Aluminum Wkrs Trade Council

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 25, 1970

185 N.L.R.B. 69 (N.L.R.B. 1970)

ALUMINUM WKRS TRADES COUNCIL
Aluminum Workers Trades Council and International
Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local No. 768,
AFL-CIO and Melvin C. Fairbanks .Case 19-CB-
1423
August 25, 1970
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS MCCULLOCH, BROWN, AND JENKINS
On January 8, 1970, Trial Examiner Benjamin B.
Lipton issued his Decision in the above-entitled pro-
ceeding, finding that the Respondents, Aluminum
Workers Trades Council' and International Brother-
hood of Electrical Workers, Local No. 768, AFL-
CIO,2 had engaged in and were engaging in certain
unfair labor practices and recommending that they
cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative
action, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's
Decision. Thereafter, the Respondents filed exceptions
to the Trial Examiner's Decision with briefs in support
thereof. The General Counsel filed cross-exceptions
with a brief in support thereof and in opposition
to Respondents' exceptions.
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.
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 here-
by affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial
Examiner's Decision, the exceptions and briefs, and
the entire record in this case, and hereby adopts
the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of
the Trial Examiner only to the extent consistent here-
with.
The Trial Examiner found that the Respondents
violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act by threatening
and attempting to cause Anaconda Aluminum Compa-
ny (herein called Anaconda or the Employer) to
discharge Melvin C. Fairbanks under an existing
union-security agreement for reasons other than his
failure to tender the periodic dues and initiation fees
uniformly required as a condition of acquiring or
retaining membership in the Council. We disagree.
The facts are not substantially in dispute and are
fully described in the Trial Examiner's Decision. The
Respondent Council is composed of 11 constituent
Herein called the Council
' Herein called Local 768
69
local unions, including the Respondent Local 768
and Aluminum Workers Local 320 (herein called
Local 320). It is, and since 1955 has been, the certified
bargaining representative of all Anaconda's production
and maintenance employees with a contract containing
a union-security provision requiring membership in
the Council as a condition of employment.'
Melvin C. Fairbanks, the Charging Party, was hired
by Anaconda as a "pourer" in 1955, at which time
he became a member of Local 320° and executed
a dues check-off authorization. On August 11, 1967,
he transferred, at his own request, to a position
in the electrical department classified as "substation
attendant." Shortly thereafter, Fairbanks requested
a membership application card from Local 768 and
was advised by its shop steward that he would have
to pay the full initiation fee provided in the bylaws5
for his job classification.' Fairbanks submitted his
application on October 6 and, on October 12, 1967,
was accepted into membership by Local 768 upon
payment of $10. On November 11, 1967, Fairbanks
was promoted to substation operator, a normal pro-
gression from substation attendant.' The job of substa-
tion operator is a "journeyman" position and, for
purposes of the Local 768 dues and admissions fee
schedules, is thus subject to the higher admissions
fee listed for that category rather than falling within
"other classifications" paying lower rates.
' The union-security clause itself is not in dispute and is fully cited
in the Trial Examiner's Decision
Membership in the Council, as provided in its constitution and bylaws,
consists of all employees in the certified unit who are members in
good standing "of the appropriate member Local " The Council's constitu-
tion and bylaws do not spell out the manner of determining what is
"the appropriate member Local" and, according to the record, this determi-
nation is traditionally and in practice made by the individual employee
himself on the basis of the work he performs The question of what
constitutes "membership in good standing" is determined by each of
the constituent local unions in accordance with its constitution and
bylaws
Except for a uniform monthly "per capita tax" which all members
must pay, the Council does not prescribe the amount of dues and initiation
fees which its constituent locals may charge Nor does its constitution
and bylaws state any policy as to whether the locals may require additional
fees of employees who transfer from one constituent local to another
upon changing jobs within the bargaining unit The record shows that
at least one constituent local other than 320 and 768 charges a reduced
initiation fee in such circumstances
' As a "charter member" Fairbanks did not pay any initiation fee
to Local 320
' The bylaws of Respondent Local 768 provide for escalating "admissions
fee" and dues schedules based upon the employee 's job classification
The schedule of admissions fees ranges from $10 (for clerical employees
and "other classifications ") to $62 50 for the "journeyman" classification.
A copy of the Local 768 constitution and bylaws was posted on the
bulletin board at the substation
Since the classification of "substation attendant" was not listed in
the admissions fee schedule, the Local 768 steward advised Fairbanks
that he would have to pay the $10 fee specified under the general
category of "other classifications "
' According to Fairbanks' uncontradicted testimony, the job of substation
attendant is a trainee position from which employees advance to substation
operator and substation chief operator
185 NLRB No. 16
70 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Therefore, shortly after his promotion, Fairbanks
executed a new check-off authorization," increasing
the amount of his regular dues deductions from $4.15
to $7.05, the sum specified for "journeyman." In
January or February 1968, Local 768 demanded that
Fairbanks pay an additional sum of $52.50 to meet
the full initiation fee obligation of $62.50 as provided
in the bylaws for journeyman positions. Fairbanks
refused to pay this additional amount. More than
a year later, on March 19, 1969, Respondent Local
768 wrote separate letters to Fairbanks" and to the
Council advising that Fairbanks was no longer a
member in good standing with Local 768 and had,
in fact, been dropped from membership for failure
to pay his initiation fee as required by the Local's
bylaws.10 Local 768 therefore requested that the Coun-
cil, pursuant to its bylaws, also suspend Fairbanks
from membership, and that "the Company be notified
of this action and that Brother Fairbanks be terminat-
ed from his employment" under the union-security
agreement. By letter of April 21, 1969, the Respondent
Council gave Fairbanks 15 days in which to pay
all back dues and initiation fees to Local 768, advising
that his failure to do so ". . . will result in your
discharge from employment with Anaconda ... pur-
suant to Articles [sic] 3 Section 2 of the current
Collective Bargaining Agreement."" On April 22,
1969, Fairbanks mailed to Local 768 his check for
$52.50, plus the three checks for dues, which previous-
ly had been refunded to him. Fairbanks was thereupon
restored to membership in good standing.
The basic issue presented is whether, under the
provisions of Section 8(a)(3) and (b)(2) of the Act,
a labor organization may lawfully require its members
to make a further initiation fee payment upon their
promotion from a lower to a higher paying job classifi-
cation within the bargaining unit, and threaten to
cause their discharge under a union-security agreement
for failure to do so.12 Section 8(a)(3) and (b)(2) of
' Dues deducted pursuant to the check-off authorizations are transmitted
by Anaconda to the Council The latter, in turn, divides these dues
among the several constituent local unions
The letter to Fairbanks explained that his suspension from membership
was" in accordance with Article XXII, Section 6 of the I B E W Constitu-
tion, which requires payment of initiation fees within 90 days, and
Article XXIII, Section 3, which gives the Local Union the right to
refuse dues until full payment of all indebtedness " Enclosed in
this letter was copy of the I B E W constitution, the Local 768 bylaws,
and a copy of the letter sent to Respondent Council
i" Because of Fairbanks' failure to pay the initiation fee, Local 768 refused
to accept his dues, making him 3 months delinquent in dues payments
" The Council's letter charged Fairbanks with failing to maintain
his "membership in good standing in the appropriate Local Union" as
required by the Council's constitution
" The General Counsel contends that the basic and indispensable
issue which must be decided is whether, under the union-security agree-
ment, the Respondents could lawfully require Fairbanks to join Local
768 upon his transfer within the bargaining unit to the electrical depart-
the Act makes it an unfair labor practice for an
employer to discriminate, and for a labor organization
to cause or attempt to cause an employer so to
discriminate, against an employee under a union-
security agreement for nonmembership in the union
if such membership was denied or terminated for
reasons other than the employee's failure "to tender
the periodic dues and the initiation fees uniformly
required as a condition of acquiring or retaining
membership." The answer to the basic issue, therefore,
depends on whether the sum of $52.50 which Respond-
ents required Fairbanks to pay on pain of discharge
constituted "initiation fees" which are "uniformly
required" within the meaning of Section 8(a)(3) and
(b)(2) of the Act.
Based on the entire record, we find that the $52.50
here involved was, in fact, intended by Respondents
as an initiation fee." Specifically, it represented the
difference between the $10 initiation fee which Fair-
banks paid on first joining Local 768 as a substation
attendant and the initiation fee of $62.50 prescribed
in its bylaws for the classification of journeyman.
The fact that the Local 768 established an escalating
schedule of initiation fees is of itself not unlawful.
The Board has long held, with court approval, that
a labor organization holding a union-security agree-
ment may lawfully charge, as a condition of acquiring
or retaining membership, different rates for initiation
fees and dues provided that they are based on a
reasonable general classification; that is, one that is
not discriminatory. 14 Thus, dues based on the employ-
ees' earnings have been held to be nondiscriminatory."
The rationale which permits labor organizations to
charge different dues, based on reasonable and nondis-
criminatory criteria, in our opinion applies equally
to initiation fees . In the instant case it is neither
contended nor established in the record that the criteri-
on of job classifications for charging different initiation
merit The Trial Examiner considered it unnecessary to decide that issue
because he found, contrary to the General Counsel's contention, that
Fairbanks had voluntarily applied for membership in Respondent Local
768 upon his transfer to the job of substation attendant and, therefore,
had assumed the obligations of membership in that Local We agree
with the Trial Examiner and find no merit in the General Counsel's
contention that Fairbanks' application for membership in Local 768 was
not voluntary because Fairbanks took that step thinking he had to join
that Local in order to work in the electrical department Cf Ormet
Corporation, 151 NLRB 117, in which the employee's transfer of member-
ship was clearly involuntary
" It is not contended , nor is there evidence in the record showing,
that Local 768's charge of $52 50 was a penalty, a fine, or some other
assessment disguised as an initiation fee See Anaconda Copper Mining
Company, 110 NLRB 1925, 1926
" Cf, Food Machinery and Chemical Corporation, 99 NLRB 1430,
1433, The Electric Auto-Light Company, 92 NLRB 1073, 1077, enfd
196 F 2d 500 (C A 6)
" Local 409, International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees and
Motion Picture Machine Operators of the United States and Canada,
AFL-CIO (RCA Service Company), 140 NLRB 759, fn 1
ALUMINUM WKRS TRADES COUNCIL
fees was based on discriminatory considerations or
was inherently unfair. Nor is it contended or estab-
lished that the Local 768 initiation fee schedule was
not "uniformly required" of all employees who prog-
ressed from lower to higher job classifications. Rather,
the presumption that the initiation fee schedule was
uniformly applied is buttressed by Fairbanks' testimo-
ny that he knew another employee who, upon promo-
tion from substation attendant to operator, paid the
additional sum of $52.50 toward his new initiation
fee obligation.
While we agree with the Trial Examiner that a
labor organization which is party to a union-security
contract must make perfectly clear to the employees
what their initiation fee and dues obligations are,
we disagree with his finding that, unlike its dues
schedule, the bylaws of Local 768 failed clearly to
specify the initiation fee obligation. For, both the
dues and the initiation fee schedules are based on
the same job classifications and were contained in
the same copy of the bylaws posted on the bulletin
board at the substation. Inasmuch as Fairbanks, upon
his promotion to substation operator (a classification
not expressly delineated in either the dues or the
initiation fee schedule), obviously was aware of the
higher dues which applied, since he voluntarily execut-
ed a new dues check-off authorization increasing his
regular dues deductions to the amount specified under
"journeyman" classification, he must, or should, also
have been aware of the higher admissions fee schedule.
Under all the circumstances, we are persuaded that
Fairbanks was fully aware of his obligation in this
respect.
In view of the foregoing, we conclude that Respond-
ents did not violate Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act
by threatening Fairbanks with discharge under the
union-security agreement if he failed to pay his initia-
tion fee.16 Accordingly, we shall dismiss the complaint
herein in its entirety.
71
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
BENJAMIN B. LIPTON, Trial Examiner: This proceeding
was tried before me on October 21, 1969, in Kalispell,
Montana, upon a complaint by the General Counsel of
the Board,' alleging that the above-captioned Respondents
violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act At the hearing,
all parties participated' and were afforded full opportunity
to present relevant evidence, to examine and cross-examine
witnesses, to argue orally on the record, and to file briefs.
After the close, a brief was filed by General Counsel and
by Respondent Local 768.
Upon the entire record in the case, including the briefs,
and from my observation of the witnesses , I make the
following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. COMMERCE AND LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
Anaconda Aluminum Company, herein called the
Employer or Anaconda, operates at Columbia Falls, Mon-
tana, an aluminum reduction plant (the sole facility involved
herein), from which annually it has a direct outflow in
interstate commerce valued in excess of $50,000. According-
ly, Anaconda is an employer engaged in commerce within
the meaning of the Act.
Aluminum Workers Trades Council of Columbia Falls,
Montana, AFL-CIO, herein called Respondent Council,
is organized to represent in a single labor organization
all production and maintenance employees of Anaconda
and is composed of 11 specific constituent local unions,
including so far as pertinent, International Brotherhood
of Electrical Workers, Local No. 768, AFL-CIO, herein
called Respondent Local 768, and Aluminum Workers Local
320 It is admitted, and I find, that Respondent Council,
Respondent Local 768, and Aluminum Workers Local 320
are labor organizations within the meaning of the Act.
II. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Essential Issue
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Rela-
tions Board hereby orders that the complaint herein
be, and it hereby is, dismissed in its entirety.
Did Respondents restrain and coerce employees in viola-
tion of Section 8(b)(1)(A) by threatening and attempting
to cause Anaconda, under a union-security contract (not
as such in issue), to discharge Melvin C. Fairbanks because
he failed to pay a further admission or initiation fee demand-
ed of him when he was promoted from substation attendant
to substation operator?
" The fact that Respondents continued to accept dues from Fairbanks
for a considerable period after Fairbanks became delinquent in his initiation
fee obligation does not establish that the delinquency was condoned
' The original charge and an amended charge were filed, respectively,
on or about April 29 and July 31, 1969 The amended complaint thereon
was issued on September 24, 1969
' Neither of the Respondents has been represented by legal counsel
72 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
B. Relevant Facts'
On December 1, 1955, Respondent Council was certified
by the Board as exclusive representative for all production
and maintenance employees of Anaconda at the Columbia
Falls plant-embracing about 800 employees in the unit.
Successive collective-bargaining contracts between Anacon-
da and Respondent Council covering the certified unit
have at all times material contained the following union
security clause:'
Section 2: Within thirty-one (31 ) days after the
date of this Agreement or the commencement of
employment , whichever is the later, all present and
new employees of the Company performing work cov-
ered by this Agreement will become members of the
Council and maintain such membership in good stand-
ing throughout the life of this Agreement as a condition
of employment , provided however , that the Company
shall not require such Council membership if the Com-
pany or its representatives (a) have reasonable grounds
for believing that such membership was not available
to the employee involved on the same terms and condi-
tions generally applicable to other members or (b)
if the Company or its representatives have reasonable
grounds for believing that membership was denied
or terminated for reasons other than failure of the
employee to tender the periodic dues and the initiation
fees uniformly required by such Council as a condition
of acquiring or retaining membership.'
As provided in its constitution and bylaws , membership
in Respondent Council consists of employees in the certified
unit who are members in good standing "of the appropriate
member Local." The contract also contains provision for
checkoff, upon written authorization of the employee, in
the following form and terms:
I, the undersigned , hereby direct the Anaconda Alu-
minum Company to deduct from my wages the duly
approved monthly dues and/or initiation fee. This
amount to be advised in writing by the Council to
the Company.'
After Fairbanks was hired as a pourer in 1955, he became
a member of Aluminum Workers Local 320-without pay-
ment of initiation fee because he was a "charter member."
By virtue of his checkoff authorizations , as above, his
regular membership dues were deducted and paid to
Respondent Council . On August 11, 1967, Fairbanks was
transferred at his request from the classification of pourer
to substation attendant . Thereafter, he voluntarily sought
to apply for membership in Respondent Local 768, because,
' The pertinent facts in the case are substantially undisputed
Taken from the most recent agreement effective from October 15,
1968, until March 1, 1972
Emphasis supplied
The Council, in turn, allocated and remitted all or part of the
checked-off funds to the appropriate member local It is provided in
Council's bylaws (art 111) that-"All persons eligible for membership
in this Trades Council shall submit the initiation fee and one (1) months
Per Capita Tax by cash or written authorization of checkoff," and that
candidates for membership "shall be proposed by the appropriate affiliated
Local Union, and shall assume the responsibility for Initiation Fees
and Per Capita Tax of proposed member "
as he testified, all other employees at the substation belonged
to such local.'
Among the 11 constituent locals of Respondent Council,
there are different scales of initiation fees and dues. It
was a practice among certain of these locals to levy a
reduced initiation fee of $5 (which Fairbanks called a
transfer fee) when an employee applied for a transfer of
membership from one local to another after a change in
job classification. Fairbanks was not aware that Respondent
Local 768 did not follow such practice. He spoke to Shop
Steward Peterson, of Local 768, offering to pay a $5 transfer
fee, but Peterson mentioned the necessity of a full admission
fee As pertinent, the bylaws of Respondent Local 768
provide a schedule of "admission fees," as follows:
Journeyman ... . . . . . . $62.50
Welder..... ..... .... 62.50
Equipment Operators ... . . . . . . . . . . . 60.00
Powderman . . . . . .. , . . . . 60.00
T.V. Maintenance Installers .. ..... 50.00
Apprentices ... ... .. .. ... 50.00
Sub-Station Apprentices ....... .... . 50.00
Groundman ....... ...... . .... 50.00
Government Employees .... ........ . 10 00
Telephone Operators ................. 10.00
Office Workers ... ... ........ ... 10 00
Other Classifications .. ............... 10.00
On October 6, 1967, Fairbanks filed application, and on
October 12, 1967, he was accepted into membership of
Respondent Local 768. As substation attendant, not specified
in the schedule of admission fees, above, he paid $10,
the amount provided in the general category of "other
classifications." On November 11, 1967, Fairbanks was
reclassified as substation operator, a normal progression
from substation attendant. He executed a new checkoff
authorization for dues deduction of $7.05, raised from
the previous dues of $4.15, conforming with the specific
monthly dues schedule in the bylaws of Respondent Local
768.
As testified, in January and February 1968, Respondent
Local 768 demanded that Fairbanks pay an additional
sum of $52.50, which would bring him up to the $62.50
initiation fee prescribed in the bylaws for journeyman,
as he was now regarded by Local 768 in the classification
of substation operator. Fairbanks refused. More than a
year transpired. On March 19, 1969, Respondent Local
768 wrote separate letters to Respondent Council and Fair-
banks, stating that Fairbanks "was no longer in good stand-
ing" because he "refused to pay initiation fee required
by our Local Union's Bylaws;" that "existing dues from
this member" have been refused; that he is now 3 months'
delinquent in dues and stands suspended ; and that Respond-
ent Council is requested to notify Anaconda to terminate
Fairbanks pursuant to the contract. On April 21, 1969,
Respondent Council wrote to Fairbanks extending him
an additional 15 days from date "in which to pay all
' It is unnecessary to decide whether Fairbanks would have been
protected against discharge if he had persisted in maintaining membership
in Aluminum Workers Local 320
ALUMINUM WKRS TRADES COUNCIL
back dues and an initiation fee" of $52.50, and indicating
that failure to comply "will result in your discharge from
employment" under the collective-bargaining agreement.
Fairbanks then paid the additional $52.50 in view of the
threat of discharge, and resubmitted to Respondent Local
768 the "three refund checks" on his monthly dues. There-
after, he was restored to membership in good standing.
Respondent Council admitted that determination of the
question of membership in good standing, for purposes
of the union-security contract, is "left pretty much" to
the local union. Respondent Council's president testified
that basically it is the employee who makes his own decision:
"If he wants to be a good union man, he joins the appropriate
union." Asked "how the Council decides which jobs are
in the jurisdiction of which locals within the Council,"
he answered:
Hum, that is a tough one. How we decide it is basically
by the type of work that is done by the individual
or crew that each individual employee works with
and under out there at the plant. This has bearing
on what type of work is done, whether it is mechanical,
electrical, or what not. This is where it has been
established from the day one, that this is the way
it has always been. Whenever anybody transfers into
one of the crews-
CONCLUSIONS
The Act generally provides that it shall be an unfair
labor practice for an employer to discriminate, and for
a labor organization to cause or attempt to cause an employ-
er to discriminate, against employees for joining or not
joining a labor organization, with the specific proviso or
exception that membership in a labor organization may
be required as a condition of employment by reason of
a union-security agreement conforming to the provisions
of the statute.' A further proviso states, "That no employer
shall justify any discrimination against an employee for
nonmembership in a labor organization . . . if he has
reasonable grounds for believing that membership was
denied or terminated for reasons other than the failure
of the employee to tender the periodic dues and the initiation
fees uniformly required as a condition of acquiring or
retaining membership."
As a specific exception to the Act's general prohibition
of discrimination against employees, union-security clauses
are narrowly and strictly construed. Thus, for example,
only the statutory bargaining representative of the employees
is permitted to require payment of its membership dues
as a condition of employment under a valid union-security
contract s
The Board has recognized that "the requirement of fair
dealing owed employees under union-security agreements
includes the duty to inform the employee of his rights
and obligations respecting such agreements so that the
employee may take all necessary steps to protect his job."
° Sec 8(a)(3) and (b)(2)
" E g , Sucrest Corporation, 165 NLRB No 72
73
Thus, where parties rely upon oral agreements, or, as
a logical extension, upon unwritten union security require-
ments, they must "satisfy a stringent burden of proof in
establishing the existence and precise terms and conditions
of the agreement and in further establishing that affected
employees have been fully and unmistakably notified there-
of."io
To acquire or retain membership in Respondent Council
for purposes of the Act, especially in view of the inherently
diffused type of membership structure in this certified bar-
gaining agent, it should have been made unmistakably
clear to the employees the precise amounts and terms
of the required initiation fees and dues for all classifications
in order to provide them with ready knowledge of the
full effects of the union-security agreement upon their jobs.
Expressly contemplated within the terms of the instant
contract are transfers and promotions among approximately
800 employees in the single bargaining unit, while all such
employees are required to maintain membership in one
of the 11 component local unions comprising Respondent
Council. The regular membership dues are uniformly
required and plainly specified pursuant to the bylaws of
Respondent Local 768, in question. However, initiation
or admission fees are scheduled only according to certain
classifications without attempting to delineate all classifica-
tions. Such initiation fees are demanded by Respondent
Local 768 not only for purposes of admission into member-
ship, but also where an existing member is transferred
or promoted into a new job classification within its claimed
work jurisdiction, as in the case of Fairbanks.
Reference in the statute to "initiation fees" must be
narrowly construed and accorded the natural meaning of
the term; i.e., as uniformly required for the purposes of
admission into membership of a labor organization. The
apparent interest of Respondent Local 768, and indirectly
of Respondent Council, was to exact a larger share of
financial support from a member who attains a higher
classification or salary. This is already reflected in the
bylaws by the appropriate provision for payment of higher
membership dues. In the classification of substation opera-
tor, Fairbanks tendered such higher dues, which were accept-
ed by Respondent Local 768 over a substantial period
of time. Here in question, the amount of $52.50 was demand-
ed of Fairbanks as representing an additional initiation
fee over and above the sum he had already fully paid
when he initially acquired membership in Respondent Local
768."
It cannot properly be held that such an additional payment
of $52.50 constitutes an initiation fee or periodic dues
uniformly required within the sanction of the provisos
of Section 8(a)(3). Even if considered as some other form
° Pacific Iron and Metal Co, 175 NLRB No 114
" It seems anomalous that Respondent Local 768 would accept Fair-
banks' checked off regular dues in the job of substation operator and
then make claim against him for failure to pay a fee purportedly for
admission into membership After receiving such dues for more than
a year, Respondent Local 768 refused to accept further dues for 3
months in order to effect its suspension of Fairbanks from membership
In the circumstances , its reliance on Fairbanks ' failure to pay dues as
a basis for seeking to enforce the union security contract is devoid
of any merit
74 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
of charge "uniformly required," such as an assessment,
it is well established that the union security clause in
the contract cannot be invoked in an attempt to collect
such a charge.12 Furthermore, even assuming arguendo that
Respondent Local 768 could validly invoke the union securi-
ty clause to collect an additional initiation fee from an
existing member in good standing when such member trans-
fers into a new classification, I find that Fairbanks did
fully comply with the bylaws of Local 768 in the present
circumstances. Thus, the schedule of initiation or admission
fees in the bylaws, supra, does not specify a fee for the
classification of substation operator, but rather provides
the fee of $10 for "other classifications." And Fairbanks
had already paid the $10 fee within this category Indeed,
he had good reason so to construe the bylaws, and to
assume that Respondent Local 768 accepted such interpreta-
tion at the time of his transfer to substation attendant.
Accordingly, it is concluded that Respondents Council
and Local 768 violated Section 8(b)(1)(A), as alleged, by
threatening and attempting to cause Anaconda to discharge
Fairbanks for reasons other than the failure to tender
the periodic dues and initiation fees uniformly required
as a condition of acquiring or retaining membership."
III THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR
PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of Respondents as set forth in section
II, above, occurring in connection with the Employer's
operations described in section I, above, have a close,
intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and com-
merce among the several States and tend to lead to labor
disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free
flow of commerce.
2. Respondent Council, Respondent Local 768, and Alu-
minum Workers Local 320 are labor organizations within
the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3 By threatening to cause Anaconda to discharge Melvin
C. Fairbanks for failure to pay a fee, other than the periodic
dues and initiation fees uniformly required as a condition
of acquiring or retaining membership in Respondent Council
under the terms of the existing union-security agreement,
Respondent Council and Respondent Local 768 have
engaged in and are 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 meaning of Section
2(6) and (7) of the Act.
IV. THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent Council and Respondent
Local 768 have engaged in certain unfair labor practices,
I shall recommend that they cease and desist therefrom
and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate
the policies of the Act.
It has been found that these Respondents violated Section
8(b)(1)(A) of the Act by threatening to cause Fairbanks'
discharge for failure to pay an additional initiation fee
of $52.50, which they could not legally require of Fairbanks
pursuant to the existing union security agreement As it
appears in the evidence that Fairbanks paid this sum only
as a result of the unlawful coercion practiced upon him,
to effectuate the purposes of the Act I shall recommend
that Respondents, jointly and severally, reimburse Fairbanks
in the amount of $52.50, with interest at the rate of 6
percent per annum 14
[Recommended Order omitted from publication.]
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Anaconda Aluminum Company is an employer engaged
in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2) and (7)
of the Act.
" Assessments are not periodic dues even though levied uniformly
among members, since they do not contain the necessary element of
regularity or periodicity International Harvester Company, Foundry Divi-
sion, (Louisville Works), 95 NLRB 730
" See, e g , Ormet Corporation, 151 NLRB 117
° Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716