District Lodge 837, IAM

National Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsOct 29, 1973

206 N.L.R.B. 662 (N.L.R.B. 1973)

662 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD District Lodge No. 837, International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO and International Association of Machinists and Aero- space Workers, AFL-CIO (McDonnell Douglas Corporation) and Larry Sherrill . Case 14-CB-2558 October 29, 1973 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN MILLER , AND MEMBERS JENKINS AND ENNEDY Upon an original and an amended charge duly filed, the General Counsel of the National Labor Re- lations Board, by the Regional Director for Region 14, issued a complaint and notice of hearing on Janu- ary 30, 1973, against District Lodge No. 837, Interna- tional Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO, and International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO. The complaint alleged that Respondents had engaged in and were engaging in certain unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Na- tional Labor Relations Act, as amended. Copies of the charge, complaint, and notice of hearing were duly served upon the parties. On February 9, 1973, Re- spondents filed their answer to the complaint denying the commission of an unfair labor practice and re- questing that the complaint be dismissed. Thereafter, the parties entered into a stipulation of facts and jointly moved to transfer this proceeding directly'to the Board for findings of fact, conclusions of law, and order. The stipulation states that the par- ties have waived their rights to a hearing before an administrative law judge, the making of findings of fact and conclusions of law by an administrative law judge, the issuance of an administrative law judge's decision, and oral argument before the Board. The parties also agreed that the original charge, amended charge, complaint, notice of hearing, answer, and stip- ulation of facts, including exhibits, constitute the en- tire record' in this proceeding. On June 20, 1973, the Board issued its order grant- ing the motion, approving the stipulation, and trans- ferring the proceeding to the Board. Thereafter, the General Counsel filed a brief with the Board. The Board has considered the stipulation of facts, the exhibits, the brief, and the entire record in this proceeding, and hereby makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER The parties stipulated, and we find, that McDon- nell Douglas Corporation, herein called the Employ- er, is a Maryland corporation maintaining a place of business at Lambert St. Louis Airport, in the State of Missouri, and is engaged in the manufacture, sale, and distribution of aircraft, space vehicles, and relat- ed products. The Employer, in the course and conduct of its business operations, manufactured, sold, and distributed at its Lambert St. Louis Airport plant products valued in excess of $1 million, of which products valued in excess of $50,000 were shipped from said plant directly to points located outside the State of Missouri. The Employer in the course and conduct of its business operations annually manufac- tures, sells, and delivers to the United States Govern- ment military aircraft which are valued in excess of $1 million and which sales have a substantial impact on national defense. The parties also stipulated, and we find, that Mc- Donnell Douglas Corporation is, and at all times ma- terial herein has been, an employer engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce with- in the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. We find that it will effectuate the purposes of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein. II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED The parties stipulated , and we find, that District Lodge No . 837, International Association of Machin- ists and Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO, and Interna- tional Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO, are labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. III THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES At all times material herein, the Charging Party has been an employee of the Employer. Respondent Dis- trict Lodge has been the duly certified bargaining representative, and Respondent International has been a party to the collective-bargaining agreement between Respondent District Lodge and the Employ- er. The Charging Party was a member of Respondent District Lodge and Respondent International from 1952 until on or about August 15, 1972, when he was expelled, as detailed below. During the fall of 1971, TEAM,' a rival union to Respondent District Lodge, began a campaign to or- 'Technical Employees of Aerospace Manufacturers. 206 NLRB No. 79 DISTRICT LODGE 837, IAM ganize support among the employees of the Employer then represented by Respondent District Lodge. At that time, the Charging Party was an officer in Re- spondent District Lodge. By letter to Respondent Dis- trict Lodge dated October 28, 1971,2 the Charging Party resigned his offices. On or about November 1, 1971,3 the Charging Party held a press conference at which he publicly announced his resignation from his offices, and his support for TEAM. At no time materi- al herein did the Charging Party seek to resign his membership in Respondent District Lodge or Re- spondent International. Thereafter, he actively cam- paigned for TEAM and solicited signatures from other employees on TEAM authorization cards, which were then filed with the Board in support of TEAM's representation petition. In February 1972, charges were filed with a subdivi- sion of Respondent District Lodge against the Charg- ing Party, alleging him to be guilty of dual unionism. On or about February 6, 1972, a trial was held and the Charging Party was found guilty of dual unionism. As a result of that trial, the Charging Party was fined $1,000, and was also disqualified from holding union office. On or about March 12, 1972, the Charg- ing Party appealed the decision of the trial committee to Floyd E. Smith, president of Respondent Interna- tional. On or about August 15, 1972, President Smith denied the Charging Party's appeal of the fine levied by Respondent District Lodge, and also ordered him expelled. On or about September 12, 1972, the Charg- ing Party appealed the decision of International Presi- dent Smith to the executive council of Respondent International. On or about October 17, 1972, the exec- utive council of Respondent International sustained the decision of International President Smith denying the Charging Party's appeal. The $1,000 fine has remained in full force and effect from on or about October 17, 1972, until the present time, and has not been rescinded in any manner by Respondents. Pursuant to the provisions of section 16 of article L of the constitution of Respondent Interna- tional, the $1,000 fine became final and binding upon the Charging Party on or about 90 days after the date of the decision of the executive council of Respondent International. We find that Respondents violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act when they caused a fine to be levied against the Charging Party, Larry Sherrill, for supporting a rival labor organization by soliciting au- 2 This is the date shown on the letter which is attached as Exh . I to the parties' stipulation . In the body of the stipulation , the date is , madvertently referred to as October 28, 1972. 3 Based on the entire record before us , we find the correct date to be November 1, 1971. In the body of the stipulation, the date is inadvertently referred to as November 1, 1972. thorization cards for TEAM. IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE 663 The conduct of the Respondents set forth above, occurring in connection with the operations of the Employer as set forth in section I has a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and com- merce among the several States and tends to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce. - V. THE REMEDY Having found that the Respondents have engaged in an unfair labor practice in violation of Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act, we shall order that they cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative ac- tion designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. McDonnell Douglas Corporation is, and at all times material herein has been, engaged in commerce with the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 2. Respondents District Lodge No. 837, Interna- tional Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO, and International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO,, are, and at all times material herein have been, labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3. By levying a fine against the Charging Party, Larry Sherrill, because he solicited authorization cards for TEAM, a rival labor organization, Respon- dents have engaged in and are engaging in an unfair labor practice within the meaning of Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act. 4. The aforesaid unfair labor practice is an unfair labor practice affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Rela- tions Board hereby orders that the Respondents, Dis- trict Lodge No. 837, International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO, 4lnternational Molders' and Allied Workers Union, Local No 125, AFL- CIO (Blackhawk Tanning Co , Inc), 178 NLRB 208; Printing Specialties and Paper Products' Union No. 481, International Printing Pressmen andAssistants' Union of North America, AFL-CIO (Westvaco Corporation), 183 NLRB 1271; Local Union No. 953, Textile Workers Union of America, AFL-CIO (Visinet Mill, Bemis Company, Inc.), 189 NLRB 598; Trf-Rivers Marine Engineers Union (United States Steel Corporation), 189 NLRB 838. 664 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Bridgeton, Missouri, and International Association of joined) a violation, of Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act. Machinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO, Ha- Therefore, I would dismiss the complaint in its entire- zelwood, Missouri, their officers, agents, and repre- ty. sentatives, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Levying or attempting to collect a fine against Larry Sherrill, or any other employee, for soliciting employees to sign authorization cards on behalf of another labor organization. (b) In any like or related manner restraining or coercing employees in the exercise' of the rights guar- anteed them by Section 7 of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Cancel the fine levied against Larry Sherrill, and notify him in writing of that action. (b) Post at Respondents' business offices and meeting halls copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix." I Copies of said notice, on forms provid- ed by the Regional Director for Region 14, after being duly signed by Respondents' representatives, shall be posted by Respondents immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by them for 60 consecu- tive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to members are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respon- dents to insure that said notices are not altered, de- faced, or covered by any other material. (c)' Mail to the Regional Director for Region 14 copies of the aforementioned notice for posting by the Employer, if willing, in places where notices to em- ployees are customarily posted. Copies of said notices, to be provided by the Regional Director for Region 14, shall, after being duly signed by Respondents' official representatives, be forthwith returned to the Regional Director for such posting. (d) Notify the Regional Director for Region 14, in writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps the Respondents have taken to comply herewith. MEMBER JENKINS, dissenting: There is no question that Larry Sherrill was fined by the Respondent Unions for soliciting authoriza- tion cards in behalf of a rival labor organization. In my view, this is not, for the reasons set forth in my dissent in Tri-Rivers 6 (in which Member Fanning 5 In the event that this 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." 6 Tri-Rivers Marine Engineers Union (United States Steel Corporation), 189 NLRB 838. APPENDIX NOTICE To EMPLOYEES AND MEMBERS POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government WE WILL NOT levy or attempt to collect a fine against Larry Sherrill, or any other employee, for soliciting employees to sign authorization cards, on behalf of another labor organization. WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner re- strain or coerce employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act. WE WILL cancel the fine levied against Larry Sherrill. DISTRICT LODGE No. 837, INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIA- TION OF MACHINISTS AND AEROSPACE WORKERS, AFL-CIO (Labor Organization) Dated By (Representative) (Title) INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIA- TION OF MACHINISTS AND AEROSPACE WORKERS, AFL-CIO (Labor Organization) Dated By (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 concerning this notice or compli- ance with its provisions may be directed to the Board's Office, 210 North 12th Boulevard, Room 448, St. Louis Missouri 63101, Telephone 314-622-4167.