National Can Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 22, 1972

200 N.L.R.B. 1116 (N.L.R.B. 1972)

1116 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
National Can Corporation and Daniel P L Borrero
Case 20-CA-7070-2
December 22, 1972
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS
FANNING AND PENELLO
On July 19, 1972, Administrative Law Judge'
David E Davis issued the attached Decision in this
proceeding Thereafter, Respondent filed exceptions
and a supporting brief, and General Counsel filed an
answering brief
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel
The Board has considered the record and the
attached Decision in light of the exceptions and
briefs and has decided to affirm the rulings,2
findings,3 and conclusions of the Administrative Law
Judge and to adopt his recommended Order
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
DAVID E DAVIS, Trial Examiner This case was heard at
San Francisco, California, on April 4 and 5, 1972, pursuant
to a charge filed on October 15, 1971, and a complaint
issued on January 12, 1972 The complaint alleges that on
or about August 27, 1971,1 Respondent suspended its
employee, Daniel Borrero, and on or about September 1,
discharged him because of his membership in or activities
on behalf of the Union,2 or because he engaged in
concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining
or other mutual aid or protection Respondent3 in its duly
filed answer admitted certain allegations of the complaint
but denied that it had engaged in any unfair labor
practices The issues raised by this proceeding may be
summarized as follows (1) Was Daniel Borrero suspended
because of his protected union or concerted activity9 and
(2) Was Daniel Borrero discharged because of his
protected union or concerted activity'?
Upon the entire record4 and my observation of the
witnesses and after due consideration of the briefs filed by
the General Counsel and Respondent, I make the
following
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board adopts as its Order the recommend-
ed Order of the Administrative Law Judge and
hereby orders that Respondent, National Can Cor-
poration, San Leandro, California, its officers,
agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action
set forth in the said recommended Order
1 The title of Trial Examiner was changed to Administrative Law
Judge effective August 19 1972
2 In the absence of exceptions we adopt pro forma the Administrative
Law Judges ruling that deferral to the contracts grievance arbitration
mechanism is not warranted under the Board s decisions in Collyer and
Spielberg
3 In adopting the Administrative Law Judge s violation findings we note
particularly that the record fails to establish that practice dictated the
presence of a single steward at meetings called to adnumster discipline to
employees We therefore find without ment Respondent s contention that it
was privileged in insisting that Borrero withdraw as Bowers representative
at the meeting to which Respondent summoned Bowers for disciplinary
purposes so that Chief Steward Bailey alone be present to represent
Bowers interest Indeed we note that two stewards Borrero and McMillan
were present at the August 25 meeting Respondent called to advise Bowers
of his suspension Respondent did not insist that one of them withdraw
from that meeting
We note and correct the Administrative Law Judge s incorrect reference
to Raymond W Olsen rather than Raymond W Ohm as Respondent s
manager of labor relations as of the time of the hearing
In finding the violations herein Member Penello relies on the fact that
Respondents purpose in calling the August 27 meeting was to mete out
discipline rather than to merely conduct an investigative interview
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
I THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT
Respondent is a Delaware corporation with a place of
business in San Leandro, California, where it is engaged in
the manufacture and sale of metal cans During the past
calendar year, Respondent, in the course and conduct of
its business operations at the San Leandro facility involved
in this proceeding, has sold and shipped products valued in
excess of $50,000 directly to customers located outside the
State of California The complaint alleges, the answer
admits, and I find that Respondent is engaged in
commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of
the Act and that it would effectuate the purposes of the Act
to assert jurisdiction herein
II THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The complaint alleges, the answer admits, and I find that
1 Hereinafter all dates will refer to the calendar year 1971 unless
otherwise specified
2 International Association of Machinists Local Lodge No 1518 The
evidence shows that this local is an amalgamated local Borrero at the time
of his suspension and discharge was president of the local This was the first
occasion where an employee of Respondent was elected president of the
local
3 National Can Corporation
° General Counsel s unopposed motion to correct certain portions of the
transcript is hereby approved In addition on p 6 122 change of request
to to sequester
200 NLRB No 156
NATIONAL CAN CORP 1117
the Union is a labor organization within the meaning of
Section 2(5) of the Act
III THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A Background
Richard Bowers, employed by Respondent from April 6,
1966, until terminated August 27, was at the time of his
termination employed on the second shift commencing at
3 30 p in and continuing to 11 30 p in He was employed
in the press department under the supervision of Foreman
Kenneth Williams Bowers at the time of his discharge had
been a union steward for about a year and a half and had
been appointed to the union bylaws committee on June 10
by Daniel Borrero, president of the Union 5 It is undisput-
ed that the meetings of the Union's bylaws committee were
held Tuesday evening commencing about 7 30 p in During
June, there were one or two meetings However, at the end
of July, Borrero scheduled such meetings weekly In order
to attend these meetings, Bowers was required to take time
off from work No questions were raised during June, July,
or August until August 19, when Bowers returned from his
vacation He was scheduled to return from vacation on
August 18 but told the assistant personnel manager that he
had been up all night on August 17 because of a lengthy
union meeting and therefore was not in condition to work
on August 18 When Bowers did return to work on August
19, he was assigned his usual duties, but, about 6 p in ,
Williams issued a verbal warning to him 6 Williams
testified that the warning concerned Bowers' excessive
absenteeism in general Bowers, on the other hand, testified
that he told Williams that he didn't have a particularly bad
absentee record and didn't know why the absentee verbal
warning was given According to Bowers' credited testimo-
ny, Williams replied that he didn't know anything about
the reasons for the warning 7
On August 20, Bowers asked Borrero8 to accompany
him to De La Piedra's office to complain about the verbal
warning Bowers told De La Piedra that he didn't
understand why he was given a verbal warning for
absenteeism when his absentee record did not warrant it
and that the only time he had taken time off was to attend
union meetings De La Piedra replied that bylaw commit-
tee meetings were not official legitimate union business
Whereupon Borrero stated that as president of the lodge he
was informing De La Piedra that Bowers was a member of
the bylaws committee and was required to take some time
off to attend the scheduled meetings Borrero also notified
De La Piedro that a grievance would be filed concerning
the verbal warning
On August 24 when the next meeting of the bylaws
committee was scheduled, Bowers informed Williams
5 International Association of Machinists, Local Lodge No 1518
6 This is the initial step in the Respondent's disciplinary procedure
Gerald De La Piedra Respondents personnel manager testified that
Williams consulted with him prior to issuing the verbal warning I conclude
from the totality of the testimony that De La Piedra airected the issuance of
the verbal warning as well as the written warning issued by Williams at a
later date In short I find that De La Piedra was calling the shots in
behalf of Respondent throughout the serves of events leading to Borrero s
discharge
7 Bowers absentee record was not introduced in evidence and Williams
about 4 30 p in that he would be signing out at 7 00 p in,
as his attendance was required at the meeting Williams
replied that the bylaws committee meeting was not official
legitimate union business and that he was not going to
grant Bowers permission to sign out Bowers replied that he
was not asking permission, that he was merely following
the established procedure by informing him when he was
leaving to go on union business 9 Williams then said that
he could not spare him Bowers replied that Williams had
three extra men that night and named them Williams said
that that was none of Bowers' business and Bowers agreed
Bowers did punch out at 7 p in that evening and went to
the union meeting
B Events Leading to Borrero's Discharge
On the following day, Wednesday, August 25, Bowers,
scheduled to commence his shift at 3 30 p in , arrived
about 2 50 p in , and met Borrero He asked Borrero to
wait around after Borrero concluded his shift 10 in the
event that Bowers would be disciplined because of his
punching out the previous evening to attend the union
meeting Bowers explained that he desired Borrero to
represent him if any disciplinary measures were to be
taken About 5 minutes before 4 p in, according to
Bowers, he searched for Williams to ask him about a
production problem In his search, he went out on the
loading decks and saw Borrero He told Borrero to go
home as there was no indication of anything happening
He also told Borrero that he was looking for Williams At
that point, Williams and De La Piedra came out of the
building and walked towards Bowers and Borrero Wil-
liams asked Bowers what he was doing there and Bowers
explained that he had been looking for him Williams then
asked why he was talking to Borrero and Bowers said he
told Borrero to go home Williams then ordered Bowers to
return to work and Bowers did so Shortly thereafter,
Williams came over to Bowers and said that as far as he
was concerned Bowers was no longer in his department
He then told Bowers to see De La Piedra for reassignment
On his way to De La Piedra's office, he met Borreroll and
asked him to come with him and represent him as he was
on his way to De La Piedra's office for reassignment
Borrero parked his auto and accompanied Bowers to De
La Piedra's office
Bowers told De La Piedra that Williams had sent him
there to be reassigned De La Piedra said that he knew
nothing about it Borrero then said that there seems to be
some harrassment of Bowers because he attended a union
meeting the night before De La Piedra said attendance at
union meetings was not legitimate union business Borrero
then asked, "Are you trying to tell me that Rich 12 can't go
to a union meeting" De La Piedra replied, "That is not up
plea of ignorance supports my conclusion stated above that Williams was
in essence the conduit for De La Piedra s instructions
s Borrero in addition to being president of the Union was also a union
steward
9 Clearly in conflict is the interpretation of G C Exh 3 Art XIII, sec
1(a)
io Borrero worked on the first shift from 7 30 a in to 3 p in
ii Apparently the route to De La Piedras office required crossing a
parking lot Borrero was at this time driving his automobile on his way out
11 Richard Bowers
1118 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
to me, that's up to the foreman " At this point, Williams
entered and gave Bowers a piece of paper Bowers saw that
it was a written warning form and handed it to Borrero
without reading it Borrero looked at the paper for a few
moments, laid it on De La Piedra's desk and said, "We
don't recognize this disciplinary procedure, Rich is a
member of the bylaws committee and as such he is entitled
under the contract to go to the union meetings, because
they are official union business "
Williams said, "Dan, you're not going to tell this
company when a man can take off work" Borrero said
that he wasn't telling the company anything, he was just
explaining his position Borrero handed a grievance 13 to
Williams concerning the verbal warning given to Bowers
on August 19 and informed De La Piedra and Williams
that the following evening, August 26, Bowers was required
to attend a special meeting 14 There was no response to this
announcement
On Thursday evening, August 26, Williams called
Bowers into his office and discussed various problems
arising in the department concerning union and manage-
ment problems such as too many and too long breaks by
the men on that shift 15 At the end of this discussion,
Williams asked Bowers if he was going to the union
meeting that evening Bowers replied that he was the
recording secretary of the bylaws committee and as this
was a special meeting called for ratification purposes, his
attendance was required Williams said he couldn't spare
him Bowers again said that he had three extra men
Williams said Bowers would not receive his permission At
7 p in, Bowers punched out and went to the union
meeting
C The Discharge of Borrero
Bowers testified that when he came to work on Friday,
August 27, he did not find his timecard in the rack
Following the customary procedure when this occurred,
Bowers assumed he was requested to report to the
personnel office On his way, he saw Borrero at the docks
and asked Borrero to come with him to represent him
Borrero said he would but that he would have to let his
foreman know Borrero then left for his department As
Bowers was at the docks waiting for Borrero, De La Piedra
and Williams approached and De La Piedra said he
wanted to see him in his office At that point, Borrero
returned and the four of them went into the office De La
Piedra went to the telephone and called the shipping
department for Clyde Bailey 16 After a few minutes, Bailey
appeared and sat down After Bailey sat down, De La
Piedra stood up and said to Borrero, "Let's get one thing
straight, Don, you are not to be here " Bowers said he had
chosen Borrero as his steward and witness and Borrero
said, "I'm here as steward " De La Piedra repeated, "Don,
you're not to be here " Borrero then said, "I'm here as a
steward, I've informed my foreman and I have gone
through the correct procedures and I'm here representing
Rich Bowers " De La Piedra repeating that Borrero was
not to be there added, "We have chosen the steward"
pointing to Bailey Borrero replied , "You don 't choose the
steward " After a further exchange of words along the
same line, De La Piedra said that he was suspending
Borrero pending final determination De La Piedra then
turned to Bowers and said , "Rich Bowers, you are hereby
terminated from National Can Corporation All ties with
the National Can Corporation are severed You are to
leave the plant immediately or we'll call the police "17 De
La Piedra then reached into the drawer of the desk and
took out three checks and handed them to Bowers who
looked at them and saw that they represented pay for the
current week, pay for the previous week, and vacation pay
Bowers remarked he did not expect this and De La Piedra
repeated that Bowers was to leave the plant immediately or
he would call the police Bailey at this point , according to
Bowers, remarked to Borrero and Bowers , "You know, you
guys, this could have all been avoided " Borrero asked
how, but Bailey did not reply Bowers said he wanted to
recover some personal property from his locker At first,
De La Piedra objected and then said he would accompany
Bowers On the way to the locker, Bowers changed his
mind and started to walk out of the plant toward the docks
to wait for Borrero, who had gone into the plant to secure
some grievance forms While Bowers was waiting, De La
Piedra repeatedly urged Bowers to leave the premises
immediately or the police would be called, whereupon
Bowers left
On August 30, about 6 30 a in, Bowers, in the company
of Borrero, returned to the vicinity of the plant They
paraded on the sidewalk adjacent to the plant and
distributed a leaflet to those entering The leaflet entitled,
"Shop Memo," is gave Bowers' and Borrero 's version of
the events leading to Bowers' discharge The leaflet
specifically concluded with these words "At this date we
are not considering a stop-work action What this kid has
done [the personnel manager] is a violation of the National
Labor Relations Law [interferrmg with union representa-
tive in the performance of their duty] and any strike action
is legal under such violations But, as Stewards , we ask that
all members remain on-the-job At least until all possible
other procedures and alternatives are exhausted As
Stewards, we respect our contractual Grievance Procedure
If our Grievance Procedure doesn't work, and the NLRB
takes its time, then we will consider turning to you for your
cooperation in fighting this UNFAIR LABOR PRAC-
TICE " In addition to passing out the leaflets, both Borrero
and Bowers carried signs bearing one of the following
legends
I A M Union Steward Fired N C C violated
Contract
and
13 G C Exh 4 17 This formalistic ritual recited by De La Piedra and the fact that
14 I gather that this was a special meeting of the entire membership for Bowers checks were ready indicates that the proceedings were intended as a
ratification of proposed bylaws mere formality and that the decision to discharge Bowers had already been
11 Bowers was the union steward in the department made
16 Clyde Bailey was the chief union steward at Respondent s plant 18 G C Exh 5
NATIONAL CAN CORP 1119
N CC Unfair to Contract AND UNION
STEWARDS
One or two employees arriving for work asked if it was
okay to pass through, to which Bowers and Borrero replied
"certainly " Bowers told employees that this was only an
"information" leaflet and to please read the memo Bowers
testified that all suppliers and supplies passed through and
that no one refused to go into the plant 19 Borrero and
Bowers continued to pass out leaflets until 8 a in
In concluding his direct testimony, Bowers asserted that
the presence of two stewards at a disciplinary proceeding
in the personnel director's office was a frequent occurrence
and had never been objected to He recited one instance
when the presence of five stewards was protested by
management and three of the five departed
On cross-examination, Bowers conceded that when he
received a wntten warning Wednesday, August 25, because
of his departure from the plant on August 24 without
Williams' permission, he knew that if he did it again he
might be subject to further discipline Nevertheless,
because he felt that the labor agreement permitted him to
leave to attend the special meeting on Thursday, August
26, Bowers again left without Williams' permission
Borrero testified that he had been employed by Respon-
dent since March 1959, had been a shop union steward for
6 or 7 years and was president of the local during the year
1971, that on occasion he has acted as chief shop steward
at Bailey's request, that he appointed Bowers as recording
secretary of the bylaws committee of the Union on June
10, that this committee met on occasional Tuesdays
commencing about 7 30 p in , that he himself attended
regularly, that he, as president, was attempting to have the
bylaws reorganized and amended by the membership
before November, that by the end of June, bylaw
committee meetings were scheduled for each week, that
Bowers had no trouble getting off work to attend until
August when Foreman Williams told Bowers he could not
spare him With regard to subsequent events testified to by
Bowers, as recited above, Borrero's testimony was in
substantial agreement except that on August 20 when he
went with Bowers to De La Piedra's office, Borrero asked
De La Piedra to remove Bowers' verbal warning from the
records and De La Piedra refused Borrero also stated at
that time he believed it was being brought up because
Bowers' was attending union meetings as distinguished
from absences by others for other reasons De La Piedra
replied that union meetings were not legitimate union
business Borrero also informed De La Piedra at this time
that Bowers would be attending a bylaw committee
meeting on Tuesday, August 24, and a specially called
union meeting on August 26 Again De La Piedra replied
that it was not legitimate union business and Borrero said
he wasn't going to get into an argument about it but was
informing him
On August 23, Borrero called the Union's Grand Lodge
representative, Robert J Carter, and explained the prob-
lem Carter supported Borrero's position Thereupon,
Borrero went into De La Piedra's office and again
informed De La Piedra that Bowers would attend union
meetings on August 24 and 26 He also told De La Piedra
that Carter said that it was the Union's right to determine
what is legitimate union business , not the company's On
Wednesday, August 25, Borrero met Bailey and informed
him of his call to Carter and his conversation with De La
Piedra Bailey called Carter and told Borrero that Carter
had confirmed to him his agreement with Borrero's
position At Bailey's suggestion that De La Piedra again be
informed of Carter's position, Bailey and Borrero there-
upon went into De La Piedra's office
Borrero then testified as follows
I informed Jerry 20 that I was here as president of the
local lodge 1518 and that Rich Bowers had went to the
bylaws Tuesday meeting and he would be attending the
special called meeting Thursday Then, I informed him
as president of that lodge that he had official
notification and he said that it wasn't proper legitimate
union business and Clyde told him that it wasn't for
him to decide
Clyde told him that he had been in contact with Mr
Carter and that he had said that-
MR HUDSON Objection
That's again heresay
MR BERKOWITZ Again, its not heresay at all
TRIAL EXAMINER I'll overrule the objection
Now let's have it what was said?
WITNESS Clyde Bailey said that he talked to Mr Carter
and Mr Carter said, This is an internal 1 affair of the
union and it was legitimate union business and it was
legitimate "
Borrero's testimonial account continued with the events
occurring after he and Bowers went to De La Piedra's
office on August 25 His testimony was substantially the
same as Bowers' testimony recited above Borrero's
account of what occurred in De La Piedra's office on
August 27 when he was suspended, although less detailed,
supported Bowers' account in the essential facts 21 Borrero
conceded that on August 30 he had passed out leaflets as
described by Bowers He then stated that he received a
letter signed by De La Piedra on September 1 22 On cross-
examination, Borrero testified that at the meeting with De
La Piedra in the presence of Bowers, on August 23, De La
Piedra said that whether Bowers went to the union meeting
scheduled for Thursday, August 24, was up to the foreman
Borrero also conceded that no grievance concerning the
wntten warning given to Bowers was filed until August
30 23
19 These statements stand without contradiction
20 De La Piedra
21 Borrero denied that he told De La Piedra on August 27 that he was
there as president of the Union to represent Bowers in a grievance
22 G C Exh 6 reads as follows
In view of your conduct in the plant on Friday August 27 1971 and
at the plant on Monday August 30 1971 we feel we can no longer
continue your employment at National Can Corporation
Under the circumstances the suspension given you pending
determination by the Company has been converted to a discharge
effective immediately
Enclosed please find all money due and owing you through Friday
August 27 1971
23 Resp Exh 2
1120 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
D Respondent's Evidence La Piedra, Williams, Bowers, and Borrero, in De La
Piedra's office for the disciplinary meeting, De La Piedra
told Borrero, "You can go back to work now Mr Bailey is
a witness for the Union " Borrero indicated that he would
not leave, that De La Piedra again asked him to go back to
his work as he had Clyde Bailey there to represent the
Union, De La Piedra also told Borrero to go back to work
because "we have the chief shop steward here as a witness
for the Union " When Borrero again refused, De La Piedra
told Borrero that he was suspended "pending determina-
tion by management " At that point, he turned to Bowers
and notified him of his discharge and gave him his checks
On cross-examination, Williams testified that De La
Piedra called him on the telephone on the morning of
August 25 and, after Williams informed him that Bowers
had checked out on the evening of August 24 without
Williams' permission, De La Piedra told Williams that
Bowers should receive a written warning Williams also
testified that when Bowers was summoned into De La
Piedra's office on August 25, Williams had asked McMil-
lan, a union steward, to be present and that both Borrero
as well as McMillan were present when Bowers received
the written warning Williams acknowledged that on
occasion more than one union steward was present when an
employee was called into the personnel office 28
Gerald De La Pfedra testified that he was the personnel
manager at Respondent's San Leandro plant and was
responsible for the administration of fringe benefits, labor
contracts, and disciplinary matters De La Piedra acknowl-
edged that in a telephone conversation with Williams on
August 25 he was informed that Bowers had checked out
early without permission and that it was agreed that a
written warning should be issued to Bowers, that at a
meeting in his office about 5 p in on August 25 in the
presence of Williams, Bowers, Borrero, McMillan, and
himself, Williams handed Bowers a written warning and
that Bowers said that he had read some of his prejudicial
write-ups before and threw the warning notice on his desk,
that Borrero and Bowers said that they would not accept
the warning notice, that he and Williams explained the
company position in detail and that both Borrero and
Bowers contended that Bowers had left on union business
and that no permission was required for this purpose De
La Piedra testified that he informed Borrero and Bowers
that the warning stood and if there was another similar
incident there would be further discipline up to termina-
tion
On Thursday, August 26, De La Piedra received a
telephone call from Williams concerning Bowers' leaving
without permission at 7 p in that evening On Friday,
August 27, De La Piedra called Williams about 8 45 a in,
discussed Bowers' departure without permission on the
previous evening, and decided that termination was the
appropriate discipline De La Piedra asked Williams to
department
26 Union steward on second shift I note that two union stewards
Borrero and McMillan were present on this occasion without objection
from De La Piedra
27 Thus quote from Williams testimony confirms my observation above
that the termination conference was merely a formality and that the stage
setting was prearranged
28 Emphasis supplied The type of meeting apparently did not matter
Williams called by Respondent testified that he has been
employed by Respondent 23 years and has been a foreman
for the past 4 years24, that Bowers was a relief cleanup
man, that on August 23 he told Bowers he was being
assigned for a brief period the job of record clerk while the
regular clerk was on vacation, that the record clerk keeps
track of the day's production, codes the cartons, and makes
all the changeovers, that the record clerk's job is important
and errors could cost the Company several thousand
dollars, because wrongly marked products would go to
wrong customers 25
Williams testified that at the meeting in De La Piedra's
office on August 25 present were Bowers, Borrero, Bob
McMillan,26 De La Piedra, and himself, that he asked
McMillan to be there because he wanted a shop steward
present when he handed Bowers the written warning, that
Bowers read the warning when he handed it to him and
said that he had read some of his prejudicial write-ups
before, that De La Piedra said that, if the circumstances
were repeated, further disciplinary action would be taken,
up to and including discharge, that Bowers and Borrero
said that they did not accept the warning and that they did
not need permission to go to union meetings and that all
they had to do was inform management and leave, that
Borrero said he was president of the local and was
informing them that Bowers would be going to a union
meeting the next evening, that De La Piedra said that that
was not the way it worked, that in the past the business
agent would let management know and arrangements
would be made, that the Grand Lodge and Carter's name
were mentioned, that on August 26 Bowers as union
steward and Williams had discussed departmental prob-
lems in Williams' office, that at the conclusion of their
business about 6 or 6 30 p in, Bowers said he would be
leaving shortly to go to a union meeting, that he told
Bowers that he would not give him permission to leave as
he had no one to replace him as the record clerk, that after
Bowers left Williams called the third-shift record clerk to
replace him at premium time, that he had called the third-
shift record clerk at premium pay on the previous occasion
when Bowers had left without his permission Williams
then testified that he reported the matter to De La Piedra
who said that they should think about it overnight and
discuss it the next day, that, about 9 am the following
day, De La Piedra called him on the phone and arrived at a
decision to terminate Bowers Williams, as arranged with
De La Piedra, arrived at the personnel office about 2 45
p in, at which time De La Piedra said, "I pulled Mr
Bowers' timecard We'll catch him when he comes in and
Clyde Bailey will be up and we'll issue him the termina-
tion "27
Williams then testified that later, when Baileyjoined De
24 He is also a former member of the Union and a former union shop
steward
25 Undoubtedly this is true but I decline to draw the conclusions urged
upon me that Bowers was the only man available in the department to do
the job satisfactorily After all Bowers although he had at tunes acted as
records clerk nevertheless was only a relief cleanup man who swept floors
and cleaned up the work areas This hardly is a foundation for an
assumption that Bowers was essential to Respondents operations in the
NATIONAL CAN CORP 1121
arrive a short time before his shift started so as to
apprehend Bowers when he was entering the work area of
the plant De La Piedra also spoke to Bailey about 10 a in
and told Bailey that Bowers had left the plant without
management approval and that they were gomg to
discipline Bowers He asked Bailey "if he would want to
come to my office at 3 00 o'clock for the disciplinary
action " Bailey asked what action he was going to take and
De La Piedra said he did not want to discuss it until the
meeting 29 Bailey said he would be at the meeting
scheduled for 3 p in in De La Piedra's office
Later that day, a little before 3 p in, De La Piedra saw
Bowers enter the plant, walk over to the rack of timecards,
and then walk away De La Piedra walked out of his office
and asked Bowers to come into his office De La Piedra
saw Borrero walking toward them when he was about 50
feet away De La Piedra, according to his testimonial
account, did not speak to Borrero at this time but walked
into his office where Williams was waiting Bowers walked
in after De La Piedra and Borrero also came in De La
Piedra picked up the telephone to find out why Bailey had
not arrived at the office Soon after Bailey did arrive and
De La Piedra turned to Borrero and said, "Dan, you're not
needed here Clyde Bailey, the chief shop steward is here as
observer or witness You can return to your Job " Borrero
shook his head indicating "no " De La Piedra repeated his
words and remarked to Bailey that he wanted Borrero to
leave Bailey replied, "What can I dog"
De La Piedra then told Borrero that he was suspended
He then turned to Bowers and told him he was discharged,
giving him his paychecks On Monday, August 30, about 8
a in, De La Piedra observed Borrero and Bowers walking
up and down the sidewalk in front of Respondent's plant,
carrying the signs described above He observed them
standing in the same vicinity about 3 p in that same day
when they were talking to various individuals De La
Piedra further testified that he received several written
grievances on August 30 about 9 30 am from Edward
Schaller, shop steward in the press department One
grievance 30 concerned Borrero's suspension on August 27
Another grievance31 concerned a complaint filed in the
name of the Union alleging that the Company failed to
comply with the grievance procedure outlined in article
XIII of the labor agreement A third gnevance32 con-
cerned Bowers' discharge On September 2, De La Piedra
received another grievance33 from Schaller The latter
grievance concerned the discharge of Borrero The decision
to terminate Borrero, according to De La Piedra, was made
on September 1 when De La Piedra mailed the notice 34 of
discharge to Borrero On cross-examination, De La Piedra
conceded that the Union contended that union stewards in
Respondent's plant had only to notify the foreman when
going on legitimate union business while Respondent's
29 Nevertheless De La Piedra testified that when Borrero came in with
Bowers he (De La Piedra) thought that Bowers was there to discuss the
facts which there was no point in arguing because the facts were just to
discipline Bowers Everything was already gathered and the decision had
been made
30 Resp Exh 3
31 Resp Exh 4
32 Resp Exh 5
33 Resp Exh 6
34 GCExh6
position was that a steward was required to obtain
permission before he left He also conceded that this had
been a controversial matter for about 8 months De La
Piedra, upon further cross-examination , testified that
union stewards prior to January 1 had been conducting
meetings in the plant during working hours and that he had
ordered the practice to cease , that, despite his order and
refusal to grant permission for another such meeting, the
stewards did hold a meeting and five union stewards were
disciplined During contract negotiations , the matter was
resolved outside the grievance machinery of the contract
and the stewards were restored to their jobs
Clyde G Bailey, called as a witness by Respondent,
testified that he has been employed by Respondent since
1957, that he has been the chief shop steward the past 3
years, that he had been a shop steward for 8 years previous
thereto, that he is employed as a forklift operator in
shipping and receiving, that on August 27 he spoke to De
La Piedra on two occasions, the first about 10 am, when
De La Piedra told him that he was gomg to take
disciplinary action against Bowers because he didn't heed a
written warning about taking time off without permission,
that he told De La Piedra to avoid problems as he had
talked to Grand Lodge Representative Carter about
Bowers taking off on union business and that Carter said it
was perfectly all right, that he suggested a call to Carter by
De La Piedra, that he did not ask De La Piedra what
discipline he was going to impose but assumed it would be
a few days off, the "usual procedure after a write up", that
De La Piedra asked him to return to his office at 3 p in
and Bailey said that he would notify his foreman that he
would be taking off and would be back 35
After leaving De La Piedra, Bailey met Borrero and told
him that Bowers was going to be in trouble, as De La
Piedra wanted him in his office that afternoon Bailey also
told Borrero that he would like to talk to Bowers before he
went into De La Piedra's office Bailey, continuing his
testimonial account, said that he had talked with Carter
and he had been advised to inform Borrero that, as
president of the lodge, he had a right to assign people to
these committees and had the right to expect them to be at
the meetings , that he did not see Bowers or Borrero again
before he arrived at De La Piedra's office, that he was the
last to arrive in De La Piedra's office in the afternoon, that
De La Piedra opened the meeting by saying "Clyde, I am
going to take disciplinary action against Rich Bowers" and
then explained the reason as taking off without permission
after receiving a written warning for the same thing, that
Bailey asked him if he had called Carter and De La Piedra
replied, "I am going to do this on my own, I don't need to
talk to anybody, I am going to suspend36 Bowers Bailey
then testified that De La Piedra asked Borrero why he was
there and Borrero replied that he was there to represent
35 Emphasis supplied This statement uttered spontaneously demon
strates that Bailey like Borrero and Bowers , believed that it was sufficient to
merely notify the foreman when a union steward was going on union
business De La Piedra s testimony that Bailey believed otherwise has no
substantiation Bailey s own testimony contradicts De La Piedra
36 The evidence shows that De La Piedra intended to and did discharge
Bowers I am convinced that Bailey was in error when he placed this
conversation as taking place in De La Piedra s office in the presence of
Williams Bowers and Borrero on the afternoon of August 27 None of the
others present referred to any of this conversation in their testimony It
(Continued)
1122 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Bowers in connection with a grievance he had filed in
Bowers' behalf De La Piedra said that the chief steward
(Bailey) would handle it and there was no need of two
union stewards being present Borrero also told De La
Piedra that as president of the Umon he had a right to
appoint people to committees and that he expected them to
be there and that Carter supported his position De La
Piedra asked Borrero to leave and Bailey injected a
statement that De La Piedra was not going to tell the
Union how to conduct itself in the shop by telling Borrero
to leave and that Bailey would be the representative After
further heated exchanges between Borrero and De La
Piedra, Bailey suggested that Borrero should leave so that
the matter could be handled in a cool manner Bailey was
not sure Borrero heard him and De La Piedra, upon
Borrero's refusal to leave, told Borrero that he was
suspended De La Piedra then terminated Bowers and
handed Bowers his checks
Bailey testified further that there was no doubt in his
mind of Borrero's right to be present on the afternoon of
August 27, inasmuch as it had never been questioned
before He also felt that he (Bailey) had a right to speak at
the meeting on the afternoon of August 27 when Bowers
was discharged as he was there as a participant to represent
Bowers
Raymond W Olsen, called by Respondent, testified that
he was manager of labor relations for Respondent and had
the overall responsibility for labor relations in Respon-
dent's 60 plants located in the United States He testified
that he was unaware of any other unfair labor practice
proceeding having been filed against Respondent because
of the termination of an employee He also testified that
Bowers and Borrero had no vested interest in the
Respondent's pension plan and would lose whatever
benefits they had accrued at the time of their discharge
E Contentions of the Parties
The General Counsel contends that Respondent violated
Section 8(a)(1) and (3) by suspending Borrero on August
27 and again violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) on September
1 by Borrero's discharge The General Counsel argues that
Borrero, in seeking to represent Bowers at the disciplinary
meeting on August 27, was engaged in protected activity
He further argues that Borrero was engaged in protected
concerted activity on August 30 when he was publicizing
Respondent's conduct to the other employees
Respondent's counsel contends that the General Counsel
has failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence
that Borrero's presence at the disciplinary meeting of
August 27 was warranted Accordingly, it is argued
Borrero's suspension did not violate any of Borrero's
protected rights
Counsel for Respondent further argues that article III of
the current labor agreement37 was violated when Borrero
seems more reasonable under these circumstances to conclude that this
conversation took place on the morning of August 27 when De La Piedra
alerted Bailey that he wanted him present when he disciplined Bowers later
that afternoon
37 GCExh3p4
as GCExh3p39
311 De La Piedras testimony that there is a difference between a
and Bowers distributed leaflets and picketed in the vicinity
of the plant on August 30 It is argued, therefore, that, as
Borrero was not engaged in protected activity at that time,
his discharge was justifiable
F Analysis and Conclusions
There appears to be little controversy concerning the
essential facts, though there are marked differences in the
emphasis on various details All witnesses agree that the
Union and Respondent were engaged in a controversy
concerning the interpretation and application of article
XIII, section I, of their current labor agreement 38 It is
plain that neither the Union nor Respondent sought to
resolve this dispute by resort to the detailed grievance
machinery embodied in their labor agreement The
predictable result was a head-on collision which was
fostered by the stubbornness manifested on both sides I
find it unnecessary to resolve the disputed phraseology of
the labor agreement in order to decide the merits of the
General Counsel's unfair labor practice allegations in this
case I leave the resolution of this dispute to the parties to
arrive at in their own prescribed manner The question
before me is whether Respondent could lawfully exclude
Borrero, president of the Union and a union steward, from
a meeting in the personnel manager's office called by
Respondent to discipline an employee As appears, infra, I
answer this question in the negative
Initially I find that the evidence shows that by custom
and usage in the plant more than one union steward has
been present when an employee is being disciplined This
has also been true with regard to the incidents leading to
the discharge herein Throughout the continuing contro-
versy inaugurated on August 19 over Bowers' absences,
Borrero had, as president of the Union and as a union
steward, argued with, conferred with, and discussed
Bowers' absences with De La Piedra Actually it can be
concluded that De La Piedra had recognized Borrero as
Bowers' representative during all previous confrontations
De La Piedra's belated attempt to turn the clock back by
excluding Borrero from the finale appears to be a
deliberate search and affront designed to teach Borrero a
lesson by subjecting him to some form of discipline
The record shows that two union stewards were present
on many occasions when grievances were discussed or
discipline 39 was meted out Bailey credibly testified that a
union steward present at a disciplinary meeting was a
participant and entitled to speak up 40
Bailey's further testimony that he asked De La Piedra
not to precipitate matters and to call Carter to straighten
the matter out was unheeded by De La Piedra, who at that
time, on the morning of August 27, had already decided to
discharge Bowers By making it a point to invite Bailey
when at other meetings with regard to Bowers' conduct he
had dealt with Borrero, it is clear that De La Piedra had
grievance or disciplinary meeting is not supported by other witnesses and is
not credited I am convinced that a grievance or a disciplinary meeting was
regarded by the parties as of equal stature
40 Although Bailey was speaking of himself when he made this
statement the tenor of his testimony indicates it applied to all union
stewards who were present
NATIONAL CAN CORP 1123
already decided to exclude Borrero and thus to precipitate
an excuse to discipline him 41
The other matter before me is whether Respondent
lawfully discharged Borrero because he walked in front of
Respondent's plant on August 30 and distributed leaflets
while carrying a sign I decide this in the negative as well
As quoted above, the leaflets distributed by Borrero and
Bowers on August 30, specifically requested everyone to
stay on the job In addition, both Borrero and Bowers told
all persons who requested information that they were free
to go in or out of the plant Accordingly, I find that
Borrero was engaged in protected activity on August 30 in
that he was exercising his constitutional privilege of free
speech and was in no way acting in derogation of the labor
agreement between Respondent and the Union Under the
circumstances , Borrero's discharge, because he walked in
front of the plant on August 30, carried a sign, and
distributed leaflets, constituted a violation of Section
8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act
Respondent's counsel in his brief alludes to certain
matters which, in his opinion, constitute defenses to
Borrero's discharge I disagree in that some of the defenses
so referred to are irrelevant, erroneous, or in fact support a
contrary conclusion Briefly I discuss the basic arguments
below
Initially, it is argued that Borrero, as the local union
president, had no function or authority under the labor
agreement, and that Borrero' s status as such could not
justify his remaining at a disciplinary meeting after being
ordered to leave and return to work This statement seeks
to isolate Borrero's assertions that he was president of the
local union and, as union president, had taken the position
that Bowers had a right to absent himself without
permission in order to attend union bylaw committee
meetings However, I have not found and do not find that
Borrero justified his presence at the August 27 disciplinary
meeting on that ground even though there may be merit
had he done so My finding that Borrero was entitled to be
present at Bowers' disciplinary meeting of August 27 is
predicated on Bowers' right to have union representation
at this meeting Respondent conceded and acquiesced in
this regard when De La Piedra solicited Bailey's presence
and delayed the meeting until Bailey was there Respon-
dent's position, argued in its brief, is that Bailey was
Bowers' representative and that Borrero had no function at
the meeting It follows, the argument goes, that Respon-
dent could lawfully exclude Borrero The evidence estab-
lishes beyond doubt that Borrero was consistently and
continuously recognized as Bowers' representative
throughout the controversy which led to the disciplinary
meeting of August 27 Nevertheless, Respondent insisted
on regarding Bailey as Bowers' exclusive representative at
the meeting called to discipline Bowers for his alleged
transgressions ignoring Bowers' selection of Borrero as his
representative It is fundamental and rather conclusive that
De La Piedra's ouster of Borrero, under all the circum-
stances, and his designation of Bailey as Bowers' represent-
ative, run counter to the statutory proviso which prohibits
an employer from choosing or interfering with an employ-
ee's choice of a representative The subsequent suspension
and discharge of Borrero emphasizes Respondent's deter-
mination to frustrate the statutory provision As the Board
stated in Oates Brothers, Inc,42 I "It is well established
that, in absence of special circumstances, an employer does
not have a right of choice either affirmative or negative as
to who is to represent employees for any of the purposes of
collective bargaining " This case shows no "special
circumstances" within the meaning of Board law as
developed in this regard
Respondent also argues that its procedures met the
requirements of Quality Manufacturing Company 43 Re -
spondent's reliance on Quality Manufacturing Company is
misplaced Rather than supporting Respondent, the Quali-
ty case proscribes the very action Respondent took in the
instant case In the instant case, like the situation in
Quality, an employee has been punished for seeking to
represent another employee at a conference requested by
Respondent where the summoned employee could reason-
ably expect to be disciplined In the instant case, it has
been shown that De La Piedra made no secret of the fact
that he intended to discipline Bowers' at this meeting and
in fact Respondent's brief refers to this meeting as a
disciplinary meeting Accordingly, Bowers' right to union
representation is beyond question under the Quality
criteria 44 Possibly Bailey's presence could be counte-
nanced and justified by virtue of his position as chief
steward, but, as Bailey was not selected by Bowers as his
representative, Bailey could not and did not represent
Bowers Under these circumstances, Bailey was an observ-
er and participant by virtue of his position as chief steward
Borrero, on the other hand, in his capacity as a union
steward, had continually dealt with De La Piedra in
Bowers' behalf concerning the very subject matter of the
disciplinary proceeding Indeed, Borrero, as president of
the Union, had officially taken the position that Bowers'
could absent himself to attend the Union bylaw committee
meetings, the very heart of the matter for which Bowers
was to be disciplined As Bowers desired Borrero to
continue to represent him and openly stated this, Borrero
clearly was Bowers' true and bona fide representative at the
August 27 disciplinary meeting Respondent could not,
therefore, lawfully exclude Borrero and its suspension of
Borrero for insisting on being present constituted a
violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act 45 Respon-
dent also contends that Borrero's picketing and distribu-
tion of leaflets on August 30 was in violation of the labor
agreement As discussed hitherto , I regard Borrero's
conduct on August 30 as an expression of free speech
protected by the Act His conduct did not constitute a
strike or picketing for the purpose of calling a strike
Borrero in the leaflets and in his conversations at the plant
premises was engaging in concerted activities with Bowers
to publicize their grievances and difficulties with Respon-
dent Such conduct is protected by the Act and a discharge
41 Borrero s resistance to exclusion was readily predictable distinction between meetings for fact finding and' disciplinary
42 135 NLRB 1295 45 I have found above that the evidence establishes that the presence of
43 195 NLRB No 42 two stewards was not contrary to any of the procedures and had been
44 See also LaFayette Radio Electronics Corp 194 NLRB No 77 where customary in the plant The invocation of such a rule at this time would
the Board affirmed the Trial Examiner s Decision in which he discussed the seem to constitute a further violation of the Act
1124 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
for this reason is violative of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the
Act
During the hearing, evidence was introduced with
reference to some procedures under the grievance machin-
ery of the labor agreement Although Respondent in its
brief does not argue the applicability of the Collyer46
principles, I believe some mention is pertinent As I would
find that the standards of Spielberg Manufacturing Compa-
ny47 were not met in the resolution of Borrero's discharge
pursuant to the labor agreement, it is apparent that Collyer
principles are not germane to this proceeding Probably the
basic dispute concerning the interpretation of the contract
could have and should have been resolved through the
grievance mechanism of the contract without Board
interference 48
Upon the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire
record in this case, I make the following
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
I By suspending and discharging Borrero, Respondent
engaged in conduct violative of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of
the Act
2 By discriminating against Borrero for seeking the
right to be present at the meeting called by Respondent to
discipline Bowers, Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) and
(3) of the Act
3 By denying Bowers the right to be represented by a
union steward of his own choice at the disciplinary meeting
called to discipline Bowers, Respondent violated Section
8(a)(1) of the Act 49
4 The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor
practices burdening and affecting commerce within the
meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act
THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has engaged in certain
unfair labor practices, it shall be recommended that it
cease and desist therefrom and that it be required to take
certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the
policies of the Act
As Respondent unlawfully suspended and discharged
Borrero, it will be recommended that Respondent offer
Borrero immediate and full reinstatement to his former or
substantially equivalent job, without prejudice to his
seniority or other rights and privileges, discharging, if
necessary, any replacements in order to provide work for
him It will also be recommended that Respondent make
him whole for any loss of pay that he may have suffered by
reason of Respondent's discrimination against him, by
paying to him a sum of money equal to that he normally
would have earned as wages from August 27, 1971, to the
date of Respondent's offer of reinstatement, less his net
earnings during said period The amount of backpay due
shall be computed according to Board policy set forth in F
W Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289, with interest on
backpay computed in the manner set forth in Isis Plumbing
& Heating Co, 138 NLRB 716 Payroll and other records
in possession of Respondent are to be made available to
the Board or its agent to assist in such computation
The discriminatory discharge goes "to the very heart of
the Act "50 Accordingly, the Board's Order should be
broad enough to prevent further infraction of the Act in
any manner, and I so recommend
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and
conclusions of law, and the entire record herein, and
pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations
Act, as amended, I hereby recommend that there be issued
the following
ORDER51
Respondent, National Can Corporation, its officers,
agents, successors and assigns, shall
1 Cease and desist from
(a) Discouraging membership in the Union, Internation-
al Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers,
Local Lodge 1518, or any other labor organization, and
discouraging activities protected by the Act, by suspending
or discharging employees or otherwise discriminating
against employees in any manner with respect to their
tenure of employment or any term or condition of
employment
(b) Interfering with an employee's selection of his union
representative and refusing to permit an employee to select
his union representative at any meeting or interview held
with the employee where the employee has reasonable
grounds to believe that the matters to be discussed may
result in his being subjected to disciplinary action
(c) Discriminating against union stewards for seeking to
represent employees or refusing to permit more than one
steward to be present at any meeting held with an
employee where the employee has reasonable grounds to
believe that the matters to be discussed may result in his
being the subject of disciplinary action and the employee
has requested such representation
2 Take the following affirmative action designed to
effectuate the policies of the Act
(a) Offer Daniel P L Borrero immediate and full
reinstatement to his former job or, if that job no longer
exists, to a substantially equivalent position, without
prejudice to his seniority or other rights and privileges
previously enjoyed by him, and make him whole in the
manner set forth in the section of this Decision entitled
"The Remedy "
(b) Notify immediately the above-named individual, if
presently serving in the Armed Forces of the United States,
of the right to full reinstatement, upon application after
discharge from the Armed Forces, in accordance with the
Selective Service Act and the Universal Military Training
and Service Act
(c) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the
46 Collyer Insulated Wire 192 NLRB No 150
47 1 12 NLRB 1080
48 cf Diamond National Corp 197 NLRB No 80
49 While this particular violation was not specifically alleged by the
General Counsel in his complaint the matter was fully litigated and the
General Counsel argues this point in his brief I feel that it is unnecessary
to find this violation to round out the picture
50 Entwistle Manufacturing Company 120 F 2d 532 563 (CA 4) L E
Johnson Products Inc 179 NLRB fn 1
51 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec 102 46 of the
Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board the findings
conclusions and recommended Order herein shall as provided in Sec
102 48 of the Rules and Regulations be adopted by the Board and become
its findings conclusions and Order and all objections thereto shall be
deemed waived for all purposes
NATIONAL CAN CORP 1125
Board or its agents, for examination and copying, all
payroll records , social security payments records, time-
cards, personnel records and reports , and all records
necessary to analyze the amount of backpay due under the
terms of this Order
(d) Post at its plant in San Leandro, California , copies of
the attached notice marked "Appendix " 52 Copies of the
notice on forms provided by the Regional Director for
Region 20, after being duly signed by an authorized
representative of the Respondent , shall be posted by the
Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and be
maintained for 60 consecutive days thereafter , in conspicu-
ous 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
(e) Notify the Regional Director for Region 20, in
writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what
steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith 53
52 In the event that the Board s Order is enforced by a Judgment of a
United States Court of Appeals the words in the notice reading Posted by
Order of the National Labor Relations Board shall read Posted Pursuant
to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of
the National Labor Relations Board
53 In the event that this recommended Order is adopted by the Board
after exceptions have been filed , this provision shall be modified to read
Notify the Regional Director for Region 20 in writing within 20 days
from the date of this Order what steps the Respondent has taken to comply
herewith
with respect to their tenure of employment or any term
or condition of employment
WE WILL NOT interfere with an employee 's choice or
refuse an employee's request to be represented by a
particular union steward at any interview or meeting
held with the employee where the employee has
reasonable grounds to believe that the matters to be
discussed may result in his being the subject of
disciplinary action
WE WILL NOT discriminate against union stewards
for seeking to represent employees at any meeting held
with an employee where the employee has reasonable
grounds to believe that the matter or matters to be
discussed may result in his being the subject of
disciplinary action and the employee has requested
such representation
WE WILL NOT insist on limiting such representation
to one union steward
WE WILL offer Daniel P L Borrero full reinstate-
ment to his former job or, if such position no longer
exists, to a substantially equivalent one, without
prejudice to the seniority and other rights and privi-
leges enjoyed by him, and make him whole for any loss
of pay he may have suffered, with interest at the rate of
6 percent, by reason of his suspension and discharge
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT discourage membership in Interna-
tional Association of Machinists and Aerospace Work-
ers, Local Lodge 1518, or any other labor organization,
or discourage activities protected by the National
Labor Relations Act, by suspending or discharging
employees or otherwise discriminating in any manner
Dated By
NATIONAL CAN
CORPORATION
(Employer)
(Representative) (Title)
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 concern-
ing this notice or compliance with its provisions may be
directed to the Board's Office , 13018 Federal Building, 450
Golden Gate Avenue , Box 36047 , San Francisco , Califor-
nia 94102 , Telephone 415-556-0335