International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Local 385 (Walt Disney Parks and Resorts U.S., Inc. d/b/a Wa

National Labor Relations Board - Administrative Judge Opinions

Mar 22, 2017

12-CB-136934 (N.L.R.B. Mar. 22, 2017)

JD−19−17
Kissimmee, FL
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
DIVISION OF JUDGES
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF
TEAMSTERS, LOCAL 385
(WALT DISNEY PARKS AND RESORTS
U.S., INC. d/b/a WALT DISNEY WORLD
CO.; UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC.)
and
HECTOR L. SANTANA-QUINTANA Cases 12–CB–136934
SHARON MASUDA 12–CB–149945
HEATHER RALEIGH 12–CB–149949
ARLENE C. BEHRENS 12–CB–152211
MITCHELL KENT 12–CB–152912
JACOB GREENE 12–CB–159647
BARINGTHON BRUDY 12–CB–162916
DOLORES NICOSIA 12–CB–180519
Rafael Aybar, Esq., for the General Counsel.
Thomas J. Pilacek, Esq., of Winter Springs, Florida,
for the Respondent.
John C. Scully and Alyssa K. Hazelwood, Esqs.
(Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation),
of Springfield, Virginia, for the Charging Parties.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
MICHAEL A. ROSAS, Administrative Law Judge. This case was tried in Kissimmee, Florida on
October 3–4 and November 21–22, 2016. The consolidated complaint alleges that the International
Brotherhood of Teamsters, Local 385 (Local 385 or Respondent) violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) of
the National Labor Relations Act (the Act)1 by engaging in a pattern of intentionally ignoring or
delaying its responses to the requests at various times by eight Local 385 members (the Charging
Parties), employed by Walt Disney Parks and Resorts US, Inc. d/b/a Walt Disney World
Co. (Disney or WDW) and the United Parcel Service, Inc. (UPS), to revoke dues check-off
authorizations and/or for information regarding how to revoke dues check-off authorization.
Local 385 denies the allegations, alleging that (1) the dues revocation requests were untimely
and did not conform to with the requirements of the dues check-off authorization form signed by
Charging Parties; (2) one or more of the charges in the complaint are asserted in an improper attempt to

1 29 U.S.C. §§ 151–169.
JD−19−17
2
equate their rights under Communications Workers of America v. Beck, 487 U.S. 735 (1988) with
requests to revoke dues check-off authorizations; and (3) Local 385 does not have an obligation to
honor Beck requests because its collective-bargaining agreements with Disney and UPS are in Florida,
a “right-to-work” state in which application of “agency shop” collective-bargaining agreement (CBA)
provisions are prohibited. 5
On the entire record, including my observation of the demeanor of the witnesses, and after
considering the briefs filed by the General Counsel, Local 385 and the Charging Parties, I make the
following
10
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. JURISDICTION
At all material times, Disney, a Florida Corporation with its principal office and place of 15
business located in Lake Buena Vista, Florida, has been engaged in the operation of a vacation,
recreational and entertainment complex, where it annually derives gross revenues in excess of
$500,000 and purchases and receives at its State of Florida facilities goods valued in excess of $50,000
directly from points outside Florida. Similarly, UPS, an Ohio and New York Corporation with its
principal office and place of business located in Atlanta, Georgia, and with places of business located 20
throughout the United States, including the State of Florida, has been engaged in the operation in the
pick-up and delivery of packages for companies and individuals. Local 385 admits, and I find, that
Disney and UPS are employers engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7)
of the Act and the Local 385, as well as the Service Trades Council (SCTU) are labor organizations
within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.25
II. ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Local 385’s Representation of Disney and UPS Employees
30
1. Jurisdiction
The STCU is a labor organization comprised of six labor organizations, including Local 385.
Local 385 is the exclusive labor representative for approximately 9,000 employees in up to 52
bargaining units covering 20 counties within Florida. At all relevant times, Local 385 and Disney have 35
been parties to collective-bargaining agreements that are effective by their terms from March 30, 2014
to September 21, 2019. Among those CBAs, Local 385 is a party to five separate agreements with
Disney in Orlando. They include CBAs between Disney and the STCU for approximately 4,000 to
5,000 full-time and part-time employees. Two of those bargaining units are at issue and are defined as
follows:40
Regular Full-Time
All of WDW 's regular full time employees who are in the classifications of work listed in
Addendum A of the March 30, 2014 to September 21, 2019 regular full-time collective-45
bargaining agreement between STCU and WDW at Walt Disney World Resort in Bay Lake,
Florida, excluding all other employees, security and supervisors as defined in the Labor
JD−19−17
3
Management Relations Act of 1947, as amended.2
Regular Part-Time
All of WDW's regular part time employees who are in the classifications of work listed in 5
Addendum A of the March 30, 2014 to September 21, 2019, regular part-time collective-bargaining
agreement at the Walt Disney World Resort in Lake Buena Vista, Florida, excluding all other
employees, security and supervisors as defined in the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947, as
amended.3
10
Section 5 at Articles 8 of the part-time employees’ CBA and Article 9 of the full-time
employees’ CBA provide for the periodic withholding of union membership dues, initiation fees,
and/or service charges for employees who authorize such withholdings by Disney, and provides for the
monthly remittance of those monies to the member unions of the STCU, including Local 385.4
15
Six of the charging parties (Santana-Quintana, Masuda, Raleigh, Behrens, Brudy, and Nicosia)
are Disney employees who were covered by either the full-time or part-time STCU CBAs.
Local 385 is also party to five CBAs with UPS, including the National Master United Parcel
Service Agreement (NMA). Local 385 has approximately 2,000 to 2,500 members covered by the 20
NMA at approximately 45 to 50 work locations. Two of the charging parties (Kent and Greene) are
UPS employees who are covered by current NMA, which is effective by its terms from August 1, 2013
to July 31, 2018, covering the terms and conditions of employment of the following employees:
Feeder drivers, package drivers, sorters, loaders, unloaders, porters, office clericals, clerks, 25
mechanics, maintenance personnel (building maintenance), car washers, UPS employees in its
air operation, and certain other employees as described in the August 1, 2013 to July 31, 2018
collective-bargaining agreement between Local 385 and its member unions, and UPS.5
Article 3, Section 3 of this collective-bargaining agreement provides for the periodic 30
withholding of initiation fees, dues and/or uniform assessments of Local 385 and remittance of those
monies to Local 385 where it has geographic jurisdiction over the unit employees who have authorized
such withholdings by Disney, and provides for the monthly remittance of those monies to the member
unions of the STCU.6
35
2. Union Staff
Clay Jeffries has been the president of Local 385 since September 1, 2006. Prior to that, he
served as secretary-treasurer from January 1, 2001 until August 2016. Jeffries also served as business
agent from 1997 through 2016. As secretary-treasurer, he reported to the president, Michael Stapleton. 40
Jeffries was responsible for the communications and financial operations of Local 385. He negotiated

2 GC Exh. 2.
3 GC Exh. 3.
4 Id. at 7.
5 GC Exh. 4 at 2.
6 Id. at 7-9.
JD−19−17
4
agreements, was responsible for processing all membership dues for Local 385 and participated on
grievance panels involving UPS.
Between May 2014 and June 2016, Local 385’s headquarters in Orlando, Florida housed the
offices of approximately 13–14 employees, including Jeffries. Local 385’s staff included: business 5
agents Nidia Grajales, Concannon and Walt Howard; Michelle Concannon, an office secretary
responsible for insurance and pensions, and receiving, opening, date-stamping letters (but not
envelopes) and distributing Local 385’s mail; Laura Stapleton, a bookkeeper, updates Local 385
records and posts dues to the individual records of members.7
10
As secretary-treasurer, Jeffries’ regular work hours were from Monday through Friday, 8 a.m.
to 5 p.m. However, Jeffries often traveled from the office to visit employees in the various bargaining
units and was usually out of the office during the third week of the month attending grievance
arbitration regular panels with UPS. He was also out of the office for up to three times a year for up to
2 weeks at a time participating in deadlocked grievance panels.15
3. Procedure for Resigning From Local 385 and Revoking Dues Authorization
The check-off authorization forms for both STCU-covered employees at Disney and UPS
employees provide that they renew themselves annually unless revoked within a specified window 20
period. The STCU window period for Disney employees is between 20 and 10 days prior to the
anniversary of the date the employee signed the card. The Local 385 window period for UPS
employees is between 75 and 60 days prior to the membership anniversary date. Both forms require
that a request to revoke check-off authorization must be by written notice to both the union and the
employer. Signed dues authorization forms are filed with Local 385 and copies provided to Disney and 25
UPS for payroll processing of dues deductions.
Once processed with Disney, Local 385 continues to receive automatic remittances from Disney
until the latter determines that an employee has transferred out of Local 385’s jurisdiction or has
separated from employment, or LOCAL 385 notifies Disney that a timely revocation request has been 30
received. In the case of UPS, Local 385 bills the employer for check-off remittances on a weekly basis.
When a timely revocation request is received, Local 385 is supposed to remove the employee from its
UPS billings.
4. Local 385’s Practices in Processing Resignation and Dues Revocation Requests35
Local 385 maintains approximately 100,000 check-off authorization cards in its physical files.
They are maintained physically because a copy of the card cannot be scanned into its electronic system
known as TITAN. The information in the TITAN system for anyone on check-off, including both UPS
and Disney employees, is based on the employee’s social security number, which is written on the 40
authorization card.
Local 385 began keeping electronic files for each member about 8–10 years ago, and hard
copies were shredded. However, its computer system crashed in 2015 and Local 385 reverted to hard

7 Jeffries was frequently vague and evasive, as in this instance when asked whether staff reported to him and he
professed not to understand the question. (Tr. 29.)
JD−19−17
5
copy files. If a revocation request does not fall within the applicable window period, Local 385 is
supposed to send a letter explaining that, with a copy of the member’s authorization card. If a Disney
employee meets the window requirement, Local 385 sends an email to the employer’s payroll office. In
the case of a UPS employee, Local 385 simply removes the member from the dues check-off billing.
5
Local 385 does not, however, have a form letter that is used when members request information
about their window period. Nor does Jeffries usually respond to telephone voicemail messages from
members seeking to revoke their dues authorization. Local 385 premises that longstanding policy and
practice on a memorandum issued to Local 385 office staff in or around 2006 by then president and
business manager Michael Stapleton, relating to members’ requests to resign from the union and cancel 10
dues deductions:
We continue to receive complaints from the National Labor Relations Board about employees
of the Local Union giving out wrong information to member/referrals about Forfeiting,
Resigning, Quitting, or any other form of stopping their dues deductions or their Membership 15
with the Local Union.
The Local Union has complied and will comply with the National Labor Relations Act by
giving out ONLY the proper information on Forfeiting, Resigning, Quitting, or any form of
stopping their dues deductions or their Membership with the Local Union. 20
If anyone (Member or Referral Hall etc.) wants to Forfeit, Resign, Quit or any form of
cancelling Membership or Dues deduction THEY MUST STATE THEIR DESIRE IN
WRITING TO THE SECRETARY-TREASURER ONLY. The Secretary-Treasurer will send
them a written response to their request.25
NO ONE is to answer ANY questions to anyone (Member or Referral Hall etc.) in person, over
the phone, or in any written correspondence with/or in regards to Forfeiture, Resigning,
Quitting or any form of stopping their dues deductions or their Membership with the Local
Union. YOU MUST REFER ANYONE WITH QUESTIONS TO THE SECRETARY-30
TREASURER ONLY!!!
Anyone that comes into or mails in a written request to the Local Union to Forfeit, Resign,
Quit or any form of cancelling Membership or Dues deduction must be sent to drop off their
letter with Paula Graf ONLY for date stamping!!35
If we receive any more complaints from the Labor Board about misinformation disciplinary
action will follow.
This interoffice memo is not to be handed out or posted. It is for your education and compliance 40
only.8 (emphasis in original)
Consistent with Local 385 policy since 2006, Jeffries has been the only Local 385 employee
who has handled members’ requests to revoke their dues withholding authorization, even when he is on
leave. Letters requesting revocation are kept in member files, which occupy about 45–50 cabinets. 45

8 This memorandum was issued in September 2006 when Paula Graff was secretary-treasurer. (R. Exh. 1.)
JD−19−17
6
While some files are kept electronically, membership and authorization dues forms are maintained in
paper files. An attempt to store these records electronically failed when the storage load caused Local
385’s computer system to crash in 2015. Local 385 currently has about 100,000 authorization cards in
its physical files.
5
Upon receipt of a written request to revoke dues authorization, Jeffries checks with the
bookkeeper, Laura Stapleton, to confirm membership in the unit. He then checks the dues check-off
authorization card to determine whether the request is within the window and is supposed to respond to
the member in writing. If the revocation request falls outside the time period for such action, Jeffries is
supposed to send the member written correspondence with a copy of the dues authorization card. If the 10
request falls during the window period, Jeffries will notify the employer to stop their deductions
electronically or through the billing process. In Disney’s case, Jeffries is supposed to notify the
employer by email and remove the employee from Local 385’s dues billing sheet.
Jeffries does not respond to telephone or voicemail requests to revoke dues authorization 15
because they are not in writing. Nor does he treat member requests for information regarding their
membership and the applicable window period for dues revocation as a request to revoke dues
withholding. He is supposed to let them know whether they signed a dues check-off authorization or
not. If a member sees Jeffries in person and verbally requests dues revocation, he instructs them to
make the request in writing. 20
5. Local 385’s Enrollment Process
Local 385’s collective-bargaining agreements with Disney and UPS have union dues check-off
provisions authorizing the employers to deduct union dues from employees’ paychecks. 25
Individuals who sign and date dues check-off authorizations on triplicate forms used by Local
385 at UPS and other employers receive a copy upon signature. Local 385 does not receive a copy of
SCTU dues check-off authorization cards executed by individuals who sign and date them when they
are not employed within Local 385’s authorized jurisdiction under the SCTU/Disney CBA, but 30
subsequently transfer to a function over which Local 385 has jurisdiction under the CBA; therefore,
Local 385 is unable to provide a copy or information about revocation to such individuals. Local 385
is not responsible for SCTU practices and procedures which do not conform with Local 385’s practices
and procedures or the actions or inactions of other constituent unions, over which it has no control.
35
B. Charging Parties Seek to Resign and Revoke Dues Check-Off Authorization
Each of the 8 Charging Parties, except for Dolores Nicosia, signed dues check-off
authorizations that by their terms were irrevocable for 1 year or the term of the applicable CBA,
whichever was sooner, and were subject to automatic renewal unless the employee provided written 40
notice during a certain window period before the renewal date. The window period for dues check-off
authorization revocation for the Charging Parties who worked for Disney (Santana-Quintana, Masuda,
Raleigh, Behrens, Kent and Nicosia) was “not more than 20 days and not less than ten (10) days” prior
to their periodic renewal dates. The window period for Charging Parties who worked for UPS (Greene
and Brudy) was “at least sixty [60] days, but not more than seventy-five [75] days” prior to their 45
periodic renewal date. The dues check-off authorizations also expressly stated that they were not
JD−19−17
7
contingent on “my present or future membership” with Local 385.9
1. Hector L. Santana-Quintana
Hector Santana-Quintana began his employment with Disney as a part-time bus driver at 5
Disney in June 2013 and became full-time in September 2013.10 He joined the Union on June 1, 2013,
by signing the following 3 sections of a union authorization card: Application for Membership and
Check-Off of Service Charge; Service Fee Authorization; and Check-off Authorization for Political
Contributions from Wages. Union dues started being withheld shortly thereafter. The annual window
period for revocation of his dues was May 11 to May 21. Santana-Quintana, however, was not 10
provided with a copy of the card at the time.11
On May 20, 2014, Santana-Quintana sent a letter by certified mail resigning his union
membership, revoking his union dues check-off authorization, and requesting the return of his signed
authorization card. Santana-Quintana’s letter, which was timely sent, was received by the Union and a 15
return receipt was signed by Michelle Concannon on May 21, 2014.12
After not hearing from Local 385, Santana-Quintana filed an unfair labor practice charge on
September 17, 2014. On September 22, after receiving a copy of Santana-Quintana’s charge from the
Board, along with a copy of the May 20 letter, Jeffries sent a letter to Santana-Quintana acknowledging 20
the latter’s timely request to revoke his union membership and dues check-off authorization. He
explained that Santana-Quintana’s letter had been misfield and enclosed a check in the amount of
$148.50 reimbursing Santana-Quintana for union dues deducted from his paycheck from May 21 to
September 22.13
25
Jeffries’ response did not, however, include a copy of Santana-Quintana’s authorization card as
requested and, on November 17, 2014, Santana-Quintana filed an amended charge complaining of that
omission. Jeffries responded by mailing Santana-Quintana’s card to him on December 11, 2014.14
2. Sharon Masuda30
Sharon Masuda, a full-time character captain at Disney, signed a STCU check-off authorization
form on March 7, 2000. Unbeknownst to Masuda, her annual window period for revoking her
authorization was February 15 to February 25, as she did not receive a copy of her authorization card at
the time. Union dues deductions commenced immediately. 35
In a letter sent on August 4, 2014, and received by the Union on August 5, 2014, Masuda
notified Jeffries that she was resigning her membership in the Union and revoking her dues

9 GC Exhs. 5, 9, 14, 29, 56, 63 and 66; R. Exh. 7 at 2.
10 Santana-Quintana, who appeared pursuant to subpoena by the General Counsel and refused to meet with him
prior to the hearing, was a credible witness. (Tr. 114–115.)
11 GC Exh. 5.
12 Jeffries was not credible about whether he was aware of Santana-Quintana’s letter when it was received by the
Union in or around May 21, 2014. He was vague and hesitant when asked if he found Santana-Quintana’s file
after receiving the charge and his excuse that the letter was misplaced was not credible either. (GC Exh. 6.)
13 GC Exh. 7; R. Exh. 5.
14 GC Exh. 8; R. Exh. 6.
JD−19−17
8
authorization. She also requested, in case she was outside the window period for revoking her dues, a
copy of her dues authorization card and information regarding the applicable dates.15
I am employed by Walt Disney World. This letter is to inform you that I hereby resign as a
member of Teamsters Local #385. My resignation is effective immediately. Since I have 5
resigned my membership in the union, you must now immediately cease enforcing the dues
check-off authorization agreement that I signed.
If you refuse to accept this letter as both an effective resignation and an immediately effective
[dues] check-off revocation, I ask that you promptly inform me, in writing, of exactly what 10
steps I must take to effectuate my revocation of the dues check-off authorization. More
specifically, if you contend that I must meet a “window period” in order to revoke my dues
check-off authorization, I ask that you promptly send me a copy of the actual dues deduction
authorization form that I signed, and also tell me specifically what “window period” dates I
must meet in order to revoke the dues check-off authorization. (emphasis in original)15
The Union did not respond to Masuda’s letter.16 Masuda, however, did not give up. Using
sample form letters from the National Right To Work Legal Defense Foundation (NRTW) website,
Masuda sent 4 more virtually identical letters between September 18, 2014, and November 20, 2014,
notifying Local 385 resigning her union membership and requesting revocation of her union dues 20
check-off authorization. Jeffries did not reply to any of these letters.17
On November 21, 2014, Masuda also sent an email to Disney requesting a copy of her
authorization card.18 On November 24, 2014, Disney replied that it was no longer in possession of
Masuda’s authorization form, which had been returned to Local 385.25
On December 8, 2014, Masuda visited Local 385’s offices and attempted to meet with Jeffries
in order to get her authorization card and resign from the union. She spoke with Laura Stapleton, who
told her that Jeffries was not in the office and she needed to write a letter. Masuda explained that she
had already written several letters, so Stapleton took her contact information and said someone would 30
call her. No one called that day or the next and, on December 10, 2014, Masuda placed a telephone
call to Jeffries, but got his voicemail and left him a message.19

15 GC Exh. 20(a)-(b).
16 Jeffries testified that he replied to Masuda’s August 4, 2014 letter in a letter, dated August 8, 2014, and
enclosed a copy of her authorization card. I credit Masuda’s credible testimony over Jeffries’ uncorroborated
testimony that such a letter was actually mailed to Masuda. (R. Exh. 7 at 1–2; Tr. 105, 407-408, 473-475, 525.)
Masuda’s testimony was consistent with that of the other charging parties who testified that they too never
received responses from the Union to their resignation/revocation/information request letters. To refute such a
claim, the Union did not call the employee responsible for receiving and mailing correspondence—Michelle
Concannon. As such, there can be no presumption of regularity that Jeffries’ letters were received.
17 Based on the previous explanation regarding the credibility of Masuda vs. Jeffries as to whether the Union
mailed out replies, I find that the Union did not mail out his replies to Masuda, dated November 3 and 17, 2014.
(Tr. 86–89, 101, 409-410, 526; R. Exh. 8 at 1–2; R. Exh. 9 at 1–2.)
18 Masuda credibly testified that she sent the 4 letters, including 3 by regular mail, after reading advice on the
NRTW website that she needed to know what her union membership anniversary date was in order to resign
from the union. (GC Exh. 19-24; Tr. 84–89, 100–101.)
19 Masuda’s credible testimony regarding her call to Jeffries was undisputed. (Tr. 91–93, 110–111.)
JD−19−17
9
Several months elapsed and Masuda received no response. On March 9, 2015, she sent Local
385 another letter, this time by certified mail. On March 10, 2015, Masuda learned from Disney’s
payroll department that she signed her authorization card on or about the time she commenced her
employment in March 2003. Local 385 finally responded to Masuda on March 10, 2015, accepting her 5
resignation from the union, but denying her request to revoke the dues check-off authorization as
untimely. On February 19, 2016, Masuda sent another letter to Local 385 requesting resignation and
revocation. Jeffries received the letter, but did not reply to Masuda. Instead, he emailed Disney on
February 25, 2016, to stop deducting dues from Masuda’s paycheck. On February 25, 2016, union
dues were deducted from Masuda’s paycheck for the last time.2010
3. Heather Raleigh
Heather Raleigh, also a full-time character at Disney, signed a STCU dues check-off
authorization card on January 28, 2007,21 and has had dues deducted beginning on February 28, 2007.2215
At the time, HERE Local 362 was the STCU member union representing Raleigh’s unit. As of March
2007, her union dues were remitted to Local 385. According to her authorization form, the annual
window period for revoking her dues authorization was January 8 through January 18.
At some point in 2014, Raleigh decided to resign her union membership. She accessed the 20
NRTW website for information about the resignation process, which advised union members to
ascertain the animal window period for taking such action. On November 13, 2014, using a form letter
from the NRTW website, Raleigh mailed a letter to Local 385 resigning and revoking her union dues
for non-CBA purposes. She also sent a letter to Disney’s payroll office on November 13 informing of
her union resignation and requesting they stop deducting dues. Disney responded that the dues 25
deduction would have to be requested by Local 385.23 The Local 385 letter, stamped received on
November 14, stated:
I hereby resign as a member of Teamsters Local 385. My resignation is effective immediately. I
will continue to meet my lawful obligation of paying a representation fee to the union under its 30
“union security” agreement with Walt Disney Parks and Resorts.
Furthermore, I object to collection and expenditure of a fee for any purpose other than my pro
rata share of the union’s costs of collective bargaining, contract administration, and grievance
adjustment, as is my constitutional right under Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, 431 U.S. 35
209 (1977). Pursuant to Chicago Teachers Union v. Hudson, 475 U.S. 292 (1986), I request that
you provide me with my First Amendment procedural rights, including: reduction of my fees to
an amount that includes only constitutionally chargeable costs; notice of the calculation of that
amount, verified by an independent certified public accountant; and notice of the procedure that

20 Masuda conceded that, based on the information contained in her authorization card, every letter that she sent
Local 385 was outside the window period, except for the February 19, 2016 letter. (GC Exh. 24-28; Tr. 97–111.)
However, she credibly testified that she was unaware of the window period because did not recall when she
signed the form. (Tr. 113.) Jeffries had no excuse for neglecting to respond to any of Masuda’s letters, relying
instead on his notification to Disney to stop withholding dues from her paycheck. (Tr. 419–420.)
21 GC Exh. 29.
22 GC Exh. 30–32.
23 GC Exh. 33, 35.
JD−19−17
10
you have adopted to hold my fees in an interest-bearing account and give me an opportunity to
challenge your calculation and have it reviewed by an impartial decision maker.
Accordingly, I also hereby notify you that I wish to authorize only the deduction from my
wages of representation fees limited to those costs that are lawfully chargeable under the First 5
Amendment to the United States Constitution. If I am required to sign a form to make that
change, please provide me with the necessary form.
Please reply promptly. Any further collection or expenditure of dues or fees from me made
without the procedural safeguards required by the First Amendment to the United States 10
Constitution will violate my civil rights under the Federal Civil Rights Act of 1871, 42 U.S.C. §
1983, and the U.S. Constitution.
Finally, please consider this objection to be permanent and continuing in nature.
15
Local 385 did not respond to that letter.24 Accordingly, on November 20, Raleigh went to Local
385’s office and spoke to Nidia Grajales, the referral hall administrator. Grajales informed Raleigh that
she needed to speak with Jeffries, but he was not in the office. As Raleigh was leaving, she called
Jeffries’ telephone number and left a voicemail message explaining that she was resigning her union
membership, revoking her dues check-off authorization, and wanted a copy of her dues authorization 20
card. Raleigh left another voicemail message the next day, November 21. After leaving the second
message, Raleigh called and spoke with bookkeeper Laura Stapleton, who also referred her to Jeffries.
Jeffries did not respond to either voicemail message. On November 24, 2014, desperate to ascertain
her anniversary date in order to determine the window period for withdrawal, Raleigh again contacted
Disney’s human resources office seeking to obtain a copy of her authorization card in order to ascertain 25
her anniversary date, but was unsuccessful.
Not one to give up, Raleigh left another voicemail for Jeffries on December 1, 2014. Again, he
did not respond. The next day, Raleigh spoke with Grajales in the front office. Grajales in turn,
referred her to Laura Stapleton. Stapleton told Raleigh that she did not have her card, but Jeffries just 30
arrived. Raleigh went to Jeffries’ office and finally got to meet with him. She explained that she left
several voicemail messages requesting a copy of her dues authorization form, but never heard back.
After getting Raleigh’s identifying information, Jeffries told Raleigh that it would take a few days to
locate her form. Raleigh called Jeffries on December 5, 2014, and left a voicemail to ascertain whether
Jeffries finished his investigation of her file. Once again, Jeffries did not respond.2535
Raleigh initiated a new round of pursuit notifying Jeffries and Stapleton by certified mail of her
resignation and revocation of dues on February 22 and 27, 2015, along with email notification to

24 Raleigh credibly testified that she never received Local 385’s November 17, 2014 letter allegedly sent via
regular mail. She lived at the same address for 3 years and only recently moved to another address. (Tr. 222–
225; R. Exh. 14 at 1–2.) Moreover, for the reasons previously stated, I do not credit Jeffries’ testimony that
Local 385 mailed the November 17 letter. (Tr.421–422.)
25 I based the findings regarding Raleigh’s conversations with Jeffries and other Local 385 staff, as well as
voicemail messages left for Jeffries, between November 20 and December 5, 2014, on Raleigh’s credible
testimony. (Tr. 230–235.) Jeffries, on the other hand, had no memory of ever meeting with or receiving
voicemail messages from Raleigh, which I find highly incredible and consistent with Jeffries pattern of ignoring
resignation and revocation requests. (Tr. 460–461.)
JD−19−17
11
Disney on February 27.26 The letters to Local 385 contained identical language and were received
shortly after they were mailed:
I am employed by Walt Disney Parks and Resorts in the Right to Work state of Florida.
Effective week ending March 7th, 2015, I resign from membership in the Teamsters Local 385 5
Union and all of its affiliated unions. My union anniversary date as provided to me by Walt
Disney Parks and Resorts Global HR Operations Representative, Yamira, is March 4, 2007.
This fulfills the requirement to resign within a 10 day window of my union anniversary date.
Since I have resigned my membership in the union, you must now immediately cease enforcing 10
the dues check-off authorization agreement that I signed. The dues check-off authorization was
signed solely in conjunction with, and in contemplation of, my becoming a member of the
union and, as such, is no longer valid. See IBEW (Lockheed Space Operations Company), 302
NLRB 322 (1991); Washington Gas Light Co., 302 NLRB 425 (1991) (employer in RTW state
must cease dues deduction upon receipt of resignation/revocation).15
If you refuse to accept this letter as both an effective resignation and an immediately effective
dues check-off revocation, I ask that you promptly inform me, in writing, of exactly what steps
I must take to effectuate my revocation of the dues check-off authorization.
20
Furthermore, I object to collection and expenditure of a fee for any purpose other than my pro
rata share of the union’s costs of collective bargaining, contract administration, and grievance
adjustment, as is my constitutional right under Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, 431 U.S.
209 (1977). Pursuant to Chicago Teachers Union v. Hudson, 475 U.S. 292 (1986), I request that
you provide me with my First Amendment procedural rights, including: reduction of my fees to 25
an amount that includes only constitutionally chargeable costs; notice of the calculation of that
amount, verified by an independent certified public accountant; and notice of the procedure that
you have adopted to hold my fees in an interest-bearing account and give me an opportunity to
challenge your calculation and have it reviewed by an impartial decision maker.
30
Accordingly, I also hereby notify you that I wish to authorize only the deduction from my
wages of representation fees limited to those costs that are lawfully chargeable under the First
Amendment to the United States Constitution. If I am required to sign a form to make that
change, please provide me with the necessary form.
35
Please reply promptly. Any further collection or expenditure of dues or fees from me made
without the procedural safeguards required by the First Amendment to the United States
Constitution will violate my civil rights under the Federal Civil Rights Act of 1871, 42 U.S.C. §
1983, and the U.S. Constitution.
40
The letter I have sent on Thursday, November 13th, 2014 which was signed for by your office
and all other phone calls, emails, and personal visits since have been ignored from Teamsters
and I was never given a response. I have kept records of every attempt to contact the union and
if I am not notified in writing by March 7th, 2015 that my resignation from the union has been
approved and processed, I will have no further choice but to retain legal counsel and contact the 45

26 Raleigh also delivered the February 22 letter to Concannon. (GC Exh. 36–38; Tr. 236–238.)
JD−19−17
12
National Labor Relations Board. This notice will be sent via certified USPS Mail, electronically
via email, as well as in person on Tuesday, February 24th, 2015 and understand this is the last
formal request you will receive directly from myself and not a lawyer, and consider this
objection to be permanent and continuing in nature.
5
Jeffries finally responded on February 27, March 2 and March 5, 2015, but still omitted
information as to Raleigh’s anniversary date. The letters contained identical language:27
Your written request to forfeit your membership has been received and honored effective this
date. However, please be aware that your revocation of membership does not automatically 10
absolve you from your responsibility to continue to pay a service fee regardless of your
membership unless and until you provide the appropriate written notice of revocation within the
time specified in the check-off authorization agreement.
The application for membership and check-off authorization and assignment, which you signed 15
on January 28, 2007 specifically, provides that payment of this fee “is not conditioned on my
present or future membership in the Service Trades Council Union or any of its affiliates.” It
further states:
“This authorization shall remain in effect until revoked by me and shall be irrevocable for a 20
period of one (1) year from the date hereof or until the termination date of any applicable
collective bargaining agreement, whichever occurs sooner, and unless I revoke this
authorization by sending written notice to my Employer and the Union not more than (20) days
and not less than ten (10) days prior to the expiration of each period of one (1) year, or of each
applicable collective bargaining agreement between my Employer and the Union, whichever 25
occurs sooner; this authorization shall be automatically renewed from year to year.”
Because of this language, to which you agreed, you are obligated to continue to pay the service
fee by way of check-off pending written notice of revocation provided within the specified
time. 30
Jeffries’ February 27 letter crossed in the mail with another letter by Raleigh on the same date
renewing her request to resign her union membership and revoke her dues check-off authorization.28
She also sent a copy of her letter to Disney with an explanation that Local 385 was ignoring her
requests.29 Still not having received the information she needed in order to comply with Local 385’s 35
window requirement for revoking dues authorization, Raleigh filed a charge on April 13, 2015.
In a letter, dated March 5, Jeffries finally provided Raleigh with the date that she signed the
authorization form and standard language relating to the window period for dues revocations. A copy
of her dues check-off form, however, was not enclosed.3040

27 R. Exhs. 15–17; GC Exh. 39–41.
28 GC Exh. 37.
29 GC Exh. 38.
30 R. Exh. 17 at 1.
JD−19−17
13
Nearly a year elapsed before Raleigh followed up with similar resignation and revocation
requests in letters, dated January 15, 16, 17 and 18, 2016, all sent by certified mail, return receipt
requested.31 The letters contained virtually identical language:
I am employed by Walt Disney Parks and Resorts and have resigned as a Union Member 5
previously in 2015. Based on information given to me by the Union, I hereby revoke my Dues
Deduction Authorization immediately. If this is not sufficient, notify me immediately as to what
I must do to revoke my dues. My union anniversary date as provided to me by the responses
given to me by Clay Jeffries on February 27th, 2015, March 2nd, 2015, and March 5th, 2015 is
January 28th, 2007. This fulfills the requirement to resign within a 10 day window of my 10
anniversary date, but not longer than 20 days.
This notice will be sent via certified USPS Mail every day from now until January 28th, 2016 as
well electronically via email to ensure that this notification has been received and consider this
objection to be permanent and continuing in nature. My lawyer, John Scully, has also received 15
this notice. Please reply promptly.
Jeffries did not respond to any of these letters. None did he ever send Raleigh a copy of her
union authorization card.32 Instead, he sent an email to Disney on January 29, 2016 requesting that it
stop deducting union dues from Raleigh’s paycheck.33 Raleigh’s Local 385 union dues were no longer 20
deducted from her paycheck beginning on February 4, 2016.34
4. Arlene Behrens
Arlene Behrens has been employed by Disney since November 2012. She was initially 25
assigned to work at the turnstiles. On November 13, 2012, Behrens signed a dues check-off form
allowing Disney to deduct dues from her paycheck and remit them to HERE, Local 362. She was not,
however, provided with a copy of her completed form at the time. Based on her check-off form, the
Behrens’ annual window period to revoke her authorization was October 24 through November 3.35
30
On June 11, 2013, Behrens transferred to a bus driver position, which came under the labor
jurisdiction of Local 385. At that point, Disney deducted dues from Behrens paycheck and remitted
her dues to Local 385 until May 2015.36
At some point during the summer of 2013, Behrens contacted Local 385 to resign her 35
membership and revoke her dues check-off authorization. She spoke with Laura Stapleton, who
instructed her to submit her request in writing. By certified letter dated September 12, 2013, Behrens
submitted a request to resign her union membership and revoke her dues check-off authorization.

31 GC Exh. 42–45.
32 Given Jeffries pattern and practice of ignoring member requests for the return of their dues authorization cards
I credit Raleigh’s testimony over his that he never complied with her requests for a copy of that document and
that she finally saw a copy of it when the General Counsel showed it to her shortly before the hearing. (Tr. 241–
242; 421–422, 424–425.)
33 R. Exh. 18; 32.
34 GC Exh. 46–47.
35 GC Exh. 14.
36 GC Exh. 48–52.
JD−19−17
14
Local 385 did not respond to Behrens’ September 12, 2013 letter, so she followed up with a telephone
call and inquired with Laura Stapleton about the status of her written request. Stapleton was not
helpful. Instead of following up or assuring Behrens that she would look into the matter, Stapleton
questioned why Behrens wanted to resign and told her that she needed to speak with Jeffries. Over the
next 2 months, Behrens called Jeffries and left over 20 telephone messages for him inquiring about her 5
letter. Jeffries did not respond to any of her calls.37
Nearly a year lapsed before Behrens learned from coworkers about the window period
applicable to dues revocation requests. On October 31, 2014, she sent a resignation and dues
revocation request letter to Local 385 by certified mail. In the letter, Behrens also requested any 10
information applicable to the resignation and revocation process, including any applicable window
period for revocation, and a copy of her signed check-off authorization form.38
Michelle Concannon, Local 385’s secretary, received the October 31 letter. Once again, there
was no response from Local 385. About a week later, Behrens called Laura Stapleton at Local 385 to 15
inquire about the letter and got another evasive response. Utterly indifferent to Behrens’ request,
Stapleton referred her once again to Jeffries and suggested she resend the letter. Armed with proof that
the letter had been received, Behrens ignored that suggestion.39
Still having received no response to her October 31, 2014 letter, Behrens spoke to Local 385 20
business agent Walt Howard about a month or two later and asked him to speak with Jeffries about the
letter. Six more months elapsed, however, without any response from Local 385. Realizing that Local
385 was doing everything it could do to stall her departure, Behrens filed unfair labor practice charges
on May 12, 2015 in Case 12–CA–152211.
25
On May 19, 2015, Jeffries finally responded by sending an email to Disney requesting that it
stop deducting union dues from Behrens’ paycheck.40 It was not until August 11, 2015, nearly 3
months later, that Jeffries corresponded with Behrens and enclosed a refund $224 check for dues
deducted from November 2014 to May 2015. In the letter, Jeffries attributed the delay in responding to
Local 385 misplacing her letter of October 31, 2014. He also failed to enclose a copy of her dues 30
check-off authorization card as she requested.41
5. Mitchell Kent
Mitchell Kent has been employed by Disney as a full-time bus driver since April 20, 2013. He 35
signed a dues check-off authorization form on April 20, 2013.42 Since that time, he has had union dues
deducted from his paycheck. The annual window period to revoke his authorization was from March
31 through April 10. However, Kent did not receive a copy of his dues check-off authorization form

37 Behrens’ credible testimony was undisputed. (Tr. 191–197; GC Exh. 53(a)-(c).)
38 GC Exh. 54.
39 Jeffries’ excuse that the October 31 letter was misplaced was not credible, given his pattern of ignoring
member resignation and revocation requests, coupled with Laura Stapleton’s indifference and hostility when
contacted by Raleigh about the letter. (Tr. 198–200, 428-429.)
40 R. Exh. 20; GC Exh. 52.
41 GC Exh. 55; R. Exh. 19.
42 I credit Kent’s testimony that he was not provided with a copy of the card when he signed it and had not seen
it until the General Counsel showed it to prior to the hearing. (Tr. 135–138; GC Exh. 56; R. Exh. 21 at 3.)
JD−19−17
15
either at the time he signed it or at any time thereafter.43
On March 19, 2015, Kent contacted Disney’s payroll department to inquire about revoking his
union dues authorization. On March 20, 2015, he called Local 385 and spoke with Laura Stapleton. He
informed her that he wanted to resign and revoke his union dues authorization. Stapleton informed 5
Kent that he needed to submit that request in writing to Jeffries. 44 Kent followed up by submitting his
resignation and dues revocation request by certified mail to Jeffries on March 20.45 Local 385 received
the letter, but neither Jeffries nor any other union official responded. Over the next 2 months, Kent left
several voicemail for Jeffries and Walt Howard alluding to his March 20 letter. Those messages were
also ignored and he filed an unfair labor practice charge 6 days later.4610
By letter to Local 385, dated April 18, 2016, Kent again notified the organization that he was
resigning his union membership and revoking his dues check-off authorization. By letter dated April
29, 2016, Jeffries responded with a form letter supplying the date Kent signed the authorization form
and the language setting forth the applicable window period. Kent received this correspondence, but a 15
copy of his dues check-off authorization form was not enclosed. Disney has continuously deducted
union dues from Kent’s paycheck since April 2013 through the present.47
6. Delores Nicosia
20
Delores Nicosia has been employed by Disney since June 14, 1995. She was initially hired as a
bus driver. In 1999, Nicosia was promoted to the position of bus driver training coordinator. Her
daughter, Debra Nicosia also works for Disney. She was hired as a character performer on March 17,
2002, and has worked in other part-time and full-time positions since that time. Debra has been on
medical leave since January 1, 2016. 25
Delores Nicosia has been a union member since July 26, 2002, based on a dues check-off
authorization card that bears the signature of ‘Debra” Nicosia, but bears Delores’ address, telephone
and social security number. That form, which has served as the basis for deducting Local 385’s
deduction of union dues from Delores Nicosia’s paycheck since October 2003, was actually signed by 30
her daughter, Debra. Debra, however, has neither been a member of Local 385 nor ever had union dues
deducted from her paycheck. Based on the card signed by Debra Nicosia, but attributable to Delores
Nicosia, the window period for revocation was between July 6 and July 16 each year.48

43 GC Exh. 57.
44 Kent’s credible testimony regarding his conversation with Stapleton was undisputed. (Tr. 140–142.)
45 Kent’s March 20, 2015 correspondence did not include a request for a copy of his dues authorization card.
(GC Exh. 58; R. Exh. 22 at 2.)
46 I did not credit Jeffries’ testimony that he responded to Kent in a letter, dated, March 27, 2015, and enclosed a
copy of his dues check-off authorization form. (Tr. 442; R. Exh. 22 at 3–4.) Kent credibly denied ever receiving
such a letter and left several voicemail messages for Jeffries that were not returned. In fact, Kent first saw
Jeffries’ letter when the General Counsel showed it to him shortly before the hearing. (Tr. 143–147; GC Exh. 58;
R. Exh. 22 at 2.)
47 Given Jeffries less than credible testimony and indifference to the resignation requests of members, I find,
based on Kent’s credible testimony, that a copy of his dues check-off form was not enclosed with Jeffries
response. (Tr. 137, 148–149, 155–157; 440–441; GC Exh. 60–61; R. Exh. 21 at 1–2.)
48 It is undisputed that Local 385 does not have a record of a dues check-off form signed by Delores Nicosia. (Tr.
53–54, 482; R. Exh. 31 at 3; GC Exh. 9, 12, 15.) While there is no evidence that Delores ever signed a dues
JD−19−17
16
In about April or May 2016, Dolores Nicosia left several telephone messages for Jeffries,
inquiring how to resign from union membership and revoke her dues check-off authorization.
However, neither Jeffries nor any other Local 385 official responded.49 By certified letter, sent in late
May 2016 and received by Local 385 on June 1, 2016, Delores Nicosia resigned her union membership 5
and requested revocation of her dues check-off authorization, effective June 14, 2016.50
Local 385 did not respond to Nicosia’s letter.51 Accordingly, in late June 2016, Nicosia left a
telephone message for Jeffries stating that Local 385 had not responded to her letter dated June 14,
2016, and asking whether there was anything else she needed to do in order to revoke her dues check-10
off authorization and whether her request was timely. Jeffries again failed to respond.52
Shortly afterwards, Dolores Nicosia contacted Disney payroll’s office explaining her efforts to
resign from Local 385 and stop the deduction of union dues from her paycheck. That effort was
unsuccessful and, as of September 22, 2016, Disney continued to deduct $12 in union dues from 15
Nicosia’s paychecks.53
7. Jacob Greene
Jacob Greene has been employed by UPS since August 21, 2006, as a part-time unloader in 20
Gainesville, Florida. On August 28, 2008, Greene signed a dues authorization card. He received a
carbon copy of the form at the time, but was subsequently unable to locate it.54 The authorization card
stated, in pertinent part:
. . . I understand that under current law, I may elect “nonmember” status, and can satisfy any 25
contractual obligation necessary to retain my employment by paying an amount equal to the
uniform dues and initiation fee required of members of the Union. I also understand that if I

authorization card, she conceded that she became a union member at some point. (Tr. 292–310, 319.) Debra’s
testimony that she did not sign such a card in July 2002 was not credible. She conceded that the first letter
looked like her handwriting, but failed to recognize the rest of the signature. Moreover, other aspects of Debra’s
testimony were not credible. While there is insufficient evidence to conclude that Debra, 16 years old at the time,
signed the form because she was underage and ineligible to work, the circumstances are suspicious. She has
lived with Delores for nearly all of the past 15 years and appeared evasive in conceding that someone signed the
authorization form. Most peculiar was that the social security number listed on the form belonged to Delores.
(Tr. 126–133.)
49 While I credited Delores’ testimony that she left messages for Jeffries in 2016, I did not accord any weight to
her uncorroborated testimony that she left similar messages for Jeffries and other union officials in 2012. (Tr.
299–302, 319.)
50 The letter was dated June 14, 2016, even though it was sent 2 weeks earlier. (GC Exh. 10, 16.)
51 Although Nicosia was not credible regarding the circumstances by which the 2002 authorization form was
signed, I credit her denial over Jeffries uncorroborated claim that he responded to her June 2016 resignation and
revocation letter and informed her of an anniversary date of July 26, 2002, based on GC Ex. 9. (Tr. 56, 305,
454–458; R. Exh. 31 at 2.) Consistent with my previous findings, there is neither documentary proof of mailing
nor testimony by the Local 385 employee responsible for mailing documents that his letter of June 3, 2016 was
actually mailed to Nicosia.
52 I based this finding on Nicosia’s undisputed testimony. (Tr. 306, 319–320.)
53 GC Exh. 12, 13(h).)
54 GC Exh. 66; R. Exh. 26 at 2.
JD−19−17
17
elect not to become a member or remain a member, I may object to paying the pro-rata portion
of regular Union dues or fees that are not germane to collective bargaining, contract
administration and grievance adjustment, and I can request the Local Union to provide me with
information concerning its most recent allocation of expenditures devoted to activities that are
both germane and non-germane to its performance as the collective bargaining representative 5
sufficient to enable me to decide whether or not to become an objector. I understand that
nonmembers who choose to object to paying the pro-rata portion of regular Union dues or fees
that are not germane to collective bargaining will be entitled to a reduction in fees based on the
aforementioned allocation of expenditures, and will have the right to challenge the correctness
of the allocation. The procedures for filing such challenges will be provided by my Local 10
Union, upon request. . . .
Checkoff Authorization
And Assignment
15
I, Jacob Greene hereby authorize my employer to deduct from my wages each and every month
an amount equal to the monthly dues, initiation fees and uniform assessments of Local Union
_____, and direct such amounts so deducted to be turned over each month to the Secretary-
Treasurer of such Local Union for and on my behalf.
This authorization is voluntary and is not conditioned on my present or future membership in 20
the Union.
This authorization and assignment shall be irrevocable for the term of the applicable contract
between the union and the employer or for one year, whichever is the lesser, and shall
automatically renew itself for successive yearly or applicable contract periods thereafter,
whichever is lesser, unless I give written notice to the company and the union at least sixty (6) 25
days, but not more than seventy-five (75) days before any periodic renewal date of this
authorization and assignment of my desire to revoke same.
Based on the terms of his check-off authorization, Greene’s annual window period to revoke his
dues authorization was June 15 to June 30. By letter to Local 385, dated August 13, 2013, Greene 30
requested to resign his union membership and revoke his dues check-off authorization. In a letter dated
August 16, 2013, Jeffries responded to Greene with a form letter supplying the date Greene signed the
authorization form and the language setting forth the applicable window period.55
On September 19, 2013, Greene submitted his resignation and dues revocation request. In 35
identical letters to Jeffries and then-President Michael Stapleton, the letter, which Local 385 received a
few days later, stated in pertinent part:56
. . . Since I have resigned my membership in the union, you must now immediately cease
enforcing the dues check-off authorization agreement that I signed. That dues check-off 40
authorization was signed solely in conjunction with, and in contemplation of, my becoming a
member of the union and, as such, is no longer valid. See IBEW (Lockheed Space Operations

55 Greene did not rebut Jeffries’ testimony that he responded to Greene in a letter, dated August 16, 2013. (R.
Exh. 27; Tr. 449.) Greene’s September 19, 2013 letter requesting more information regarding the revocation
process, confirmed the continuation of Jeffries pattern of refraining from providing requested copies of
members’ authorization cards.
56 GC Exh. 68; R. Exh. 26 at 3–4.
JD−19−17
18
Company), 302 NLRB 322 (1991); Washington Gas Light Co., 302 NLRB 425 (1991)
(employer in RTW state must cease dues deduction upon receipt of resignation/revocation).
If you refuse to accept this letter as both an effective resignation and an immediately effective
dues check-off revocation, I ask that you promptly inform me, in writing, of exactly what steps 5
I must take to effectuate my revocation of the dues check-off authorization, in accordance to
federal law. More specifically, if you contend that I must meet a “window period” in order to
revoke my dues check-off authorization, I ask that you promptly send me a copy of the actual
dues deduction authorization form that I signed, and to tell me specifically what “window
period” dates I must meet in order to revoke the dues check-off authorization. (emphasis in 10
original)
By letter dated October 3, 2013, Jeffries responded to Greene with a form letter supplying the
date he signed the authorization form and the language setting forth the applicable window period.57
15
Subsequently, Greene submitted substantially similar resignation and dues revocation notices
on August 14, 2014 and May 18, 2015. In each case, Local 385 received and date stamped the letters a
few days later. By letter dated August 22, 2014, Jeffries responded with a form letter supplying the
date Greene signed the authorization form, which included a reference to the annual window period for
revoking his dues authorization. Greene received this letter, but a copy of his dues check-off 20
authorization form was not enclosed. Jeffries did not, however, mail a response to Greene’s May 18,
2015 letter. Had he done so, Greene would have had sufficient time to submit a timely request to
revoke his dues authorization during the period of June 15 to 30, 2015.
Still unsuccessful in getting his union dues deductions revoked, Greene followed up with 25
voicemail messages for Michael Stapleton and Jeffries in or around June 2015. In his messages,
Greene inquired about the status of his dues revocation requests. None of his voicemail messages were
returned. 58
Greene’s last resort was to reach out to UPS Human Resources Department on June 19, 2015. 30
He explained his unsuccessful efforts, commencing with his May 19, 2015 request to have Local 385
revoke his union dues check-off authorization and asked for UPS’ assistance in stopping the dues
deductions. That approach was also unsuccessful, as UPS has continued deducting dues from his
Greene’s paycheck.59
35
8. Barrington Brudy
Barrington Brudy began working for UPS on April 26, 1999 as a loader in Fargo, North
Dakota. In 2004, he transferred to UPS operations in Tampa, Florida. In September 2013, Brudy

57 Greene credibly denied that a copy of his dues check-off authorization form was enclosed in Jeffries’ October
3 response. (Tr. 274–275, 286, 448; GC Exh. 69; R. Exh. 26 at 1.)
58 I credit Greene’s testimony that Jeffries failed to include a copy of his dues authorization form and that he
never received Jeffries’ May 22 letter responding to his May 18 letter. His testimony was corroborated by his
subsequent follow-up voicemails to Jeffries or Stapleton, all of which went unreturned. Greene did move to
another residence during the period at issue, but he credibly testified that all of his mail was forwarded to the
new location. (GC Exh. 70–73; R. Exh. 24–25; Tr. 277–288.)
59 GC Exh. 74.
JD−19−17
19
transferred to UPS operations in Orlando, Florida. After commencing work in Orlando, Brudy joined
Local 385 by signing a dues check-off authorization form on September 4, 2014. According to his
authorization form, his 60 to 75 day window to revoke his dues authorization was June 21 through July
6 each year.60
5
In early July 2015, Brudy called Local 385’s office and inquired into revoking his union
membership. He was informed to submit his request in writing to Jeffries. By certified mail on July
18, Brudy submitted a request to Local 385 resigning his membership and revoking his dues check-off
authorization.61 Local 385 did not respond and, in early August, Brudy followed up with several
telephone calls to Jeffries. Brudy left voicemail messages for Jeffries and, on one occasion, was 10
informed that Jeffries would be in the office on August 21.62
On August 21, 2015, Brudy went to Local 385’s offices to meet with Jeffries. A staff member
informed Brudy that Jeffries would be out of the office that day. However, Brudy spoke with Michael
Stapleton about the status of his resignation and dues revocation request. Stapleton wrote down 15
Brudy’s information and said that he would give it to Jeffries, but Brudy was not satisfied with that
response. He pressed Stapleton as to why there was such a long delay in responding to his resignation
and dues revocation request, and told Stapleton that he had 2 days to process his resignation/revocation
requests. Stapleton, not one to be easily intimidated, replied that “it will get done whenever it gets
done; you want to be a loafer, get out; go be a loafer out in the streets.” Brudy stood his ground, 20
causing Stapleton to yell at Brudy to “get the fuck out of the office.” At that point, Brudy got the
message and left.63
Brudy’s August 21, 2015 encounter with Stapleton did not spur a response from Jeffries and
Local 385 continues to deduct $15 dues per week.6425
LEGAL ANALYSIS
LOCAL 385’S DUTY OF FAIR REPRESENTATION
30
The General Counsel and Charging Parties allege that Local 385 restrained and coerced
employees and breached its duty of fair representation in violation of Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act in

60 Brudy did not recall receiving a copy of his dues authorization form at the time he signed it, but it was similar
to the one that he signed while working in Fargo. GC Exh. 63; R. Exh. 29; Tr. 162, 165.)
61 GC Exh. 64; R. Exh. 29.
62 I base this finding on Brudy’s credible testimony, coupled with the unreturned follow-up calls to Jeffries, that
he never received the July 27, 2015 letter, including a copy of his dues authorization form, or any other response
from Local 385. (Tr. 169–171, 173–175, 177, 452–453; GC Exh. 65; R. Exh. 29.) Again, there was neither
documentary proof of mailing nor corroborative testimony by a union employee that the letter was actually
mailed in the regular course of business.
63 Brudy and Stapleton conceded that the discussion got heated, but it is clear that Stapleton became angry when
Brudy insisted on an immediate response and he yelled at him to get him to leave the office. I also credit
Brudy’s testimony that Stapleton called him a loafer, given Stapleton’s pattern of also failing to respond to
numerous voicemail requests by Brudy and other Charging Parties. (Tr. 171–172, 342–344, 349–350.)
64 Given his general lack of credibility regarding the processing of revocation requests and his pattern of failing
to respond to numerous voicemail messages from the Charging Parties, I do not credit Jeffries vague testimony
that he followed-up the Stapleton incident by leaving a voicemail for Brudy informing that Local 385 previously
responded in writing and to contact Jeffries with any further issues. (Tr. 460.)
JD−19−17
20
its handling of employee efforts to resign their union membership, revoke their dues check-off, and
obtain information relative thereto. Local 385 denies the allegations, insisting that Jeffries responded
to untimely requests by 6 of the Charging Parties to resign their union memberships and revoke their
dues check-off authorizations. In the case of the other two Charging Parties, Local 385 contends that
their timely received revocation letters were misplaced, but upon discovery of the errors, it 5
acknowledged the errors and voluntarily reimbursed them.65
Section 7 of the Act guarantees the employees’ rights to “join, or assist labor organizations . . .
and . . . to refrain from . . . such activities.” 29 U.S.C. § 157. Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act implements
this protection by prohibiting unions from restraining or coercing employees in the exercise of Section 10
7 rights. 29 U.S.C. § 158(b)(1)(A). The duty of fair representation, which derives from a union’s
status under Section 9(a) of the Act (29 U.S.C. § 159(a)) as exclusive bargaining representative,
requires a union “to represent all members fairly.” Marquez v. Screen Actors Guild, 525 U.S. 33, 44
(1998) (citing Ford Motor Co. v. Huffman, 345 U.S. 330, 337 (1953)). A union breaches this duty
when its conduct toward a member is “arbitrary, discriminatory, or in bad faith.” Vaca v. Sipes, 386 15
U.S. 171, 190 (1967).
All of the parties signed or, in the case of Delores Nicosia, are deemed to have signed dues
check-off authorization forms. Check-off authorizations, , which instruct the employer, for a particular
period of time, to deduct union dues from employees’ wages and remit those dues to the union that 20
represents them, are permitted under Section 302 of the Labor Management Relations Act (29 U.S.C. §
186). See Lockheed Space Operations Co., 302 NLRB 322, 325, 328- 29 (1991). Such authorizations
are even lawful in “right-to-work” states, such as Florida, where provisions requiring the payment of
union dues organization as a condition of employment would be unlawful under Section 14(b) of the
Act. 29 U.S.C. § 164(b). See Syscon Int’l, Inc., 322 NLRB 539, 539 n.1 (1996).25
Accordingly, Local 385 was entitled to have Disney and UPS deduct dues from the Charging
Parties’ paychecks pursuant to the express authorization in their respective check-off cards. See
Electrical Workers IBEW Local 2088 (Lockheed Space Operations), 302 NLRB 322 (1991).
Moreover, that language also obliged the Charging Parties to pay dues even after they resigned their 30
union membership, renewing automatically each year while the applicable collective-bargaining
agreement remained in effect, unless and until they timely revoked their authorizations in writing. See
Frito-Lay, Inc., 243 NLRB 137, 138 (1979). Local 385’s requirement that employees also notify the
employer in writing was also lawful. See Postal Service, 302 NLRB 701, 702 (1991) (requiring the
submission of a dues revocation form to the employer and, if the request was untimely, followed by the 35
employer informing the employee of their authorization date). See also, Boston Gas Co., 130 NLRB
1230 (1961) (upholding requirement employee seeking to revoke dues authorization must give written
notice to both the employer and the union).
Hector Santana-Quintana submitted a timely written request to revoke his dues check- off 40
authorization on May 20, 2014. However, Local 385 did not process or honor his request until after

65 The Charging Parties also contends that Local 385’s restrictions on the ability of the Charging Parties to
revoke their check-offs to an annual 10 or 15 day period also violates the duty of fair representation. In addition,
they contend that the Union’s calculation of the dates in determining whether a notice of revocation is timely is
arbitrary and not spelled out in the check-off forms. Those arguments on brief, however, were not pled.
Moreover, current Board precedent permits the form of annual window period restrictions with respect to check-
off authorizations at issue in this case.
JD−19−17
21
Santana-Quintana filed an unfair labor practice charge, claiming that it simply made a clerical error.
Arlene Behrens submitted a timely written request to revoke her dues check-off authorization
on October 31, 2014. She followed-up with several telephone calls to Local 385 and spoke with
Howard on several occasions about her request to revoke. Jeffries ignored Behrens’ letter and follow-5
up inquiries until she filed unfair labor practice charges in May 2015 and Jeffries was confronted by the
Region 12 with proof of her revocation request.
Sharon Masuda sent four letters to Local 385 and made one visit to Local 385’s offices seeking
to revoke her dues check-off authorization well before her window of February 15 to February 25, 10
2015, but received no response from Local 385. Local 385’s failure to provide information concerning
Masuda’s anniversary date caused her to miss her 2015 window. Only after she made a fifth written
request, on February 19, 2016, did Local 385 honor Masuda’s dues revocation request on February 25,
2016.
15
Heather Raleigh notified Local 385 by letter, dated November 13, 2014 of her request to limit
her deductions to financial core dues. The letter was received well before the start of her window
period for revocation on January 8, 2015. Raleigh also called and left telephone messages and visited
Local 385’s offices in December 2015, but Local 385 officials ignored those inquiries as well. In
February 2015, after her window period closed, Raleigh mailed and hand-delivered two more letters to 20
Local 385. Only then did she receive a response from Local 385. Although Raleigh’s initial letter
sought to pay financial core dues, it was clear from her telephone calls and visits to Local 385 that she
was seeking to rescind her dues check-off authorization. Local 385’s obstruction caused Raleigh to
wait another year to resubmit her revocation, which Local 385 finally honored on January 29, 2016.
25
Mitchell Kent contacted Local 385 for information prior to his window period of March 31
through April 10, 2015. He was merely told to submit the request in writing and, as a result, his March
20, 2015 revocation request was premature. Kent received no response to his letter or telephone calls
over the next 2 months. Kent followed up with another letter to Local 385 on April 18, 2016, resigning
his union membership and revoking his dues check-off authorization. Jeffries finally responded on 30
April 29, 2016 by supplying the date Kent signed the authorization form and the language setting forth
the applicable window period, but it was too late. As a result of Local 385’s obstructive behavior prior
to March 31, 2015, dues continue to be deducted from Kent’s paycheck.
Dolores Nicosia was a peculiar case. The check-off card on file bore the name of, and was 35
signed by her daughter, Debra Nicosia. Debra Nicosia used Delores’s personal information at a time
when Debra was 16 years old and probably not eligible for legal employment. While the check-off
card did not bear Delores Nicosia’s name, equitable considerations suggest the absence of unclean
hands on her part, thus negating her contention that she never agreed to any restrictions and should
have been able to revoke her dues check-off authorization at any time. Delores Nicosia facilitated or 40
acquiesced to the hiring of her daughter by Disney at the age of 16 based, in part, on Delores’ identity,
and then permitted Local 385 dues to be deducted from her paycheck over the next 12 years. Delores
Nicosia’s actions amounted to an agreement to the terms and conditions of Local 385 membership.
Those conditions included the need to comply with the window period requirement for revoking her
membership. Nevertheless, Nicosia was still entitled to resign and revoke her dues check-off 45
authorization. She sent one letter and made several telephone calls to Local 385 seeking to revoke the
authorization and information about how to revoke her authorization prior to the anniversary window
JD−19−17
22
period of July 6 to 16, 2016. Nicosia received no response to her letter or telephone calls. As a result,
Nicosia sent a premature revocation notice in late May 2016, which she considered effective on June
14, 2016. She followed up with more messages to Local 385, which were also ignored. Local 385’s
failure to respond to Nicosia’s requests for information prevented her from submitting her timely
revocation notice at the commencement of her window period on July 6, 2016.5
Barrington Brudy’s 60 to 75 day window to revoke his dues authorization was June 21 through
July 6 each year. However, he did not contact Local 385 about the revocation process until sometime in
“early July” 2015. As such, there is insufficient evidence to establish that Local 385’s subsequent
indifference and obstruction caused Brudy to miss his revocation window period ending on July 6, 10
2015. However, Local 385 failure to respond to Brudy or provide him with the appropriate information
in July and August 2015 did cause him to miss the next annual window period, which began on June
21, 2016. As a result, Local 385 dues continue to be deducted from his paycheck.
Prior to 2015, Jacob Greene received information from Local 385 regarding the process and 15
timing for properly revoking his dues check-off authorization. However, he incorrectly calculated the
dates of his anniversary window period by using business days. Greene sent a letter to Local 385 on
May 18, 2015 seeking to revoke his dues check-off authorization prior to the date his window period
opened in 2015, but Local 385 did not respond to his 2015 letter or provide him with a copy of his dues
check-off authorization form. As a result Greene did not have the necessary information to submit a 20
timely request to revoke his dues authorization during the period of June 15 to 30, 2015.
The Charging Parties made multiple attempts to resign, revoke their dues check-off
authorizations and/or get the information necessary to submit timely revocations. Some of their
requests were timely; some fell outside the annual revocation window period. However, Local 385, by 25
Jeffries and other union employees, failed time and again to respond to their requests or, if they did
respond, did so only after the employees’ window periods closed or charges were filed. Under the facts
and circumstances, Local 385 breached its duty of fair representation in violation of Section 8(b)(1)A)
by such arbitrary, discriminatory and bad faith conduct. See Vaca v. Sipes, 386 U.S. at 190; U.S. Postal
Service, 362 NLRB No. 103, slip op. at 2 (2015) (union has an obligation to provide employees with 30
information regarding how to revoke their check-off even without an explicit request, as long as it is
clear the employee desired the information), quoting Local 307, National Postal Mail Handlers Union
(U.S. Postal Service), 339 NLRB 93 (2003).
In addition, Local 385’s practices, coupled with its exclusive reliance on one person, Jeffries, 35
who unavailable at Local 385’s offices for extended periods of time, created a significant obstacle for
the Charging Parties in their efforts to revoke their check-off authorizations. Numerous messages and
inquires left for Jeffries and other union officials were systemically ignored and he failed to return
copies of the Charging Parties at their request. Raleigh and Brudy went to see Jeffries in person at
Local 385’s offices. Jeffries told Raleigh that it would take a few days to investigate and then failed to 40
get back to Raleigh. Brudy, on the other hand, was misled into believing that Jeffries would be in the
office and was met by Local 385 President Stapleton, was unable to handle Brudy’s request, except to
take a message for Jeffries and then threw Brudy out of the office when the latter insisted on a
response.
45
Local 385’s practice in how it handled the Charging Parties’ revocation requests constituted a
separate violation of Section 8(b)(1)(A) because it made it virtually impossible for them to revoke their
JD−19−17
23
dues check-offs in a timely manner, since they were unaware of their anniversary dates and Local 385
ignored their resignation and revocation requests. See Electrical Workers Local 66 (Houston Lighting
& Power Co.), 262 NLRB 483, 486 (1982) (imposition of such additional hurdles or preconditions not
stated in the check-off agreement and repeated frustrations of an employee's attempt to revoke his
check-off authorization constituted a violation of Section 8(b)(l)(A).)5
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Local 385 and the Service Trades Council
(collectively referred to as the Respondent) are labor organizations within the meaning of Section 10
2(5) of the Act.
2. Walt Disney Parks and Resorts US, Inc. d/b/a Walt Disney World Co. (Disney) and the
United Parcel Service, Inc. (UPS) are employers engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section
2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.15
3. The Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the
meaning of Section 8(b)(1)(A) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act by: (1) failing or refusing to
promptly respond to member requests for revocation of union dues check-off authorizations, even 20
when those requests are not made within the window period for revocation; (2) failing or refusing to
promptly respond to member requests for resignation from union membership, requests for copies of
members’ dues check-off authorization cards, and requests for other information regarding the
revocation of members’ union dues check-off authorizations, without regard to whether those requests
are made by mail, by telephone, in person, or by other means.25
REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices, I shall order it
to cease and desist therefrom and to take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies 30
of the Act. The Respondent will be ordered to honor the resignation from union membership requests
and dues check-off authorization revocation requests of the Charging Parties and reimburse them for
the union dues deducted from their wages and remitted to the Union for the time period during which
the Respondent failed to timely honor their dues check-off authorization revocation requests.
35
Accordingly, Local 385 should be required to pay interest owed to Santana-Quintana and
Behrens based on the delay in receiving their dues refunds, from the dates of their respective timely
revocation requests—May 20, 2014 and October 31, 2014, respectively—to the dates on which they
received their dues refunds. The appropriate remedy for the remaining Charging Parties is to refund
their dues as of the revocation window immediately following Local 385’s obstructive conduct, with 40
interest: Heather Raleigh—January 8, 2015; Sharon Masuda—February 15, 2015; Mitchell Kent—
March 31, 2015; Delores Nicosia—July 6, 2016; Jacob Greene—June 15, 2015; and Barrington
Brudy—June 21, 2016.
JD−19−17
24
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on the entire record, I issue the following
recommended66
ORDER
5
The Respondent, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Local 385, Lake Buena Vista,
Florida, its officers, agents, and representatives, shall
1. Cease and desist from
10
(a) Failing or refusing to promptly respond to member requests for revocation of union dues
check-off authorizations, even when those requests are not made within the window period for
revocation.
(b) Failing or refusing to promptly respond to member requests for resignation from union 15
membership, requests for copies of members’ dues check-off authorization cards, and requests for other
information regarding the revocation of members’ union dues check-off authorizations, without regard
to whether those requests are made by mail, by telephone, in person, or by other means.
(c) In any like or related manner restraining or coercing employees in the exercise of the rights 20
guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Honor the resignation from union membership requests and dues check-off25
authorization revocation requests of Heather Raleigh, Sharon Masuda, Mitchell Kent, Jacob Greene,
Barrington Brudy and Dolores Nicosia, and reimburse them for the union dues deducted from their
wages and remitted to Local 385 since January 8, 2015, February 15, 2015, March 31, 2015, June 15,
2015, June 21, 2016 and July 6, 2016, respectively, with interest.
30
(b) Pay interest for the time period during which Local 385 failed to timely honor the dues
check-off authorization revocation requests of Hector Santana-Quintana (May 20, 2014 to
September 22, 2014) and Arlene Behrens (November 2014 to May 2015).
(c) Preserve and, within 14 days of a request, or such additional time as the Regional Director35
may allow for good cause shown, provide at a reasonable place designated by the Board or its agents,
all payroll records, social security payment records, timecards, personnel records and reports, and all
other records, including an electronic copy of such records if stored in electronic form, necessary to
analyze the amount of backpay due under the terms of this Order.
40

66 If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the Board’s Rules and Regulations, the findings,
conclusions, and recommended Order shall, as provided in Sec. 102.48 of the Rules, be adopted by the Board
and all objections to them shall be deemed waived for all purposes.
JD−19−17
25
(d) Within 14 days after service by the Region, mail copies of the attached notice marked
Appendix,67 at its own expense, to all employee members in the bargaining units who were represented
by the Respondent during their employ by Disney at Kissimmee, Florida and UPS in Gainesville and
Tampa, Florida at any time from the onset of the unfair labor practices found in this case until the
completion of these employees’ work at those job locations. The notices shall be mailed to the last 5
known address of each of the employee members after being signed by the Respondent’s authorized
representative.
(e) Sign and return to the Regional Director sufficient copies of the notice for physical and/or
electronic posting by Disney and UPS, if willing, at all places or in the same manner as notices to 10
employee members are customarily posted.
(f) Within 21 days after service by the Region, file with the Regional Director a sworn
certification of a responsible official of Respondent on a form provided by the Region attesting to the
steps that the Respondent has taken to comply.15
Dated: Washington, D.C. March 22, 2017
20
_________________________
Michael A. Rosas
Administrative Law Judge
25

67 If 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.”
e?-
JD–19–17
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES AND MEMBERS
Posted by Order of the
National Labor Relations Board
An Agency of the United States Government
The National Labor Relations Board has found that we violated Federal labor law and has
ordered us to post and obey this notice.
FEDERAL LAW GIVES YOU THE RIGHT TO
Form, join, or assist a union
Choose representatives to bargain on your behalf with your employer
Act together with other employees for your benefit and protection
Choose not to engage in any of these protected activities.
WE WILL NOT fail or refuse to promptly respond to your requests for revocation of union dues
check-off authorizations, even when those requests are not made within the window period for
revocation.
WE WILL NOT fail or refuse to promptly respond to your requests for resignation from union
membership, your requests for copies of your dues check-off authorization cards, and your
requests for other information regarding the revocation of your union dues check-off
authorizations, without regard to whether those requests are made by mail, by telephone, in
person, or by other means.
WE WILL NOT fail or refuse to promptly honor your request to resign from union membership.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner restrain or coerce you in the exercise of the rights
guaranteed you by Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL honor the resignation from union membership requests and dues check-off
authorization revocation requests of Heather Raleigh, Sharon Masuda, Mitchell Kent, Jacob
Greene, Barrington Brudy and Dolores Nicosia, and reimburse them for the union dues deducted
from their wages and remitted to us since January 8, 2015, February 15, 2015, March 31, 2015,
June 15, 2015, June 2016, and July 6, 2016, respectively, with interest.
WE WILL pay interest for the time period during which we failed to timely honor the dues check-
off authorization revocation requests of Hector Santana-Quintana (May 20, 2014 to September
22, 2014) and Arlene Behrens (November 2014 to May 2015).
JD−19−17
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD
OF TEAMSTERS, LOCAL 385
(Employer)
Dated By
(Representative) (Title)
The National Labor Relations Board is an independent Federal agency created in 1935 to enforce
the National Labor Relations Act. We conduct secret-ballot elections to determine whether
employees want union representation and we investigate and remedy unfair labor practices by
employers and unions. To find out more about your rights under the Act and how to file a
charge or election petition, you may speak confidentially to any agent with the Board’s
Regional Office set forth below or you may call the Board's toll-free number 1-866-667-
NLRB (1-866-667-6572). Hearing impaired persons may contact the Agency's TTY service at
1-866- 315-NLRB. You may also obtain information from the Board’s website: www.nlrb.gov.
South Trust Plaza, 201 East Kennedy Boulevard, Ste 530, Tampa, FL 33602-5824
(813) 228-2641, Hours: 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.
The Administrative Law Judge’s decision can be found at www.nlrb.gov/case/12-CB-136934 or by using the QR code
below. Alternatively, you can obtain a copy of the decision from the Executive Secretary, National Labor Relations Board,
1015 Half Street, S.E., Washington, D.C. 20570, or by calling (202) 273-1940.
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 compliance with its provisions may be directed to the above Regional Office's
Compliance Officer, (813) 228-2345.