhibit 1). The Grievant did not request an extension of her leave from the HR Manager who was authorized to grant and extend leaves.  When the Grievant failed to report to work on July 28, 2003 she was in violation of the Contract.

6.      The Grievant could have been charged an occurrence for each day that she was absent beyond her authorized leave of absence which would have resulted in her termination. 

7.      The Company asserts that “past practice” is not an appropriate basis for an arbitration award and that the Union’s grievance did not assert “past practice.”  Additionally, Article 23 of the contract states: … the Company is not bound by any terms and conditions of employment not included in this Contract.

8.      The Company contends that the Absenteeism Control Policy does not give employees the authority to grant themselves a nine-day absence anytime they wish.  In fact, the policy endorses the concept of regular, reliable attendance of employees and asserts that consistent attendance is one of the most important aspects of an employee’s job.  The Policy states that if an employee is not available for work, then the very reason for the hire is negated.

9.      The Collective Bargaining Agreement does not prohibit charging vacation days to cover an absence.

10.  With the exception of the HR Manager, no other witness actually read the language of Article 11.

11.  CA, the Grievant’s supervisor, did not have the authority nor did she authorize leave beyond the ten days that the HR Manager approved.

12.  The Company argued that none of the employees who took nine (9) days personal business and received an occurrence had taken an approved leave prior to taking personal business days. (Union Exhibit 2).

ANALYSIS OF THE EVIDENCE

The issue to be determined in this dispute is whether the Company violated the Collective Bargaining Agreement when the Grievant was required to use vacation days to extend her leave of absence. If so, what shall be the remedy?

All parties recognize and appreciate the military service that the Grievant’s son is performing for the country and sympathizes with the fears and concerns of a mother in that situation.

However, this grievance is about whether the Contract was violated when the Company required an employee to use vacation days rather than personal business days when she did not return from an authorized leave.

Let us examine the Union’s major arguments. First, the Union asserts that the Company can only require an employee to take one week of vacation to accommodate a plant shutdown.  However, a review of Article 14 which pertains to vacations, states as follows: …Section 2: Vacations will be scheduled consistent with the requirements of efficient operations… It also reads: …Employees will not be required to take more than one week of vacation during a shutdown of more than one week, but they may if they so chose. It is correct to assume that the Company can only require employees to take one week of vacation to accommodate plant shutdowns.  The Grievant was not required to take more than one week of vacation during the plant shutdown.  As a matter of record, the Grievant requested a leave of absence of four weeks following the shutdown to visit with her son in Hawaii. (Company Exhibit 1)  The HR Manager authorized two weeks leave because of the production schedule. Although she indicated to the HR Manager (after looking at a calendar with him) that the leave she was granted in addition to the week of the plant shutdown was sufficient to accommodate her travel plan, she did not return to work at the end of her authorized leave. In response to her telephone call to CA indicating she would be using personal business days at the expiration of her leave, CA called her back, as instructed by HR. She informed the Grievant that she could not use personal business days and would be required to use vacation days until she returned to work. 

The Contract only speaks to required vacation periods during a shutdown.  It is silent on the issue of requiring an employee to take vacations at other times.  Company witnesses testified that another employee in a similar circumstance was allowed to use vacation days until she returned to work.  To sum up my finding on this issue: There is no prohibition in the Contract regarding employees being required to use vacation days except to limit the number to a week during a plant shutdown. What is more, another employee was required to use vacation days in a similar situation.

Second, the Union asserts that the Attendance Control Policy permits employees to take up to nine personal business days and receive one occurrence towards disciplinary measures.  Union officials testified that the only requirement to take personal days was to notify one’s supervisor of one’s intended absence. Union Exhibit 2 provided a list of employees (incomplete) who had taken nine personal business days and received an occurrence in the last year. However, none of the employees on the list had taken a leave of absence prior to using Personal Business Days.  The Union failed to acknowledge Article 11, Section 2 which clearly states: Employees will return to work at the expiration of a leave of absence unless an extension is granted.  The Grievant neither returned to work nor requested an extension to the leave she had been granted.

 

Third, the Union argued that following the granting of a ten-day leave of absence by the HR Manager rather than the twenty days requested, the Grievant had worked out the details with her supervisor, CA, to permit her to take an extended leave of twenty days. The previous year CA had helped the Grievant to visit her son and family for a period of a month using a combination of vacation days, personal business days and additional vacation days.  At the hearing, the Grievant testified that CA was aware that she was going to take nine days personal business at the conclusion of her leave and expected to  receive an “occurrence.”  When the Grievant told CA that she did not want to get into trouble, CA responded that “she would take it day-by-day.”  CA also testified that she was aware that the Grievant would not be back to work at the expiration of her leave.  When cross-examined about whether she “coached” the Grievant on how to get the time she needed for her planned visit, CA couldn’t remember.  Based on all of the evidence and testimony there is little question that CA did coach the Grievant.  It is also clear that CA did not inform the HR Manager of the “plan.”  However, it is also clear that neither the Grievant, CA, or the Union officials had read Article 11, Section 2 of the Contract.  Additionally, the Grievant and CA did testify that the HR  Manager was the person who was authorized  to approve leaves of absence and their extensions.  CA testified that she recorded the use of but did not approve the use of personal business days

The concept of Personal Business Days does not appear in the Contract (Joint Exhibit 1) or in the Absentee Control Policy (Union Exhibit 1.)  Article 23 of the Contract reads: “…the Company is not bound by any terms and conditions of employment not included in this contract.” 

The definition of “occurrence” in the Absentee Control Policy is - One day or two or more consecutive workdays missed for reasons such as self-illness, or illness in the immediate family.  Leave extensions do not qualify as a reason for “occurrences” in the policy.  Additionally, the purpose of the Policy is to control absenteeism, not to condone it.  “Occurrences” are a disciplinary measure imposed as progressive discipline that begins with a verbal warning for five (5) occurrences and ends in termination of employment.   

In summary, the Union’s arguments are not convincing.  An arbitrator cannot ignore the clear language of Article 11.  The Grievant should have returned to work after her leave of absence expired.  When she was not granted the twenty-days she requested for the trip to Hawaii, she could have explained the situation to the HR Manager, she could have requested an extension to the approved leave or she could have returned to work.  She should not have attempted to circumvent the denial of the four-week leave. There would be no point in requesting leaves if employees could take days off as they pleased.

 Informing the Grievant that she needed to return to work or would be charged vacation days for absences until she returned was not forbidden under the contract and was in reality an accommodation to her needs.  She could have been disciplined or even terminated for her action.  The testimony that the Grievant wished to save her vacation days “Because I though maybe I might need it later on if something happened to my son” is understandable.  However, if unfortunately, that were to happen, I am sure the Company would have accommodated her needs. 

The burden of proof in this case was on the Union. After giving due consideration to all of the evidence and testimony, I have concluded that the Union has not met its burden.

The grievance is denied in all respects. 

AWARD

Based on the evidence and testimony entered at the hearing, the Union’s grievance is denied.

DATED: _________________
______________________________
Phyllis Almenoff, Arbitrator

State of New York     )
                                    )
County of Nassau      )

I, Phyllis Almenoff, do hereby affirm that I am the individual described in and who executed this instrument which is my award.

DATED:  _______________

______________________________

Phyllis Almenoff, Arbitrator

 

Home | MyLawMemo | Custom Alerts | Newest Cases | Key Word Search  
Employment Law Memo | EEOC Info | NLRB Info | Arbitration | Articles | Law Firms | Site Map 

 

Get your 28 day trial now 

 
LawMemo, Inc.
Post Office Box 8173 Portland, OR 97207
Phone: 877 399-8028