Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 7, 1969

175 N.L.R.B. 873 (N.L.R.B. 1969)

FENDER MUSICAL INSTRUMENTS 873
Fender Musical Instruments , a Division of Columbia
Broadcasting System , Inc. and Frank S. Elmo
United Industrial Employees of California , Local No.
1, National Federation of Independent Unions
(Fender Musical Instruments , A Division of
Columbia Broadcasting System , Inc.) and Frank S.
Elmo and Local Union No. 2254 , International
Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO.
Cases 21-CA-8084, 21-CB-3158, and 21-CB-3201
May 7, .1969
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS
BROWN AND ZAGORIA
stipulated that the entire record of this proceeding
shall consist of the charges, consolidated complaint,
notice of hearing, answers, and the stipulation of
facts with attached exhibits.
By an order issued on November 20, 1968, the
Board approved the aforesaid stipulation and
transferred the matter to the Board.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
Board has delegated its powers in connection with
these cases to a three-member panel.
Upon the basis of the aforesaid stipulation and
the entire record in these cases, including the briefs
of Respondent Employer, and the General Counsel,
the Board makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
Upon charges duly filed on May 15 , August 20
and 23 , 1968, by Frank S. Elmo, an individual, and
Local 2254, International Brotherhood of f Electrical
Workers, AFL-CIO, herein called the IBEW, the
General Counsel for the National Labor Relations
Board, by the Regional Director for Region 21,
issued a consolidated complaint on August 22, 1968,
against Fender Musical Instruments , A Division of
Columbia Broadcasting System , Inc., herein called
the Respondent Employer, and United Industrial
Employees of California , Local No . 1, National
Federation of Independent Unions, herein called
Respondent Union , alleging that they had
respectively engaged in and were engaging in unfair
labor practices affecting commerce within the
meaning of Section 8 (a)(1), (2), and (3), and
8(b)(1)(A) and (2) of the National Labor Relations
Act, as amended . Copies of the complaint , charges,
and notice of hearing were duly served upon the
Respondents and upon the Charging Parties.
The complaint alleges , in substance , that by
deducting monies from the wages of employees on
April 5, for the payment of dues -for the month of
April to . Respondent Union, and by failing and
refusing to refund to the employees the monies
deducted from their wages after the election and
certification of a new bargaining representative, the
Respondent Employer has discriminated and
continues to discriminate against its employees in
violation of Section 8(a)(3); has rendered and
continues to render unlawful assistance and support
to Respondent Union in violation of Section 8(a)(2);
and has interfered with the Section 7 rights of its
employees in violation of Section 8(a)(1). The
complaint also alleges that by demanding remittance
of such dues in the circumstances described above,
Respondent Union violated Section 8 (b)(2) and
8(b)(1)(A) of the Act. The Respondents filed
answers denying certain allegations of the
complaint.
On November 8 and 14, 1968 , all parties entered
into a stipulation in which the parties waived their
rights to a hearing and to the issuance of a Trial
Examiner ' s Decision. In lieu thereof , the parties
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY
The Respondent Employer is engaged in the
manufacture and sale of musical instruments at its
plant in Fullerton, California. It annually sells and
causes to be delivered goods valued in excess of
$50,000 directly to customers outside the State of
California. We find that Respondent Employer is
engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act
and that it will effectuate the policies of .the Act to
assert jurisdiction herein.
H. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
United Industrial Employees of California, Local
No. 1, National Federation of Independent Unions,
a Respondent, and Local Union No. 2254,
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers,
AFL-CIO, a Charging Party, are labor
organizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of
the Act.
III. UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
The stipulated facts show that on April 13, 1965,
Fender Musical Instruments, a Division of
Columbia Records Distribution Corp., executed with
Respondent Union a 3-year collective-bargaining
agreement to expire on April 13, 1968. Respondent
Employer is the successor to the contracting
employer. The collective-bargaining agreement
contains union-security and checkoff provisions.
Substantially all of the employees in the bargaining
unit executed checkoff authorizations as provided
for in the contract prior to the events described
below.
On March 22, 1968,' in a Board-conducted
election, a majority of the unit employees designated
and selected the IBEW as their representative for
the purposes of collective bargaining with the
Respondent Employer. On April 1, the IBEW was
certified as the exclusive bargaining representative.
Between March 29 and April 3, some of the
' Unless otherwise indicated , all dates involved herein occurred in 1968.
175 NLRB No. 144
874 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
employees served on Respondent Employer and
Respondent Union written notice revoking their
dues deduction authorizations . On April 5,
Respondent Employer, pursuant to the terms of the
operative collective -bargaining agreement , deducted
the April union dues for Respondent Union from
the wages of all employees who had executed
checkoff authorizations prior to March 22, including
those employees who served written revocations on
Respondent Employer. Respondent Union has
demanded that Respondent Employer remit to it the
dues deducted from employees ' wages on April 5.
Respondent Employer has not remitted the monies
to Respondent Union nor has it refunded the monies
to the employees.
The General Counsel contends that the effect of
the certification , whether or not the
collective -bargaining agreement continued to be
otherwise effective, was to revoke automatically all
of - the previously executed dues deduction
authorizations . Respondent Employer claims that it
has acted in good faith and requests that the Board
determine the disposition of the funds in question
without finding unfair labor practices.
The Board ' s policy of entertaining representation
petitions and conducting elections near the
termination date of a subsisting collective -bargaining
agreement was designed , not to interrupt the lawful
and reasonable contract term , but to afford
employees an opportunity to exercise their right of
free choice at appropriate intervals and at the same
time to minimize disruption of stable labor
relations . Thus, both the open period for the filing
of representation petitions and the insulated period
of bargaining for a new contract are keyed to the
contract terminal date .' An object of this approach
was to shorten or eliminate any hiatus between
agreements where employees select the incumbent
union and also to afford an orderly transition period
where the exercise of the employees ' franchise
results in a change in the statutory representative for
the ensuing period . The timing of such procedure
contemplates continuation of the existing contract
for its reasonable term as an anchor of stability. But
for the stability a viable contract affords during such
period , there would be little justification for
conducting an election until after the reasonable
term of a lawful contract had expired.
The General Counsel relies in substantial part
upon the Board ' s holding in cases involving failure
to honor cancellation of checkoff authorizations
following an affirmative deauthorization election as
establishing a violation here.' The conduct of a
`See Deluxe Metal Furniture Company. 121 NLRB 995; Pacific Coast
Assn ., 121 NLRB 990.
'Penn Cork & Closures , 156 NLRB 411; Bedford Can Manufacturing
Corp .. 162 NLRB 1428; W. P. lhrie & Sons . Division of Sunshine
Biscuits . Inc.. 165 NLRB No. 2.
representation election differs in purpose and effect
from that of a deauthorization election. Congress
specifically accorded to employees the right to veto
a union-security provision after their representative
contractually secured such a clause, and the
deauthorization election during the term of the
contract is the means by which employees exercise
such control. As checkoff provisions are
contractually designed to administer union-security
provisions therein, consistency with the intent of
Congress required that they become subject to
revocation when the union-security provision which
they effectuated becomes legally inoperative by a
deauthorization vote. No such statutory debility
attaches to the contract clause supporting checkoffs
in a representation election context. Therefore, there
is no justification for altering the clear restrictions
relating to the time for cancellation contained in the
checkoff authorization itself.
Our decision herein in no way affects the right of
the newly selected representative to bargain for new
terms and conditions of employment; nor does it
relieve the employer of the duty so to bargain.' The
rights and obligations of persons concerned during
this transition period and following the terminal
date or reasonable duration of the contract remain
unaltered.` We hold merely that the representation
election herein was conducted on March 22, 1968, in
anticipation of the termination of a lawful contract
of reasonable duration and that the existing
collective-bargaining agreement remained effective
until its expiration date on April 13, 1968. The dues
checkoff authorizations were by their terms
"irrevocable for a period of one year from the date
of execution or until the expiration of the present
labor agreement . whichever occurs first. . ."
There being no indication that any of the written
checkoff revocations involved herein were pursuant
to the first named condition, we find that they could
take effect only upon expiration of the labor
agreement on April 13. Therefore, we find that all
dues deducted on April 5, pursuant to checkoff
authorizations were lawful, and that Respondents
did not, in their conduct with respect to checkoff,
violate the Act as alleged. Accordingly, we shall
dismiss the complaint in its entirety.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board hereby orders that the complaint
herein be, and it hereby is, dismissed in its entirety.
'American Seating Company , 106 NLRB 250.
'See, e .g., Bethlehem Steel Company (Shipbuilding Division ), 136 NLRB
1500, 1502 , enfd . in relevant part 320 F.2d 615, 619 (C.A. 3); Stainless
Steel Products , Incorporated, 157 NLRB 232, 233.