Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers Int'l Union, Etc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 5, 1965

152 N.L.R.B. 436 (N.L.R.B. 1965)

436 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
All our employees are free to become or remain, or to refrain from
becoming or remaining , members in good standing of said Interna-
tional Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and
Helpers of America, or any other labor organization.
AMERICAN COMPRESSED STEEL CORPORATION,
Employer.
Dated---------------- By-------------------------------------
(Representative ) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the
date of posting, and must be altered, defaced, or covered by any
other material.
Employees may communicate directly with the Board's Regional
Office, Room 2023, Federal Office Building, 550 Main Street, Cincinnati,
Ohio, Telephone No. 381-2200, if they have any questions concerning
this notice or compliance with its provisions.
Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers International Union, AFL-
CIO and Its Local 8-718 and United Nuclear Corporation, Fuel
Division . Case No. 1-CB-877. May 5,1965
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND ORDER
On August 28,1964, the National Labor Relations Board, by a duly
designated panel, issued a Decision and Order in this case, 148 NLRB
629, finding that the Respondents had violated Section 8(b) (1) (A)
and (2) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, by attempt-
ing to invoke the sanctions of a maintenance-of-membership clause in
its contract with the Company against 50 employees for nonpayment
of dues for January 1963-the month prior to the execution of the con-
tract-and against 16 of these 50 employees, who the Board found had
resigned from the Union prior to the signing of the contract on Febru-
ary 12, 1963, for nonpayment of dues not only for January but also
for subsequent months.' In reaching this conclusion, the Board
affirmed the Trial Examiner's finding that the 50 employees had become
union members although they had not satisfied the formal require-
ments set forth in Respondent's constitution for the acquisition of
membership. The Board found it unnecessary to pass on the question
1 The maintenance-of-membership clause provided as follows:
Any employee who is a member in good standing of the Union as of the date of this
agreement or who thereafter voluntarily joins the Union during the term of this
agreement shall remain a member of the Union in good standing as a condition of
employment by the Company. For the purpose of this article , an employee shall be
considered a member of the Union in good standing if he tenders the periodic dues
and the initiation fees uniformly required as a condition of employment.
152 NLRB No. 41.
OIL, CHEMICAL & ATOMIC WORKERS INT'L UNION, ETC. 437
of whether Respondent's filing of a grievance to compel the Company
to apply the maintenance-of-membership clause to these employees
was also violative of the Act.
The Board ordered Respondents to cease and desist from the unfair
labor practices found and to rescind the demand for January dues
from the 50 employees and the demands for later dues from the 16
employees who had resigned from the Union. Respondents complied
with the Board's Order, but the Company petitioned the Court of
Appeals for the First Circuit for a review of the Board's Decision,
contending that the Board erred in finding that the employees had
become union members and in failing to find that the Union's action
in filing a grievance against the Company was violative of the Act.
The Company prayed the court set aside the Board's Order insofar as
it (1) failed to find that the Respondents committed an unfair labor
practice under Section 8(b) (1) (A) and (2) of the Act by filing a
grievance to compel the Company to violate Section 8(a) (3) of the
Act, and failed to order the Respondents to desist from such action;
and (2) failed to find that the Respondents violated Section 8(b) (1)
(A) and (2) of the Act by demanding payment of dues as a condition
of employment of the 50 employees here involved, and failed to direct
the Respondents to rescind such demand.
On January 18, 1965, the court sustained the Company's petition.
In its opinion, the court, inter alia, interpreted the provisions of the
maintenance-of-membership clause of the contract in the light of the
provisions of the union constitution and concluded that the parties
intended the term "member," as used in the contract, to mean compli-
ance with the formal membership requirement set out in the union
constitution. Since the 50 employees had not followed the procedure
for continuing membership outlined in the Union's constitution, the
court held that none had become union members and that any attempt
by the Union to apply the maintenance-of-membership clause to these
employees, including the filing of grievance against the Company for
that purpose, was violative of the Act. The court remanded the case
to the Board with directions to make such findings and modifications
of its Order as may be necessary to fulfill, in toto, the Company's
prayer, as summarized above. The court noted that nothing in its
opinion is to be construed as ordering relief beyond the scope of the
amended complaint .2
The Board a has decided to accept the remand and, for the purposes
of this case, to make the findings required by the remand. Accord-
8 United Nuclear Corp. v. AT L R.B., 340 F. 2d 133 (C.A. 1).
8 Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act , the Board has delegated its
powers in connection with this case to a three -member panel [ Chairman McCulloch and
Members Fanning and Jenkins].
438 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ingly, we find that it was the intention of the parties in agreeing to the
maintenance-of-membership clause that the term "member" means an
employee who has complied with the formal membership requirements
in Respondents' constitution.4 As the 50 employees did not follow the
procedure for achieving membership outlined in the constitution, we
find that none of them became union members and that Respondents
violated Section 8(b) (1) (A) and (2) of the Act by attempting to
apply the maintenance-of-membership clause to all of them for non-
payment of January dues, and as to 16 of them for nonpayment of dues
for subsequent months as well. As we noted in our earlier Decision,
another reason for concluding that Respondents have violated the Act
is that Respondents attempted to condition employment on payment
of dues for January, the month prior to the execution of the contract.
Even if the 50 employees had become union members, the attempted
application of the maintenance-of-membership clause to them for the
month of January would be unlawful. In addition, we find that
Respondents further violated Section 8(b) (1) (A) and (2) by filing a
grievance against the Company for the same purpose of compelling
the Company to apply the maintenance-of-membership clause to these
employees.
THE REMEDY
We have found that Respondents violated Section 8(b) (1) (A) and
(2) in the manner set forth above. We shall amend our Order in a
manner appropriate to remedy the violations found.
ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Order previously issued in this case be,
and it hereby is, amended in the following manner :
A. Redesignate paragraph 1(b) as 1(d) and add as paragraphs 1(b)
and 1(c) the following:
"1(b) . Demanding of employees of the said Employer who are not
members of Respondents payment of dues for the month of January
1963, or for any other period during which they are not members of
Respondents, as a condition of continued employment."
"1(c). Filing grievances or instituting or maintaining arbitration
proceedings against the said Employer for the purpose of causing the
said Employer to discharge or otherwise discriminate against its
employees for their failure to pay dues for the month of January
1963.1',
4 The constitution requires that the names of proposed members be presented to the
members, that the membership vote on these persons, that the applicants appear at
initiation ceremonies , and that an oath be administered to them.
RAMAPO MANOR NURSING CENTER 439
B. Redesignate paragraphs 2(c) and 2(d) as 2(d) and 2(e), respec-
tively. Delete existing paragraph 2(e). Add as paragraph 2(c) and
2(f) the following:
"2(c). Notify the said Employer that it is withdrawing the griev-
ance concerning the Employer's failure to discharge employees for
failure to pay dues for the month of January 1963, which was filed
against the Employer on August 27,1963."
"2(f). Notify the Regional Director, in writing, within 10 days
from the date of this Order, what steps Respondents have taken to
comply herewith."
C. Add the following paragraph to the notice:
WE HAVE WITHDRAWN the grievance we filed against the Com-
pany on August 23, 1963, concerning the Company's refusal to
discharge employees who refuse to pay dues for the month of
January 1963.
Ramapo Manor Nursing Center and Local 1199 , Drug and Hos-
pital Employees Union , AFL-CIO. Case No. A0-83. May 5,
1965
ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR ADVISORY OPINION
This is a petition filed on February 19, 1965, by Ramapo Manor
Nursing Center, herein called the Petitioner, pursuant to Sections
102.98 and 102.99 of the National Labor Relations Board's Rules and
Regulations, Series 8, as amended, requesting an Advisory Opinion
in which it would advise that the Board would assert jurisdiction over
the Petitioner herein. The Petitioner has filed a brief in support of
its position, while Local 1199, Drug and Hospital Employees Union,
AFL-CIO, herein called Local 1199, has filed a brief in opposition.
There is presently pending between the Petitioner and Local 1199,
a representation proceeding, Docket No. SE-38515, before the New
York State Labor Relations Board. Ivan McLeod, Regional Director
for Region 2 of the National Labor Relations Board, herein called the
Regional Director, had administratively dismissed, on jurisdictional
grounds, a representation petition in Case No. 2-RM-1376, involving
the same parties; and there has been pending before this Board, the
Petitioner's appeal from this dismissal. The appeal has been admin-
istratively denied by the Board this date.
The Board has duly considered the petition and briefs, and has taken
official notice that the Board has denied the Petitioner's appeal, thereby
affirming the Regional Director's dismissal of Case No. 2-RM-1376 on
152 NLRB No. 35.