Local 479, Amalgamated Clothing, Etc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 10, 1965

151 N.L.R.B. 555 (N.L.R.B. 1965)

LOCAL 479, AMALGAMATED CLOTHING, ETC. 555
Local 479, Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America, AFL-
CIO [Jaymar Ruby, Inc.] and Peggy Jean Ross and Louis
Marian Graham . Cage No. 25-CB-582 (for)aerly 13-CB-1663).
March 10, 1965
DECISION AND ORDER
On November 5, 1964, Trial Examiner Max Rosenberg issued
his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the
Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair
labor practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom
and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached
Trial Examiner's Decision. Thereafter, the Respondent filed excep-
tions to the Trial Examiner's Decision and a supporting brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board has
delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member
panel [Members Fanning, Brown, and Jenkins].
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made
at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed.
The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the
Trial Examiner's Decision, the Respondent's exceptions and brief,
and the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the findings,
conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act,
as amended , the National Labor Relations Board hereby adopts
as its Order, the Order recommended by the Trial Examiner, and
orders that the Respondent, Local 479, Amalgamated Clothing
Workers of America, AFL-CIO, its officers, agents, and repre-
sentatives, shall take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's
Recommended Order.'
1 The Trial Examiner 's Recommended Order is modified as follows:
( a) substitute the figure "25" for the figure "13" in lines 23 , 31, 36, and 39 on page 6.
(b) substitute the following sentence as the last sentence of the notice:
Employees may communicate directly with the Board 's Regional Office, 614 ISTA
Center, 150 West Market Street, Indianapolis , Indiana, Telephone No. 534-3161, if
they have any questions concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions.
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This proceeding, with all parties represented , was heard before Trial Examiner
Max Rosenberg in Michigan City, Indiana , on September 9, 1964, on complaint of
151 NLRB No. 65.
556 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board and answer of Local 479,
Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America, AFL-CIO, herein called the Respond-
ent or the Union.' The sole issue framed by the pleading is whether the Respondent
violated Section 8(b)(1) (A) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, by
threatening Peggy Jean Ross and Louise Marian Graham, employees of Jaymar Ruby,
Inc., herein called Jaymar, with loss of insurance benefits because of their failure to
pay a union fine. At the hearing, the parties waived oral argument. Briefs have
been received from the General Counsel and the Respondent, which have been duly
considered?
Upon the entire record and my observation of the witnesses, including their
demeanor while on the stand, I hereby make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER
Jaymar, a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of
Indiana, maintains its plant and principal place of business at West Michigan Boule-
vard , Michigan City, Indiana, where it is engaged in the manufacture of men 's slacks.
During the calendar year 1963 , Jaymar, in the course and conduct of its business,
sold and shipped from its plant goods valued in excess of $50,000 to points located
outside the State of Indiana. The complaint alleges and I find that Jaymar is an
Employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of
the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The Respondent is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of
the Act.
M. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The events
At all times material herein, Jaymar and the Respondent were parties to a col-
lective-bargaining contract which contained provision for a health, life, accident, and
retirement plan for Jaymar's employees. The parties stipulated that, pursuant to
this contract, a fund, known as the Amalgamated Cotton Garment and Allied Indus-
tries Fund, was created, into which Jaymar contributes a certain percentage of its
gross payroll. Neither the employees, nor, so far as appears, the Respondent, con-
tribute to the fund. This fund is administered by approximately 20 trustees, 10 of
which are representatives of the Respondent, and 10 of which are representatives of
employers who have collective-bargaining agreements with Respondent's parent labor
organization, who employ an administrator who is also executive director of the
Amalgamated Life Insurance Company. The parties further stipulated that, if an
employee wishes to claim benefits under the plan and through the fund, the employee
must obtain a blank form from the secretary-treasurer of Respondent. The employee
fills out one side of the form and the attending physician executes the reverse side.
The form is then returned to Respondent's secretary-treasurer who checks it over for
completeness, signs the form, and forwards it to the Amalgamated Life Insurance
Company, apparently for payment of the benefits.
It is undisputed that the constitution and bylaws of Respondent provide that all
employees of Jaymar who become members of the Union must attend at least one
union meeting during each calendar quarter, and that the failure to comply with
this requirement will result in the assessment of a union fine in the amount of $1.
Peggy Jean Ross, a Charging Party and an employee of Jaymar, joined the Respondent
shortly after her employment in September 1963. She failed to attend a union meet-
ing during the last quarter of 1963, and was fined a dollar which she paid to Sophia
Jankowski, Respondent's secretary-treasurer. Louise Marian Graham, who is also
a Charging Party and an employee of Jaymar, joined the Union after her employ-
ment in February 1962. Like Ross, Graham also failed to attend a union meeting
in the last quarter of 1963 and she, too, was assessed a fine of $1 which she paid to
Jankowski. Both Ross and Graham again failed to satisfy the union attendance
requirement in the first quarter of 1964, and again a fine was assessed against them.
Graham testified that, on March 30, 1964, or during the first week in April, Jankow-
ski approached Graham at her work station to collect the latter's fine, a task assigned
i The complaint, which issued on July 16, 1964. is based on a charge and an amended
charge filed on May 12, 1964, and July 13, 1964, respectively.
2 The General Counsel's motion to correct transcript, which was unopposed, is hereby
granted.
LOCAL 479, AMALGAMATED CLOTHING, ETC. 557
to Jankowski as part of her duties as secretary-treasurer of Respondent. When
Graham indicated that she would not pay the fine, Jankowski remarked, "You will
have to pay it or you won't receive any insurance benefits while you are sick......
Ross testified that, about April 6, 1964, Jankowski demanded that Ross pay the fine
which had been imposed upon her. Ross replied that Louise Graham "said that she
wasn't going to pay hers and that my dollar was just as important as Louise's," to
which Jankowski retorted "oh, but Louise will have to pay hers or she won't have
any insurance benefits." Jankowski went on to state that "there was a fellow down-
stairs that refused to pay his dollar and he got sick and he didn't get any insurance
until he was paid up." About a week later, Ross engaged in a conversation with
Jankowski during which she informed the latter that she intended to file an unfair
labor practice charge with the Board. When Jankowski expressed indifference, Ross
complained that she did not think "it was right for [Jankowski] to hold up our insur-
ance on us if we didn't pay the fine and that after all the company paid for it."
Jankowski remarked that this was not so, that the Company paid only a portion of it.
Ross concluded the conversation by stating that she would visit the Board's Regional
Office in Chicago to ascertain all the facts.
Ross and Graham filed the aforementioned charge and, shortly thereafter, paid the
fine which had been levied against them. In midsummer, Ross had occasion to file a
claim under the insurance plan, which was processed by Respondent, but Ross was
found to be ineligible for any benefits. In June 1964, Graham also filed a claim under
the plan for an injury sustained. The claim again was processed by Respondent
through Jankowski and Graham was deemed eligible for benefits.
Jankowski testified that both Ross and Graham had been assessed a fine pursuant
to the Union's constitution and bylaws for failure to attend a union meeting during
the first quarter of 1964. On March 30, 1964, Jankowski demanded that Ross satisfy
the assessment, but Ross refused to do so unless Graham also paid her fine. Accord-
ing to Jankowski, she then told Ross that "if Louise Graham is not going to pay hers
she is not going to-to be in good standing with the union and in order to be in
good standing with the union you have to pay your fines." Jankowski further testi-
fied that, on the same date, she entered the thread room at the plant and requested
that Graham satisfy her obligation by paying the fine. Graham replied that she
would not pay the fine. Jankowski proceeded to leave the room and, on the way
out, she overheard Graham state that "you don't have to pay it according to the Taft
Hardley [sic] Law." Jankowski testified that she made no response to this comment
by Graham "Because I was on the company's time and I don't like to argue with
people." Jankowski then categorically denied that she had ever threatened Ross
or Graham with loss of insurance benefits if they failed to pay their fines.
Cecelia Bruning is employed as an end seamer by Jaymar and operates a machine
directly behind Graham. She testified that, at the end of March 1964, Jankowski
approached Graham at her work station and asked Graham to pay her fine. As
Jankowski began to leave the area, Graham remarked that she would not pay the fine
because the Act relieved her of this obligation. According to Bruning, Jankowski did
not reply to Graham's statement, and at no time did she overhear Jankowski tell
Graham that the latter would not receive insurance benefits unless she paid the fine.
When questioned as to how she could overhear the conversation between Jankowski
and Graham above the noise of the sewing machines, Bruning claimed that she
stopped her machine long enough to listen to the conversation because she wanted
to find out whether or not Graham would pay the fine. According to Bruning, her
reason for doing so was because she was "just interested."
Graham and Ross impressed me as honest witnesses whose straightforward testi-
mony I credit and find that, on March 30, 1964, Jankowski demanded that Graham
pay her fine on pain of losing her "insurance benefits while you are sick." I also find
that, about April 6, 1964, Jankowski made a similar demand on Ross and that, when
Ross indicated that she would not pay the fine unless Graham did so, Jankowski
remarked that "Louise will have to pay hers or she won't have any insurance bene-
fits" and alluded to another employee who had lost his insurance benefits because of
his failure to satisfy an assessment. I further find that these statements to Ross made
it abundantly clear to her that she would suffer a similar fate if she persisted in her
refusal to pay the assessment.
I do not credit Jankowski's assertion that she told Ross that the payment of the
fine was necessary in order to preserve the latter's "good standing" in the Union,
and that at no time did she threaten Ross with loss of insurance benefits. Ross'
testimony stands undenied that, when she informed Jankowski of her intention to file
charges with the Board, Ross complained that it was unfair for Jankowski to with-
hold Ross' insurance benefits in view of the fact that Jaymar was the sole contributor
to the fund, and she informed Jankowski that she would visit the Board's office in
558 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Chicago to ascertain what her rights were. In view of this uncontroverted testimony,
I find it inherently improbable that Ross would have visited the Board's office to
inquire about her retention of "good standing" in the Union rather than the preserva-
tion of her insurance benefits. I also discredit Jankowski's denial that she mentioned
the loss of insurance benefits in her conversation with Graham. Jankowski did not
assign the preservation of "good standing" as the reason for demanding of Graham
the payment of her fine, and Jankowski denied that she uttered any threat at all in
requesting payment of the fine. Again, I find it inherently improbable that Graham
would have trekked to the Board's office in Chicago to ascertain her rights if, in fact,
no threats of any nature had been leveled at her by Jankowski I also find that
Bruning's corrobative testimony falls in the same incredible mold.
In sum, I conclude and find that Jankowski's statements to Ross and Graham con-
stituted verbal threats that the latter would be deprived of insurance benefits under
the collective-bargaining contract between the Respondent and Jaymar unless they
paid the union fines assessed against them for failing to attend union meetings.3
B. Analysts and conclusions
The General Counsel asserts that the insurance benefits afforded to Ross and
Graham and all other employees under the contract between the Respondent and
Jaymar constitute "conditions of employment" within the contemplation of the Act,
and that Respondent's threats to deprive Ross and Graham of these benefits for failing
to pay the fines levied upon them was violative of Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act.
Respondent apparently concedes that the insurance benefits which flow to employees
from the contract fall within the statutory phrase "conditions of employment." It
contends, however, that no violation of that Section should be found on the grounds
that- (1) Jankowski did not threaten Ross and Graham with the loss of insurance
benefits for failure to pay the fine, and (2) the Respondent, through Jankowski, was
unable to effectuate such a threat. Based on the resolutions of credibility and findings
of fact heretofore made, I find Respondent's first contention to be unsupported by
the evidence and I reject it. With respect to the second, the record clearly establishes
that, pursuant to the contractual provision creative of the insurance fund, Respondent's
secretary-treasurer is designated as the sole agent for handling benefit claims at the
plant level. Thus, an employee who wishes to file a claim must procure the requisite
claim form from Jankowski and, after its execution, must return the completed form
to Jankowski who inspects it for completeness, signs it, and transmits it to the insurer
for ultimate payment. Moreover, the record shows that both Ross and Graham
made their claims for insurance in the middle of 1964 through Jankowski. In addi-
tion, half of the trustees which govern the fund are representatives of Respondent's
international union. In light of the foregoing, I find no record support for Respond-
ent's contention that neither the Respondent nor Jankowski were able to fulfill the
latter's threat to Ross and Graham.
In Amalgamated Local 286, et al (Delta Star Electric Division, A. K. Porter Co,
Inc.),4 which I find is controlling in this litigation, the Board made it patently clear
that insurance benefits of the character here involved constituted a "term or condi-
tion of employment" within the statutory scheme, and pronounced that:
a union restrains and coerces employees in the exercise of their statutory
right to refrain from joining or maintaining membership in a labor organization
where it threatens to deprive them of a term or condition of employment unless
they maintain their membership in good standing by payment of fines or
assessments.5
On the basis of the record made before me, and in view of my findings that the
Respondent, through its secretary-treasurer Jankowski, threatened employees Ross and
Graham with loss of insurance benefits which they enjoyed as a condition of employ-
ment unless and until they paid their union fines, I conclude that the Respondent
thereby violated Section 8(b) (1) (A) of the Act.
11 find no merit in Respondent's contention that Jankowski's statements to Ross and
Graham were not threats but merely an expression of a good-faith belief that the
failure to pay a fine disqualifies an employee for insurance coverage Jankowski testi-
fied that she had been a union member for 30 years and had served as Respondent's
secretary-treasurer for 8 years. In her dealings with Ross and Graham, Jankowski
displayed a marked awareness of what Respondent's constitution and bylaws provided
and required.
4 110 NLRB 371.
5Ibitt at 374.
LOCAL 479, AMALGAMATED CLOTHING, ETC. 559
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent set forth in section III, above, occurring in con-
nection with the operations of Jaymar Ruby, Inc., described in section I, above, have
a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the
several States, and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing com-
merce and the free flow thereof.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices,
I will recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action
designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions, and upon the
entire record in the case, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Jaymar Ruby, Inc., an Indiana corporation, is engaged in commerce within the
meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. Local 479, Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America, AFL-CIO, is a labor
organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. By restraining and coercing employees of Jaymar Ruby, Inc., in the exercise
of rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act, the Respondent has engaged in and is
engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (b) (1) (A) of
the Act.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law and the entire record
in this case, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended, I recommend that Respondent, Local 479, Amalgamated Clothing Workers
of America, AFL-CIO, Michigan City, Indiana, and its officers, representatives, and
agents, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Threatening employees of Jaymar Ruby, Inc., with loss of insurance benefits
enjoyed by them as a condition of employment for failing to pay fines imposed by it.
(b) In any like or related manner, restraining or coercing employees of the above-
named Company in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act,
except to the extent that such right may be affected by an agreement requiring mem-
bership in a labor organization as a condition of employment as authorized in Section
8(a) (3) of the Act, as modified by the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure
Act of 1959.
2. Take the following affirmative action which I find is necessary to effectuate the
policies of the Act:
(a) Notify Peggy Jean Ross and Louise Marian Graham, in writing, that it will
not threaten them with loss of insurance benefits for failing to pay union fines.
(b) Post at its business office in Michigan City, Indiana, copies of the attached
notice marked "Appendix." 6 Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional
Director for Region 13, shall, after being duly signed by an official representative of
the Respondent, be posted by Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof and main-
tained by it for a period of 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places,
including places where notices to members are customarily posted. Reasonable steps
shall be taken by Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or
covered by any other material.
(c) Mail to the Regional Director for Region 13 signed copies of the attached
notice marked "Appendix" for posting, the above-named Company willing, at the
Company's plant in Michigan City, Indiana, in places where notices to employees
are customarily posted. Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional
Director for Region 13, shall, after being duly signed, as provided in paragraph (b)
above, be forthwith returned to the Regional Director for said posting.
61n the event that this Recommended Order be adopted by the Board , the words "a
Decision and Order" shall be substituted for the words "the Recommended Order of a
Trial Examiner" in the notice . In the further event that the Board ' s Order be en-
forced by a decree of a United States Court of Appeals , the words "a Decree of the
United States Court of Appeals , Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the words
"a Decision and Order."
560 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
(d) Notify the Regional Director for Region 13, in writing, within 20 days from
the date of receipt of this Decision , what steps Respondent has taken to comply
therewith.?
7In the event that this Recommended Order be adopted by the Board , this provision
shall be modified to read, "Notify said Regional Director , in writing , within 10 days
from the date of this Order , what steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith."
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL MEMBERS OF LOCAL 479 , AMALGAMATED CLOTHING WORKERS OF
AMERICA, AFL-CIO, AND ALL EMPLOYEES OF JAYMAR RUBY, INC.
Pursuant to a Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor
Relations Board , and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, as amended , we hereby notify our members and employees that:
WE WILL NOT threaten employees of Jaymar Ruby, Inc., with the loss of insur-
ance benefits enjoyed by them as a condition of employment for failing to pay
fines imposed by Local 479, Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America,
AFL-CIO.
WE WILL NOT, by means of the foregoing , or in any like or related manner,
restrain or coerce employees of the above -named company in the exercise of
their rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, except to the extent that such
rights may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organ-
ization as a condition of employment as authorized in Section 8(a)(3) of the
Act, as modified by the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of
1959.
WE WILL notify Peggy Jean Ross and Louise Marian Graham, in writing, that
we will not threaten them with loss of insurance for failure to pay their union
fines.
LOCAL 479 , AMALGAMATED CLOTHING
WORKERS OF AMERICA, AFL-CIO,
Labor Organization.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------
(Representative ) ( Title)
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.
Employees may communicate directly with the Board 's Regional Office, 881 U.S.
Courthouse and Federal Office Building, 219 South Dearborn Street , Chicago , Illinois,
Telephone No. 828-7572 , if they have any question concerning this notice or compli-
ance with its provisions.
Bernard S. Happach d/b/a 14th Street Market and Retail Clerks
Union, Local 536 (Retail Clerks International Association,
AFL-CIO). Case No. 38-CA-9 (formerly 13-CA-6000).
March 10, 1965
DECISION AND ORDER
On August 3, 1964, Trial Examiner Paul Bisgyer issued his
Decision in the above -entitledd proceeding , finding that Respondent
had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices
and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take
certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Examin-
er's Decision. He also found that the Respondent had not engaged
in certain other unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint
151 NLRB No. 68.