Retail Clerks Union, Local 1179

National Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsMay 31, 1974

211 N.L.R.B. 84 (N.L.R.B. 1974)

84 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Retail Clerks Union , Local 1179, Retail Clerks Interna- tional Association , AFL-CIO and Gregory A. Pe- rira. Case 20-CB-28 May 31, 1974 DECISION AND ORDER BY MEMBERS JENKINS, KENNEDY, AND PENELLO On February 11, 1974, Administrative Law Judge George Christensen issued the attached Decision in this proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent filed excep- tions and a supporting brief, and the Charging Party and General Counsel filed briefs in answer to Respondent's exceptions and in support of the Administrative Law Judge's Decision. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board has delegated its authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. The Board has considered the record and the attached Decision in light of the exceptions and briefs and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings, and conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge and to adopt his recommended Order. ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board adopts as its Order the recommend- ed Order of the Administrative Law Judge and hereby orders that Respondent, Retail Clerks Union, Local 1179, Retail Clerks International Association, AFL-CIO, San Francisco, California, its officers, agents, and representatives , shall take the action set forth in the said recommended Order except that the attached notice is substituted for the Administrative Law Judge's notice. APPENDIX NOTICE To MEMBERS POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government After a trial at which all sides had the opportunity to present evidence, the National Labor Relations Board found that we violated the law and ordered us to perform certain acts, not to perform others, and to post this notice informing you of them. We therefore wish to inform you that: WE WILL NOT cite or fine or otherwise disci- pline you for your failure or refusal to support our call for a sympathy strike or to respect any picket line established in order to accomplish an unlawful objective under the National Labor Relations Act, as amended. WE WILL NOT institute any legal proceedings to collect any fines levied for the above conduct. WE WILL NOT refuse to process requests for transfer from our local union to another local union affiliated with the Retail Clerks Interna- tional Union because of the nonpayment of any fines levied for engaging in the aforesaid conduct. WE WILL rescind the fines imposed on Ander- son, Apodaca, Ashford, Barker, Bostrom, Brooks, Brunken, Burdick, Bussey, Butterfield, Carey, Caruso, Celestre, Chanquet, Cherolis, Coleman, Constantine, Davis, Dilling, Dippo, Dodge, Dud- ley, Galvez, Gollnick, Harmon, Hill, Hodges, Hurley, Jerome, Jinkins, Jones, Kinzel, Kouretas, McCarney, McLaughlin, McMillan, Malberg, Mazzanti, Meahan, Mellon, Mitchell, Mollwitz, Morris, Neves, O'Looney, Odiorne, Paige, Parla, Pedracci, Pereira, Pooler, Porter, Randall, Relei, Reynoso, A. Riddle, L. Riddle, Rine, Rivera, Roundtree, Santos, Schroder, Sempson, Siegle, Sloan , Speetzen, Suzenski , Theobald, Trolinder, Vetere, Volentine, Weide, Williams, D. Zaro, and J. Zaro for their failure or refusal to engage in a sympathy strike and respect picket lines illegally established by the Teamsters at stores of Alpha Beta Acme Markets in northern California during the fall of 1973 and WE WILL refund the fines paid, with interest at 6 percent per annum. WE WILL cause any judgments rendered by the courts ordering any of our members to pay fines or costs for engaging in the aforesaid conduct to be vacated. WE WILL expunge from our records and cause to be expunged from the records of our parent union any documents or entries purporting to show any fine delinquencies with regard to fines levied for engaging in the aforesaid conduct. WE WILL process transfer requests made by any of our members fined for engaging in the aforesaid conduct as though such fines had never been levied. RETAIL CLERKS UNION, LOCAL 1179, RETAIL CLERKS INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION , AFL-CIO (Labor Organization) Dated By (Representative) (Title) This is an official notice and must not be defaced by anyone. This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive 211 NLRB No. 16 RETAIL CLERKS UNION, LOCAL 1179 days from -the date of posting and must not be altered , defaced, or covered by any other material. Any questions concerning this notice or compli- ance with its provisions may be directed to the Board's Office, 13018 Federal Building, Box 36047, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, California 94102, Telephone 415-556-3197. DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE GEORGE CHRISTENSEN, Administrative Law Judge: On November 15, 1973, 1 presided over a hearing at San Francisco, California, to try issues raised by a complaint issued on September 7, 1973, on the basis of a March 23, 1973, charge and a May 10, 1973, amended charge. The complaint alleged that Retail Clerks Union, Local 1179, Retail Clerks International Association, AFL-CIO,' vio- lated Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended (hereafter the Act), by citing and fining Pereira and other members because they crossed picket lines unlawfully established at their Employer' s 2 premises by another labor organization ,3 by refusing to honor requests by Pereira and other members for transfer of their membership from Clerks Local 1179 to another local affiliated with the Clerks International , and by seeking to collect the aforesaid fines through court action. Clerks Local 1179 concedes that the Teamsters picketing has been found to be unlawful by the Board; it fined Pereira and other members for refusing to respect the Teamsters unlawful picket lines; it sought to collect the fines by filing suit in the California courts; and it refused to transfer Pereira and other cited and fined members from Clerks Local 1179 to another local of the Clerks International, but contends the membership proviso to Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act permits those actions. The essential facts, were stipulated. The issue is therefore one of law-whether the member- ship rules proviso of Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act entitled Clerks Local 1179, under the circumstances, to restrain and coerce 4 Pereira and other members similarly situated in the exercise of their Section 7 right to refuse to comply with Clerks Local 1179's call for a sympathy strike in support of the Teamsters unlawful picketing activities. The parties appeared by counsel at the hearing and were afforded full opportunity to adduce evidence, examine and cross-examine witnesses , argue, and file briefs. Briefs have been received from the General Counsel and Clerks Local 1179. Based on my review of the entire record, observation of the witnesses, perusal of the briefs, and research, I enter the following: I Retail Clerks Union Local 1179 shall hereafter be referred to as Clerks Local 1179; Retail Clerks International Association shall hereafter be referred to as Clerks International. 2 Alpha Beta-Acme Markets, hereafter called Alpha. 3 Teamsters Locals 296, 432, and 484, hereafter called Teamsters. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. JURISDICTION AND LABOR ORGANIZATION 85 The complaint alleged, the answer admitted, and I find that at all times pertinent Alpha was a Delaware corporation with its principal offices at La Habra, California, offices and places of business at Danville, Walnut Creek, Concord , and San Pablo, California, that it was engaged in the retail sale of groceries and related merchandise in over 100 stores located throughout Califor- nia, that in the preceding year it sold goods valued in excess of $500,000 and purchased and received goods valued in excess of $50,000 from outside California, and that it was an employer engaged in commerce in a business affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act. The complaint alleged, the answer admitted, and I find that at all times pertinent Clerks Local 1179 was a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. II. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES Since the essential facts were stipulated by the parties at the hearing, I shall enter findings of fact followed by citation to the stipulated evidence on which the findings are based. A. On June 23, 1972,5 pickets acting on behalf of the Teamsters picketed Alpha facilities for 1 day with signs reading "Alpha Beta Unfair. Company Bakery Delivery Work Performed Under Sub-Standard Conditions." (Par. 1, November 15, 1973, Joint Stipulation.) B. On July 6 and July 26 a charge and an amended charge were filed with Region 20 of the National Labor Relations Board (hereafter the Board) alleging that the aforesaid picketing violated Section 8(b)(7)(A) of the Act. (Par. 2, November 15, 1973, Joint Stipulation.) C. On August 31 representatives of the Teamsters appeared at their request before the executive board of the Contra Costa County of California Central Labor Council (hereafter the Council) to announce the Teamsters inten- tion to picket Alpha's stores within Contra Costa County because Alpha's bakery products were being delivered to the stores within that county from southern California by Alpha drivers allegedly working under standards inferior to those prevailing for northern California bakery drivers represented by the Teamsters6 and to request "strike sanction support" by unions affiliated with the Council which represented Alpha employees within the county; namely, Butchers Local 532 and Clerks Local 1179. The Council granted the Teamsters request and directed Clerks Local 1179 and Butchers Local 532 to respect the Teamsters picket lines "conditionally upon legal protec- tion." (Par. 4, November 15, 1973, Joint Stipulation and Joint Exh. 2.) 4 By citation , fine, attempted fine collection, and refusal to transfer. 5 Read 1972 after all future date references omitting the year. 6 The Alpha drivers were represented by a southern California Teamsters Local, Local 952, and covered by a contract between Alpha and that Local. 86 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD D. Following the above Council action, Clerks Local 1179 sought and secured from its attorneys7 an opinion that the Teamsters proposed picketing of Alpha appeared to be lawful "area standards" picketing and that, in any event, Clerks Local 1179 's members had a legal right to respect the anticipated picket line under the Alpha -Clerks Local 1179 contract, without regard to whether the picketing was lawful or unlawful, so long as it was sanctioned by the Council. (Par. 21, November 15, 1973, Joint Stipulation.) E. On September 6, Clerks Local 1179 distributed to those of its members employed by Alpha it could reach a message that the anticipated Teamsters picketing of the stores where they were employed was sanctioned and should be observed. (Joint Exh. 7(a).) F. On September 7, the Teamsters began to picket Alpha Store No. 515 at Danville, California, inter alia, with signs bearing a legend similar to those set out in A, above, and continued to so picket through at least Septmeber 19. (Par. 5, November 15, 1973, Joint Stipulation and Joint Exh. 7(a).) G. Pereira (the Charging Party) was employed by Alpha at store No . 515 as a grocery department head between September 7 and 21 . Pereira during that period was a member of Clerks Local 1179 and was in the bargaining unit covered by a contract between Alpha and Clerks Local 1179. (Joint Exh. 4(a) and 7(a).) H. From September 7 through the balance of the time the Teamsters picketed Alpha store 515, Pereira worked at the store behind the picket line and was observed doing so by Clerks Local 1179 Business Representative Keith Compton. (Joint Exh. 7(a).) 1. During the period of the Teamsters picketing of Alpha store 515, Compton signaled Clerks Local 1179 members he observed working behind the picket line to cease work . Two members did so , but Pereira ignored him. (Joint Exh. 7(a).) J. On September 20, the United States District Court for the Northern District of California granted Region 20's petition for a preliminary injunction restraining the Teamsters from continuing their picketing of Alpha's stores, including store 515. (Joint Exh. 3.) K. On October 5, Compton filed a charge with Clerks Local 1179 alleging that Pereira had violated its bylaws by working behind the Teamsters picket lines at store 515 between September 7-21. On the same date, Clerks Local 1179 sent a copy of the charge to Pereira with a cover letter citing him to appear before the executive board of Clerks Local 1179 on October 16 to show cause why he should not be fined for working behind a picket line sanctioned by the Council. (Par. 10, November 15, 1973, Joint Stipulation; Joint,Fxhs. 6(a), 6(b), and 7(a).) L. On October 16, Clerks Local 1179 conducted an inquiry on its show cause order before a tnal committee appointed to act for the executive board of Clerks Local 1179. Both Compton and Pereira appeared. (Joint Exh. 7(a).) M. Compton filed with Clerks Local 1179 during November charges against Alpha employees James Pooler, Judy Cherolis, and James Mollwitz containing the same allegations set out in his charge against Pereira. Persons unnamed in the record during October and November filed with Clerks Local 1179 charges containing the same allegations as those of the Pereira charge against Alpha employees Tami Anderson , Daniel Apodaca, Gary Ash- ford, Chester Barker, Thomas Bostrom, Eric Brooks, Barbara Brunken, William Burdick, Gary Bussey, Mike Butterfield, John Carey, James Caruso, Steven Celestre, Michael Chanquet , Jerry Coleman, Gordon Constantine, Larry Davis, Robert Dilling, Kathe Dippo, Robert Dodge, Ardis Dudley, Gerard Galvez, Leonard Gollnick, Brad Harmon , David Hill , Marcus Hodges, Terrence Hurley, John Jerome, Robert Jinkins , Walter Jones, George Kinzel, George Kouretas, Robert McCarney, Bill McLaughlin, Norman McMillan , Steve Malberg, Tony Mazzanti, Jerry Meahan , Robert Mellon , Marvin Mitchell, Virgil Morris, Tony Neves, Lawrence O'Looney, Richard Odiorne, Robert Paige, Sal Parla, Mike Pedracci, Michael Porter, James Randall , James Relei, David Reynoso, Alan Riddle, Linda Riddle, Kenneth Rine , Jose Rivera, Robert Round- tree , John Santos , Robert Schroder, Scott Sempson, Daniel Siegle, Harold Sloan, Don Speetzen, Rita Suzenski, Jerry Theobald, Kennith Trolinder, Michael Vetere, David Volentine, Jim Weide, Linda Williams, Dorothy Zaro, and John Zaro. Each was cited by Clerks Local 1179 to show cause why they should not be fined for working behind the Teamsters picket lines for their employer Alpha. (Pars. 9 and 10, November 15, 1973, Joint Stipulation; Joint Exhs. 5, 6(a), 6(b), and 8.) N. During October, November, and December, Clerks Local 1179 conducted proceedings on all the citations noted above and, following the proceedings, took the following actions: Anderson Fined $50 Apodaca Fined $25 Ashford Fined $50 Barker No penalty Bostrom Fined $75 Brooks No penalty Brunken Fined $50 Burdick Fined $75 Bussey Fined $75 Butterfield Fined $50 Carey Fined $75 Caruso Fined $50 Celestre Fined $50 Chanquet Fined $75 Cherolis Fined $50 Coleman Fined $75 Constantine Fined $50 Davis Fined $50 Dilling Fined $75 Dippo Fined $50 Dodge Fined $75 Dudley Fined $75 Galvez Fined $75 Gollnick No penalty Harmon Fined $50 Hill Fined $75 7 Who in turn consulted with Teamsters attorneys. RETAIL CLERKS UNION, LOCAL 1179 87 Hodges Fined $75 Hurley Fined $75 Jerome Fined $75 Jinkins Fined $75 Jones Fined $75 Kinzel Fined $75 ($25 was suspended) Kouretas Fined $75 McCarney Fined $25 McLaughlin Fined $75 McMillan Fined $25 Malberg Fined $75 Mazzanti Fined $25 Meahan Fined $50 Mellon Fined $75 Mitchell Fined $75 Mollwitz Fined $25 Morris No penalty Neves Fined $75 O'Looney Fined $75 Odiorne Fined $75 Paige Fined $75 Parla Fined $75 Pedracci Fined $50 Pereira Fined $75 Pooler Fined $75 Porter Fined $50 Randall Fined $75 Relei Fined $50 Reynoso Fined $50 A. Riddle Fined $75 L. Riddle Fined $50 Rine Fined $25 Rivera Fined $50 Roundtree Fined $50 Santos Fined $75 Schroder Fined $50 Sempson Fined $50 Siegle Fined $50 Sloan Fined $75 Speetzen Fined $50 Suzenski No penalty Theobald Fined $75 Trolinder Fined $75 Vetere Fined $50 Volentine Fined $50 Weide Fined $75 Williams Fined $25 D. Zaro Fined $50 J. Zaro Fined $75 0. Some of the members paid the fine. (Par. 14, November 15, 1973, Joint Stipulation.) P. On March 30, 1973, Administrative Law Judge 8 N.L.R.B. v. Allis-Chalmers Manufacturing Co., 388 U.S. 175 (1967); Scofield v. N.LR. B., 394 U.S. 423 ( 1969). 8 Communications Workers of America AFL-CIO (Rochester Telephone Company), 194 NLRB 872; Rutherfor4 president, and Local 18, International Union of Operating Engineers, AFL-CIO (Morgan), 205 NLRB No. 75; Local 1197, Communications Workers of America, AFL-CIO (Sayko), 202 NLRB 229. 10 Glaziers L,cal No. 1162, International Brotherhood of Painters, AFL-CIO Louis Penfield issued a decision in Case 20-CP-434 finding that the Teamsters had violated Section 8(b) (7)(A) of the Act by picketing Alpha Stores within their jurisdictions to force Alpha to change certain of the wages, rates of pay, hours, or working conditions of the Alpha drivers delivering bakery goods from Alpha's southern California bakery to its northern California stores. (Par. 13, November 15, 1973, Joint Stipulation; Joint Exh. 12.) Q. On April 19, 1973, Clerks Local 1179 filed an action in a small claims court of California to collect fines from 23 Alpha employees-Clerks Local 1179 members who had not previously paid them. Judgment was entered by the small claims court against the employee-members in each case, plus costs. Appeals are pending on those judgments in the Superior Court of California. (Par. 18, November 15, 1973, Joint Stipulation; Joint Exh. 9.) R. Subsequent to the above action, Alpha employees, Clerks Local 1179 members Pereira, Weide, and Jones, transferred their employment to an Alpha store within the jurisdiction of Clerks Local 870. Pereira, Weide, and Jones asked Clerks Local 1179 to transfer their memberships from Clerks Local 1179 to Clerks Local 870. Clerks Local 1179 denied the request until or unless the three paid the fines heretofore described against them, plus other dues, fees, and assessments claimed by Clerks Local 1179. (Par. 15(a), (b), and (c), November 15, 1973, Joint Stipulation.) S. On August 10, 1973, the Board issued its order affirming the March 30, 1973, Decision of Administrative Law Judge Penfield in Case 20-CP-434 (Par. 19, Novem- ber 15, 1973, Joint Stipulation; Joint Exh. 12.) T. Clerks Local 1179 at no time has caused Alpha to discriminate against Pereira or any of the other persons named above who were cited or fined or sued or refused transfer. (Par. 16, November 15, 1973, Joint Stipulation.) Analysis and Conclusions While it has been held in a number of cases that the membership rule proviso to Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act generally permits the union to discipline its members for conduct inimical to the union's interest,8 threats of discipline, or discipline, either to force a member to aid in the accomplishment of an objective deemed unlawful under the Act,9 or in contravention of a contract,10or to inhibit resort to Board or contract processes,11 have been recognized as exceptions thereto. A decision has been entered by the Board, which binds me, holding that the picket lines established at Alpha's stores in northern California by the Teamsters were violative of the Act in that they were placed there for the purpose of forcing Alpha to alter terms and conditions of employment of Alpha's drivers represented by another labor organization and covered by a contract between Alpha and that labor organization. Both the Council and Clerks Local 1179 were well aware (Tusco Glass, Inc.), 177 NLRB 393; Local 12419, International Union of District 50, United Mineworkers of America (National Grinding Wheel Company), 176 NLRB 628. 11 N.LR B. v. Industrial Union of Marine & Shipbuilding Workers of America, AFL-CIO, 391 U.S . 418 (1968); Cannery Warehousemen, etc. (Marston Ball), 190 NLRB 24; Local 138, International Union of Operating Engineers, AFL-CIO (Skura), 148 NLRB 679. 88 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD that the legality of the Teamsters picketing was in doubt prior to the time Clerks Local 1179 proceeded in its disciplinary actions against those of its members employed at Alpha who refused to respect those picket lines." Clerks Local 1179, taking the risk that its (and the Teamsters) attorneys were correct in their opinion that the Teamsters picketing was lawful, carried out the Council directive by issuing a call for its members employed by Alpha to engage in a sympathy strike against Alpha in support of the Teamsters objectives and, by its business representative , Compton,13 sought to enforce the call by contacting those Alpha employees-Clerks Local 1179 members who nevertheless continued to work,-and putting pressure on them to join in the strike. Clerks Local 1179, following the cessation of the Teamsters picketing due to the September 20 court order, by the same Compton, and despite the doubtful legality of the Teamsters picketing, then proceeded to file charges against Pereira and others who had defied instructions to respect the Teamsters picket lines. Clerks Local 1179 promptly utilized those charges to cite Pereira and the others to show cause why they should not be penalized for their refusal to support picketing which had ended by court injunction. Not content with collecting fines from most of those disciplined, and after issuance of Administrative Law Judge Penfield's Decision finding the Teamsters picketing unlawful, Clerks Local 1179 instituted legal action against Pereira and others to collect the fines levied. This is a case where Clerks Local 1179 attempted to cause its members to engage in a sympathy strike against their employer, Alpha, in support of a Teamsters objective proscribed by the Act. Failing to get universal support from its members, Clerks Local 1179 utilized its discipli- nary powers to punish those members who failed or refused to respond. As noted heretofore, discipline assessed against a member for refusing to lend support for the accomplish- ment of an unlawful objective under the Act is one of the exceptions to the membership rules proviso of Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act (see fn. 8), and this case falls within that exception. Clerks Local 1179 argues that (1) since the Board has held that employees who respect unlawful picket lines thereby engage in protected conduct, the union which represents them does not violate the Act if it disciplines those of its members who refuse to engage in such protected conduct; (2) it should not be found in violation of the Act, inasmuch as at the time it took action against its members for refusing to respect the Teamsters picket lines no final decision holding such picketing illegal had issued and it was acting in a good-faith belief that the Teamsters picketing was lawful; (3) Alpha waived, in the Alpha Clerks-Local 1179 contract, any right to discipline its employees for respecting unlawful picket lines as well as lawful picket lines and this waived its employees' rights to file charges under the National Labor Relations Act 12 The citations and fines occurred in October and months following; the charge and amended charge against the Teamsters were filed on July 6 and 26; the complaint was issued against the Teamsters on September 19; and a preliminary injunction restraining the picketing was issued on September 20. The Council was careful to condition its August 31 sanction and direction to Clerks Local 1179 to respect the proposed picket lines against discipline levied upon them by Clerks Local 1179 for their refusal to respect an unlawful picket line; (4) the Board should defer to the arbitration procedures estab- lished by the Alpha-Clerks Local 1179 contract, and (5) the complaint should be dismissed because the disciplined members failed to utilize the internal appeals available to them. I find the first argument irrelevant. The fact that employees who respect unlawful picket lines may be engaged in protected conduct has no relevance to whether a union may discipline employees who refuse to respect an unlawful picket line. With reference to the second argument, Clerks Local 1179 was well aware that the Teamsters picketing was of doubtful legality when it took disciplinary action and knowingly risked the possibility its attorneys were incorrect when they advised that the picketing was lawful. Having lost the gamble that their attorneys were correct, Clerks Local 1179 must be prepared to take the consequences flowing therefrom. With regard to the third and fourth arguments advanced by Clerks Local 1179, I cannot see how Alpha's contract rights and agreements have any relevance to the question of whether the statutorily protected rights of the individuals affected by Clerks Local 1179's disciplinary action against them were violated. As to the fifth and final argument advanced by Clerks Local 1179, the Board and the Supreme Court have held that when enforcement of a public right is involved, exhaustion of private internal remedies is not required.14 CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. At all times pertinent, Alpha was an employer engaged in commerce in a business affecting commerce and Clerks Local 1179 was a labor organization, as those terms are defined in Section 2 (2), (5), (6), and (7) of the Act. 2. Clerks Local 1179 violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act by citing, fining, suing, and refusing to transfer those of its members who refused its call to join in a sympathy strike against Alpha to support the Teamsters unlawful picketing activities at Alpha. 3. The unfair labor practices cited above affect inter- state commerce. THE REMEDY To remedy the violation recited above, it shall be recommended that Clerks Local 1179 be ordered to cease and desist from its punitive actions against those of its members who refused to heed its call to support the Teamsters unlawful campaign against their employer and directed to take certain affirmative action to undo its previous disciplinary action against them. Based on the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of "conditionally upon legal protection.,. 13 And undoubtedly by other business representatives and other agents i4 N.LR.B. v. Industrial Union of Marine and Shipbuilding Workers of America, AFL-CIO, supra,• Local 138, International Union of Operating Engineers, AFL-CIO (Skura), supra. RETAIL CLERKS UNION, LOCAL 1179 89 law and the entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, I hereby issue the following recommended: ORDER15 Clerks Local 1179, its officers, agents, and representa- tives, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Citing or fining its members for refusing to engage in a sympathy strike or to respect a picket line established to accomplish an unlawful objective under the Act. (b) Seeking to collect or collecting any fines from its members levied against them for engaging in the conduct set out in (a), above. (c) Refusing to transfer any member because he has failed to pay a fine levied against him for engaging in the conduct set out in (a), above. 2. Take the following affirmative action designed to effectuate the purposes of the Act: (a) Rescind the fines imposed upon Pereira and other members set out in paragraph II, N, of this Decision and inform each fined member by letter thereof. (b) Refund to each fined member named in paragraph II, N, of this Decision any fines paid, with interest at 6 percent per annum. (c) Expunge from its records , and cause to be expunged from the records of its parent union, any documents or 1R In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the findings, conclusions , and recommended Order herein shall, as provided in Sec. 102.48 of the Rules and Regulations, be adopted by the Board and become its findings , conclusions, and Order, and all objections thereto shall be deemed waived for all purposes. entries purporting to show any fines levied against any members for engaging in the conduct set out in paragraph 1(a), above. (d) Take such action as may be necessary to vacate any judgments ordering its members to pay any fines because they engaged in the conduct set out in paragraph 1(a), above. (e) Process any transfer requests from any of its members fined for engaging in the conduct set out in paragraph 1(a), above, as though such fines had never been assessed. (f) Post at its offices and meeting halls , and all other places where notices to its members are customarily posted, including bulletin boards where such notices are customarily posted at Alpha stores employing its members (if Alpha consents), in conspicuous places, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix."16 Copies of the notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 20, after being duly signed by an authorized representative of Clerks Local 1179, shall be posted immediately upon receipt thereof and maintained for 60 consecutive days. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Clerks Local 1179 to insure that such notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by other material. (g) Notify the Regional Director for Region 20, in writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps Clerks Local 1179 has taken to comply herewith. 16 In the event that the Board 's 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."