Amoco Production Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 3, 1979

239 N.L.R.B. 1195 (N.L.R.B. 1979)

AMOCO PRODUCTION COMPANY
Amoco Production Company and Local Union No. 4-
14, Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers Internation-
al Union, AFL-CIO. Case 23-CA-5285
January 3, 1979
SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND
ORDER
On September 29, 1975, the National Labor Rela-
tions Board issued its Decision and Order' in the
above-entitled proceeding finding that Respondent
had violated Section 8(aX5) and (1) of the National
Labor Relations Act, as amended, by refusing to bar-
gain and by repudiating its collective-bargaining
agreement with the Union after it affiliated with Oil,
Chemical and Atomic Workers Union, AFL-CIO
(OCAW), and changed its name from "National Oil
Workers Union, Local 14," to "Local 4-14, OCAW."
In a Supplemental Decision and Order issued No-
vember 1, 1977, Respondent was ordered to reim-
burse the Union for the dues it failed to withhold and
remit as required by the collective-bargaining agree-
ment. On June 22, 1978, the United States Court of
Appeals for the Fifth Circuit granted the Board's
motion to withdraw the record on review, and the
parties were notified on July 3, 1978, that the Board
had decided sua sponte to reconsider its decision and
that statements of position could be submitted. The
Board received timely statements of position from
the Charging Party and Respondent.
The Board has reconsidered its decision in light of
the entire record and the statements of position and
has decided to affirm its previous Decision and Or-
der as herein amplified.
The issue is whether an employer is relieved of its
obligation to bargain with the union certified to rep-
resent its employees following that union's affiliation
with another labor organiztion, if voting on the ques-
tion of affiliation is limited to union members. The
fact that union merger or affiliation votes are basical-
ly internal, organizational matters, coupled with the
employees' opportunity to exercise their right to
choose whether to participate or to refrain from en-
gaging in concerted activity, persuades us to find that
union affiliation votes limited to union members are
valid.'
s220 NLRB 861.
2233 NLRB 155.
3 In its statement of position and its brief to the Fifth Circuit, Amoco
argues that the Board had implicitly overruled its original Decision and
Order in this case in Jasper Seating Company, nc.., 231 NLRB 1025 (1977)
(Chairmnnn Fanning and Member Murphy dissenting). In Jasper, a Board
majority dismisaed a petition to amend certification by changing the name
of the certified bargaining agent from "Jasper Independent Union" to "Lo-
cal 325, United Furniture Workers of America." because the Jasper Union
An affiliation is the alignment or association of a
union with a national or parent organization. An af-
filiation does not create a new organization, nor does
it result in the dissolution of an already existing orga-
nization. The organizations participating in the affili-
ation determine whether any administrative or orga-
nizational changes are necessary in the affiliating
organization.! The reasons for affiliation are diverse,
but may include a smaller union's desire for bargain-
ing expertise or financial support from a larger orga-
nization, or a lack of leadership within its own ranks.
A larger organization should welcome the addition of
assets and members. The motivation may be simply a
belief in "strength in numbers."
But whatever factors motivate affiliation, affilia-
tion does not directly involve the employment rela-
tion. The status of wages, working conditions, bene-
fits, and grievance procedures is unaffected by the
affiliation vote; the collective-bargaining agreement
between the union and the employer remains effec-
tive until the stated expiration date.
Having no direct effect on the employment rela-
tionship, affiliation vote procedures, including the
voting status of nonmembers, are internal union mat-
ters. Nonmembers may elect to retain their nonmem-
ber, nonvoting, nonparticipatory status, or, if they
are sufficiently interested or concerned about an up-
coming affiliation vote, they may become members
and participate under normal union rules. That the
option to participate in an affiliation election is not
accorded to nonmembers differs little from their ex-
clusion from other internal matters, including strike
votes and contract ratification votes,5 and the selec-
tion of officers, stewards, and negotiators. But we
have not found exclusion of nonmembers in those
instances unlawful or incapacitating.
Since we view an affiliation vote as basically con-
cerned with the organization and structure of the
refused to permit 38 nonmembers of the approximately 86 unit employees to
vote on whether to affiliate with the United Furniture Workers. To the
extent Jasper may be inconsistent with our decision here, it is overruled.
As we stated in The Hamrlton Tool Company, 190 NLRB 571. 574 (1971),
"as the subject voted upon involved an internal union matter relating to the
affiliation of the incumbent union rather than to the employee selection of
a bargaining representative, the preclusion of nonmembers from voting did
not affect the regularity of the election. As the Board has observed under
similar circumstances. when 'adequate opportunity to vote is provided to all
those . . . eligible to vote, the decision of the majonty actually voting is
binding on all.'"
4Contrary to the dissent, unit employees are not subject to a new consti-
tution nor are the "rights and obligations of the parties altered" as a result
of an affiliation. Rather, only union members will be affected by any
change in the constitution and internal union rules and regulations, as they
have voluntarily agreed to do by virtue of the majority within their ranks
having chosen to affiliate. The dissent's conclusion that the identity of the
representative has changed is no more than that-a conclusion.
North Coast Counties District Council of Carpenters, etc. (Cotarti Cabinet
Manufacturing Corp.), 197 NLRB 905 (1972). See M J M Oldsmobile, Inc..
156 NLRB 903 11966). Cf N. LR.B v. General Motors Corporation. 373 U.S.
734 (1963).
1195
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
union and not the representational status of employ-
ees, it is the sort of internal union matter into which
the Board does not ordinarily intrude. The Board de-
termines whether the vote was conducted with ade-
quate due process; including, for example, proper
notice to all members, an orderly vote, and some rea-
sonable precautions to maintain the secrecy of the
ballot. However, we have consistently held that "the
strictures which [the Board] imposes on its own elec-
tion proceedings are not generally applicable in pro-
ceedings to amend certification, or in proceedings
[like] this involving [union] affiliation elections." '
In the instant case, several notices were posted for
nine meetings that were held to discuss the question
of affiliating with OCAW. A representative of
OCAW was present to answer questions. The meet-
ings were open to members and nonmembers alike
and, when questions concerning eligibility arose,
those who attended the meetings were told that the
vote would be limited to members, but that member-
ship and voting eligibility could be acquired by sign-
ing a dues-authorization form.7 Further, the bylaws
of the National Oil Workers Union, Local 14, un-
equivocally state in article V, entitled "Voting," that
"participants in any and all voting pertaining to
union business shall be by members only." Some of
Respondent's employees, not members previously,
did execute authorization forms and voted in the
election.
Because the members were scattered over a large
geographical area, the election was held by mail. On
April 28, 1974, ballots were mailed to the 382 mem-
bers of 480 unit employees named on a current
checkoff list maintained by Respondent. Included
with the ballot was a postage-paid envelope ad-
dressed to a post office box rented especially for the
election. Employees were instructed to vote either
"yes" or "no" to the proposition, "I am in favor of
affiliation with OCAW," and to return the ballot in
the enclosed envelope, unsigned, before May 15,
1974. After the May 15 mail delivery, the election
committee, which did not have the combination to
the post office box, obtained the ballots from the
postal clerk and counted them. The results were 214
in favor of affiliation and 71 against. None of the
unit employees expressed an dissatisfaction with the
election procedures or disputed the result.
We find that there was no denial of due process
6 Quemelco, Inc., 226 NLRB 1398, 1399 (1976). Accord: Goodfriend West-
ern Corp., d/b/a Wrangler Wranch, 232 NLRB 527 (1977): Samuel P. Katz,
d/b/a American Mailers (Plant #2), 231 NLRB 1194 (1977): and North
Electric Company, 165 NLRB 942 (1967). But see Sun Oil Company of Penn-
sylvania v. N.LR.B., 576 F.2d 533 (3d Cir. 1978).
To the extent our concurring colleague may suggest that we re;y on
these courtesies to nonmembers, we note that we do not consider them a
sine qua non
and no impropriety in the affiliation vote procedure.
Adequate notice, discussion, and time for reflection
were provided all members before the election. Since,
in the bylaws and in discussions preceding the vote,
it was explained that only members could vote, the
unit employees could consider that information in
deciding whether to become members. The utmost
precaution was exercised to safeguard the voters' an-
onymity and to prevent tampering with the un-
opened, uncounted ballots. No employees--whether
members or nonmembers-voiced any objection at
any time to the entire affiliation vote process. More-
over, while not dispositive of the issue, the 97 non-
members could not have affected the overwhelming
vote in favor of affiliation.
Any change in the collective-bargaining represen-
tative has the potential to affect the interests of all
employees. But the representative's members are di-
rectly affected. Where the nonmembers have not
willingly been relegated to the status of onlookers
because the membership ranks have been closed to
them, we do not find their exclusion from an affilia-
tion vote disqualifying. The Supreme Court observed
in Scofield "[t]hat the choice to remain a member
results in differences between union members and
[nonmembers] raises no serious issue under § 8(b)(2)
and § 8(a)(3)." 8 The differences resulting from that
choice in this context are no more serious. Thus, we
adhere to our previous Decision and Order and find
that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of
the Act when it abrogated the collective-bargaining
agreement.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Re-
lations Board hereby reaffirms its original Decision
and Order in this proceeding and orders that Re-
spondent, Amoco Production Company, Houston,
Texas, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns,
shall take the action set forth in the Board's original
and supplemental Orders (220 NLRB 861, and 233
NLRB 155).
MEMBER TRUESDALE. concurring:
I agree with my colleagues' conclusion that Re-
spondent violated Section 8(a)(5) of the Act by fail-
ing and refusing to bargain with the Charging Party,
and by repudiating its collective-bargaining agree-
ment with National Oil Workers Union, Local 14
(herein called Union), after the latter had affiliated
with Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers Internation-
al Union, AFL-CIO (herein called OCAW) and
8See Scofield v. N. LR.B. 394 U.S. 423. 435 (1969).
1196
AMOCO PRODUCTION COMPANY
changed its name to Local Union No. 4-14, OCAW.
I reach this conclusion solely on the ground that, in
my judgment, the question of affiliation-i.e., wheth-
er an independent local union desires to affiliate with
another union, be it another independent or a na-
tional union-is a matter of exclusive concern to the
union members. And, so long as the local union has
not improperly denied membership to employees, I
believe that an affiliation vote is not rendered invalid
simply because all employees in the bargaining unit
were not eligible to vote thereon.9 Therefore, I place
no reliance on the fact that all employees in the bar-
gaining unit here, including particularly nonmembers
of the Union, were invited to attend union meetings
where the affiliation proposal was discussed, and
were permitted to become instant union members
upon the execution of a dues-checkoff authorization
and, thereby, become eligible to vote in the affilia-
tion election. That the nonmembers were permitted
to join the Union up to the eve of the election is, in
my view, irrelevant. What is important is that all em-
ployees in the unit had the same opportunity to be-
come members of the Union under that Union's nor-
mal rules and thereby secure a right to participate in
its internal affairs.
As the majority correctly states, an affiliation in
the context here is but the alignment or association
of a union with a national or parent organization.
Here, the affiliation did not create a new labor orga-
nization and did not result in the dissolution of an
already existing one-although it may have strength-
ened the existing organization. The question of affili-
ation is therefore purely an internal union matter
and, as such, is of no concern to the employer or to
nonmembers of the union.
I also agree with my colleagues' comments that,
regardless of the factors that motivate a local union
to affiliate with another labor organization, the affili-
ation does not, and indeed cannot, affect the employ-
ment relationship between the unit employees and
their employer. Nor can it affect the union's obliga-
tion to adhere to and administer fairly on behalf of
all the unit employees the collective-bargaining
agreement with the employer. For, the union has the
same right, and of course the same duty, to represent
fairly all employees in the bargaining unit after the
affiliation as it had before the affiliation. For exam-
ple, a union which, upon affiliation, repudiates the
existing bargaining agreement thereby clearly vio-
lates Section 8(b)(3) of the Act.'" By the same token,
the employer who, as here, repudiates a contract with
the union after that union has voted to affiliate with
The Hamilton Tool Compani, 190 NLRB 571 (1971).
'0 Cf. Gate Citv Optical Compan, 175 NLRB 1059. 1060 (1969).
another labor organization similarly violates its obli-
gation to bargain under Section 8(a)(5). In this con-
nection, there is little difference between a union af-
filiating with another labor organization and an
employer affiliating with an employer association. In
either case, the affiliation does not provide a license
to repudiate an existing collective-bargaining rela-
tionship. Simply stated, the matter of union affilia-
tion is for the union membership to decide, just as
the matter of corporate affiliation is a matter for
management to decide.
Although as stated, the union has the same right
and duty-both before and after an affiliation-to
represent fairly all employees in the bargaining unit,
the bargaining unit employees who are not members
of the union do not have a correlative right to partici-
pate in the union's internal affairs, even when they
do impact on the employment relationship. Thus,
nonmembers have no voice in such internal union
matters as the election of officers or stewards, the
selection of the union bargaining committee, the rati-
fication of a collective-bargaining agreement, or the
decision to strike, all of which have a potentially
greater impact on the working conditions of the unit
employees than an affiliation vote. Yet, the Board
has consistently declined to find that a strike vote or
a contract ratification vote is defective or invalid be-
cause all unit employees were not afforded an oppor-
tunity to participate in the union's action." Similarly,
an employer is not allowed to question the authority
of the union's bargaining committee, its officers, or
its stewards because nonmembers of the union were
not permitted to vote in their selection.
Accordingly, for all of the reasons cited above, and
the fact that the election was conducted with reason-
able assurances of due process, as noted by the ma-
jority, I find nothing improper in the Union's vote to
affiliate with OCAW and, therefore, agree with the
majority that Respondent's refusal to bargain with
the Union following its affiliation violated Section
8(a)(5) and (I) of the Act.
MEMBER JENKINS. dissenting:
For the reasons set forth in my dissent in North
Electric Companyv, 165 NLRB 942 (1967), and in the
majority opinion in Jasper Seating Company. Inc.,
231 NLRB 1025 (1977), 1 would find that the affilia-
tion election conducted herein did not meet the mini-
mum strictures of due process and would accordingl?
dismiss the complaint in its entirety.
I am unpersuaded by my colleagues' position that
the exclusion of nonmembers from participation in
union affiliation elections is legitimized by giving
them an opportunity to Join the union prior to such
I See cases cited at in 5, *upra
1197
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
an election. The majority does not contend that the
excluded nonmembers are not affected by the out-
come of the affiliation vote. Indeed, it is clear that an
affiliation vote is not entirely without impact on all
unit employees, as the majority recognizes that
"[a]ny changes in the collective-bargaining represen-
tative has the potential to affect the interests of all
employees." Thus, the majority's finding that unit
employees must join the union in order to preserve
and protect their representation rights clearly en-
courages unions to coerce employees in the exercise
of their Section 7 rights.
Just as the unit employees were not required to be
union members before participating in the initial se-
lection of their representative which resulted in our
certification, they should not be required to join in
order to, in effect, decide whether that certification
should be amended to reflect a change in the desig-
nation of the representative.
MEMBER PENELLO. dissenting:
For the reasons expressed in my concurring opin-
ion in Jasper Seating Company, Inc.,'2 I would find
the affiliation election conducted herein to be inval-
id. The facts reveal to me that the affiliation ap-
proved by my colleagues in the majority has resulted
in a substantial change in the identity of the employ-
ees' bargaining representative. This change in identi-
ty has raised a question concerning representation
which can only be resolved by a Board-conducted
election in which all unit employees would be given
the opportunity to vote. Inasmuch as I would not
recognize the affiliation, I would dismiss the com-
plaint herein.
The Union was originally an independent union
known as Independent Oil Workers Union, Local 14,
which was certified by the Board in 1963. Some time
thereafter, the Union changed its name to National
Oil Workers Union, Local 14 (NOWU). In 1972, the
board of directors of NOWU voted to dissolve and
recommended that its constitutent locals affiliate
with Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers Internation-
al Union, AFL-CIO (OCAW). Two affiliation elec-
tions were conducted in 1972, but affiliation was not
approved. From 1972 to 1974, NOWU continued to
12 231 NLRB 1025 (1977).
exist as an independent union. In 1974, NOWU's
members voted to affiliate with OCAW. Accord-
ingly, NOWU became Local 4-14 of OCAW.
At the time of the 1974 affiliation election, NOWU
represented approximately 480 unit employees, 97 of
whom did not belong to the Union. This small, inde-
pendent local union has, with today's approval of the
majority of the Board, successfully affiliated with an
international union consisting of some 200,000 mem-
bers. This is not unlike the situation in American
Bridge 13 where a local, independent labor organiza-
tion (the Association) consisting of 304 members
sought to affiliate with the United Steelworkers of
America, a body of over I million members. There
the court noted that, due to the affiliation, "the Asso-
ciation has been supplanted by an international
union as the bargaining representative, and control
over the rights of its members has been transferred
from an independent body . . . to an international
union . '..." 4 By virtue of the fact that the Union
is now subject to the International's constitution, 5
the rights and obligations of the parties have been
altered and the local autonomy of NOWU has di-
minished to the point of extinction.
The question here, as in Jasper Seating, is the same
as that posed in American Bridge: "Will the unit's
members be represented by their own local officers
or by the International Union? " Since the affiliation
of an independent local union with an international
union is a clear and material alteration in the identity
of the employees' bargaining representative, the em-
ployees will no longer be represented by their own
local officers. By approving the affiliation vote
herein, my colleagues have sanctioned not only this
change, but also the concomitant transformation in
the rights of the employees. In so doing, they have
resolved a question concerning representation with-
out the use of the Board's processes. With this I can-
not agree.
1 American Bridge Divsion, United States Steel Corporation v. N.LR.B..
457 F.2d 660 (3d Cir. 1972).
" Id. at 663-664.
' It is true, of course, that only those unit employees who are members of
the Union will actually be subject to the International constitution. But, as
my colleagues have correctly observed, " alny change in the collective-bar-
gaining representative has the potential to affect the interests of all employ-
ees." (Emphasis supplied.) Inasmuch as the Union is under an obligation to
represent the interests not only of its members but also of nonmembers in
the unit, the change in identity of the representative here will directly affect
all unit employees, members and nonmembers alike.
1198