Mechanical and Allied Production Workers, Local 444

MECHANICAL AND ALLIED PRODUCTION WORKERS, LOCAL 444 Mechanical and Allied Production Workers Union, Local 444, AFL-CIO its New England Joint Board, AFL-CIO and R. W. D. S . U., AFL-CIO (Pneumatic Scale Corporation, Ltd.) and Arthur L. Saccoach . Case 1-CB-1332 October 25, 1968 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS FANNING AND ZAGORIA On May 10, 1968, 'Trial Examiner Stanley N. Ohlbaum issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Decision. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision and a supporting 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 powers in connection with this case to a three- member panel. The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial Examiner's Decision, the exceptions, the briefs, and the entire record in this case, and hereby adopts the findings,' conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner. ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board hereby adopts as its Order the Recommended Order of the Trial Examiner, as modified herein, and orders that the Respondent, Mechanical and Allied Productions Workers Union, Local 444, AFL-CIO, its New England Joint Board AFL-CIO, and R. W. D. S. U., AFL-CIO, Boston, Massachusetts, their officers, agents, and represen- tatives, shall take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order, as modified below: Delete from paragraph 2(d) of the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order that part thereof which reads "to be furnished" and substitute therefor "on forms provided...." I In view of our agreement with the Trial Examiner 's finding that employee Saccoach effectively resigned from membership in the Respondent before the August 29 governing date fixed in the new contract , we deem it unnecessary to consider any alternative theory proposed . We therefore do not adopt the Trial Examiner's comments concerning the "fiduciary obligations " of the Respondent to post the contractual "escape period " provisions. TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION PRELIMINARY STATEMENT 325 STANLEY N. OHLBAUM, Trial Examiner: This proceeding under the National Labor Relations Act as amended, 29 U.S.C. Sec. 151, et seq. ("Act"), brought on by complaint issued through the National Labor Relations Board's First Regional Director on March 25, 1968, based upon a charge filed on December 26, 1967,' by Arthur Saccoach, was heard before me in Boston, Massachusetts, on April 1, 1968. All parties participated throughout by counsel, who were given full opportunity to present evidence and contentions, proposed findings and conclusions, and briefs Subsequent to the hearing, briefs were received, which, together with the evi- dence, have been carefully considered. Upon the entire record2 and my observation of the witnesses, I make the following. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 1. PARTIES, JURISDICTION At all material times, Respondent has been and is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act, with its principal office and place of business in Boston, Massachusetts. At all of those times, Pneumatic Scale Corpora- tion, Ltd. ("Pneumatic," "Employer," "Company") has been and is a Massachusetts corporation with principal office and place of business in Quincy, Massachusetts, engaged in manufacture, sale, and distribution of packaging and bottling machinery and related products. Within the 12-month representative period immediately preceding issuance of the complaint, in the course and conduct of its said business, Pneumatic purchased and caused to be transported directly in interstate commerce to its Quincy plant from points outside of Massachusetts, substantial quantities of metal for use in its Quincy manufacturing operations, and during the same period Pneumatic shipped directly in interstate commerce from its Quincy plant to points outside of Massachusetts, goods valued at over $50,000. Arthur L. Saccoach, the Charging Party, is an individual who was in the employ of Pneumatic until Decem- ber 22 I find that all material times Pneumatic has been and is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act, and that assertion of jurisdiction herein is proper. II. ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Issues The issues presented are whether Respondent Union vio- lated: (1) Section 8(b)(1)(A) and (2) of the Act by restraining and coercing employees of Pneumatic in exercise of rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act through compelling Pneumatic to discriminate against Saccoach in his employment because of his nonmembership in Respondent Union by causing him to be discharged and not rehired; (2) Section 8(b)(2), by causing Pneumatic to discharge and not rehire Saccoach. ' Hereafter all dates are 1967 unless otherwise specified. 2 Hearing transcript as corrected by April 23, 1968, order on notice. 173 NLRB No. 58 326 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD B. Facts as Found The material facts are substantially undisputed. Saccoach, from 1958 until his discharge on December 22, 1967, an employee of Pneumatic, joined Respondent Union in 1958 and continued a member (and for a time on the local executive board) thereof until June 9, 1967, when he resigned and withdrew from membership because of dissatisfaction with the way the Union was being run. More specifically, Pneumatic had had a collective agreement with the Union from June 10, 1965, to June 8, 1967. Although the agreement did not require employees to join the Union, it did contain a maintenance-of-membership and Union dues checkoff provi- sion, under which dues of Saccoach and other Union members were withheld from their pay and transmitted by Pneumatic to Respondent Union. This collective agreement came up for renegotiation in 1967. The new contract proposals were discussed at a Union meeting on June 7, presided over by Union President Sophrs and attended by some 175 employees of the 300 in the bargaining unit. Saccoach, among others, was opposed to the proposed new contract, which was voted down by an open vote of the membership. However, another meeting was hastily convoked on June 8 to reconsider the matter, resulting in a vote to accept the proposed contract Saccoach, continuing to be opposed, so indicated to Sophis the following day, June 9, in a discussion in which Saccoach expressed general dissatisfaction with the way the Union was being operated. At the conclusion of the discussion, Saccoach indicated to Sophis that he was resigning from the Union, and he crumpled up and threw his Union card into a waste basket as he told Sophis, "I quit." There is no evidence or claim (unexplainedly Sophis did not testify) that Sophis told Saccoach he could not resign at this time or in this way. At this time, Saccoach was in layoff status, having been fur- loughed in May, up to when his Union dues had been regularly checked off. It is conceded that under the Union constitution dues are waived for members on layoff Subsequently a new collective agreement was concluded between Pneumatic and the Union covering the period June 9, 1967, to June 9, 1969. The agreement, which is dated August 14, 1967,3 like the preceding agreement, contains no require- ment that employees be members of the Union, but has a maintenance-of-membership and checkoff provision for such 3 A brief handwritten "subject to ratification" memorandum covering only wages and other economic matters had been signed on June 7 It does not contain any "escape " provision , nor is there any indication that that subject was even mentioned at the June 7 or June 8 Union meeting or, indeed , at any time prior to the August 14 agreement 4 Subsequent to Saccoach's recall to Pneumatic employment in September and after expiration of the "escape " period, he was (perhaps in October or in November) tendered a printed copy of the new collective agreement then being distributed . He declined it, stating he was not a Union member. 5 At a Union Executive Board meeting which Saccoach attended in mid-November at the request of the Union, he declined to withdraw his resignation, reiterating his consistent position both orally and in writing (G.C. Exh . 8) prior thereto that he had resigned from the Union on June 9 when he told Union President Sophis so and that he wished to remain out of the Union . Respondent 's witnesses Doyle and Nelson, both Union officials , conceded being told by Sophis or having learned of Saccoach 's resignation on June 9 as described General Counsel employees as are or become Union members. It also required that the main tenan ce-of-membership and checkoff provision be posted on the Employer's bulletin boards from August 14 to August 29, 1967 It is conceded that it was not then or at any time so or otherwise posted, that the Union made no request that it be posted, and that employees were not notified of this provision by the Union or by the Employer. Saccoach, who had already resigned from the Union as indicated, was in layoff status and received no notice of this August 14-29 "escape" provision or period (whether or not it was applicable to him under the described circumstances) 4 Saccoach was recalled to the employ of Pneumatic on September 19. When he discovered that $1 25 weekly Union dues had been withheld from his first week's pay, he asked Sophis to return the money since he was no longer a Union member. Sophrs said he was and referred him to the Company's personnel manager to execute a form discontinuing the checkoff. The Company personnel manager told Saccoach there was no such form and instructed him to write the Company a letter. Saccoach did so on October 2 and about two weeks later the Company stopped deducting Union dues from his pay. On December 12, the Union wrote Pneumatic "that Mr. Arthur Saccoach .... is delinquent in the payment of his union dues as of this day, and is no longer a member in good standing with this organization, despite our many requests," and, after calling attention to the maintenance-of- membership and Union dues checkoff provision of the existing (August 14, 1967) collective agreement, "we request that you discharge Mr. Arthur Saccoach as of December 16, l967.i5 Pneumatic complied with this request and discharged Saccoach for that reason on December 22 and has not given him employment since. It is conceded that no applicable collective agreement contains any requirement of joining the Union as a condition of employment; but that there is a requirement of mainte- nance of membership and dues checkoff for Union members during the contractual period, that at no time6 was any notice given to Union members as to the "escape" period of August 14-29 under the August 1967 collective agreement,7 and that at no time8 after June 9 did Saccoach withdraw his Union resignation of that date. There is no material Union constitu- tional provision governing resignations.9 rebuttal witness Bernard Saccoach (brother of the Charging Party), a Union official , also so testified . Sophis did not testify nor was his failure to do so in any way explained . Under the circumstances , I fully credit Saccoach 's testimony as to his resignation from the Union on June 9. 6 Testimony of Union Chief Shop Steward Nelson as Respondent's witness. 7 Credited testimony of General Counsel witness Conlon (Respond- ent's Personnel Assistant ) and of Respondent's witness Doyle (Union Recording Secretary ) establishes that at no time since 1950 has such an "escape" provision been posted on the Company bulletin board. Apparently it was customary to distribute to Union members copies of collective agreements at some time subsequent to their effective date, when printed , in 1967, this apparently was in October or November, after expiration of the "escape" period (August). 8 Testimony of Union Chief Shop Steward Nelson as Respondent's witness. 9 Cf. art. VIII (Resp Exh 5 ) and art . IX (Resp. Exh 6), neither of which proscribes withdrawal or resignation in the manner here effected by Saccoach on June 9 This Union has no bylaws MECHANICAL AND ALLIED PRODUCTION WORKERS, LOCAL 444 327 C Determination and Rationale As indicated, neither the 1965-67 nor the 1967-69 collec- tive agreement called for a union shop,' o while requiring maintenance of membership and dues checkoff for such employees as elected to be Union members Saccoach's Union dues were concededly checked off at all times until his layoff, and, also concededly, under the Union constitution there is no dues obligation by members in layoff status. It is undisputed that on June 9 Saccoach discarded his membership card in the presence of Union President Sophis as he told Sophis he was quitting the Union. It is difficult to imagine a more unequiv- ocal manner of resigning from an organization than to mangle and discard one's membership card before the president and announce to him that one is quitting the organization The Union constitution here does not proscribe this, nor mandate any other, manner of resigning. The question remains as to the effect, if any, upon Saccoach of the maintenance-of-membership and dues check- off provision of the 1965-1967 and 1967-1969 collective agreements. Under the earlier of these, it may well be that Saccoach's Union membership continued to be effective at least for certain purposes until the expiration of that agree- ment, and that his dues checkoff authonzation would certainly have been effective for that period had he been on the payroll and not excused from dues obligation (through checkoff or otherwise) because he was on layoff. Although, under the circumstances here presented, I would be inclined to regard Saccoach's June 9 action in any event as an effective notification of resignation since the existing collective agreement had already expired on the preceding day (i.e., June 8), there is the further conceded fact that at no time was Saccoach informed or placed on notice (questionable as the effect of that nnght in any event have been, in view of his being in layoff status) through bulletin board posting as expressly required by the contract terms, of the existence of any "escape" period from August 14-29 for resigning from the Union, so that he could take such action at that time, assuming it to be required in his case. It is no answer for the Union to insist, as it does, that the obligation to post the "escape" notice was upon the Employer. The Union was also a party to the contract and had fiduciary obligations to the bargaining unit employees (Union nonmembers as well as members) on whose behalf it was entering into collective agreement Although the Union could readily have assured or required the posting of the "escape" notice in compliance with the express contract provision to that effect, it chose not to do so, let alone to take any step to bring the provision to the attention of furloughed or otherwise absent employees not knowing about it There could be said to be a double obhgation, so to speak, upon a fiduciary such as a union, to insure that such an "escape" provision is brought to the attention of a person- especially where on furlough-who the union knows has unequivocally indicated withdrawal from the union, in the event the union intends to take the position that the withdrawal is regarded as technically imperfect. It ill befits the Union in fiduciary garb to attempt in effect to impose membership by default upon those it is supposed to represent fairly and who were under the contract required to be afforded opportunity to exercise a choice as to membership, when the Union failed to carry out or police the contractual requirement to provide the opportunity for that choice Employees may not fairly be regarded as in default under a "requirement" of which they are ignorant through no fault on their part, particularly where the "default" is claimed by their interested fiduciary (the Union) itself at fault in failing to comply or require compliance (by the Employer) with a simple shop bulletin board posting provision, such failure (by the Union) being the basis for the absent employee's claimed "default." It is additionally observed that the main tenan ce-of-membership (so-called "escape") provision of the 1967-1969 collective agreement (G.C Exh. 4, art. III) merely provides that "All employees who on the 29th of August, 1967 are members of the Union in good standing or any employees hereafter who become members of the Union shall as a condition of their employment maintain their membership in good standing in the Union" (emphasis supplied). It is difficult to understand how a person who has resigned or given notice of resignation from th^. Union in June must nonetheless be considered to be a "member[s] of the Union in good standing" in August (even though, or simply because, not delinquent in dues in view of being on layoff). While not disputing Saccoach's actions on June 9, the Union insists that he absolutely could not withdraw from the Union except during the period of August 14-29, and that, if he resigned on June 9, it was essential for him to do so again between August 14 and 29. Under the circumstances shown, I do not agree. Saccoach made his intention to resign perfectly apparent on June 9 In the situation described, his notice of resignation, concededly never withdraw, was effective then and thereafter. 11 Even if this were not so, there arose no obliga- tion on Saccoach's part to give notification of his intention to "escape" under a provision of a new (August 4, 1967) collec- tive agreement of which he received no notice and had no knowledge notwithstanding express posting requirement therein concededly never complied with Nor did there arise any obligation for Saccoach to join or rejoin the Union under the new (August 14, 1967) agreement after his recall to em- ployment in September, since the agreement concededly does not require an employee to loin the Union but merely to main- tain membership during the contract period. It does not require an employee to "maintain" a membership he no longer has. Respondent concededly caused Saccoach's discharge from the employment of Pneumatic on December 22 and the denial of employment to him there at all times since then. As stated in Respondent's letter of December 12 to Pneumatic, its 10 Notwithstanding the fact that Article III of each of these agreements is captioned "Union Shop -Check-Off," they clearly are not union shop provisions since they do not require an employee to join the Union as a condition of employment , but merely require mainte- nance of Union membership by employees "who become members of the Union ." Union shop contracts are lawful in Massachusetts. I i There is reason to believe the Union itself so regarded it According to testimony of its Recording Secretary Doyle , the mid- November Union Executive Board meeting was called to "ask[ed] him [Saccoachl to reconsider " his having "gotten out . [ m] June." However, the Union officials did not succeed in talking Saccoach out of withdrawing his resignation , since (as testified by Doyle) Saccoach insisted "nobody was going to change his mind." 328 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD reason for seeking Saccoach's discharge was his alleged failure - to maintain union membership and his alleged dues delin- quency under the checkoff provision of the subsisting (August, 1967) collective agreement. Since, however, Saccoach was then under obligation neither to "maintain" a Union membership which he had previously relinquished, nor to join the Union, payment of Union dues could not lawfully be required of him, there existed no dues delinquency on his part, and the contractual check-off provision was inapplicable to him. By asserting the right to require Union membership on Saccoach's part and by causing his discharge and continued nonemploy- ment by Pneumatic for nonpayment of Union dues under the described circumstances, Respondent restrained and coerced Saccoach and other employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act-viz, the right to refrain from union membership-in violation of Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act, and by causing Saccoach's discharge and continued nonemployment by Pneumatic, Respondent also caused and is continuing to cause Employer discrimination against Saccoach and other employees in regard to hire and tenure of employment-thereby encouraging Union membership-in violation of Section 8(b)(2) of the Act. Cf. International Union of Electrical, R. & M. Workers, Local 801 (General Motors Corporation, Frigidaire Division) v. N.L.R.B , 307 F.2d 679 (C.A.D.C.), cert. denied 371 U.S. 936,enfg 129 NLRB 1379, and 130 NLRB 1286, N.L.R.B. v International Union, United Automobile Workers (John I. Paulding, Inc.), 320 F.2d 12 (C.A. 1), May Department Stores, Inc., Kaufmann Division, 133 NLRB 1096; Marlin Rockwell Corporation, 114 NLRB 553 Upon the foregoing findings and the entire record, I state the following CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Mechanical and Allied Production Workers Union, Local 444, AFL-CIO, its New England Joint Board, AFL-CIO, and R.W.D S U., AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 2. Pneumatic Scale Corporation, Ltd. is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act. 3. By attempting to cause and causing Pneumatic Scale Corporation, Ltd. to discriminate against employees and prospective employees in regard to hire or tenure of employ- ment, or other terms or conditions of employment, through requiring said Employer to discharge Arthur L. Saccoach from its employ on December 22, 1967, and thereafter to exclude him from its employ, Respondent has interfered with, re- strained and coerced, and is interfering with, restraining and coercing, employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act, and has thereby engaged and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act. 4. By causing Pneumatic Scale Corporation, Ltd. to discriminate against Arthur L. Saccoach in the hire and tenure of his employment, or terms or conditions of his employment through discharging Saccoach from its employ on December 22, 1967, and thereafter excluding him from its employ, Respondent has engaged and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(b)(2) of the Act 5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices and each of them affect commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. REMEDY Having found that Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices, I shall recommend that it be required to cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. I shall recommend that Respondent be required to notify Saccoach and Pneumatic in writing that Respondent has withdrawn its objections to Saccoach's employment by Pneumatic. I shall further recom- mend that Respondent be required to make Saccoach whole for any loss of pay he may have suffered by reason of Respondent's unlawful conduct, by payment to him of a sum of money equal to that which he would normally have earned as wages from Pneumatic but for his discharge in consequence of Respondent's request, less his net earnings if any during said period, plus any unrefunded Union dues unauthorizedly withheld from his wages by Pneumatic in September-October 1967, with interest on all of the foregoing, computed in accordance with F. W. Woolworth Co., 90 NLRB 289, and Isis Plumbing & Heating Co , 138 NLRB 716. Respondent should also be required to make Saccoach whole for any loss of rights and incidents of his employment relationship with Pneumatic which he may have suffered by reason of Respondent's unlawful conduct. Respondent should further be required to make available such records for the computation of the foregoing amounts and the ascertainment of the foregoing matters as may be in its possession or control. I shall also recommend that Respondent be required to post an appropriate Notice, which may also be posted by Pneumatic if desired. Unless they together maintain and occupy joint offices, the posting requirement shall extend to each of the organizations named and referred to as Respondent in the complaint. Upon the foregoing findings and conclusions and upon the entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, I make the following RECOMMENDED ORDER It is hereby ordered, that Respondent , Mechanical and Allied Production Workers Union , Local 444, AFL-CIO, its New England Joint Board, AFL-CIO, and R.W.D.S.U., AFL- CIO, and their respective officers , representatives , and agents, shall; 1. Cease and desist from (a) Causing or attempting to cause Pneumatic Scale Corporation , Ltd to discriminate against any employee within the meaning of Section 8(b)(1)(A) and 8 (b)(2) of the Act. (b) In any like or related manner restraining or coercing employees of Pneumatic Scale Corporation , Ltd., in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, except to the extent that such rights may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of employment , as authorized in Section 8(a)(3) and Section 8(f) of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action, which is necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Forthwith notify Arthur L. Saccoach and Pneumatic Scale Corporation , Ltd. in writing that Respondent withdraws its objections to Saccoach's employment by Pneumatic and does not oppose his reinstatement or the restoration of his seniority as it existed on December 22, 1967 (the date of his discharge). MECHANICAL AND ALLIED PRODUCTION WORKERS, LOCAL 444 (b) Make whole Arthur L. Saccoach for any loss of pay suffered as a result of the discrimination against him, in the manner set forth in the "Remedy" section of this decision. (c) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the Board or its agents, for examination and copying, all such records, reports, and documents as may be in its possession, custody or control, necessary or appropriate to analyze the amount of backpay and other sums or accruals due under the terms of this decision. (d) Post at the business offices and meeting places of Respondent in Quincy and at 665 Washington Street, Boston, Massachusetts, copies of the notice attached hereto marked "Appendix." 12 Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for Region 1, shall be duly signed and posted immediately upon receipt thereof, and maintained for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, includ- ing all places where notices to members are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken to insure that such notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (e) Return to the Regional Director for Region 1, for posting by Pneumatic Scale Corporation, Ltd., if willing, copies of the notice signed as aforesaid. (f) Notify the Regional Director for Region 1, in writing, within 20 days from receipt of this Decision, what steps have been taken to comply therewith .13 12 In the event that this Recommended Order be adopted by the Board , the words "a Decision and Order" shall be substituted for the words "a Decision and Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner" in the Notice In the further event that the Board 's Order be enforced by a decree of a United States Court of Appeals, the words "a Decree of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the words "a Decision and Order." 13 In the event that this Recommended Order be adopted by the Board , this provision shall be modified to read : "Notify said Regional Director, in writing , within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith." APPENDIX NOTICE TO ALL MEMBERS OF MECHANICAL AND ALLIED PRODUCTION WORKERS UNION, LOCAL 444, AFL-CIO, ITS NEW ENGLAND JOINT BOARD, AFL-CIO, AND R.W.D.S.U., AFL-CIO AND TO ALL EMPLOYEES OF PNEUMATIC SCALE CORPOR ATION, LTD. Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor Relations Board and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, we hereby notify you that- 329 WE WILL NOT cause or attempt to cause Pneumatic Scale Corporation, Ltd. to discriminate against Arthur L. Saccoach or any other employee in violation of Section 8(b)(1)(A), 8(b)(2), or 8(a)(3) of the Act. WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner restrain or coerce any employee of Pneumatic Scale Corporation, Ltd. in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, except to the extent that such rights may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of employment, as authorized in Section 8(a)(3) and 8(f) of the Act, as modified by the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959. WE WILL notify Arthur L. Saccoach and Pneumatic Scale Corporation, Ltd., in writing, that we withdraw our objection to Saccoach's employment by Pneumatic and have no objection to his reinstatement with full seniority. WE WILL make Arthur L. Saccoach whole for any loss of earnings and other employment accruals suffered by reason of the discrimination against him when and since he was discharged on December 22, 1967, by Pneumatic Scale Corporation, Ltd at our request Dated Dated MECHANICAL AND ALLIED, PRODUCTION WORKERS UNION, LOCAL 444, AFL-CIO, ITS NEW ENGLAND JOINT BOARD, AFL-CIO, AND R.W.D.S.U., AFL-CIO (Labor Organization) By By Dated By (Representative) (Title) (Representative) (Title) (Representative) (Title) This Notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting, and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material If members have any question concerning this Notice or compliance with its provisions, they may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, John F. Kennedy Federal Building, Boston, Massachusetts 02203, Telephone 223-3300.