30, 2014). 12 . U.S. Postal Serv., 339 N.L.R.B. 1175, 1185 n.29 (2003); United Parcel Serv., 327 N.L.R.B. 317, 317 (1998);, Arkansas-Best Freight Sys., Inc., 257 N.L.R.B. 420, 424 (1981); Transcon Lines, 235 N.L.R.B. at 1165; see also Valmont Indus., Inc. v. NLRB, 244 F.3d 454, 472 (5th Cir. 2001) ("[E]ntrance areas to plants, where timeclocks, vending machines, and bulletin boards are located, are often mixed use ar- ‘ eas.”). ! 13 . Kaynard, 625 F.2d at 1052 n.6 ("Where, as here, a production area is regularly used by employees as a lunch area with the ‘lull knowledge and approval’ of the employer, the Board's position is that the area ceases, for the duration of the lunch period, to be a ‘work area’ where distribution can be prohibited. "); Rockingham Sleepwear, 188 N.L.R.B. at 701 (<HOLDING>); see also United Parcel Serv., 327 N.L.R.B. at
holding that an employers sewing room a work area ceased to be a work area during lunch because the employer permitted employees to take their lunch in the sewing room and provided no alternate facility holding that a change in employer from one federal contractor to another caused employees no lack of work holding in an employees action to recover for injury sustained during work against the employer and other defendants did not state an intentional tort claim against contractor holding that a company exercising substantial control of the terms and conditions of the work of the employees is an employer under the flsa holding that your work exclusion is triggered only where the damage at issue is to work performed by you and is caused by work performed by you  and does not apply to damage caused to original construction of a house during later repair work