American Telephone & Telegraph Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 31, 1991

303 N.L.R.B. 942 (N.L.R.B. 1991)

942
303 NLRB No. 139
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
1 The agreement also contains an agency-shop clause requiring the payment
of amounts equivalent to union dues and fees but not requiring union member-
ship. Under Florida statutes, employees may not be required to join a union
or pay dues as a condition of employment.
2 The checkoff authorization card signed by Baumann provides in pertinent
part:
Beginning in l(Month)l, l(Year)l, I hereby authorize AT&T Infor-
mation Systems Inc. to deduct each month from my salary or wages, sick-
ness or accident disability payments, or vacation payments the amount of
regular monthly Union dues as certified to the Company by the Secretary-
Treasurer of the Communications Workers of America. This authorization
is voluntarily made and is neither conditioned on my present or future
membership of [sic] the Union, nor is it to be considered as quid pro quo.
Each amount so deducted shall be remitted by the Company to the Sec-
retary-Treasurer of the Communications Workers of America or his duly
authorized agent. If for any reason the Company fails to make a deduc-
tion, I authorize the Company to make such deduction in a subsequent
payroll period. This authorization shall continue in effect until canceled
by written notice signed by me and individually sent by certified or reg-
istered mail to the Company, postmarked during the fourteen(14) day pe-
riod prior to each anniversary date of the current or any subsequent Col-
lective Bargaining Agreement, or during the fourteen(14) day period prior
to the termination date of the current or any subsequent Collective Bar-
gaining Agreement.
3 473 U.S. 95 (1985).
4 302 NLRB 322 (1991).
American Telephone and Telegraph Company and
James E. Baumann
Communications Workers of America Local 3108,
AFL–CIO and James E. Baumann. Cases 12–
CA–13901 and 12–CB–3349
July 31, 1991
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS CRACRAFT, DEVANEY, AND OVIATT
Upon a charge and an amended charge filed by
James E. Baumann on April 2, 1990, and September
12, 1990, in Case 12–CB–3349, and a charge filed by
Baumann on April 2, 1990 in Case 12–CA–13901, the
Regional Director for Region 12 issued a consolidated
complaint and notice of hearing on September 20,
1990. The complaint alleges that Respondent American
Telephone and Telegraph Company (AT&T) has vio-
lated Section 8(a)(1), (2), and (3) of the National
Labor Relations Act by deducting membership dues
from the wages of the Charging Party pursuant to his
checkoff authorization after he effectively resigned his
union membership. The complaint further alleges that
Respondent Communications Workers of America,
Local 3108, AFL–CIO (Local 3108) has violated Sec-
tion 8(b)(1)(A) and (2) of the Act by receiving, accept-
ing, and retaining membership dues withheld from the
wages of the Charging Party after he effectively re-
signed his union membership. The Respondents both
filed answers admitting in part and denying in part the
allegations of the complaint and requesting that the
complaint be dismissed.
On November 20, 1990, counsel for the General
Counsel filed directly with the Board a Motion for
Summary Judgment and brief in support thereof. On
November 21, 1990, the Board issued an order trans-
ferring the proceeding to the Board and a Notice to
Show Cause why the General Counsel’s Motion for
Summary Judgment should not be granted. Each Re-
spondent filed a response to the Notice to Show Cause
and opposition to the Motion for Summary Judgment.
The National Labor Relations Board has delegated
its authority in this proceeding to a three-member
panel.
Ruling on Motion for Summary Judgment
The following facts are admitted or undisputed.
Local 3108 and AT&T have been parties to successive
collective-bargaining agreements, the most recent of
which is effective from May 28, 1989, to May 30,
1992. The agreement provides that employees who be-
come members of Local 3108 may authorize AT&T to
make monthly periodic deductions from their pay-
checks in amounts equal to periodic union dues and
remit those dues to Local 3108, by executing a dues-
checkoff authorization card.1
On February 8, 1988, AT&T employee James E.
Baumann executed a checkoff authorization card.2 On
January 4, 1990, Baumann notified Local 3108 and
AT&T of his resignation of union membership and re-
quested the cessation of his dues deduction. On Janu-
ary 24, 1990, AT&T notified Baumann that it could
not process his dues-checkoff revocation because it
was not made during the period for revocation set forth
in his checkoff authorization. Accordingly, AT&T has
continued to deduct membership dues from Baumann’s
wages and forward the dues to Local 3108, which has
received accepted, and, retained them.
The General Counsel contends that continued deduc-
tions following resignation constitutes an unlawful re-
striction on an employee’s right to resign union mem-
bership under Pattern Makers League v. NLRB.3 The
General Counsel alternatively argues that resignation
operates to reduce an employee’s dues obligation to
zero, since the employee is no longer a union member
following resignation. Local 3108 and AT&T contend,
inter alia, that the checkoff authorization voluntarily
signed by Baumann is a contract which may only be
revoked within the contractually permissible period.
Because Baumann failed to revoke the authorization
within that permissible period, and because the author-
ization explicitly states that it is neither conditioned on
present or future membership in the Union, Local 3108
and AT&T argue that they may lawfully continue to
deduct and receive dues pursuant to the authorization
even after Baumann’s resignation from union member-
ship.
In Electrical Workers IBEW Local 2088 (Lockheed
Space Operations),4 the Board set forth a new test for
determining the effect of an employee’s resignation
from union membership on that employee’s dues-
943AMERICAN TELEPHONE & TELEGRAPH CO.
5 Metropolitan Edison v. NLRB, 460 U.S. 693, 708 (1983).
6 In Lockheed, the Board left open the question of how its waiver rule would
apply in the context of a lawful union-security provision. Notwithstanding the
inclusion of an agency-shop clause in the collective-bargaining agreement (see
fn. 1, supra), we note that the sole basis cited by the Respondent Union for
continuing to extract membership dues after an attempt to resign was the
checkoff authorization itself. See also Rubber Workers Local 915 (Dunlop
Tire), 302 NLRB 428, 429 fns. 2 and 8 (1991).
7 See Steelworkers Local 4671 (National Oil Well), 302 NLRB 367 (1991).
checkoff authorization. The Board in Lockheed found
that an employee may voluntarily agree to continue
paying union dues pursuant to a checkoff authorization
even after resignation of union membership. In fash-
ioning a test to determine whether an employee has in
fact agreed to do so, the Board recognized the funda-
mental policies under the Act guaranteeing employees
the right to refrain from belonging to and assisting a
union, as well as the principle set forth by the Su-
preme Court that waiver of such statutory rights must
be clear and unmistakable.5 In order to give full effect
to these fundamental labor policies, the Board stated
that it would
construe language relating to a checkoff author-
ization’s irrevocability—i.e., language specifying
an irrevocable duration for either 1 year from the
date of the authorization’s execution or on the ex-
piration of the existing collective-bargaining
agreement—as pertaining only to the method by
which dues payments will be made so long as
dues payments are properly owing. We shall not
read it as, by itself, a promise to pay dues beyond
the term in which an employee is liable for dues
on some other basis. Explicit language within the
checkoff authorization clearly setting forth an ob-
ligation to pay dues even in the absence of union
membership will be required to establish that the
employee has bound himself or herself to pay the
dues even after resignation of membership. [Id. at
328–329.]6
Applying the analysis of Lockheed to the facts in
this case, we find that the Respondents have shown
that the dues-checkoff authorization signed by the
Charging Party obligated him to pay dues after his ef-
fective resignation from membership in Local 3108.
The authorization signed by Baumann provides that it
is ‘‘voluntarily made and is neither conditioned on my
present or future membership of [sic] the Union
. . . .’’ We find that Baumann thus clearly authorized
the continuation of his dues deduction even in the ab-
sence of union membership. Because there is explicit
language within the checkoff authorization clearly set-
ting forth an obligation to pay dues even in the ab-
sence of union membership, dues were still owing
under Baumann’s checkoff authorization after his res-
ignation.7 Inasmuch as under the checkoff authoriza-
tion which he executed Baumann continued to have a
dues obligation after his effective resignation from the
Union, we conclude that Respondent AT&T did not
violate the Act by deducting dues from his wages after
his resignation, and that Respondent Local 3108 did
not violate the Act by receiving, accepting, and retain-
ing those dues. Accordingly, we deny the General
Counsel’s Motion for Summary Judgment and we shall
dismiss the complaint.
ORDER
The complaint is dismissed.