Bruce Packing Company, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Administrative Judge Opinions

Apr 8, 2010

36-CA-010496 (N.L.R.B. Apr. 8, 2010)

JD(SF)–14-10
Silverton & Woodburn, OR
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
DIVISION OF JUDGES
BRUCE PACKING COMPANY, INC.
and Cases 36-CA-10496
36-CA-10595
LABORERS' INTERNATIONAL UNION OF
NORTH AMERICA, LOCAL NO. 296
Irene Botero, Atty., Region 19, Seattle, Washington,
Daniel Mueller, Atty., Region 36, Portland, Oregon,
Counsel for the General Counsel.
Bryan P. O’Connor, Atty., Jackson Lewis LLP,
Seattle, Washington, Counsel for Respondent.
DECISION
I. Statement of the Case
LANA PARKE, Administrative Law Judge. Pursuant to charges filed by Laborers’
International Union of North America, Local No. 296 (the Union), the Regional Director of
Region 19 of the National Labor Relations Board (the Board) issued an Order Consolidating
Cases, Consolidated Amended Complaint and Notice of Hearing (the complaint) on January 14,
2010. The complaint alleges that Bruce Packing Company, Inc. (Respondent) violated Sections
8(a)(3) and (1) of the National Labor Relations Act (the Act). This matter was tried in Portland,
Oregon on February 8-10, 2010.1
At the close of the hearing, Counsel for the General Counsel moved to amend the
complaint to include a promise-of-benefit allegation. The Respondent opposes the amendment
on grounds that the alleged conduct is outside the 10(b) period and that such an amendment
would infringe on the Respondent’s due process rights. Counsel for the General Counsel
argues that the proposed amendment is not precluded by 10(b), as it meets the factors set out
in Redd-I, Inc., 290 NLRB 1115, 1118 (1988), with which position I agree. However, the
Respondent was not noticed of the proposed allegation until after the Respondent had rested its
case even though the testimony upon which the proposed amendment was based had been

1 All dates herein are 2009 unless otherwise specified.
JD(SF)–14-10
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
2
given a day earlier.2 The delay raises a due process question. See Section 102.17 of the
Board's Rules and Regulations: an amendment to a complaint may be granted “upon such
terms as may be deemed just;” Folsom Ready Mix, Inc., 338 NLRB 1172 (2003) (amendments
made at the beginning of the hearing were not so late as to prejudice the respondent); The New
York Post Corporation, 283 NLRB 430, 431 (1987) (amendment not ruled on until just before
close of the hearing prejudiced the respondent). Given the lateness of the proposed
amendment and since any remedy for existing 8(a)(1) allegations would substantially rectify any
violation stemming from the proposed amendment, I deny the General Counsel’s request.
II. Issues
1. Did the Respondent violate Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by interrogating employees
about their union activities and those of other employees and by threatening
and/or impliedly threatening employees with unspecified reprisals because of
their and/or other employees’ union activities.
2. Did the Respondent violate Sections 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act by terminating
employees Manuel Coria, Jose Carmen Maciel, Daniel Luna, and Federico
Nieves Rojas on June 29, 2009.3
III. Jurisdiction
At all relevant times, the Respondent, an Oregon corporation, has been engaged in the
business of food processing with offices and places of business in Silverton and Woodburn,
Oregon (respectively, the Silverton facility and the Woodburn facility and collectively, the
Respondent’s facilities). During the 12-month period preceding the complaint, which period is
representative of all material times, the Respondent, in conducting its business operations,
purchased and received at its facilities goods valued in excess of $50,000, directly from points
located outside Oregon. I find Respondent has at all relevant times been an employer engaged
in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act. Respondent admits,
and I find, the Union has at all relevant times been a labor organization within the meaning of
Section 2(5) of the Act.

2 Counsel for the General Counsel argues, essentially, that the Respondent thoroughly
challenged the General Counsel’s evidence of a telephone conversation between Abel Esparza
and Maria Cortez wherein unlawful promises were allegedly made and is thus not prejudiced by
the amendment. At the hearing, the Respondent cross examined Maria Cortez as to her
recollection of the conversation and presented Abel Esparza to contradict her account. While it
is difficult to see what additional witness examination the Respondent might have conducted or
what additional evidence the Respondent might have adduced had the Respondent known of
the proposed amendment earlier, it is undeniable that the Respondent was not given that
opportunity.
3 The complaint alleges that Manuel Coria, Jose Carmen Maciel, Daniel Luna and Federico
Nieves Rojas were “discharged,” and witnesses variously describe the terminations as “layoff,”
“discharge,” and “firing.” The Respondent distinguishes the June 29 terminations from
discharges because, although the employees were laid off with no rights of recall, the
employees were not designated on company records as ineligible for employment and, thus,
could apply for employment at a future date through a temporary employment agency. I find the
terminations, whether designated layoffs or discharges, were de facto discharges.
JD(SF)–14-10
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
3
IV. Findings of Fact
Unless otherwise explained, findings of fact herein are based on party admissions,
stipulations, and uncontroverted testimony regarding events occurring during the period of time
relevant to these proceedings. On the entire record, including my observation of the demeanor
of the witnesses, and after considering the briefs filed by the General Counsel and the
Respondent, I find the following events occurred in the circumstances described below during
the period relevant to these proceedings:
A. Employee Terminations at the Silverton Facility
At all relevant times, the Respondent’s operations in the Silverton facility consisted of
custom meat processing, wherein the Respondent cooked raw meats, including chicken, beef,
pork, turkey and some fish products, to customer specification for component inclusion in
customers’ finished products. The Respondent maintained a sanitation department at the
Silverton facility, which was responsible for facility cleaning. All workers in the Silverton
sanitation department were furnished initially by Express Personnel (Express), a temporary
employment agency. Upon completion of a two-month or 500-hour contractual period of
employment, Express employees so furnished could be hired directly by the Respondent. The
issues herein centered on persons employed in the Silverton sanitation department.
Relevant employee supervision at the Silverton facility included the following individuals
in the following positions, who were supervisors within the meaning of § 2(11) of the Act, and/or
agents within the meaning of § 2(13) of the Act, acting on behalf of Respondent:
Jacobo de Soto (Mr. de Soto) Human Resources Director
Jorge Mesa (Mr. Mesa) Sanitation Manager
Osmin Martinez (Mr. Martinez) Assistant Sanitation Manager
Juan Rodriguez (Mr. Rodriguez) Night Shift Sanitation Supervisor
Abel Esparza (Mr. Esparza) Day Shift Sanitation Supervisor
Jose Flores (Foreman Flores) and Juan Briones (Foreman Briones) were nonsupervisory
foremen of the day shift sanitation department.
The Respondent employed about 200 workers at the Silverton facility, operating Monday
through Thursday. The Silverton facility ran one production shift from 6:30 a.m. to 7:30 p.m.,
and two sanitation shifts: a day shift: 5 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. on Monday and 5:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.
Tuesday through Thursday, and a swing shift: 7:30 p.m. to 6:30 a.m.4 Mr. Esparza supervised
sanitation employees on the day shift, as did Mr. Rodriguez on the night shift.
Tasks in the sanitation department included assuring that all production and storage
areas were clean, floors were dry, and garbage cans were placed properly; cleaning area-
separation curtains, production machines, floors, and freezer and refrigeration shelves, hosing

4 The Monday shift began half an hour earlier than the Tuesday through Thursday shifts to
permit additional machine cleaning before production started.
JD(SF)–14-10
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
4
off and/or scrubbing equipment and cooking pans, and collecting garbage. Sanitation workers
utilized such power equipment as pressure washers, pallet jacks, and forklifts.5
In May, Mr. Coria and Mr. Maciel began supporting the Union in its attempt to organize
the Respondent’s employees. Mr. Coria encouraged coworkers to support the Union and
hosted three union meetings at his home, two in May and one on June 20, all of which union
representatives and Mr. Maciel attended. Mr. Luna also attended meetings. At work, Mr. Coria
daily spoke to coworkers about the Union during breaks in the company lunchroom, sitting in an
area that could be seen from Mr. Esparza’s office about 20-25 feet away.6 Between June 20
and 22, Mr. Coria distributed to coworkers a union-created, red-fronted pamphlet bearing the
heading: STOP[:] 35 THINGS YOUR EMPLOYER CANNOT DO.
In mid-June Mr. Rojas learned of the Union by talking with Mr. Coria and Mr. Maciel
during lunchroom breaks. Although Mr. Rojas supported the Union and discreetly discussed it
with coworkers, he attended no union meetings prior to his discharge. When Mr. Rojas
participated in union-related lunchroom conversations with coworkers, he observed Mr. Esparza
in his office.
On June 19, Mr. Esparza telephoned Mr. Maciel’s wife, Maria Estelle Cortez
(Ms. Cortez), on her cell phone as she traveled home with coworker Lauda Cordova
(Ms. Cordova) after shift end.7 According to Ms. Cortez, in the course of the conversation,
Mr. Esparza asked her to confirm whether employees were forming a group to get the Union
into the company, telling Ms. Cortez that employees should be careful because it was a
“delicate” thing. Mr. Esparza suggested that Ms. Cortez talk to her husband, Mr. Maciel, and to
Mr. Coria, saying he had a raise for them, and they should be very careful because it was really
very delicate. He told Ms. Cortez not to worry about the Union because he was with the
employees. Mr. Esparza said he knew a union meeting was to be held the following day
(Saturday) and that on Monday, he “would know.”8

5 Forklift and pallet jack operation was limited to employees who had passed qualifying
tests. In June, Mr. Coria and four other day-shift sanitation workers who were not laid off in a
June layoff were authorized to operate forklifts. Mr. Coria, Mr. Luna and three other day-shift
sanitation workers who were not laid off were authorized to operate pallet jacks.
6 The lunchroom was L-shaped with one row of four tables extending end-to-end down the
relatively narrow stem of the “L,” broadening into a larger area in the short base of the “L” that
contained four tables. Mr. Coria and coworkers generally sat at one of the tables situated in the
base of the “L.” Mr. Esparza’s office windows fronted the top of the long stem of the “L.”
Because of the configuration of office and large lunchroom windows, tables located in the short
base could be seen from Mr. Esparza’s office. There is no evidence or contention that
Mr. Esparza or any other supervisor could hear the lunchroom conversations.
7 At the time of the hearing, Ms. Cortez had been employed by the Respondent as a day-
shift production worker for eleven years. Mr. Esparza was not Ms. Cortez’ supervisor; he was a
friend and godfather to her and Mr. Maciel’s son. Ms. Cortez regularly commuted to work and
back with Ms. Cordova. The ostensible purpose of Mr. Esparza’s call was to ask Ms. Cortez
what she knew about a harassment charge Ms. Cordova had filed against him, the substance of
which is not relevant to the issues herein.
8 In the context of the conversation, it is reasonable to infer that when Mr. Esparza said “he
would know,” he meant that by the Monday following the union meeting to be held at Mr. Coria’s
house on June 20, he would know what had occurred and who had attended.
JD(SF)–14-10
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
5
Mr. Esparza testified that prior to the terminations of Mr. Coria, Mr. Maciel, Mr. Luna,
and Mr. Rojas, he had no knowledge any of them had engaged in union activities or supported
the Union. Mr. Esparza said employee Marcelina Vargas had told him of Ms. Cortez’ union
involvement although he could not recall when she did so or how long their conversation had
lasted. Mr. Esparza said that in his extended telephone conversation with Ms. Cortez, he told
her that he knew she was in the Union, that he could do something, and that she should not
worry because he would not tell anybody anything about it. Mr. Esparza denied asking
Ms. Cortez about her union activities or saying he knew a union meeting was scheduled for the
next day. He said he could not recall if he told her she should be careful with such delicate
things. He denied telling anyone else about Ms. Cortez’ union sympathies.
I credit Ms. Cortez’ account where it differs with Mr. Esparza’s. Her testimony was clear
and detailed and demonstrated good recall. Mr. Esparza’s testimony was, on the contrary,
occasionally vague and his recall was patchy, particularly regarding whether he had warned
Ms. Cortez to be careful about “delicate” union matters and in recounting Marcelina Vargas’
report of Ms. Cortez’ union activity.9
In mid 2009, because of a continuing business downturn that had begun in 2007,
company executives determined that economic conditions required a general reduction in
force.10 On Thursday, June 25, Chief Executive Officer/President Glen Golomski and
Mr. de Soto met with department managers, including Mr. Mesa, who was over the sanitation
department, and directed them to reduce staff by approximately ten percent in each
department.11 The department managers were instructed to base layoff selections on attitude,
enthusiasm, departmental needs, and discipline with the goal of laying off the bottom ten
percent performers and keeping the best workers. Selections were to be made in the next day
or two by the managers themselves, if possible, but in any event by no lower a managerial
employee than assistant manager in the hope of keeping the layoff decision secret as long as
possible. The Respondent sought secrecy in order avoid potential reprisals and/or workplace
unrest that might follow knowledge of impending layoffs.
Following the June 25 meeting, Mr. Mesa told Mr. Martinez, Mr. Esparza’s direct
supervisor, to choose employees for layoff among the Respondent’s morning and swing shift
sanitation workers in both the Silverton and Woodburn facilities. According to Mr. Martinez,
Mr. Mesa gave him no numerical guidelines; Mr. Martinez arrived at the following layoff numbers
based on “experience…from experience, I could see what was the number of people with which
we could get the job done”:

9 Conflicting testimony was adduced as to whether, after the layoffs, Ms. Cortez told
Mr. de Soto she believed Mr. Esparza had nothing to do with Mr. Macial’s termination. I find it
unnecessary to resolve the question of whether she did or did not make such a statement.
Ms. Cortez’ opinion is not material to the issues before me, and I find the possibility that she
may not have been candid in describing her conversation with Mr. de Soto to be too tangential
to diminish her overall credibility.
10 The General Counsel does not contend the decision to effect a general reduction in force
was unlawfully motivated. The General Counsel’s theory is that union animus tainted the
selection of the four alleged discriminatees.
11 The following departments were affected: operations, sanitation, accounting, quality
assurance, and maintenance. The Respondent planned to keep the total layoff count under 50
in order to avoid the employee-notification requirements of the Worker Adjustment and
Retraining Notification Act (WARN) (29 USC §2101 et seq.)
JD(SF)–14-10
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
6
Silverton Facility Day Shift
Pre-layoff Complement: 16. Selected for Layoff: four.
Silverton Facility Swing Shift
Pre-layoff Complement: 26-28. Selected for Layoff: five.
Woodburn Facility Morning Shift
Pre-layoff Complement: 8-9. Selected for Layoff: two.
Woodburn Facility Swing Shift
Pre-layoff Complement: 24-26. Selected for Layoff: two.
The four employees selected for layoff from the Silverton Facility sanitation day shift
were the four alleged discriminatees, Mr. Coria, Mr. Maciel, Mr. Luna, and Mr. Rojas. At the
time of the layoffs, the following 13 employees, excluding Mr. Esparza and Foremen Flores and
Briones, were day-shift sanitation employees at the Silverton facility employed since the
following dates:
Jose Carmen Maciel 02/23/1998
Manuel Coria 11/27/2000
Matias Rodriguez-Hernandez 02/04/2003
Federico Nieves-Rojas 09/10/2003
Hipolito Claudio 02/10/2004
Agustin Carmona Perez 06/11/2004
Nicanor Luna 04/01/2005
Rufino Gomez 09/01/2005
Eduardo Montiel Jimenez 02/26/2007
Daniel Luna 05/22/2007
Lupe Trevino 12/29/2008
Eduardo Velasco 01/05/2009
Gregorio Esparza Velasco 03/04/2009
Mr. Martinez testified that he alone selected the number of employees to be laid off in
each shift and location as well as the specific individuals. Other than citing his years of
experience, Mr. Martinez did not explain how he arrived at the layoff count for each shift and
location or why retained-to-laid-off-employee ratios varied so greatly among shifts and locations.
As to individual employee selections, Mr. Martinez said he relied on his recollection of oral
supervisory reports, specifically those of Mr. Esparza for the Silverton day shift sanitation
employees, and on his own observation of workers’ job performances. He reviewed no
personnel files and sought no formal input from lower level supervisors.12
According to Mr. Martinez, he selected the individual Silverton facility day shift
employees for layoff for the following reasons:

12 Specifically, Mr. Martinez testified:
Q: Did you talk to anybody and get their input as to how many positions they could do
without?
A: Well, no…I’m on almost daily communication with the supervisors, and from the verbal
information I received from them regarding the performance of the workers.
JD(SF)–14-10
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
7
Mr. Maciel: Mr. Esparza had reported that Mr. Maciel’s “performance wasn’t as good,
that he seemed upset… And a few months before…he pushed this one table really hard,
and it hit a lady, and she ended up hospitalized.” Mr. Martinez had received reports as
to Mr. Maciel’s subpar performance and being “upset” for at least a year. Mr. Esparza
also relayed reports from lead employees about Mr. Maciel two to three times a month,
every month for about a year. The reports were about Mr. Maciel’s “attitude, that he was
like upset…that he worked less than other coworkers.” Mr. Martinez observed that
Mr. Maciel took longer to do things than his coworkers, and he could see from
Mr. Maciel’s expression that “he was upset, [that] he wasn’t the same person he used to
be.”
Mr. Coria: Foreman Briones reported that Mr. Coria complained when asked to do
something, saying he knew how to do the job better than the foreman and that he did not
need to be checked up on. Foreman Briones reported that on one occasion several
months before the layoff, Mr. Coria pointed to another coworker and asked why foreman
Briones did not send that person to do the job. During the entire two years that Foreman
Briones oversaw Mr. Coria’s work, Mr. Esparza also reported to Mr. Martinez that
Mr. Coria complained that Foreman Briones checked up on him.13
Mr. Luna. Mr. Martinez observed that Mr. Luna “liked to talk a lot. And when he realized
that I was there, he would try to work, but sometimes he didn’t see me.” Mr. Esparza
reported to Mr. Martinez that Mr. Luna complained about Foreman Briones checking up
on him, which reports Mr. Martinez had received for over a year before the layoffs.
Mr. Rojas. Mr. Martinez believed Mr. Rojas’ attendance to be bad because for over a
year Mr. Esparza frequently reported that Mr. Rojas called to say he would not be in to
work or came in late. Mr. Martinez did not recall receiving any reports from Mr. Esparza
about Mr. Rojas’ work performance.14
As to seven of the Silverton day-shift sanitation workers who were not laid off,
Mr. Martinez’ testimony was laconic: the work performance of each was “good.” Prior to the
June 29 layoffs, the Respondent imposed the following discipline on day-shift sanitation
workers, including the alleged discriminatees:
Mr. Coria. March 6, 2001, written warning for “taking too much time washing the
equipment.” July 21, 2004, written warning for unspecified reason.15 September 1,
2004, written warning for “addressing your supervisor with foul words.”
Mr. Maciel. February 4, written warning for having, a month earlier, “shoved a table that
struck another team member and injured [her].”
Mr. Luna. November 11, 2008, written warning because “since you were given your first
official verbal warning on 10/15/08, your attitude began to change. And every time you
are given an order, you answer back with foul language, and you say you are not going
to do it even though we review it…[you are] behaving in an intolerable manner, and
every time [you are] given an order, [you] argue, and [you have] begun to do this more

13 The Respondent neither called Foreman Briones as a witness nor explained its failure to
do so.
14 Evidence showed that Mr. Rojas was late seven times between January 26 and
March 19, 2009, including three days when he was more than two and a half hours late.
15 Handwriting on the warning stated that it was given for “the reasons marked,” but none of
the 13 pre-printed optional reasons was marked.
JD(SF)–14-10
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
8
frequently. And if [you do] not change [your] attitude…[you] will be given a written
warning with three days suspension without salary.”
Mr. Rojas. November 19, 2008, oral warning for being late to work too often and missing
too much time from work. February 19, written warning for, inter alia, “not treating team
members with respect such as harassment.”
Agustin Carmona. February 19, written warning for not treating team members with
respect such as harassment, not complying with company rules, and “also for having a
heated discussion with his coworker, Nicanor Luna.”
Nicanor Luna. July 13, 2006, written warning for entering a cook room through the
wrong door instead of using the main door and boot wash. February 13, written warning
for repeatedly disregarding instructions not to remove the water gun from the hose,
which wastes water. February 19, written warning for not treating team members with
respect such as harassment, not complying with company rules, and “because of having
heated argument with his coworker, Agustin Carmona.
I do not credit any of Mr. Martinez’ uncorroborated testimony. Mr. Martinez’s direct
testimony was often vague, and he seemed defensive if not resistant on cross examination.16
Some of his testimony was implausible, e.g., that he took only half an hour to decide how many
positions would be eliminated at the Respondent’s two facilities and no more than another half
hour to decide on the employees to be terminated, that he received no input whatsoever from
frontline supervisors and relied wholly on memory as to lower-level supervisory oral reports of
poor workers made during the past year without bothering to review personnel files. Moreover,
when questioned about the performance of employees who were not laid off, Mr. Martinez’
memory proved deficient. He did not recall that Mr. Esparza had told him about work problems
of sanitation employee Niconar Luna until shown Niconar Luna’s February written warning
(detailed below), whereupon he recalled that Mr. Esparza had told him “something” about “this
sort of thing,” of which he did not “really remember the details.” He did not recall that Matias
Rodriguez reported late to work eight times in 2008. Even as to a laid-off employee,
Mr. Martinez could not recall specifics, i.e. he did not recall that Mr. Maciel had received a
February written warning for shoving a table into an employee.
After choosing employees for layoff, Mr. Martinez took his selection list to Mr. Mesa.
Thereafter, on Friday morning, June 26, Mr. Mesa and Mr. Martinez met with Mr. de Soto and
orally gave him the layoff names. Logistical problems prevented the Respondent from
processing termination checks until Sunday, June 28, which delayed layoff announcement until
the following day.
On the morning of Monday, June 29, Respondent terminated 42 Silverton facility
workers in its general employee layoff. At the beginning of their shifts that day, Mr. Flores told

16 For example, Mr. Martinez initially accepted June 25 as the date when Mr. Mesa
instructed him to select employees for layoff but in later cross-examination sparred with Counsel
for the General Counsel as to the date. In cross examination, Mr. Martinez bridled at another
question:
Q: You evaluated more than 70 employees in 30 minutes and decided in that time period
who would be fired?...
A: Okay…
Q: the question is yes or no.
A: Is that what I have to answer? I can’t say what I—
Q: [question repeated].
A: Yes.
JD(SF)–14-10
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
9
Mr. Coria, Mr. Maciel, Mr. Luna, and Mr. Rojas to go to Mr. Esparza’s office where Mr. Esparza
and Mr. de Soto were present. Mr. de Soto told the four employees they were terminated
because of the economy and because production was low. He told them that over 40
employees were being laid off, and he encouraged them to apply for unemployment. Mr. Maciel
protested that the company should first terminate employees with less seniority. Mr. de Soto
said the company had made its decision, and there was no reason to debate it. Mr. Coria
protested that the employees being laid off had legal work documents whereas employees
being retained did not. Mr. de Soto said all employees’ papers were in order. Mr. Rojas said he
could “kind of” understand because he knew he had occasionally been absent. Mr. de Soto
said that any who wanted could reapply through Express.17
Along with other Silverton night-shift sanitation workers, Mauro Navarro (Mr. Navarro)
was laid off on the evening of June 29. Following his layoff, Mr. Navarro went to the home of
Mr. Esparza, with whom Mr. Navarro had been friends for 15 years. Mr. Navarro asked
Mr. Esparza why employees had been laid off. Mr. Esparza said he had chosen the day-shift
sanitation workers because they were stirring things up by meeting with the Union.18
Mr. Navarro pointed out that he had nothing to do with the Union and asked why he had been
laid off. Mr. Esparza said Mr. Rodriguez had chosen the night-shift layoff candidates. In his
account, Mr. Esparza agreed that Mr. Navarro came to his house after the layoffs and asked if
Mr. Esparza knew why he had been laid off. According to Mr. Esparza, he said he did not know,
and he denied telling Mr. Navarro that he had chosen the day-shift workers for layoff or that he
had laid them off because they were stirring things up with the Union. I found Mr. Navarro to be
a reliable witness who gave clear, consistent, and believable testimony. I credit his testimony
over that of Mr. Esparza.
V. DISCUSSION
A. Legal Principles
Section 7 of the Act provides that employees have the right to engage in union activities.
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act provides: “It shall be an unfair labor practice for an employer to
interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in section
7.” Section 8(a)(3) of the Act provides that it shall be an unfair labor practice for an employer to
discriminate in regard to hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment to
encourage or discourage membership in any labor organization.
In considering the lawfulness of communications from an employer to employees, the
Board applies the “objective standard of whether the remark tends to interfere with the free
exercise of employee rights. The Board does not consider either the motivation behind the
remark or its actual effect. Miller Electric Pump and Plumbing, 334 NLRB 824 (2001).
Communications from an employer to employees that threaten reprisal for supporting a labor
organization interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees as contemplated by Section 8(a)(1).
Empire State Weeklies, Inc., 354 NLRB No. 91, at slip op. 3 (2009); Regal Health and Rehab
Center, Inc., 354 NLRB No. 51, at slip op. 1 (2009); Grouse Mountain Lodge, 333 NLRB 1322
fn. 2 (2001); Tres Estrellas de Oro, 329 NLRB 50, 51 (1999).

17 Findings of fact as to the June 29 termination meeting are a reasonable amalgamation of
the participants’ credible testimony.
18 Specifically, Mr. Navarro said Mr. Esparza told him that “he had chosen the people from
the dayshift that were going to be let go because they were stirring things up…because they
were meeting with the union."
JD(SF)–14-10
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
10
In termination cases turning on employer motivation, the Board applies an analytical
framework that assigns the General Counsel the initial burden of showing that union activity was
a motivating or substantial factor in an adverse employment action. The elements required to
support such a showing are union activity by the employee, employer knowledge of that activity,
and employer animus toward the activity. If the General Counsel meets the initial burden, the
burden then shifts to the employer to prove, as an affirmative defense, that it would have taken
the same action even in the absence of the employee's protected activity. Wright Line, 251
NLRB 1083, 1089 (1980), enfd. 662 F.2d 899 (1st Cir. 1981), cert. denied 455 U.S. 989 (1982);
Alton H. Piester, LLC, 353 NLRB No. 33 (2008).
B. Independent Alleged Violations of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act
The General Counsel contends that when Mr. Esparza asked Ms. Cortez to confirm
whether employees were forming a group to get the Union into the company and told
Ms. Cortez that employees should be careful because union support was a “delicate” thing, the
Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by interrogating Ms. Cortez about her and others’
union activities and by impliedly threatening employees with unspecified reprisals because of
their union activities.
Supervisory questioning of employees about union activity is not a per se violation of
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. The test is whether, under all the circumstances, the interrogation
reasonably tends to restrain, coerce or interfere with statutory rights. To support a finding of
illegality, the words themselves, or the context in which they are used, must suggest an element
of coercion or interference. Rossmore House, 269 NLRB 1176, 1177-1178 (1984), affd. 760
F.2d 1006 (9th Cir. 1985).
Applying the Board’s Rossmore test to Mr. Esparza’s June 19 conversation with
Ms. Cortez, I find his question tended to restrain, coerce, and interfere with her Section 7 rights.
Asking Ms. Cortez to confirm whether employees were forming a union support group could
reasonably be viewed as an attempt to discover employees' protected sympathies and
activities, which is coercive. Questions that have a coercive effect on employees protected
activities are unlawful. Atlantic Veal & Lamb, Inc., 342 NLRB 418, 420 (2004). Consequently, I
find that Mr. Esparza’s inquiry about employee union activities violated Section 8(a)(1) of the
Act.
Employer warnings to “be careful” in contextof a conversation about union activity
“convey the threatening message that union activities would place an employee in jeopardy.”
Gaetano & Associates, Inc., aka Gaetano, Diplacidi & Associates Inc., 344 NLRB 531, 534
(2005); St. Francis Medical Center, 340 NLRB 1370, 1383-1384 (2003) (“be careful” statement
by supervisor in context of union activity held unlawful); Jordan Marsh Stores Corp., 317 NLRB
460, 462 (1995) (supervisor's statements such as “watch out” are unlawful implied threats).
Accordingly, I find that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act when Mr. Esparza
impliedly threatened Ms. Cortez.
JD(SF)–14-10
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
11
C. Terminations of Manuel Coria, Jose Carmen Maciel,
Daniel Luna, and Federico Nieves Rojas,
1. Manuel Coria
The General Counsel has met his Wright Line burden as to the termination of Mr. Coria.
The General Counsel proved that Mr. Coria engaged in union activity by being a driving force in
the unionization effort, encouraging coworkers to support the Union, hosting union meetings at
his home, and distributing a union pamphlet. The General Counsel also proved the Respondent
knew of Mr. Coria’s activity, as demonstrated by Mr. Martinez’ statements to Ms. Cortez. The
Board ordinarily imputes a supervisor's knowledge of an employee's union activities to the
employer unless it is affirmatively established that the supervisor who obtained such knowledge
did not pass the information on to others. Ready Mixed Concrete Co., 317 NLRB 1140, 1146 at
fn. 18 (1995); C & L Systems Corp., 299 NLRB 366, 378 (1990). Mr. Esparza clearly knew of
employees’ union activities, and I have rejected Mr. Esparza’s assertion that he did not inform
anyone in management that he knew of employees’ union activity. Consequently, it is
appropriate to impute Mr. Esparza’s knowledge to the Respondent. Finally, the General
Counsel has shown that the Respondent bore animus toward its employees’ union activities by
the following: Mr. Esparza’s warning to Ms. Cortez that employees should “be careful” about
engaging in union activity, Mr. Esparza’s implied promise to Ms. Cortez of raises for Mr. Coria
and Mr. Maciel if they abandoned their union support,19 and Mr. Esparza’s admission to
Mr. Navarro that he had chosen the day-shift sanitation workers for layoff because they were
stirring things up by meeting with the Union.
The General Counsel having met the initial Wright Line burden, the burden shifts to the
Respondent to establish persuasively by a preponderance of the evidence that it would have
terminated Mr. Coria even in the absence of his union activities.20
The Respondent argues that Mr. Martinez, who was assertedly ignorant of any
employee’s union activity, was the sole selector of sanitation department day-shift layoff
candidates and that the selection of Mr. Coria could not, therefore, be motivated by union
animus. Rather, the Respondent argues, Mr. Martinez selected Mr. Coria for layoff because he
complained and resisted oversight from Foreman Briones.
As explicated earlier, I do not credit Mr. Martinez’ testimony that he alone selected
employees for layoff. Given Mr. Martinez’ unreliable description of his solitary and hasty
selection of layoff candidates and Mr. Esparza’s admission to Mr. Navarro that he had chosen
the day-shift sanitation workers for layoff, I find that Mr. Esparza at least had substantial input
into the day-shift layoff selections. Mr. Esparza had both knowledge and animus and admitted
to Mr. Navarro that he had selected for layoff those day-shift employees who were stirring things
up with the Union. Further, although Mr. Coria’s alleged misbehavior to Foreman Briones was
purportedly the primary basis for Mr. Coria’s selection, Foreman Briones was not presented as a
witness to corroborate the misbehavior, which, without explanation for his nonappearance, casts

19 Although I have denied the motion to amend the complaint to allege promise of benefit by
Mr. Esparza during this conversation, his promises of raises may be considered in determining
animus and in showing specific knowledge of Mr. Coria and Mr. Maciel’s union involvement.
20 A “preponderance” of evidence means that the proffered evidence must be sufficient to
permit the conclusion that the proposed finding is more probable than not. McCormick
Evidence, at 676-677 (1st ed. 1954).
JD(SF)–14-10
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
12
further doubt on the Respondent’s claims.21 Finally, although Mr. Coria’s alleged misconduct at
work had assertedly persisted for two years prior to the layoffs, the Respondent never
disciplined Mr. Coria by so much as an oral warning in the nearly five years before his
termination, which is incongruous with the Respondent’s claim that Mr. Coria was a poor
worker. In these circumstances, the proffered proofs fail to satisfy the Respondent’s burden.
Inasmuch as the Respondent has not met its burden to show that it would have selected
Mr. Coria for layoff notwithstanding his union activity, I find the Respondent terminated Mr. Coria
in violation of Sections 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act.22
2. Jose Carmen Maciel
The General Counsel has met his Wright Line burden as to the termination of Mr. Maciel
for the reasons detailed in the above discussion of Mr. Coria’s termination: Mr. Maciel engaged
in union activity; Mr. Esparza knew it, as evidenced by his June 19 conversation with
Mr. Maciel’s wife, Ms. Cortez; Mr. Esparza bore animus toward Mr. Maciel’s union activity, and
Mr. Esparza was involved in selecting day-shift sanitation employees for layoff.23
The General Counsel having met the initial Wright Line burden, the burden shifts to the
Respondent to establish persuasively that it would have terminated Mr. Maciel even in the
absence of his union activities. The Respondent argues that Mr. Maciel’s performance was
poor and that the day-shift foremen had, for about a year, repeatedly commented on
Mr. Maciel’s “attitude, that he was like upset…that he worked less than other coworkers,” which
behavior Mr. Martinez also personally observed. Further, the Respondent argues that
Mr. Maciel’s conduct in shoving a table that struck a coworker about five months before the
layoffs made him a logical choice for layoff.
As to Mr. Martinez assertions about Mr. Maciel’s attitude and decreased work efforts, no
evidence exists that any supervisor counseled or warned Mr. Maciel about unsatisfactory
attitude or performance during the year in which his deficiencies assertedly persisted. Had
supervisory displeasure been so significant as to generate several comments a month, it is
reasonable to expect the Respondent would at least have mentioned the problem to Mr. Maciel.

21 The Respondent’s failure to call Foreman Briones to testify gives rise to an adverse
inference that he would have testified against the Respondent’s interest. Martin Luther King, Sr.,
Nursing Center, 231 NLRB 15, fn 1 (1977) ( where respondent offered no explanation as to why
supervisors did not testify, the drawing of an adverse inference against respondent is proper);
Flexsteel Industries, 316 NLRB 745, 758 (1995) (failure to examine a favorable witness
regarding any factual issue upon which that witness would likely have knowledge gives rise to
the "strongest possible adverse inference against [a respondent]" regarding any such fact).
22 Counsel for the General Counsel argues that the Respondent’s failure to follow seniority
or to regard the higher experience level of the terminated employees in making its selections
evidences discriminatory intent. As there is no evidence the Respondent ever based any
employment decision on seniority or that the terminated employees were so skilled that
disregarding their experience could reasonably suggest a discriminatory motive, I have not
relied on those factors in reaching my decision. See Dai-Ichi Hotel Saipan Beach, 337 NLRB
469, 472 FN 14 (NLRB).
23 As noted above, I have declined to accept Mr. Martinez’ assertion that he alone, in
ignorance of any union activity, selected day-shift sanitation employees for layoff. Mr. Esparza’s
admission to Mr. Navarro that he selected day-shift sanitation employees for layoff extends to all
four of the alleged discriminatees.
JD(SF)–14-10
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
13
While utilizing subjective criteria such as “attitude” is not by itself evidence of union animus,
accusing an employee of having a “bad attitude” has long been considered a veiled reference to
the employee's protected concerted activities. See Climatrol, Inc., 329 NLRB 946 fn. 4 (1999).
In the absence of a clear and credible explanation to the contrary, Mr. Martinez’ nonspecific
reference to Mr. Maciel’s “upset” attitude is a veiled reference to his union activities. In these
circumstances, I cannot find that dissatisfaction with Mr. Maciel’s attitude or performance
contributed significantly to the Respondent’s decision to lay him off.
Mr. Maciel’s intemperate conduct in February that resulted in an injury to a coworker and
earned him a written warning is a different matter, and the Respondent could reasonably
consider such behavior as a major factor in layoff selection. However, the existence of a valid
reason for discharge cannot, in and of itself, expunge an unlawful reason; the Respondent
“cannot simply present a legitimate reason for its action but must persuade by a preponderance
of the evidence that the same action would have taken place even in the absence of the
protected activity.” Yellow Ambulance Service, 342 NLRB 804, 804 (2004), (citations omitted).
In assessing the Respondent’s assertion that Mr. Maciel’s intemperate conduct
prompted his selection for layoff, it is useful to consider reasonably comparable incidents
involving other employees. Agustin Carmona and Nicanor Luna received written warnings for
not treating team members with respect and for engaging in a heated “discussion” or “argument”
on February 19. Agustin Carmona and Nicanor Luna’s confrontation had no physical
component, but it is clear the Respondent considered the two employees to be so immoderately
angry and intemperate in their interaction as to justify written warnings. As to Mr. Maciel’s
January behavior, there is no suggestion he intended to injure anyone. Rather, the table-
shoving appears to have been a physical manifestation of inappropriate anger, which
incidentally resulted in an injury. There is no evidence the Respondent deemed Mr. Maciel’s
conduct to have been more volatile and potentially dangerous than that of the heated arguers:
all three received the same discipline, i.e. written warnings, a fact that Mr. Martinez did not
remember in Mr. Maciel’s case. Although Mr. Martinez professed to recall the table incident
from Mr. Esparza’s oral report, his failure to recall its disciplinary documentation supports an
inference that the Respondent did not consider Mr. Maciel’s conduct to be more opprobrious
than Agustin Carmona or Nicanor Luna’s. These facts permit a conclusion that the
Carmona/Luna and Maciel incidents were reasonably comparable. Yet Mr. Maciel was
terminated while the other two were retained, a disparity the Respondent has not clearly
explained.
In sum, the evidence shows the Respondent arbitrarily selected Mr. Maciel for
termination. It is not, of course, unlawful for an employer to be arbitrary or even capricious in
terminating employees, but arbitrary or capricious selections cannot constitute proof sufficient to
outweigh the General Counsel’s prima facie case. Inasmuch as the Respondent has not met its
shifted burden to show that it would have selected Mr. Maciel for layoff notwithstanding his
union activity, I find the Respondent terminated Mr. Maciel in violation of Sections 8(a)(3) and
(1) of the Act.
3. Daniel Luna
The General Counsel has also met his Wright Line burden as to the termination of
Mr. Luna. Although there is no direct evidence the Respondent was aware specifically of
Mr. Luna’s union activity, knowledge can be inferred from Mr. Esparza’s statements to
JD(SF)–14-10
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
14
Ms. Cortez and to Mr. Nevarro, as can animus.24 The General Counsel’s prima facie case
having been established, the Respondent must assume the burden of proving that it would have
terminated Mr. Luna even in the absence of his union activities.
The Respondent argues that it selected Mr. Luna for layoff because he demonstrated
resentment of Foreman Briones’ oversight. In October 2008 and November 2008, Mr. Luna
received, respectively, an oral and a written warning for resisting orders with “foul language,”
the latter of which threatened a suspension if the conduct continued. There is no evidence
Mr. Luna received any further discipline, and it is reasonable to infer that he corrected the
problem to supervisory satisfaction.25 In circumstances where Mr. Luna had apparently
corrected a problem for which he was disciplined more than eight months earlier, the
Respondent does not meet its Wright Line burden by contending, without further explication,
that Mr. Luna’s past discipline warranted layoff notwithstanding Mr. Luna’s union activity.
Accordingly, I find the Respondent terminated Mr. Luna in violation of Sections 8(a)(3) and (1) of
the Act.
4. Federico Nieves Rojas
Mr. Rojas’ union activity came relatively late and was relatively passive, consisting of no
more than work-time conversation with union activists. Although there is no evidence the
Respondent was specifically aware of Mr. Rojas’ discreet union activity, employer perception
that he was allied with the union supporters can be inferred from Mr. Esparza’s admission that
he selected for layoff those who were stirring up things by meeting with the Union, which
statement also evidences animus. Having inferred from this admission that Mr. Esparza lumped
Mr. Rojas with those who were “stirring things up,” it is unnecessary to explore the factual basis
of Mr. Esparza’s perception. The General Counsel meets the knowledge criterion of his burden
simply by establishing that the perception existed. Thus, the General Counsel has met the
Wright Line burden as to the termination of Mr. Rojas, and the Respondent must establish that it
would have terminated Mr. Rojas even in the absence of his union activities.
The Respondent contends that Mr. Rojas was selected for layoff because of poor work
attendance. In November 2008, Mr. Rojas received an oral warning for lateness and
absenteeism.26 There is no evidence Mr. Rojas was ever again warned about attendance, but
the record shows that Mr. Rojas was late seven times between January 26 and March 19,
including three days when he was more than two and a half hours late. In spite of the
Respondent’s failure to impose further discipline on Mr. Rojas for attendance, it is reasonable to
accept that the Respondent remained dissatisfied with Mr. Rojas’ continued tardiness.
Attendance is an integral component of good work performance, the Respondent’s paradigm for
layoff selection, and Mr. Rojas’ attendance had not met that standard. Mr. Rojas himself
appeared to have recognized that slipshod attendance could fairly be held against him when he

24 As detailed above, Mr. Esparza told Ms. Cortez that he knew of the upcoming June 20
union meeting, a meeting that Mr. Luna attended. He later told Mr. Nevarro that he had
selected for layoff those who were stirring up things with the Union.
25 The Respondent’s failure to call Foreman Briones to testify or to adduce through
Mr. Esparza that Mr. Luna’s disrespectful behavior continued beyond his written warning gives
rise to an adverse inference that either or both would have testified against the Respondent’s
interest.
26 Although Mr. Rojas also received a warning in February for not treating team members
with respect, that was apparently not considered, as Mr. Martinez stated he did not recall any
negative work performance reports about Mr. Rojas.
JD(SF)–14-10
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
15
told Mr. de Soto upon termination that he could “kind of” understand his selection because he
knew he had occasionally been absent. In these circumstances, the Respondent has shown, as
required by Wright Line, that it would have selected Mr. Rojas for layoff notwithstanding his
union activity. Accordingly, I shall dismiss the complaint allegation relating to the termination of
Mr. Rojas.
VI. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce and in a business affecting
commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. The Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. The Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by interrogating employees about their
union activities and by impliedly threatening employees with unspecified reprisals if they
engaged in union activities or supported the Union.
4. The Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act by terminating employees
Manuel Coria, Jose Carmen Maciel, and Daniel Luna because they engaged in union or
other concerted, protected activities.
5. The unfair labor practices set forth above affect commerce within the meaning of Sections
8(a)(3) and (1) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
Remedy
Having found the Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices, I find it must
be ordered to cease and desist and to take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the
policies of the Act.
The Respondent having unlawfully terminated employees Manuel Coria, Jose Carmen
Maciel, and Daniel Luna, it must offer them reinstatement and make them whole for any loss of
earnings and other benefits. Backpay shall be computed on a quarterly basis from the dates of
their discharge to the date of proper offer of reinstatement, less any net interim earnings, as
prescribed in F. W. Woolworth Co., 90 NLRB 289 (1950), plus interest as computed in New
Horizons for the Retarded, 283 NLRB 1173 (1987). The Respondent will be ordered to make
appropriate emendations to Manuel Coria, Jose Carmen Maciel, and Daniel Luna’s personnel
files. The Respondent will be ordered to post appropriate notices.
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on the entire record, I issue the
following recommended27
ORDER
Respondent, Bruce Packing Company, Inc., its officers, agents, successors, and
assigns, shall
1. Cease and desist from

27 If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the Board’s Rules and
Regulations, the findings, conclusions, and recommended Order shall, as provided in Sec.
102.48 of the Rules, be adopted by the Board and all objections to them shall be deemed
waived for all purposes.
JD(SF)–14-10
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
16
(a) Interrogating employees about their union activities or impliedly threatening
employees with unspecified reprisals for supporting the Union.
(b) Terminating any employee for engaging in union activities.
(c) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees in
the exercise of the rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Within 14 days from the date of this Order, offer employees Manuel Coria, Jose
Carmen Maciel, and Daniel Luna full reinstatement to their former jobs or, if those
jobs no longer exist, to substantially equivalent positions, without prejudice to their
seniority or any other rights or privileges previously enjoyed.
(b) Make employees Manuel Coria, Jose Carmen Maciel, and Daniel Luna whole for
any loss of earnings and other benefits suffered as a result of the discrimination
against them, in the manner set forth in the remedy section of the decision.
(c) Within 14 days from the date of this Order, remove from its files any reference to the
unlawful terminations of employees Manuel Coria, Jose Carmen Maciel, and Daniel
Luna and within 3 days thereafter notify them in writing that this has been done and
that the terminations will not be used against them in any way.
(d) Preserve and, within 14 days of a request, or such additional time as the Regional
Director may allow for good cause shown, provide at a reasonable place designated
by the Board or its agents, all payroll records, social security payment records,
timecards, personnel records and reports, and all other records, including an
electronic copy of such records if stored in electronic form, necessary to analyze the
amount of backpay due under the terms of this Order.
(e) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at its facilities in Silverton and
Woodburn, Oregon copies of the attached notice marked “Appendix.”28 Copies of the
notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 19 after being signed
by the Respondent's authorized representative, shall be posted by the Respondent
immediately upon receipt and maintained for 60 consecutive days in conspicuous
places including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted.
Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to ensure that the notices are
not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. In the event that, during the
pendency of these proceedings, the Respondent has gone out of business or closed
the facility involved in these proceedings, the Respondent shall duplicate and mail, at
its own expense, a copy of the notice to all current employees and former employees
employed by Respondent at any time since June 19, 2009.
(f) Within 21 days after service by the Region, file with the Regional Director a sworn
certification of a responsible official on a form provided by the Region attesting to the
steps that Respondent has taken to comply.

28 If this Order is enforced by a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals, the words
in the notice reading “POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD”
shall read “POSTED PURSUANT TO A JUDGMENT OF THE UNITED STATES COURT OF
APPEALS ENFORCING AN ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD.”
JD(SF)–14-10
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
17
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint is dismissed insofar as it alleges
violations of the Act not specifically found.
Dated: April 8, 2010
Lana H. Parke
Administrative Law Judge
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
Posted by Order of the
National Labor Relations Board
An Agency of the United States Government
The National Labor Relations Board has found that we violated Federal labor law and has
ordered us to post and obey this notice.
FEDERAL LAW GIVES YOU THE RIGHT TO
Form, join, or assist a union
Choose representatives to bargain with us on your behalf
Act together with other employees for your benefit and protection
Choose not to engage in any of these protected activities
WE WILL NOT do anything that interferes with these rights. More particularly,
WE WILL NOT question employees about their union activities or the union activities of other
employees.
WE WILL NOT impliedly threaten to take any adverse action against employees for supporting
the Laborers’ International Union of North America, Local No. 296 (the Union) or any other
union.
WE WILL NOT lay off any employee for supporting the Union or any other union.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the
exercise of the rights stated above.
WE WILL offer Manuel Coria, Jose Carmen Maciel, and Daniel Luna full reinstatement to their
former jobs or, if those jobs no longer exist, to substantially equivalent positions, without
prejudice to their seniority or to any other rights or privileges previously enjoyed.
WE WILL make Manuel Coria, Jose Carmen Maciel, and Daniel Luna whole for any loss of
earnings and other benefits suffered as a result of our unlawful lay off of them.
WE WILL remove from our files any reference to the unlawful layoffs of Manuel Coria, Jose
Carmen Maciel, and Daniel Luna and notify them in writing that this has been done and that the
layoffs will not be used against them in any way.
BRUCE PACKING COMPANY, INC.
(Employer)
Dated By
(Representative) (Title)
The National Labor Relations Board is an independent Federal agency created in 1935 to enforce the National Labor
Relations Act. It conducts secret-ballot elections to determine whether employees want union representation and it
investigates and remedies unfair labor practices by employers and unions. To find out more about your rights under
the Act and how to file a charge or election petition, you may speak confidentially to any agent with the Board’s
Regional Office set forth below. You may also obtain information from the Board’s website: www.nlrb.gov.
915 2nd Avenue, Federal Building, Room 2948
Seattle, Washington 98174-1078
Hours: 8:15 a.m. to 4:45 p.m.
206-220-6300.
THIS IS AN OFFICIAL NOTICE AND MUST NOT BE DEFACED BY ANYONE
THIS NOTICE MUST REMAIN POSTED FOR 60 CONSECUTIVE DAYS FROM THE DATE OF POSTING AND MUST
NOT BE ALTERED, DEFACED, OR COVERED BY ANY OTHER MATERIAL. ANY QUESTIONS CONCERNING THIS
NOTICE OR COMPLIANCE WITH ITS PROVISIONS MAY BE DIRECTED TO THE ABOVE REGIONAL OFFICE’S
COMPLIANCE OFFICER, 206-220-6284.