UAW, Local 469

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 24, 1975

221 N.L.R.B. 748 (N.L.R.B. 1975)

748 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
International Union, United Automobile , Aerospace
and Agricultural Implement Workers of America,
Local 469 and Master Lock Company. Case 30-
CB-725
November 24, 1975
customers outside the State of Wisconsin. The
complaint alleges, Respondent admits, and we find
that Master Lock Company is an employer engaged
in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and
(7) of the Act, and that it will effectuate the purposes
of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein.
DECISION AND ORDER
By CHAIRMAN MURPHY AND MEMBERS
FANNING AND PENELLO
Upon charges duly filed, the General Counsel of
the National Labor Relations Board, by the Regional
Director for Region 30, issued a complaint and
notice of hearing October 29, 1974, against Interna-
tional Union, United Automobile Aerospace and
Agricultural Implement Workers of America, Local
469. The complaint alleged that Respondent had
engaged in, and was engaging in, certain unfair labor
practices affecting commerce within the meaning of
Section 8(b)(1)(A) and Section 2(6) of the National
Labor Relations Act, as amended. Copies of the
charge and complaint and notice of hearing were
duly served on the parties. On November 4, 1974,
Respondent filed its answer to the complaint denying
the commission of unfair labor practices and request-
ing that the complaint be dismissed.
Thereafter, the parties entered into a stipulation of
facts and jointly requested that the proceeding be
transferred directly to the Board for findings of fact,
conclusions of law, and order. The parties waived a
hearing before, and the making of findings of fact
and conclusions of law by, an Administrative Law
Judge, and stipulated that no oral testimony is
necessary or desired by any of the parties. The
parties also agreed that the charge, complaint and
notice of hearing, the answer, and the stipulation,
including the exhibits attached thereto, constitute the
entire record in this case.
On January 13, 1975, the Board issued its Order
approving the stipulation, transferring the proceed-
ing to the Board, and setting February 7, 1975, as the
time for filing briefs. Briefs have been filed on behalf
of Respondent and General Counsel.
The Board has considered the stipulation, includ-
ing exhibits, the briefs, and the entire record in this
proceeding, and hereby makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER
Master Lock Company is a Delaware corporation
engaged in the manufacture of locks at its Milwau-
kee, Wisconsin , facility. During the past calendar
year, a representative period, the Company sold and
shipped goods valued in excess of $50,000 directly to
221 NLRB No. 125
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The complaint alleges, Respondent admits, and we
find that Respondent is a labor organization within
the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
Respondent and the Company were parties to a
collective-bargaining agreement which expired on
June 1, 1974. On the expiration date Respondent
began an economic strike and picketing. On July 13,
Respondent and the Company entered into a strike
settlement agreement and the strike and picketing
ended. During the period June 10 through July 8, five
striking employees mailed letters of resignation from
membership in Respondent which were received by
Respondent. Thereafter, and before the strike and
picketing ceased, these five employees crossed the
picket line and returned to work.
By identical letters dated August 8, Respondent
informed the five employees that, because of their
crossing the picket line and returning to work during
the strike, charges had been filed against them for
conduct unbecoming a union member. By identical
letters dated September 13, the five were informed by
Respondent that a hearing was to be conducted
concerning these charges and of the time and place
of the hearing. The employees did not appear at this
hearing and, by letters dated October 4, Respondent
informed each of them that they had been found
guilty of conduct unbecoming a union member. By
letters dated October 8, the employees were informed
that the judgment of the trial committee for the
misconduct of which they had been found guilty was
that they pay to Respondent 50 percent of all money
earned while working at Master Lock Company
during the strike. Two of the employees were also
informed that they were required to refund all money
received from Respondent's strike benefit fund. The
employees were allowed 5 days to pay the penalties
imposed. By letters dated October 11, Respondent
notified the employees that under its International
constitution they owed a $20 reinstatement fee, plus
dues for the months of June through October.
The complaint alleges that during the period in
which Respondent engaged in a strike and picketing
against the Company the five employees properly
resigned from the Union, abandoned the strike, and
returned to work. The complaint further alleges that
. UAW, LOCAL 469
the demands for money earned during the strike,
dues, reinstatement fees, and refund of earned strike
benefits constituted fines and that the imposition of
these fines by Respondent upon the employees for
conduct occurring after their resignations restrained
and coerced them in the exercise of rights guaranteed
by Section 7 in violation of Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the
Act. Respondent denies any violation, arguing that
the purported resignation of the five employees did
not comply with the requirements of the Internation-
al Union's constitution which was controlling on
Respondent and its members.
It is clear that a union's attempt to impose fines on
employees for crossing picket lines and working
during a strike following valid resignation from the
union is a violation of Section 8(b)(1)(A). N. L.. R.B. v.
Granite-State Joint Board, Textile Workers Union of
America, Local 1029, AFL-CIO [International Paper
Box Machine Co.], 409 U.S. 213 (1972); Booster
Lodge No. 405, International Association of Machinists
and Aerospace Workers [Boeing Co.] v. N.L.R.B., 412
U.S. 84 (1973). The issue,in this case, therefore, turns
upon' whether the five employees had validly re-
signed' from Respondent when they `abandoned the
strike and returned to work. Respondent contends
that the UAW constitution provides a clear and
unequivocal method for resignation from union
membership, that the five employees did not comply
with this prescribed- method, and that they remained
members of the Union because their attempted
resignations were ineffective. The General Counsel
contends, on the other hand, that Respondent's
prescribed method for resignation is so narrowly
restricted that it effectively- denies members a .method
of voluntarily withdrawing from the Union and that
compliance with its requirements is therefore unnec-
essary.
The resignation provision involved here is that
contained in the UAW International constitution
which, in this case, would allow members to submit
resignations' only within the last 10 days of the
calendar year which would become effective 60 days
after the end of the calendar year. The same
resignation provision was involved in International
Union, Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Imple-
ment Workers, UAW, and its Local No. 647 (General
Electric Co.), 197 NLRB 608 (1972), and Local 1384,
United Automobile, Aerospace, Agricultural Implement
Workers, UA W (Ex-Cell-O Corporation), 219 NLRB
No. 123 (1975). In both cases the Board held that the
restriction upon resignations to the last 10 days of the
calendar year followed by a 60-day waiting period
was too narrowly limited and did not constitute an
effective bar to resignation at other times. It follows
that the resignations submitted by the five employees
were effective to terminate their membership in the
749
Union and that Respondent violated Section
8(b)(1)(A) in seeking to impose upon them various
'penalties for having abandoned the strike and gone
back to work.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR
PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of Respondent set forth in section
III, above, occurring in connection with the Compa-
ny's operations described in section I, above, have a
close, intimate, and substantial relationship to trade,
traffic, and commerce among the several States, and
tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and
obstructing commerce and the free flow of com-
merce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has engaged in,
and is engaging in, certain unfair labor practices, we
shall order it to cease and desist therefrom. In order
to effectuate the purposes of the Act, we shall also
order Respondent to rescind the unlawful fines,
refund any money paid to it as a result of the f nes,
with interest computed at 6 percent per annum, and
post the notice attached as ' an appendix to this'
Decision and Order.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within
the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. The Respondent is a labor organization within
the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act,
3: By imposing fines and other penalties upon
former members who have resigned from the Union
for their postresignation crossing of picket lines, and
working during the strike at Masterl ock Company,
Respondent restrained and coerced employees in the
exercise of rights guaranteed them in Section 7 of the
Act, and thereby 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 commerce within the mean-
ing of Section 2(6) of the Act.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended , the National Labor
Relations Board hereby orders that the Respondent,
International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace
and Agricultural Implement Workers of America,
Local 469, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, its officers, agents,
and representatives , shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
750 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL
(a) Restraining or coercing employees who have
resigned from, and are no longer members of,
Respondent, in the exercise of the rights guaranteed
them in the Section 7 of the Act, by imposing fines or
other penalties on such employees because of their
postresignation conduct in working at Master Lock
Company during the strike which began in June
1974.
(b) In any like or related manner restraining or
,coercing employees in the exercise of the rights
guaranteed them in the Section I of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action designed
to effectuate the purposes of the Act:
(a) Rescind the fines and other penalties levied
against employees Rayford, Ehley, Bacon, Fugitt,
and Johnson, including payments of money earned
at Master Lock Company, refund of strike benefit
funds payments, reinstatement fees, and dues,
because of their' postresignation work for Master
Lock Company, during the strike which began in
June ,1'974, and refund to them any money'that they
may have paid as a result of such fines, plus interest
computed at'the rate of 6 percent per annum.
'(b) Post at its business office and meeting hall
copies of, the attached notice marked "Appendix." i
Copies of said notice, On' forms provided by the
Regional Director for Region 30, after being duly
signed by an authorized representative, shall be
posted by Respondent immediately upon receipt
thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive
days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all
places where notices to members are customarily
posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respon-
dent to insure that said notices are not altered,
defaced, or covered by any other material.
(c) -Mail to the Regional Director for Region 30
signed copies of said notice for- posting by Master
Lock Company, if the Company be willing, in places
where notices to employees are customarily posted.
(d) Notify the Regional Director for Region 30, in
writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order,
LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
what steps Respondent has taken to comply here-
with.
, In the event that 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
APPENDIX
NOTICE To MEMBERS
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An, Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT restrain or coerce employees who
have resigned from the Union and who, in the
exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of
the National Labor Relations Act, worked after
their resignation at Master Lock Company,
during the strike which began in June 1974, by
imposing fines or other penalties.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner
restrain or coerce employees in the exercise, of the
rights guaranteed them in Section 7 of the
National Labor Relations Act.
WE WILL rescind the fines and other penalties
levied against Alto May Rayford, Francis Ehley,
Carrol Bacon, Mary Louise Fugitt, and Joann
Johnson because they worked at Master Lock
Company, after their resignation from the Union
during the strike'which began in June 1974, and
refund any money they may have paid as a' result
of such fines or other penalties plus interest.
INTERNATIONAL UNION,
UNITED AUTOMOBILE,
AEROSPACE AND
AGRICULTURAL
IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF
AMERICA, LOCAL 469