Auto Workers Local 2017 (Federal Mogul)

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 30, 1987

283 N.L.R.B. 799 (N.L.R.B. 1987)

AUTO WORKERS LOCAL 2017 (FEDERAL MOGUL)
Local 2017, International Union, United Automobile,
Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers
of America (UAW) (Federal Mogul Workers
Association) (Federal Mogul Corporation) and
Floyd Beard, Jr., Robert Luce, and Marcus
Gardner. Case 7-CB-6509
30 April 19F87
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS JOHANSEN, BABSON, AND
STEPHENS
On 23 May 1986 Administrative Law Judge
Arline Pacht issued the attached decision. The Re-
spondent filed exceptions and a supporting brief.
The National Labor Relations Board has delegat-
ed its authority in this proceeding to a three-
member panel.
The Board has considered the decision and the
record in light of the exceptions and brief and has
decided to- affirm the judge's rulings, findings, and
conclusions' and to adopt the recommended
Order.
ORDER -,
The National Labor Relations Board adopts the
recommended Order of the' administrative law
judge and orders that the Respondent, Local 2017,
International Union, United Automobile, Aero-
space and- Agricultural Implement Workers of
America (UAW), ' Greenville, Michigan, its officers,
agents, and representatives, shall take the action set
forth in the Order.
1 We' agree with the judge's conclusion that the Respondent violated
Sec. 8(b)(1XA) by reprimanding members Beard , Luce, and Gardner be-
cause they filed unfair labor practice charges with , the Board . We, fmd
that her , analysis of the Respondent 's motivation is consistent with Wright
Line, 251 NLRB 1083 (1980), enfd. on other, grounds 662 F.2d 899 (1st
Cir. 1981), cert. denied 455 U.S. 989 (1982), and Limestone Apparel Corp.,
255 NLRB 722 (1981). See Mine Workers Local 2202 (Old Devon Corp.),
282 NLRB 106 (1986).
In considering the Respondent's Wright Line defense, Members Babson
and Stephens do not rely on the judge's analysis under ' NLRB v. Marine
& Shipbuilding Workers, 391 U.S. 418 (196$). In that case, no question of
dual motive was presented . The union there acknowledged that it had ex-
pelled a member because the member had filed an unfair labor practice
charge against the union . The question in Marine & Shipbuilding Workers
was whether the union's action, standing alone, was justified for union
institutional reasons . In the present case, by contrast, the Respondent
denies that it reprimanded the three members for filing unfair labor prac-
tice charges and asserts instead that it reprimanded them because they di-
vulged internal union matters to the Employer in violation of the Union's
constitution . Because dual motives are ascribed to the Respondent here,
Members Babson and Stephens find that a Wright Line analysis is appro-
priate and that a Marine & Shipbuilding Workers analysis is inapposite. Cf.
Operating Engineers Local 381 (Building Trades Employers), 148 NLRB
679 (1964).
Howard M. Dodd, Esq., for the General Counsel.
A. Robert Kleiner, Esq., of Grand Rapids , Michigan, for
the Respondent.
DECISION
799
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
ARLINE PACHT, Administrative Law Judge.. Based on
charges filed on 28 May 1985, as amended on 2 July, a
complaint issued on 23 July 1985 alleging that Local
2017, International Union, United Automobile, Aero-
space and Agricultural Implement Workers of America
(UAW) (Respondent or Local 2017) violated Section
8(bXl)(A) of the National Labor Relations Act (the Act)
by reprimanding the above-named Charging Parties be-
cause they filed unfair labor practice charges with the
National Labor Relations Board - (the Board). The Re-
spondent filed a timely answer denying it, had violated
the Act.
A trial was held before me in Grand Rapids, Michi-
gan, on 18 February 1986. On the entire 'record, and on
my observation of the demeanor of the witnesses, I make
the following
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. JURISDICTION
Federal Mogul Corporation (the Employer), a Michi-
gan corporation with an office and place of business in
Greenville,' manufactures , sells, and distributes automo-
tive parts and related products. During the year ending
31 December 1984,'a period representative of its oper-
ations during all times material herein, the Employer, in
the course of its business operations, manufactured, sold,
and distributed at its Greenville, Michigan plant products
valued in excess of $50,000 which it shipped directly to
points located outside the State . Accordingly„ the com-
plaint alleges, the Respondent admits , and I fmd that
Federal Mogul Corporation is an employer within the
meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.
The Respondent, Local 2017, is and has been at all
times material herein a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
It. ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
,For many years, the production and maintenance em-
ployees at the Employer's Greenville facility were repre-
sented by the Federal Mogul Workers Association
(FMWA), an independent labor organization. Early in
1984, the UAW proposed to FMWA's leadership that
they consider affiliation. Subsequently, on 8 September
1984, FMWA held a special membership meeting to con-
sider and vote on the affiliation issue. During this meet-
ing, Marcus Gardner, one of the Charging Parties,
openly expressed his opposition to the joinder. Although
the 500 employee-members differed, affiliation was ap-
proved,by a vote of 170 to 150. By letter dated 10 Sep-
tember 1984, the Union formally notified the Employer
of the outcome and pledged continued commitment to
the extant collective-bargaining agreement.
Subsequently, at the next union meeting on 118 Septem-
ber, the Local's executive committee approved a request
1 The Employer has plants in other States but only the Greenville,
Michigan facility is involved in this proceeding.
283 NLRB No. 122
800 DECISIONS 'OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
made by the union leadership for discretionary use of
$25,000 to cover various expenses . The following morn-
ing, Personnel Manager Lawrence approached Union
President Dave Hondorp on the shop floor2 and accused
him of "ripping off' the Union's treasury of $25,000 and
amending -the Union's constitution and bylaws, thereby
failing to represent the employees who had elected him.
By letter sent the same day,- the Employer rejected the
Union's request , for recognition, insisting that "the fair
and equitable thing to do is to have a vote of the mem-
bership of the Federal-Mogul Workers' Association in
the plant" under the aegis of the NLRB.
Given the- Employer's position, the Union refused to
participate with management in grievance-resolution
meetings . Consequently, on 9 October, the Company
filed-an unfair labor practice charge with the Board al-
leging that the FMWA was unlawfully refusing to meet
with it to resolve grievances and was attempting to
coerce the Company into granting recognition in contra-
vention of the parties' collective-bargaining agreement.
In the charge, the Employer defended its refusal to rec-
ognize the affiliated Local asserting that it would "recog-
nize the UAW only after satisfactory proof that a demo-
cratically determined majority of the effected [sic] em-
ployees so desire." Two days later, on 11 October 1984,
the Charging Parties, Gardner, Luce, and Beard, also
filed charges with the Board alleging that the Union's
governing body, had improperly conducted the affiliation
vote, sought discretionary use of $25,000 of FMWA's
assets , and colluded with UAW organizers.
Hondorp testified that, after receiving copies of these
charges, he noted they were similar in content to the ac-
cusations which Lawrence leveled at him on 19 Septem-
ber. Accordingly, Hondorp deduced that the Charging
Parties must have supplied Lawrence with the informa-
tion which he used to denounce him. Hondorp then ac-
cused Lawrence directly of meddling in union affairs and
of goading the employees into filing the unfair labor
practice charges. Lawrence denied that he had instigated
these matters and, instead, without naming names,
claimed that employees had sought him out on two occa-
sions to voice their dissatisfaction with the affiliation
vote.
By letter dated 22 October 1984, Hondorp received
notice that the Regional Director had approved with-
drawal of the charges filed by the three employees. Sub-
sequently, the Employer also withdrew its charge.3 Nev-
ertheless,, Hondorp advised his fellow union officers of
his recent exchange . with Lawrence. Apparently as a
result of Hondorp's report, internal union charges were
preferred against,the Charging Parties on 25 October ac-
cusing them of violating the following provisions of the
Union's constitution and bylaws (G.C. Exh. 9):
2 Hondorp was a Federal Mogul employee for 27 years prior to the
Instant hearing
2 Although the charges were withdrawn, FMWA, apparently bowing
to pressures exerted by the Company and dissidents , announced on 26
November that it would conduct a second vote on the affiliation ques-
tion The vote; taken at a 15 December meeting, decidedly approved the
affiliation.
52. Internal Grievance Policy
(a) Any member may be fined, suspended, dis-
qualified from holding office or expelled from the
Union
(d) For disclosing to any employer or their repre-
sentative or any person other than a fellow member
any of the decisions or proceedings of the Federal-
Mogul Workers' Association which have not been
publicly disclosed by the Union.
(e) For circulating or causing to be circulated
false or slanderous statements about the Association
or any officer or member thereof, or for causing to
be circulated any statements condemning any deci-
sion rendered by the Association.
Beard , Gardner, and Luce were notified of the charges
against them but not of the specific conduct which alleg-
edly gave rise to them.4 A hearing on the internal Lunion
grievances was held on 16 March 1985. On the advice of
counsel , none of the Charging Parties chose to attend the
hearing.5 Therefore, Hondorp was the only witness at
this proceeding.' He described his second conversation
with Lawrence on 19 September to the panel members
and also told them that FMWA's former attorney had
warned him that charges might be filed by members
seeking to contest the affiliation with the UAW. At the
conclusion of this hearing, the Respondent decided to
issue reprimands to Beard, Luce, and Gardner for "con-
duct unbecoming a 'union person ." In addition, Hondorp
wrote and posted a memo to all union members entitled
"RESULTS OF INTERNAL GRIEVANCE," which
announced, -inter alia, `that "the Board decided to issue a
letter of reprimand'to each of these members" (that is, to
Beard, Luce, and- Gardner) stating that their actions
were unbecoming and slanderous to our Union and mem-
bers of the Top Bargaining Committee."
At the trial in this matter, the General Counsel asked
Hondorp to explain precisely what he meant by the
word "slanderous." In response, Hondorp explained that
he considered' slanderous the comments that union offi-
cials had "ripped off the' Treasury" and unlawfully
amended the Union's constitution and bylaws , the same
comments which appeared in the charges- filed with, the
Board. At the same time, he denied that the reprimands
had anything to do with the Charging Parties' opposition
to the affiliation. However, in an affidavit provided to a
Board agent on 11 June 1985, Hondorp gave a different
slant to the word "slanderous," averring there that he
"was referring to allegations by Gardner, Luce, and
Beard that our affiliation election was not proper and I
meant by this their actions that made the, union look
bad." Significantly, Hondorp failed, to mention the 19
September encounter in his pretrial statement.
The unfair labor practice charges giving rise to the
complaint in this case grow out of the reprimands issued
to the Charging Parties.
'' Subsequently, the charge that they had violated provision 52(e) was
dropped.
5 At the instant trial, the Charging Parties denied having conferred
with Lawrence
AUTO WORKERS LOCAL 2017 (FEDERAL MOGUL)
Discussion
Settled law holds that a Union violates the Act when
it resorts to restraint or coercion to prevent a member
from filing unfair labor practice charges with the Board.
NLRB v Marine & Shipbuilding Workers, 391 U.S. 418
(1968). Here, contrary to the . allegations of the com-
plaint, Respondent contends that it did not reprimand the
Charging Parties for reasons condemned by the Act, but
solely because they divulged internal union matters to a
management representative in contravention of the
FMW'A's constitution . Thus, the sole question presented
by this case is whether the discipline imposed on the
Charging Parties was an impermissible intrusion on
rights protected by the Act or nothing more than the
proper exercise by the Local of its authority to discipline
errant members for misconduct in a wholly internal
union matter. On- the basis of the entire record, I con-
clude that the Union was predominantly, if not wholly,
motivated by a desire to penalize the Charging Parties
because they resorted to Board processes . I reach this
conclusion for the following reasons:
As Hondorp admitted , the allegations that Gardner,
Beard , and Luce filed with the Board on 11 October
mirrored the accusations which Personnel Manager, Law-
rence leveled at him on 19 September . However , the Re-
spondent contends that the Union reprimands were im-
posed solely because the Charging Parties divulged in-
formation to the Employer and had nothing to do with
their unfair labor practice charges . Thus, the encounter
between Hondorp and Lawrence on 19 September as-
sumes critical importance . Yet, as the General Counsel
showed, Hondorp failed to mention this allegedly impor-
tant exchange with the personnel manager in his pretrial
affidavit, which he provided to a Board agent at a point
in time when his recollection of events should have been
much fresher than it was at the instant trial . It follows,
therefore, that the 19 September meeting could not have
figured prominently, if at all, in Respondent's decision to
discipline the Charging Parties,
Respondent further contends that the unfair labor
practice charges filed with the Board entered into the
Union 's disciplinary action only , to the extent that it ex-
posed those who met with Lawrence on 19 September.
This contention, too, is unconvincing . As Hondorp read-
ily acknowledged , neither he nor Lawrence identified
any employee who met with the personnel manager on
19 September. Horidorp even stressed in his testimony
that Lawrence did not indicate the number of employees
who met with him. Because Rondorp admittedly knew
that some 150 employees had Opposed the affiliation, he
could not have reasonably concluded that the employees
who signed the Board charges were the same or the only
members who divulged union matters to the Employer.
The Respondent made no further inquiries to determine
the identity of those who were suspected of collaborat-
ing with management. Instead , the executive committee
rushed to judgment and was content to impose discipline
solely on the three persons who had the temerity to file
Board charges . Accordingly, had these employees not
taken this action, it is fair to infer that the ' Union would
not have singled them out for disciplinary action.
801
Further, although Hondorp attempted to deny that the
employees ' opposition to the affiliation played any role
in the Union's disciplinary decision, he had to retract
when shown- a flatly contradictory statement in his -pre-
trial affidavit. Clearly, Hondorp's affidavit together with
the Union 's notice to the employees of the second affili-
ation election (see G.C. Exh. 7) reveal that the Respond-
ent was displeased with those who pressured the Union
into conducting another vote. In that notice, Respondent
placed the blame for a second vote squarely on the
shoulders of the Company and "its allies ." But from Re-
spondent's perspective, the Charging Parties were the
only avowed allies of management and it was their unfair
labor practice charges that apparently played a large part
in provoking the second affiliation vote. Given these cir-
cumstances, it is likely that the union leadership was
more concerned and chagrined with the unfair labor
practice charges than they were with the fact that un-
identified employees may have conferred with Law-
rence. At the very least, it is reasonable to conclude that
the Union viewed the charges as woven closely into a
fabric of events which caused it public embarassment and
compelled it to rerun the affiliation vote.
The Respondent may well have considered the Charg-
ing Parties' conduct as evidence of disloyalty to the
Union and a matter requiring discipline. However, the
Union's interest in maintaining solidarity must give way
here where an overriding policy of the Federal labor
laws also is implicated. Any coercion used to discourage
"access [to the Board] is beyond the legitimate interests
of a labor organization." See NLRB v. Marine & Ship-
building Workers, supra at 424. Accordingly, by issuing
reprimands to the Charging Parties for engaging in such
concerted protected activity, the Respondent violated
Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Federal Mogul Corporation is now and has been at
all times material herein an employer engaged in com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the
Act; it will effectuate the purposes of the Act for juris-
diction to be exercised herein.
2. The Respondent , Local 2017, International Union,
United Automobile,' Aerospace and Agricultural Imple-
ment Workers of America (UAW), is and has been at all
times material herein a labor organization with in the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3., By reprimanding Floyd Beard Jr., Robert Luce, and
Marcus Gardner because they filed unfair labor practice
charges with the Board, the Respondent has violated
Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act.
4. The aforesaid, unfair labor practices affect commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in
unfair labor practices violative of Section 8(b)(1)(A) of
the Act , I shall recommend that it cease and desist there-
from and take certain affirmative action designed to ef-
fectuate the policies of the Act. Specifically, the Re-
spondent shall be ordered to desist from issuing repri-
802 DECISIONS OF THE -NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
mands or imposing other forms of discipline on its em-
ployee -members because they have, filed unfair labor
practice charges with the National Labor Relations
Board. I shall further recommend that the Respondent be
ordered to expunge from its records any reference to the
reprimands issued to the Charging Parties, Beard, Luce,
and, Gardner, and to post an appropriate notice to its
members:
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and
on the entire record, I issue the following recommend-
eds
ORDER
The Respondent, Local 2017, International Union,
United 'Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Imple-
ment Workers of America (UAW), Greenville, Michi-
gan; its officers, agents, and representatives, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Reprimanding employees because they filed unfair
labor practice charges with the National Labor Relations
Board.
(b) In any like or related manner restraining or coerc-
ing employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed
them by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take, the following affirmative action necessary to
effectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Rescind and remove from its files any reference to
the reprimands issued on 6 May, 1985 to Floyd Beard Jr.,
Robert- Luce, and Marcus Gardner and- notify them in
writing that this has been done. -
(b) Post at its business copies of the attached notice
marked, "Appendix."7 Copies of the notice, on forms
provided by the Regional Director for Region 7, after
being signed, by the- Respondent's authorized representa-
tive, shall be posted by the Respondent immediately
upon receipt and maintained for 60 consecutive days in
conspicuous places including all places where notices to
employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall
be taken by the Respondent to ensure that the notices
are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other materi-
al.
(c) Notify the Regional Director in writing within 20
days from the date of this Order what steps the Re-
spondent has taken to comply.
APPENDIX
NOTICE To MEMBERS
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
The National Labor Relations Board has found that .we
violated the National Labor Relations Act and has or-
dered us to post and abide by this notice.
WE WILL No'r reprimand or impose other forms of dis-
cipline on our members because they have filed unfair
labor practice charges with the- National Labor Relations
Board.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner restrain or
coerce you in the exercise of the rights guaranteed you
by Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL rescind and expunge from our files any ref-
erence to the reprimands issued to Floyd Beard Jr.,
Robert Luce, and Marcus, Gardner on 6 May 1985 and
notify them in writing that this has been done.
LOCAL 2017, INTERNATIONAL UNION,
UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AEROSPACE AND
AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF
AMERICA (UAW)
6 If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the Board's
Rules and Regulations, the findings, conclusions, and recommended
Order shall, as provided in Sec. 102.48 of the Rules, be adopted by the
Board and all objections to them shall be deemed waived for all pur-
poses.
9 If 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 Nation-
al 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."