Auto Workers Local 376 (Emhart Industries)

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 30, 1986

278 N.L.R.B. 285 (N.L.R.B. 1986)

AUTO WORKERS LOCAL 376 (EMHART INDUSTRIES) 285
International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace
& Agricultural Implement Workers of America,
Local - 376 and Emhart Industries, Hartford Di-
vision and Joseph Persuitte . Cases 39-CB-443
and 39-CB-532
30 January 1986
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN DOTSON AND MEMBERS
DENNIS AND JOHANSEN
On 28 March 1985 Administrative Law Judge
Wallace H. Nations issued the attached decision.
The General Counsel filed exceptions and a sup-
porting brief, and the Respondent filed a' brief in
opposition to the General Counsel's exceptions and
in support of the judge's decision.
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 briefs and has
decided to affirm the judge's rulings, findings, and
conclusions only to the extent consistent with this
Decision and Order.
The judge found that the Respondent distributed
to certain employees a letter threatening them with
loss of employment if they failed to pay dues in ar-
rears. It is undisputed that this distribution oc-
curred - after the expiration of the parties' collec-
tive-bargaining agreement, and that these employ-
ees were thus under no union-security obligation to
pay dues at that time. Nonetheless, the judge-found
that the letters were distributed "by clerical error,"
and that the Respondent effectively repudiated the
threat by taking reasonably swift steps to correct
its error. Thus, the judge concluded, the Respond-
ent did not violate Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act.
We disagree.
The material facts are undisputed. The parties'
collective-bargaining agreement, which contained
provisions for union security and dues checkoff, ex-
pired 9 September 1982.1 At that ' time the Re-
spondent engaged in a 6-month strike during which
no union dues were assessed. Following the strike,
the Employer advised the Respondent that it
would no longer deduct dues from employees' pay-
checks because the bargaining agreement had ex-
pired. Over the next 2 months, the Respondent
became increasingly concerned over the failure of
some of its recalled members voluntarily to tender
union dues. In April Shop Chairman Joseph Belli-
veau posted a notice, approved by the Employer
and under the signature of Union Financial Secre-
1 All dates are 1983 unless otherwise indicated.
tary Treasurer James Bowen, on all four company
bulletin boards stating:
This is to inform you of the current status of
Union dues deductions. In order,that you
remain a member in good standing in Local
376 UAW you must pay monthly dues.
Due to the fact that Emhart had refused to
deduct your dues from your paycheck, it is
now your obligation to see that they are paid
up to date. Anyone who works 40 hours in a
month beginning with the day you are re-
called, is liable to pay dues.
Subsequently, the Respondent compiled a list of
13 employees who refused to pay dues. On 27 May
Bowen presented the list to Barbara_ DeBlock, with
instructions to inform employees on the list, by
letter, of their dues delinquency. DeBlock followed
Bowen's instructions, using a form letter that had
been used in the past as a notice of dues delinquen-
cy. The letter read as follows:
I am advising you that you are required, as a
contractual obligation, to tender required peri-
odic union dues as a condition of continued em-
ployment. . . .
These [remittances] must be received no later
than 30 days from the end of the month for
which said dues are owed or you will no
longer be considered to be in good standing
with - the Union and your employment may be
terminated. [Emphasis added.]
Shop Chairman Belliveau distributed the letters to
about half of the 13 employees on the list.
Union President Phillip Wheeler testified that
later'that day he' first became aware of the Bowen
letter -and directed Belliveau to halt delivery and
return the remaining letters to the union office.
Thereafter, Wheeler testified, he instructed Bowen
to prepare -a notice for Belliveau to post on union
bulletin boards at the plant, accurately setting forth
the dues obligation. Wheeler credibly testified that
he informed those attending an 8 June 1984 meet-
ing that the Bowen letter had been distributed in
error to a handful of employees,- and that no
member had an obligation to pay dues in order to
work at Emhart. 'At a -meeting 2 weeks later,
Wheeler, repeated his explanation in response to a
question from the floor. We disagree with the
judge's conclusion that these'actions were sufficient
to repudiate the unlawful message conveyed in the
Bowen letters.
In Passavant Memorial Area Hospital, 237 NLRB
138 (1978), the Board held that, for a respondent to
relieve itself of liability for unlawful conduct by ef-
278 NLRB No. 37
286 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
fective repudiation, (1) its action must be "timely,"
"unambiguous," "specific in nature to the coercive
conduct," and "free from other proscribed illegal
conduct"; (2) there must be adequate publication of
repudiation to the employees involved; (3) there
must be no proscribed conduct after the publica-
tion; and (4) assurances must be given against
future unlawful interference.
The threat of discharge contained in the, Bowen
letter violates Section 8(b)(1)(A) because it was
conveyed during a period the Union could not
demand payment of dues as a condition of employ-
ment . See Teamsters Local 25 (Tech Weld Corp.),
220 NLRB 76 (1975). As found by the judge, when
the Respondent became aware of its error. in dis-
tributing the offensive letter, it failed to distribute a
written retraction to any of the 13 employees on its
delinquent list. Instead, Wheeler directed posting of
a notice identical in content to one that had been
published previously and containing no reference
to the Bowen letter. Belliveau's testimony suggests
that he may never have posted a second notice
and, at best, indicates an uncertain recollection as
to when he may have posted it. Thus, the notice
posting fails as a valid repudiation on grounds of
timeliness and adequacy of publication. Wheeler's
remarks during the June meetings did refer to and
disavow the contents of the Bowen letter, but did
not necessarily reach the individuals to whom the
documents had been mistakenly delivered. The
record does not establish that each of the individ-
uals who may have received the Bowen letter were
present at either one of the two June meetings. Ac-
cordingly, we find these efforts to be likewise inad-
equate under the Passavant criteria to serve as a
valid repudiation. Accordingly, we fmd that, by
the 27, May distribution, the Respondent unlawfully,
threatened employees with discharge for nonpay-
ment of dues,.
We agree with the judge's conclusion that the
Respondent did not also violate Section 8(b)(1)(A)
through a ^ statement contained in the "Emhart Unit
Info-Line," a newsletter printed by,the Internation-
al. In its 30 March 1984 issue of Info-Line, an arti-
cle authored by Union Steward Kenneth Jacobs
states, inter alia, that "the Union is looking into
raising the reinstatement fee for those members
who have not paid dues. At the last meeting. a
figure of $500 was asked, for." The judge based his
recommended dismissal of this allegation on what
he perceived to be the- Respondent's nonagency
status in publishing the newsletter and effective dis-
claimer of the article's contents. We find it unnec-
essary to pass on these findings as we find that the
article's content is not prohibited by Section,
8(b)(1)(A).
It is well settled that "a union may establish cer-
tain categories which require different fees so long
as the categorization is reasonable and not discri-
minatorily motivated." Trico Workers Union Inde-
pendent (Trico Products), 246 NLRB 514, 515
(1979). See also Metal Workers (TRW, Inc.), 172
NLRB 815, 816 (1968). The language of the article
does not ascribe any motivation to the Respond-
ent's "looking into" increased initiation fees other
than to encourage the regular tender of periodic
dues from its members. The judge did not find that
either the article or the union meetings it purports
to summarize associates the Respondent's effort to
collect dues from its members with those individ-
uals' employment status. It follows- that, even in the
absence of a current union-security agreement with
the Employer, the, Respondent would have been
privileged under the Act to increase its reinstate-
ment fees. Thus, we dismiss that portion of the
complaint.
THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged
in unlawful conduct in violation " of Section
8(b)(1)(A) of the Act, we shall order it to cease
and desist and to take certain affirmative action de-
signed to effectuate the policies of the Act. Specifi-
cally, we shall require the Respondent to reimburse
with interest ^ any employee who tendered dues
and/or reinstatement fees 27 May 1983 and thereaf-
ter -solely in reliance on representations in the
Bowen letter that employees must pay such dues
and/or fees under penalty of termination . Interest
shall be computed in the manner prescribed in Flor-
ida Steel Corp., 231 NLRB 651 (1977 ). (See gener-
ally Isis Plumbing Co., 138 NLRB 716 (1962).)
Which, if any, employees are entitled to' such reim-
bursement shall be established in a compliance pro-
ceeding.
AMENDED CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Delete Conclusion of Law 3 and substitute the
following.
"3. By- threatening employees with discharge for
refusing to tender periodic dues to the Respondent
during ' a time they were not contractually obligat-
ed to do so, the Respondent has engaged in,unfair
labor practices within the meaning of Section
8(b)(1)(A)'of the Act.
"4. The unfair labor practices -affect commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the
Act.
"5. Except as found herein, the Respondent has
not committed any other unfair labor practices al-
leged in the complaint."
AUTO WORKERS LOCAL 376 (EMHART INDUSTRIES)
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board orders that
the Respondent, International Union, United Auto-
mobile, Aerospace & Agricultural Implement
Workers of America, Local 376, Hartford, Con-
necticut, its officers, agents, and representatives,
shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Threatening employees with discharge for re-
fusing to tender periodic dues to the Respondent
during a time they were not contractually obligat-
ed to do so.
(b) In any like or related manner restraining or
coercing employees in the exercise of the rights
guaranteed them by Section 7 of the, Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action neces-
sary to effectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Offer reimbursement to those employees who
tendered back dues and/or reinstatement fees 27
May 1983 and thereafter solely in reliance on the
Respondent's letter that employees must pay such
dues and/or fees under penalty of termination.
(b) Post at each of its offices and meeting halls in
Windsor and Bloomfield, Connecticut, copies of
the attached notice marked "Appendix."2 Copies
of the notice, on forms provided by the Officer-in-
Charge for Subregion. 39, after being signed by the
Respondent's authorized representative, shall be
posted by the Respondent immediately upon re-
ceipt and maintained for 60 consecutive days in
conspicuous places including all places where no-
tices to members are customarily posted . Reasona-
ble steps shall be taken by the Respondent to
ensure that the notices are not altered, defaced, or
covered by any other material.
(c) Mail forthwith to the Officer-in-Charge for
Subregion 39 copies of the notice for posting by
Emhart Industries, Hartford Division, if it is will-
ing, in places where notices to its employees are
customarily posted.
(d) Notify the Officer-in-Charge for Subregion
39 in writing within 20 days from the date of, this
Order what steps the Respondent has taken to
comply.
2 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 "
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
287
The National Labor Relations Board has found
that we violated the National Labor Relations Act
and has ordered us to post and abide by this notice.
WE WILL NOT threaten employees with dis-
charge for refusing to tender periodic dues during
a time when they were not contractually bound to
do so.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner re-
strain or coerce you in the exercise of the rights
guaranteed you by Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL reimburse those employees who ten-
dered back dues .and/or reinstatement fees 27 May
1984 and thereafter solely in reliance on our letter
that employees must pay such dues and/or fees
under penalty of termination.
INTERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED
AUTOMOBILE, AEROSPACE & AGRI-
CULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF
AMERICA, LOCAL 376
Robert M. Cheverie, Esq., for the General Counsel.
J. William Gagne Jr., Esq., of Hartford, Connecticut, for
'the Respondent.
Burton Kainen, Esq., of Hartford, Connecticut, for the
Charging Party.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
WALLACE H. NATIONS, Administrative Law Judge.
Based on charges brought by Joseph Persuitte, an indi-
vidual, the Officer-in-Charge of Subregion 3.9 of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board issued an order dated
August 29, 1984, consolidating the complaint and notice
of hearing in Cases 39-CB-443 and 39-CB-532 alleging
that the International Union, United Automobile, Aero-
space & Agricultural Implement 'Workers of America,
Local 376 (Respondent or Union) violated Section
8(b)(1)(A) of the Act by threatening employees of
Emhart Industries, Hartford Division (the Employer)
with discharge and by threatening to impose an in-
creased reinstatement fee upon employees if they did not
tender periodic dues to Respondent for a period of time
for which they were not contractually obligated to pay
such dues. At the hearing held in these proceedings,
counsel for the General Counsel amended the consolidat-
ed complaint by adding additional allegations that Re-
spondent threatened employees with the increased rein-
statement fee for refusing to tender periodic dues to Re-
spondent during a period in time when they were not
contractually obligated to do so. Respondent's answer to
the allegations admits the filing and service of the
288 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR,RELATIONS BOARD
charges, the Employer's state of incorporation, place of
business, jurisdictional facts, jurisdictional conclusion;
and Respondent's labor organization status. All other al-
legations are denied. A hearing was held before me in
Hartford, Connecticut, on November 1, 1984.
I. BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER
Emhart Industries, Hartford Division, is admitted to be
an employer within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7)
of the Act.
II. BUSINESS OF THE LABOR ORGANIZATION
INVOLVED
International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace &
Agricultural Implement Workers of America, Local 376
is admitted to be a labor organization within the meaning
of Section,2(5) of the Act.
III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Allegations that Respondent Threatened Employees
with Loss of Employment if They Did Not Pay Union
Dues During the Time They Were Not Contractually
Obligated to Pay Such Dues
The Union has represented a unit comprised of all pro-
duction and maintenance employees at the Employer's
Windsor and Bloomfield facility for over 20 years. The
most recent contract between the parties was in effect
from September 13, 1979, until September 9, 1982. Arti-
cle II of the contract provided for union security and
dues checkoff. Pursuant to article II, during the term of
the contract, the Employer deducted union dues from all
employees covered by the contract and forwarded them
to Respondent. From September 13, 1982, until the date
of this hearing, no collective-bargaining agreement was
in effect between the Employer and Respondent.
In September 1982, following the expiration of the
contract, the Union engaged in a strike during which
none of its members were required to pay dues. At the
conclusion of the strike, on March 21, 1983,1 members of
the bargaining unit returned to work. At that time, the
Employer advised the Union that since the contract had
expired it would no longer deduct employees' union dues
from their paychecks. The record reflects that there
were approximately 300 employees in the bargaining unit
prior to the strike and that as of May 28, 126 had been
recalled.
The Employer maintains four bulletin boards which
may be used by the Union to communicate with its mem-
bers. Prior to any posting, all union literature must be
approved by either Vice President of Personnel Donald
MacKay or Manager of Employee Relations Cecily
Emond. Respondent posted only one notice concerning
dues following the strike. There is a dispute in the testi-
mony concerning when this notice was posted. Emond
testified that in April, Shop Chairman Joseph Belliveau
(Chairman Belliveau) approached her for permission to
post a notice on the bulletin board concerning dues. Ac-
cording to Emond, the notice was approved and posted
' All dates are in 1983 unless otherwise stated
on all four bulletin boards. The notice, which was signed
by James Bowen , financial secretary-treasurer of the
Union advised employees of their continuing obligation
to pay dues in order to' remain a member in good stand-
ing in the Union. Employees were told they should pay
the money directly to Chairman Belliveau or mail it to
the Union's office. Following the posting of this notice,
Emond sent a memorandum to Belliveau wherein she ad-
vised him of the Company's Code of Conduct Regula-
tion 22, which prohibited soliciting or collecting contri-
butions in work areas during work time.
In April, Chairman Belliveau began soliciting employ-
ees at the Employer's facility to pay union dues. He ap-
proached employees and advised them that they were re-
quired to pay their dues in order to remain members in
good standing of the Union. At this time,, some of the
employees advised Belliveau that they had already
mailed their checks directly to the union hall. Initially,
Belliveau relied on his memory and maintained no
system of recording as to which employees had paid
their dues. However, by late May, Belliveau maintained
a list of those employees who had paid their dues and
those who had refused.
1. The Bowen letter
In late May, Chairman Belliveau met with Bowen to
discuss the problem that certain members were still refus-
ing to pay their dues since the strike. At this time, 126,
employees had been recalled from the strike and only ap-
proximately 90 percent were paying dues. Chairman Bel-
liveau presented Bowen with a list containing the-names
of at least 13 employees who had refused to the request
to pay their dues. Bowen advised Belliveau that he
would send a letter to these employees advising them of
their obligation to pay their dues.
On May 27 Bowen approached Barbara DeBlock, one
of the secretaries at the union hall, and gave her the list
of employees he had previously received from Chairman
Belliveau. Bowen told DeBlock to send a letter to the
employees on the list advising them that they were
behind in their dues. Following this conversation, Bowen
left the office and was not due to return until later that
day.
Pursuant to Bowen's request, DeBlock prepared a
form letter which had been utilized by the Union for at
least 5 years to advise employees that they were delin-
quent in their dues. This letter advised employees, inter
alia, that continued failure to pay dues would result in
their discharge. Upon completing the letters, consistent
with office practice, DeBlock signed Bowen's name to
the letters. In this regard, DeBlock testified that she had,
on numerous occasions, used either signature, stamps, or
personally signed the names of Union President Phillip
Wheeler Union Business Agent Robert Madore and
Bowen on a variety of documents she had typed for
them.
After completing the form letters and inserting them in
envelopes, DeBlock spoke with Chairman Belliveau who
happened to be in the union office at that time. Belliveau
advised DeBlock that he was going to the Employer's
facility and offered to hand deliver the Bowen letters in
AUTO WORKERS LOCAL 376 (EMHART INDUSTRIES)
lieu of her mailing them. DeBlock then handed the let-
ters to Belliveau who in turn took them to the Employ-
er's facility. Although he had not read the form letters,
Belliveau was aware of their contents because of his
prior conversations with Bowen. The Bowen letters,
which were individually addressed to each recipient, ad-
vised the members that they were required, as a contrac-
tual obligation, to tender the required periodic dues as a
condition of employment. The letter then stated that the
dues were to be mailed directly to the office of Respond-
ent. The letter concluded by advising employees that
unless their dues were received no later than 30 days
from the end of the month for which said dues are owed
they would lose their good standing with the Union, and
their employment may be terminated.
Upon reaching' the Employer's facility, Chairman Bel-
liveau commenced distributing the Bowen letters. At the
time he delivered the letter, Belliveau did not speak with
any of the recipients nor were the letters opened in his
presence. In addition, Belliveau maintains that he could
not recall a single individual to whom he gave the
Bowen letter. Belliveau specifically denied mailing the
Bowen letters.
Employee Joseph Persuitte was recalled to work in
April. On several occasions during April and May Per-
suitte was approached by Chairman Belliveau for month-
ly dues. On each occasion, Persuitte refused Chairman
Belliveau 's request and, as a result, received one of the
Bowen letters. Contrary to Chairman Belliveau's testimo-
ny, Persuitte testified that he received the Bowen letter
through the mail at his home.
President Wheeler testified that he first became aware
of the Bowen letters on the afternoon of May 27, prior
to 1 p.m. At that time, he reviewed a copy of the letter
which had been placed on his desk by DeBlock. Wheeler
questioned DeBlock concerning the letter and was ad-
vised that she had been told to prepare it by Bowen, and
that she -had given the letters to Belliveau for him to dis-
tribute at the Employer's facility. Following this conver-
sation ' between 1 and 2 p.m., Wheeler telephoned Belli-
veau at his office located at the Windsor facility and ad-
vised Belliveau that the Bowen letters should not be
given out. Belliveau testified than Wheeler advised him
that during the telephone conversation that the letters
had been done in error. Belliveau told Wheeler that he
had delivered, approximately half of the letters. Wheeler
instructed him not to make any more deliveries and to
return the remaining letters to the' union office. Wheeler
and Belliveau testified that on that evening Belliveau re-
turned to the union hall and gave the undelivered letters
to Wheeler.
Other than the letters which were returned that had
not been previously delivered no efforts were made by
Wheeler or Belliveau at this time to retrieve the letters
previously delivered or to advise any of the- recipients
that the letter had been issued in error. Belliveau testified
that he had no conversations with employees concerning
the Bowen letters other than at union meetings for at
least a month. Belliveau acknowledged that the letters
were a topic of conversation among employees at the
shop, but he testified that he did not discuss the contents
of the letters with any employee while at work.
289
Wheeler testified that he met with Bowen on his
return to Respondent's office on May 27, 1984, and ad-
vised Bowen that the letter which had been prepared
earlier should not have been sent and instructed Bowen
to prepare a notice to all members setting forth their ob-
ligation to pay dues, which was later given to Belliveau
for posting at the -Employer's facility. The evidence with
respect to what happened to this notice is not clear. Bel-
liveau is not clear in his testimony as to when, if ever, it
was posted. This notice is identical with the notice
which I find was posted around the end of April. Thus, a
posting of the notice, as prepared, would have had no
discernable effect in remedying the damage done by the
Bowen letters of May 27, 1984.
The Union conducts periodic meetings, usually on a
monthly basis, at the Knights of Columbus Hall in Wind-
sor Locks, Connecticut. The meetings usually begin at 4
p.m., lasting approximately 45 minutes, and are presided
over by either Chairman Belliveau or Wheeler. No
formal agenda is prepared prior to the meetings, and no
minutes are recorded during the meetings. While attend-
ance at the meetings is, voluntary, unreinstated strikers
are required to sign an attendance list in order to receive
strike benefits. The record reflects that during the June
meetings the attendance list of unreinstated strikers was
several pages long.
In June, Respondent conducted two meetings for the
Emhart unit, the first of which was held on June 8.
Wheeler testified that during this meeting he advised em-
ployees that the Bowen letter had been put out in error
and that members,did not have an obligation to pay dues
in order to work at Emhart. Wheeler informed members
they did have an obligation to pay. dues in order to
remain in good standing with the Union. Wheeler ex-
plained that being,,a member in good standing means that
you can run for office within the Union, vote in internal
elections, and participate in union activities. Wheeler spe-
cifically denied ever advising employees that- dues pay-
ment was a condition of employment during this meet-
ing. The second June meeting was held on June 22.
Wheeler testified in a general fashion that he made the
same statements concerning the Bowen letters at the
June 22 meeting as he had previously made during the
June 8 meeting:
Wheeler's testimony concerning his retraction of the
Bowen letter during these meetings was contradicted by
Persuitte and employee Costello Walker. Persuitte testi-
fied that he had entered the June 22 meeting and that he
heard Wheeler state that employees would have to pay
their dues to remain members in good standing and if
they did not pay their dues their employment could be
terminated. Persuitte also testified that Belliveau slated
during the meeting that everything in the Bowen letter
was true. Employee Walker testified that during a June
meeting which he attended, Wheeler advised employees
that they had to pay their dues in order to remain a
member in good standing and if they did not pay their
dues, that they would be terminated.
Respondent's witnesses, employees Ronald Aborn,
Edmond Patterson, and Chairman Belliveau, who attend-
ed both of the June meetings , corroborated Wheeler's
290 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
testimony. Persuitte also testified that he had attended a
meeting in November, wherein Wheeler allegedly ad-
vised the membership that they must pay their dues or
they could be terminated. Wheeler specifically denied
making this statement and, to the contrary, contends that
he advised the employees that they only had an obliga-
tion to pay dues in order to remain members in good
standing with the Union. Wheeler's testimony concern-
ing this meeting was generally corroborated by Chair-
man Belliveau and employee Aborn.
Based on the demeanor of the witnesses having ob-
served all of their testimony, I credit Wheeler's version
of what occurred at the meeting and specifically discred-
it Persuitte's and Walker's testimony with respect to
what Wheeler said at the meetings.
Therefore, I find that the Union sent out by clerical
error a letter that threatened employees with termination
if they did not pay their dues. If allowed to stand, the
letter would have clearly been in violation of Section
8(b)(1)(A) of the Act. However, Respondent took rea-
sonably swift steps to correct the error. I do not find
that Respondent followed up the Bowen letter of May
27 with a new notice to employees retracting the letter.
There was, however, a notice posted at that time on the
bulletin boards which accurately stated the employees'
responsibility with respect to dues. I further found that
the president of the Local at the first union meeting fol-
lowing the mailing of the letters specifically told the
members that the letter was sent in error and that the
Union could not have an employee terminated for failure
to pay union dues. Having made these findings, the ques-
tion is whether the oral repudiation of the letter by
Wheeler at the June 8 and subsequent meetings was suffi-
cient to undue the harm the letters may have caused. Al-
though I do not believe that the action taken by the Re-
spondent was all that it could have done to retract the
letters and minimize their effects, I believe the action
taken was sufficient to keep the act of sending the letters
from arising to a violation of the Act. Therefore, I will
order the allegations of the complaint regarding the
Bowen letter be dismissed and, based on credibility find-
ings with respect to President Wheeler's comments at the
union meetings, order dismissed those portions of the
complaint alleging that he threatened employees with
termination if union dues were not paid.
2. Alleged Belliveau threats to Persuitte
On July 15 Belliveau approached Persuitte in the as-
sembly area of the Emhart plant and asked Persuitte to
pay his dues. Persuitte then executed a check for dues
for May and June. According to Persuitte, Belliveau
then responded that he was glad that Persuitte was
paying his dues and hoped he would continue because he
still owed for April. Persuitte alleges that Belliveau then
said that if Persuitte did not pay his dues, he would be
terminated. On July 29 Belliveau again approached Per-
suitte for dues and advised Persuitte that he still owed
for April. At that time, Persuitte paid all of his outstand-
ing dues by executing a check covering April and July.
According to Belliveau, he never advised Persuitte that
he could be terminated for nonpayment of dues at the
time he received the July 15 check. In addition, Belli-
veau testified that he did not approach Persuitte on July
15, but rather that Persuitte approached him. Persuitte
made no further payments of union dues until November
4, when he was again approached by Belhveau in the as-
sembly area of the plant. Persuitte executed a check to
the Union covering dues for September and October but
did not pay for August. According to Persuitte, Belli-
veau told him he was aware that Persuitte was paying
his dues, and as long as he did, Persuitte would remain a
member in good standing even though he was a month
behind in his dues. Persuitte said that Belliveau again
stated that it was true about the termination. According
to Belliveau , on November 4, Persuitte approached him
with his dues check and Belliveau 's only response was,
"Thank you."
There is an obvious credibility determination to be
made with respect to the testimony of Persuitte versus
that of Belliveau. Again, based on the demeanor of the
witnesses involved and the surrounding circumstances, I
credit Belliveau's denial that he ever threatened Persuitte
with termination. Further, I will point out that no re-
quest was ever made by Respondent to the Employer to
terminate any employee for nonpayment of union dues
during the pertinent time frame, although a number of
employees were not paying union dues during this
period. Persuitte, and to a very limited extent, Costello
Walker, are the only employees who offered testimony
that they were in any manner threatened by Respond-
ent's officers and/or agents . Based on the credibility
findings, I will order that those portions of the complaint
alleging threats against Joseph Persuitte because of non-
payment of union dues be dismissed.
B. Allegations that Respondent Violated Section
8(b)(1)(A) of the Act by Threatening Employees with
an Increased Reinstatement Fee
In either January or February 1984, during a union
meeting a motion was made to increase Respondent's re-
instatement fee for those employees of Emhart who had
stopped paying dues. According to Persuitte, employee
Howard White, the Union 's sergeant-at-arms, initially
made a motion that the reinstatement fee be raised from
$20 to $1000, but that Business Agent Robert Madore
then stated that $1000 was a lot of money and that
Madore made a motion that the reinstatement instead be
raised to $500. Employee Costello Walker also testified
that Madore stated that the reinstatement fee should be
raised to $500. According to Respondent's witnesses
Ronald Aborn, Chairman Belhveau, and Wheeler, the
motion to raise the reinstatement fee from $20 to $500
was made by Aborn and no motion was made by
Madore or White. Aborn testified that following the
motion , there was a great deal of discussion. Wheeler,
who was conducting the meeting, advised the member-
ship that he was not certain it was legal to raise the rein-
statement fee and ruled the motion out of order. Follow-
ing this statement there was a heated discussion at the
conclusion of which Madore requested that Wheeler
doublecheck his ruling to be certain the reinstatement
could be raised. Wheeler testified that employees were
upset that they could not do something to the employees
AUTO WORKERS LOCAL 376 (EMHART INDUSTRIES)
who were not paying dues and that the discussion was
lengthy. Belliveau testified that at least six individuals
spoke during the discussion concerning the reinstatement
fee which lasted between 5 and 10 minutes.
Madore testified that the discussion concerning their
reinstatement fee lasted approximately 1 minute as op-
posed to 5 to 10 minutes mentioned by the other witness.
Madore specifically denied making any statement con-
cerning the raising of the reinstatement fee to $500. Ac-
cording to Madore, a union member whom he could not
identify made a motion that the reinstatement be raised
to $500. When- Wheeler called the motion out of order,
Madore requested that Wheeler check further to be sure
that the motion was in fact out of order because the
membership was upset. According to Madore, only the
identified individual who made the motion, Wheeler, and
himself spoke concerning the motion to raise the rein-
statement fee.
The General Counsel argues that Madore's testimony
is inconsistent with that of the other witnesses. I find the
inconsistencies not significant since I credit witnesses
Aborn and Wheeler's testimony regarding the incident.
Based on their demeanor I find witnesses Wheeler and
Aborn to be credible and to have fairly stated what oc-
curred at the meetings with respect to the reinstatement
fee.
The day after the union meeting, wherein the motion
was made to raise the reinstatement fee, employees
Walker and Persuitte testified that they discussed the
subject with Union Steward Leonard Belliveau. Accord-
ing to Walker, he was approached by Belliveau in the
timeclock area prior to the commencement of work and
told that the Union was going to raise its reinitiation fee
to $500. Persuitte testified that later in the day he was
approached by Belliveau in the assembly area and ad-
vised that the reinstatement was going to be raised to
$500 and if employees did not pay their dues, they would
be terminated. Belliveau denied ever raising the subject
of the reinstatement fee with any employee at any time.
Based on the demeanor of these witnesses, I credit the
testimony of Leonard Belliveau that he did not discuss
the subject of reinstatement fee with either Walker or
Persuitte. I specifically discredit the testimony of Per-
suitte with respect to this conversation and will dismiss
those portions of the complaint alleging that the alleged
conversation violated the Act.
Persuitte, Wheeler, Chairman Belliveau, and Aborn
testified that the reinstatement fee issue was again raised
by the membership during their March 1984 meeting.
Wheeler advised the membership that he had not had an
opportunity to examine his ruling concerning his rein-
statement fee. Wheeler advised them that he would
check his ruling and respond to them the following
month. At the April 1984 meeting, union witnesses testi-
fied that Wheeler advised the membership that he had
doublechecked his ruling and that according to Respond-
ent's constitution, the reinstatement fee could not be in-
creased. Neither Persuitte nor Walker attended this meet-
ing.
I do not find that Respondent has violated Section
8(b)(1) of the Act by its actions regarding the matter of
reinstatement fees. I have credited witness Aborn's testi-
291
mony that he initially made the motion to raise the rein-
statement. Aborn has a right to make such a motion if he
chooses to do so and President Wheeler, acting in an of-
ficial capacity for Respondent, immediately tabled the
motion, ruling it out of order. Wheeler's actions in agree-
ing to doublecheck his ruling were responsible and not
violative of the Act. There is no hint in, any of the testi-
mony with respect to the reinstatement fee by any offi-
cer of the Union that there was any hope held out that
the ruling would be overturned and that the reinstate-
ment fee would be in fact increased.
The last unfair labor practice alleged involves state-
ments made in the March 31, 1984 edition of the publica-
tion entitled, "Emhart Unit Info-Line" wherein a para-
graph advised members of the Emhart unit that Re-
spondent was looking into raising the reinstatement fee
for those members who had not paid dues and mentioned
the figure $500. There is no evidence the statement was
ever retracted in any subsequent edition of the publica-
tion. Respondent is, serviced by the International in
Farmington, Connecticut. Periodic meetings are conduct-
ed by representatives of Respondent and the Internation-
al, during which Respondent advises the International
what services they require. During the strike, local union
officials met with Jerry Rocker, then assistant regional
director for the International, concerning the publication
of the newsletter. It was decided that a newsletter could
be published if a communications committee was formed
in the Emhart unit.
In the fall, at one of Respondent's membership meet-
ings, either a representative from the International or Re-
spondent requested and received volunteers to serve on
an information committee to publish a newsletter for
members from Emhart. International Representative
Leonard Duby was given responsibility for the informa-
tion committee from its inception until an unspecified
date in 1984 when he was relieved by International Rep-
resentative Russell Booth. The record reflects that
"Emhart Unit Info-Line" is the only newsletter printed
by the International for any of its locals.
The information committee met periodically with
Duby at the International offices to publish the newslet-
ter. Union Steward Kenneth Jacobs was made chairman
of the committee. Meetings were held approximately
once a month in order to compile the articles to be used
in the paper. Information in the paper was obtained by
Jacobs and other committee members at union meetings
and directly from unit members. The stories were hand-
written by Jacobs who then reviewed them with Duby
to make sure that what was contained in the articles
could be printed without any legal ramifications.
After writing the articles to be included in the paper,
Jacobs submitted his handwritten version to a secretary
at the International office. Thereafter, the International
provided typing, reproducing, and mailing of the paper
to bargaining unit members as well as to Respondent's
offices. In addition, all correspondence from Respond-
ent's members to the unit line are directed to a post
office box in Wethersfield, Connecticut, where the Inter-
national offices are located. Since its first publication, all
issues of the paper have contained a logo of Respondent.
292 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
In addition, Jacobs testified that he has on occasion
spoken to Chairman Belliveau, Madore, and Wheeler
concerning information contained in the paper. At no
time in the past year has any representative of the Union
objected to the use of Respondent's logo or to any of the
contents of the Emhart Unit Infor-Line.
Respondent denies that the paper is an official publica-
tion of the local or the International. I would agree with
that position, however, by use of Respondent's logo with
the apparent consent of the Local and the Local's appar-
ent backing of the newsletter, and with no printed caveat
that the paper is not an official publication of the Local.
The General Counsel's contention that the paper has an
agency status with the Local is meritorious. On the other
hand, I cannot find that the paragraph, as printed, consti-
tutes an unlawful threat to the employees at the Emhart
unit who were not paying dues to the Local, given Presi-
dent Wheeler's assurances that the reinstatement fee
would not to be raised at the membership meeting fol-
lowing publication of the newsletter in question. There
was no showing at the hearing that Wheeler was aware
of the publication nor is there any showing that if he
wanted a retraction of the article he could have required
one to have been printed.
Inasmuch as the consolidated complaints allege no
other violations by Respondent, my order will provide
for their dismissal.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Emhart Industries, Hartford Division, is an employ-
er within the meaning of Section 2(2) in the Act and is
engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6)
and (7) of the Act.
2. International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace
& Agricultural Implement Workers of America, Local
376 is a labor organization within the meaning of Section
2(5) of the Act.
3. Respondent did not engage in unfair labor practices
within the meaning of Section 8(b)(1)(A) as alleged in
the consolidated complaints.
[Recommended Order for dismissal omitted from pub-
lication.]