Int'l Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 34 (Various (hiring hall))

National Labor Relations Board - Unpublished Board Decisions

Apr 18, 2012

13-CB-018961 (N.L.R.B. Apr. 18, 2012)

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
IN BOUND VOLUMES
PHG
Chicago, IL
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF
ELECTRICAL WORKERS,
LOCAL UNION NO. 34, AFL-CIO
and Case 13-CB-18961
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF
ELECTRICAL WORKERS, AFL-CIO
and Case 13-CB-18962
JOHN LUGO
ORDER DENYING
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
On August 10, 2011, the National Labor Relations Board
issued a Decision and Order in this proceeding.1 The Board
found that the Unions violated their duty of fair
representation by requiring nonmembers whom they represent
and who seek objector status under Communications Workers
of America v. Beck2 to assert their objections on an annual
basis. The Board ordered the Unions to rescind their
annual renewal requirement and to recognize the Charging
Party as a continuing objector until he revokes his

1 357 NLRB No. 45.
2 487 U.S. 735 (1988).
2
objection or the Unions implement a lawful annual renewal
requirement, whichever occurs first.
On August 24, 2011, the Charging Party filed a Motion
for Reconsideration. On September 15, 2011, the Unions
filed an opposition.
The National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.3
The Charging Party requests reconsideration of the
Board’s remedy, arguing that it should encompass all
current and past Beck objectors represented by the Unions
nationwide. He argues that the Unions should be ordered to
recognize all such objectors as continuing objectors and to
provide them with make-whole relief, including
reimbursement of all dues and fees collected from them for
nonrepresentational activities. Alternatively, the
Charging Party asserts that such relief should encompass
all individuals represented by the Unions who have filed
Beck objections since August 27, 2010, the date on which

3 The Charging Party has filed a motion to disqualify
Members Block, Griffin and Flynn from ruling on this case,
arguing that their recess appointments to the Board by the
President exceeded his authority under Section 3(a) of the
National Labor Relations Act and Article II, Section 2 of
the United States Constitution. For the reasons set forth
in Center for Social Change, Inc., 358 NLRB No. 24 (March
29, 2012), we reject the Charging Party’s argument.
Accordingly, the motion is denied.
3
the Board issued its lead decision addressing the validity
of a Beck annual renewal requirement. See Machinists Local
Lodge 2777 (L-3 Communications), supra.
Under Section 102.48(d) of the Board’s Rules and
Regulations, a motion for reconsideration must be justified
by “extraordinary circumstances.” For the reasons set
forth below, the Charging Party has failed to make this
showing.
The Board in L-3 Communications, supra, specifically
declined to “announc[e] a per se rule” that annual renewal
requirements are unlawful. Rather, the Board stated that
it would proceed on a case-by-case basis “to inquire into a
union's Beck procedures when they are challenged to
determine whether the union has demonstrated a legitimate
justification for an annual renewal requirement or
otherwise minimized the burden it imposes on potential
objectors.” Id., slip op. at 1. The Board found in L-3
Communications that the unions had failed to present a
legitimate justification for their annual renewal
requirement sufficient to justify even the modest burden
the requirement posed on an individual seeking to make an
objection. Id.4 The Board granted prospective remedial

4 In contrast, in Auto Workers Local 376 (Colt’s Mfg. Co.),
356 NLRB No. 164 (2011), the Board applied the standard
4
relief only, however, because the unions could reasonably
have believed that their requirement was lawful in light of
court approval of the requirement, the lack of any contrary
indication by the Board, and the General Counsel’s previous
advice approving the requirement. Id., slip op. at 8. The
Board thus ordered the unions to rescind their annual
renewal requirement, but did not order make-whole relief,
and directed the unions to recognize the charging party
only — not all Beck objectors represented by the unions
nationwide — as a continuing objector.
The Charging Party’s request for make-whole relief
here is inconsistent with the decision in L-3
Communications, in which the Board specifically declined to
give retroactive application to its ruling. Likewise, the
Charging Party’s request that remedial relief be extended
to all nonmembers represented by the Unions exceeds the
limited prospective relief granted in L-3 Communications.
In addition, contrary to the Charging Party’s
contention, the issuance of the Board’s decision in L-3
Communications did not immediately render the Unions’
annual renewal requirement unlawful and trigger a remedial

announced in L-3 Communications to find that the unions’
annual Beck renewal requirement was not unlawful, because
the unions there had taken steps to minimize the burden the
requirement imposed on objectors.
5
obligation by the Unions. Rather, the Board explained that
it would proceed on a case-by-case basis to evaluate the
validity of a union’s annual renewal requirement based on
the specific factors presented.5
The Board having considered the matter,
IT IS ORDERED that the Motion for Reconsideration is
denied.6
Dated, Washington, D.C., April 18, 2012
______________________________________
Mark Gaston Pearce, Chairman
______________________________________
Brian E. Hayes, Member
______________________________________
Richard F. Griffin, Jr., Member
(SEAL) NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD

5 Moreover, in arguing that their annual renewal requirement
was not arbitrary, the Unions here relied on at least one
aspect of their procedure not present in L-3
Communications. In the instant case, each objector
received an advanced dues reduction check on an annual
basis, and the Unions argued that their annual renewal
requirement was needed to minimize the risk of
unnecessarily paying advance rebates to individuals who are
no longer employed in a bargaining unit represented by the
Union. 357 NLRB No. 45, slip op. at 1, 3 & fn. 7. Thus,
the issuance of the Board’s decision in L-3 Communications
would not necessarily have put the Unions in the present
case on notice that their annual renewal requirement was
unlawful.
6 We reach the same conclusion and issue a similar order
today with respect to the motion for reconsideration in
Cequent Towing Products, 357 NLRB No. 48 (2011).
6