Painter has never participated in a work management meeting in which both parties have not used such a form of obscenity. (2) promote or discourage membership of a work organisation by discriminating against recruitment, employment, promotion or other conditions of employment; Painter and de Mola discussed a problem with the payment of travel vouchers, the filling of eggplant support positions, a mandatory employment cap, and the priority occupation of slaughter stations. Painter then told de Mola that some employees had complained that management was not following binding guidelines regarding improving its work. Painter asked Mola to provide copies of all documents used by managers to assess the performance of bargaining unit employees. de Mola responded by sarcastically asking Painter, “Painter, don`t you have a contract?” After de Mola and Painter disagreed on the content of Painter`s request for documents, de Mola painter screamed that he was a liar, that he was just a liar, and that everything he said was a lie. The first amended charge was laid on July 18, 2001 and asserted that on or around September 6, 2000, the respondent .” the union circumvented and intervened in the workers` right to rely on the union`s representation by sending an e-mail message to the employees of the bargaining unit asking them to put pressure on the National Common Council. .