CWA, Local 6306

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 28, 1972

198 N.L.R.B. 1098 (N.L.R.B. 1972)

1098 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Communications Workers of America, Local 6306,
AFL-CIO, and Communications Workers of
America, AFL-CIO (Southwestern Bell Telephone
Company) and Adele M. Gotthardt and Marilyn
Mason. Cases 14-CB-2325-1 and 14-CB-2325-2
August 28, 1972
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS JENKINS, KENNEDY, AND
PENELLO
On May 25, 1972, Trial Examiner Samuel M.
Singer issued the attached Decision in this proceed-
ing. Thereafter, the Respondents and the General
Counsel filed exceptions and supporting briefs.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the record and the Trial
Examiner's Decision in light of the exceptions and
briefs and has decided to affirm the Trial Examiner's
rulings, findings,' and conclusions2 and to adopt his
recommended Order.3
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended , the National Labor
Relations Board adopts as its Order the recommend-
ed Order of the Trial Examiner and hereby orders
that the Respondents , Communications Workers of
America, Local 6306 , AFL-CIO , and Communica-
tions Workers of America, AFL-CIO, their officers,
agents, and representatives , shall take the action set
forth in the Trial Examiner 's recommended Order.
i The Respondents have excepted to certain credibility findings made by
the Trial Examiner It is the Board's established policy not to overrule a
Trial Examiner's resolutions with respect to credibility unless the clear
preponderance of all of the relevant evidence convinces us that the
resolutions were incorrect Standard Dry Wall Products, Inc, 91 NLRB 544,
enfd 188 F 2d 362 (C A 3) We have carefully examined the record and
find no basis for reversing his findings
2 We agree with the Trial Examiner that Local President Eagan's letter
of October 12, 1971, to the Charging Parties is not an effective retraction of
his September 22, 1971, letter in which he had told Gotthardt that her
withdrawal of checkoff authorization was untimely, that the manner of her
subsequent dues payments was violative of the CWA constitution, and that
unless she signed a new checkoff authorization "I will be forced to initiate
action which will lead to your dismissal by the Company " Although Eagan
testified that he wrote the October letter because he had been mistaken
about both the timeliness of Gotthardt's withdrawal and the manner of her
dues payments, the letter merely states that in view of the existing facts no
action would be taken, but it does not withdraw or correct the unlawful
statement of the member's obligation Accordingly, we find that the letter is
inadequate as a retraction of the earlier letter and does not nullify the unfair
labor practices committed
3 General Counsel contends that the Trial Examiner erred in failing to
recommend that Respondents be ordered to rescind the rule herein found
unlawful In view of our Order directing Respondents to cease and desist
from maintaining and enforcing the unlawful rule, we find it unnecessary to
require rescission of the rule
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
SAMUEL M . SINGER , Trial Examiner : This proceeding
was heard before me in St . Louis, Missouri , on April 11,
1972, pursuant to charges and amended charges filed on
September 29 and October 26, 1971, and complaint issued
on February 17, 1972. The complaint alleged that Respon-
dent labor organizations violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the
National Labor Relations Act by threatening Charging
Parties Gotthardt and Mason with discharge or loss of
employment if they refused to sign authorization cards for
dues checkoffs and by maintaining and enforcing a rule
requiring members to execute such checkoffs . All parties
appeared and were afforded full opportunity to be heard
and adduce evidence . Briefs were received from General
Counsel and Respondents.
Upon the entire record in the case' and from my
observation of the testimonial demeanor of the witnesses, I
make the following:
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
1. BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER INVOLVED
Southwestern Bell Telephone Company (the "Compa-
ny"), the Charging Parties' employer, is a Missouri
corporation with its principal office and place of business
in St. Louis, Missouri, furnishing telephone communica-
tion service. During the past 12 months, a representative
period, it derived revenues in excess of $500,000, and
purchased and received from sellers in other States
products valued in excess of $50,000. I find that it is an
employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
Respondents Communications Workers of America,
AFL-CIO (the International) and Communications Work-
ers of America , Local 6306, AFL-CIO (the local), are
i Transcript as corrected by my order on notice dated May 5, 1972
General Counsel's unopposed motion , dated April 27, 1972, to reopen the
record to receive the amended charges and affidavit of service of said
charges, and to renumber the index and description of formal documents, is
hereby granted
198 NLRB No. 157
CWA, LOCAL 6306 1099
labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of
the Act.
III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The Facts 2
1. Background; contractual provisions regarding
dues payments
Respondent Local represents employees of Southwestern
Bell, including Charging Parties, plant clerical employees,
and local members. Insofar as here relevant, the collective
agreement in effect through July 17, 1971, and a new 3-
year agreement effective thereafter provided for dues
checkoffs by the Company upon written authorization by
employees. Each agreement also provided that members
could "escape" their membership obligation within speci-
fied time limits (10 days before the end of the contract
term.) 3
A resolution adopted by Respondent International in
July 1968 provided that "[w]here payroll deduction Union
dues and fees is provided by a valid and subsisting contract
with an employer, it shall be the only acceptable method"
for collecting dues and fees. The adopted resolution also
stated that it "is the policy of CWA that all contracts with
employers contain check-off agreements"; that all dues
and fees "must be remitted" by the employer to the
International's secretary-treasurer; that the latter is to
remit the proceeds to locals after deducting each member's
per capita dues and fees; and that, where a collective
agreement contained no checkoff clause, it was the locals'
responsibility to collect all dues and fees. Minutes of the
International executive board, dating back to February
1955, provide that membership dues are payable on the
first day of each month and must be paid by the end of the
last day of the month to avoid delinquency.
2. Charging Parties' cancellation of their dues-
checkoff authorizations
The Charging Parties have been long-time members of
Local 6306. Gotthardt, a member for 26 years, had been
"Group B" director "in charge" of female stewards and
about 105 female employees for at least 12 years-until
November 1968. Mason succeeded Gotthardt, as Group B
director, holding that position until abolished in November
1969; she also served as steward "several times," last time
from May to December 1971.
2 The material facts are based largely on documentary evidence and on
uncontradicted, credited testimony of the Charging Parties (Gotthardt and
Mason) To the extent that the testimony of Respondents' only witness
Local President Eagan is inconsistent with that of Charging Parties, I credit
the latter, who impressed me as honest and forthright On the other hand,
Eagan, who was personally involved in the alleged unfair labor practices,
often displayed studious attempts to conform his testimony to what he
considered to be in the best interest of Respondents
3 Although there are variations in language in the two agreements (one
of them containing a "Maintenance of Union Dues" and the other a
"Modified Agency Shop" clause), Respondents' counsel stipulated that "as
it pertains to these particular charging parties ' I don't believe there
would really be any significant difference " Neither contract provided for
the typical union-shop clause under which employees must become
members after 30 days' employment, although under the latest agreement
Dissatisfied with Local President Eagan's failure to
rectify their repeated complaints about "underrepresenta-
tion," 4 on July 8 (10 days before the termination of the
then collective agreement; i.e., during the "escape period")
Gotthardt and Mason formally notified the Company that
they were canceling their dues-checkoff authorizations
effective as of August.5
Charging Parties then wrote International President
Beirne a letter voicing their complaints, which was received
by Beirne on July 14. Gotthardt specifically complained
that the Group B director position was abolished arbitrari-
ly without regard to the fact that "105 girls is a large
enough group to have our own representative"; indicated
that the Group A director (who formerly handled only
male workers) could not adequately represent all employ-
ees; and advised Beirne that the two girls were stopping
"our dues deduction from our paychecks" and would mail
the dues directly to him each month. Mason specifically
complained that "we are not satisfied" with the steward
appointed by Local President Eagan; stated that they had
tried "in vain to have her [the steward] replaced" and
"hold an election for this job"; and pleaded, "Let's do
something for the `Plant Clerical Group.' "6 On July 19,
International President Beirne wrote Gotthardt that he was
referring the matter to International Vice President
McCowen.
3. Respondents' demands that Charging Parties
execute new dues-checkoff authorizations; the
threats of loss of employment if they failed to do
so
On July 29, International Vice President McCowen
wrote a memorandum to CWA Representative Kelly, with
copies to Gotthardt, Mason, and Local President Eagan,
requesting Kelly to "check into" the Charging Parties'
complaints "and see what can be done to rectify the
problem which apparently exists." McCowen explained
that "Our International rules do not permit payment of
Union dues" directly to the International "particularly
when payroll deduction for union dues is available." On
September 3, McCowen wrote another memorandum to
International Area Director Lovett, with copies again to
Charging Parties and Eagan, referring to his prior
memorandum to Kelly, noting that the International
received two more money orders from Charging Parties,
and calling attention to Lovett "and others receiving copy
of this letter" the established dues-payment procedures,
including the July 1968 "established rule" of the Interna-
containing the "Modified Agency Shop" provision, nonmembers were
required to pay the equivalent of "periodic dues applicable to members"
4 Gotthardt objected to abolition of the Group B director position and
Mason to the inadequacy or inefficiency of stewards
5 Unless otherwise indicated, dates are 1971
6 The letter is divided in two parts, one signed by Gotthardt and the
other by Mason Although, Gotthardt's portion ends with the words "2
former members of Local 6306 and Local 6306 Executive Board," it is clear,
as they testified, that they continued to regard themselves and remained
dues-paying members I so find Gotthardt's letter expressly states, "We
must always be union members," and Mason admittedly continued to act as
a steward after sending the letter-until October 1971 As Mason later told
Local President Eagan, they wrote the letter to the International "to draw
attention to our problems," and that it was her intention to resume checkoff
deductions once "the trouble" was "straightened out "
1100 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
tional executive board (referred to supra, sec. A, 1), that
"where payroll deduction of Union dues and fees is
provided . . . it shall be the only acceptable method."
McCowen also wrote that "Since payroll deduction of
Union dues is available [to Gotthardt and Mason] they are
in violation of this established rule by remitting their
membership dues through the use of postal money orders."
Finally, he expressed the hope that "this situation can be
rectified" by Charging Parties' "signing new payroll
deduction cards and without the need of taking further
action."
On September 22, Local President Eagan wrote Gott-
hardt reminding her that she had already received
International Vice President McCowen's September 3
letter outlining "the only acceptable method of paying
your dues"; telling her she was "in violation of the CWA
Constitution"; indicating that in accordance with his
information she had "cancelled [her] dues deduction
authorization during the month of August 1971" when
"there was no escape period"; and admonishing her that
unless she signed a new dues checkoff authorization card
by October 2, he "will be forced to initiate action that will
lead to your dismissal." At the hearing Eagan reiterated
that he wrote the letter to Gotthardt to "get her back on
the dues checkoff system," indicating that as a member of
the Union she should "fulfill" her membership obligation
by executing a payroll deduction card. He testified that he
did not write a like letter to Mason at that time because "I
thought I had an understanding with her as to when she
would sign a dues deduction card."
Mason testified credibly that she had several telephone
conversations with Eagan-the first shortly after she and
Gotthardt sent their July letter to International President
Beirne , when Eagan stated he was "shocked at [her] part in
it" and disputed some of the complaints mentioned in the
letter. Mason assured him that she "had not withdrawn
from the Union," that she only wanted "to draw his
attention to our problems" (in her case the steward
situation, supra, fn. 4), and that she "would sign another
payroll deduction card . . . when he got the trouble .. .
straightened out." In early September, when Eagan again
telephoned to inquire when she "was going to sign" the
dues-deduction authorization, Mason reiterated that she
would do so when her complaints were rectified; Mason
also urged him to attend to Gotthardt's grievance concern-
ing abolition of the Director B position. On September 29,
Mason telephoned Eagan and asked why he had sent
Gotthardt the letter "threatening her with dismissal from
her job." When Eagan answered that Gotthardt "dropped
out of the union" when she could not do so, Mason
disputed the statement and urged Eagan to attend to
Gotthardt's complaints. Eagan replied that Gotthardt
would not talk to him and, in any event, that the Group B
director position was "unnecessary" so that it was useless
to talk about it. To Mason's inquiry why she "hadn't
gotten a letter" like Gotthardt, Eagan said that Mason had
promised to execute a dues-checkoff card when her
complaint was "straightened out" and he "had no reason
to doubt [Mason's] word, but if [Mason] didn't [she] would
probably receive [such] a letter, too." When Mason
insisted that she and Gotthardt had canceled their checkoff
authorization "during the legal escape period," Eagan said
"that might be true but he was still going to do it," stating
that if he did not receive Gotthardt's new checkoff
authorization card by the October 2 deadline he "was
going to spend the entire weekend" getting the Company
to fire her.
On October 5, International Vice President McCowen
again wrote a memorandum to Area Director Lovett (with
copies to Charging Parties, Eagan and others), stating that
on October 4 he once more received dues payments from
Gotthardt and Mason and expressing amazement about
their unwillingness "to pay their membership dues in the
manner as determined by the Executive Board" as he had
outlined in his September 3 memorandum; "copy of which
letter was furnished" to both employees.
4. Alleged "retraction" of the threats
In the meantime, on September 29, Gotthardt and
Mason filed the original charges in this proceeding alleging
violation by Respondent Local of Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the
Act.7 On October 12, Local President Eagan wrote
Gotthardt that his September 22 letter admonishing her
that he "would be forced to initiate action" leading to her
dismissal from employment was written "under a miscon-
ception and misunderstanding of the facts" and he now
assured her that no such action "has been or will be
initiated." On the same day, Eagan also wrote Mason,
enclosing a copy of his letter of "retraction" to Gotthardt
and also assuring her that "such action was never
contemplated with regard to you nor was it my intention to
infer that it would in any conversations we have had on
this subject."
Thereafter, beginning with November, Charging Parties
sent their dues directly to the local; and insofar as appears,
neither one had yet executed new dues-checkoff cards.
At the hearing, Eagan testified that he wrote his letter of
"retraction" to Gotthardt after learning that she canceled
her dues-checkoff authorization during the proper "escape
period." However, when asked if it was "the time at which
[he ] thought she had revoked her dues . . . rather than the
fact she had revoked her dues checkoff" that prompted his
letter, he answered, "I was in error as to what I thought her
obligations were, I guess you could say that." At another
point, he indicated that he was still of the view that "the
dues checkoff system was the only acceptable method" for
membership dues payments
On March 21, 1972, the International's executive board
amended its July 1968 resolution to state that payroll dues
deductions, when provided by a collective agreement,
"shall be the only acceptable method, except when
provided otherwise by law."
B. Conclusions
1. In International Union of Electrical, Radio and
Machine Workers, Local 601, AFL-CIO (Westinghouse
Electric Corporation), 180 NLRB 1062, the Board laid
7 Amended charges, filed on October 26, also named the International `.originated" with a Board agent who "suggested" that such letter "may help
8 Eagan also testified that "the idea" of writing a letter of retraction resolve the issue."
CWA, LOCAL 6306 1101
down the general principle , dispositive of the basic issue in
this case:
The Board has repeatedly held that dues checkoff
authorizations must be made "voluntarily" and that an
employee has a "right under Section 7 of the Act to
refuse to sign checkoff authorization cards." Any
conduct , express or implied , which coerces an employ-
ee in his attempt to exercise this right clearly violates
Section 8 (b)(1)(A). [Citations omitted].
Also in Westinghouse, the Board held that the proviso to
Section 8(b)(1)(A), according a labor organization "the
right" to prescribe its own rules regarding retention of
membership "does not extend to interference with the
relationship between employee and employer ." 180 NLRB
1066. The union may not "deprive[s ] the employee of his
right to select or reject the checkoff system as the method
by which to pay his periodic dues to the Union " whether
the collective agreement provides for a union-security
clause , or a lesser form of security such as a "maintenance-
of-dues" clause . Id., at 1062 . See also Local 4012,
Communications Workers of America, AFL-CIO (Michigan
Bell Telephone Co.), 184 NLRB No. 20.
2. The record establishes that as far back as July 1968,
the International promulgated a rule that "where payroll
deduction [of] Union dues and fees is provided" by a
collective agreement with an employer , " it shall be the only
acceptable method" for dues and fees collections. The
record further shows that during the statutory 6-month
limitation period both the International and Local 6306
sought to enforce this rule. Thus, on learning that the
Charging Parties (members of Local 6306) had canceled
their dues-checkoff authorizations in July (admittedly
during the appropriate "escape" period before expiration
of the existing collective agreement ), International Vice
President McCowen on September 3 informed the Charg-
ing Parties as well as Local President Eagan of the
existence of this rule, and of the Charging Parties'
"violation of this established rule." McCowen at the same
time expressed the hope that the Charging Parties would
sign "new payroll deduction cards . . . without the need of
taking further action ." Implementing McCowen 's instruc-
tions, Local President Eagan on September 22 wrote one of
the Charging Parties (Gotthardt) specifically referring her
to McCowen 's letter and to the International's rule
regarding "the only acceptable method of paying your
dues" and threatening "to initiate action" to terminate her
employment unless she signed a new payroll deduction
card within 10 days (October 2). The other Charging Party
(Mason), who was spared such letter because Eagan
expected her ultimately to execute an authorization, was on
September 29 verbally warned of a similar fate if Eagan's
9 The promulgation of the rule in 1968, beyond the 10(b) limitation
period, does not bar a finding that invoking and enforcing the rule within
the 6-month period was unlawful Cf, e g, Cone Mills Corporation, 174
NLRB 1015, 1021, 1 LA Local No 1694 (James T Moock), 137 NLRB
1178, 1186-87, enfd 331 F 2d 712 (C A 3)
Respondents' contention (br pp 22-23) that if either Respondent is
liable for any violations, it is the local and not the International since Local
President Eagan's threats are not attributable to the International is without
ment Respondents ignore the fact that Eagan was implementing an avowed
International policy Indeed, it was International Vice President McCowen
who directed Eagan (and Charging Parties) to the International's "estab-
lished rule" and thereby "instigated the course of events" that followed. Cf
expectations were not realized. Several days later (October
5), International Vice President McCowen reiterated to the
Charging Parties and Eagan the viability of the Interna-
tional rule regarding the method of paying membership
dues.
I conclude, based on applicable Board law, that by
maintaining, enforcing, and implementing (through threats
of reprisal) a rule requiring union members to execute
dues-checkoff authorizations, Respondents International
and Local 6306 restrained and coerced employees in
violation of Section 7, thereby violating Section 8(b)(1)(A)
of the Act .9
3. Contrary to Respondents' contention (br. pp. 20-21),
the instant case does not fall within the exception to the
general rule enunciated in Westinghouse Electric, supra,
exemplified by General Motors Corporation, Packard
Electric Division, 134 NLRB 1107. In General Motors, the
Board affirmed the Trial Examiner's conclusion that the
dues-checkoff requirement imposed upon five employees
was proper and lawful, noting that the employees involved
"were part of an organized dissident group whose practice
it was to willfully delay payment of union dues in order
... to harass the statutory bargaining representative";
that the employees involved, members of a rival organiza-
tion, had previously been "in default" under the union-
shop agreement; and that the union's action was in no way
motivated by a desire to "penalize" members of the rival
organization. (134 NLRB at 116.) The Trial Examiner
concluded that "considering the background of delayed
payments and default, the [union] had reasonable grounds
to believe that the only assured way to prevent recurrence
of default by the five men was to require a checkoff
authorization"; and that under "the circumstances" in-
volved which measure was both reasonable and necessary
to a fair administration of the contract." (Id. at 1117).
Here, on the other hand, there is no credible evidence that
the Charging Parties had deliberately defaulted on dues
payments and certainly no claim by Respondents that they
had imposed the checkoff requirements on that ground.io
Nor is there any evidence of any attempt to "harass"
Respondents, the Charging Parties' sole objective in
canceling their checkoff authorizations and remitting their
dues to the International having been "to draw attention"
to responsible International officials the problems in the
administration of the local. Furthermore, even Local
President Eagan ultimately conceded at the hearing that
Charging Parties had properly withdrawn their authonza-
tions during the legal "escape" period, contending only
that they should have sent their dues directly to the local
instead of to the International. To begin with, Eagan at no
time told the employees that they could satisfy their
Shelby-Baitersby and Company v N LR B, 259 F 2d 151, 157 (C A 4) and
cases cited therein
iO There is evidence that , in March 1972 (long after the events here
involved), Mason had made an extra dues payment on discovering that the
Company had erroneously failed to deduct I month's dues (for July 1971)
when Mason was still under the checkoff system However , it is clear that
the Union (either because it was itself unaware of the error or for other
undisclosed reasons) never made an issue of this On the contrary, at the
hearing Respondents conceded that "the record is clear that we have never
paid attention [ to the purported month's dues delinquency ] or discharge of
[her] for this "
1102 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
membership obligations through such procedure; he
admitted at the hearing that the purpose of his September
22 letter to Gotthardt, threatening her with loss of
employment, was "to get her back on the dues checkoff
system." In any event, beginning with November Gott-
hardt and Mason did send their dues directly to the Local.
4. Respondents' final contention (br. pp. 21-22, 24)
that even if they committed the alleged unfair labor
practices, this complaint should be dismissed because they
had taken "corrective" action to undue their wrongs
presents a closer question. Respondents' rely particularly
on Local President Eagan's October 12 "apologetic letters"
to the Charging Parties withdrawing his previous threats
and on the International's March 1972 resolution modify-
ing its prior rule (promulgated in July 1968) to provide that
payroll dues deductions shall be the only acceptable
method, "except when provided otherwise by law." While
it may be that these actions have nullified immediate
threats to Charging Parties who are now being permitted to
pay their dues directly to the local without interference, I
am not satisfied that Respondents' past violations can be
considered mere "technical" transgressions, justifying the
withholding of a remedial order.
In the first place, Eagan's October 12 letter did not
reassure the Charging Parties (nor other members who, it is
reasonable to assume, have learned of their plight) that the
policy previously enunciated repeatedly by the Internation-
al (i.e., that a dues checkoff is "the only acceptable
method" for collecting membership dues and fees) was no
longer operative. Eagan's letter said nothing more than
that he had "acted under a misconception and misunder-
standing of the facts" without assuring the Charging
Parties of their legal right to refuse to sign checkoff
authorizations in the future. Nor does Eagan's testimony at
the hearing demonstrate that he "retracted" his threats in
recognition of the law that employees had the statutory
right not to pay membership dues through payroll
deductions. Instead, he emphasized only the time factor;
i.e,, that he had failed to appreciate the fact that the
Charging Parties had canceled their authorizations during
the contractual "escape period." Indeed, at one point he
indicated that he still clung to the rule that "the dues
checkoff system was the only acceptable method" for dues
payments. The International's March 1972 amendment of
the 1968 rule is no more enlightening than Eagan's
interpretations. The addition of the vague phrase "except
when provided by law" to the rule requiring dues payments
through checkoffs places an unfair burden of deciding the
law upon employees-a factor inconsistent with statutory
policy of affording employees a free choice in selecting or
rejecting checkoffs as the means for paying membership
dues.
Under all the circumstances, it appears reasonable and
appropriate to require Respondents to post a notice clearly
informing their members of their rights in regard to
execution of dues checkoffs, and to issue a cease-and-desist
11 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec . 102.46 of the
Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the findings,
conclusions , recommendations , and recommended Order herein shall, as
provided in Sec 102 48 of the Rules and Regulations , be adopted by the
Board and become its findings, conclusions, and order, and all objections
thereto shall be deemed waived for all purposes
order insuring that Respondents will hereafter abide by a
lawful dues-collection policy and refrain from threatening
employees with job loss if they refused to execute checkoff
authorizations.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Respondents restrained and coerced employees in
the exercise of their Section 7 rights , and thereby engaged
in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section
8(b)(1)(A) of the Act, by (a) maintaining and enforcing a
rule requiring members to pay dues and fees only by means
of checkoff authorization , where checkoffs are permitted in
an applicable collective agreement ; and (b) by threatening
members with discharge or loss of employment unless they
executed checkoff authorization cards.
2. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondents engaged in certain
unfair labor practices, I shall recommend that they cease
and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action
(posting of a notice) which, for reasons stated supra (sec. B,
4), I find necessary to remedy in order to effectuate the
policies of the Act.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and
conclusions of law and upon the entire record, and
pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, I hereby make the
following recommended: ii
ORDER
Respondents Communications Workers of America,
Local 6306, AFL-CIO and Communications Workers of
America, AFL-CIO, and their respective officers, agents,
and representatives, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Maintaining and enforcing a rule requiring members
to pay dues and initiation fees only by means of checkoff
authorization, where checkoffs are permitted in a collective
agreement with an employer.
(b) Threatening employee-members of employers, in-
cluding of Southwestern Bell Telephone Company with
whom Respondents have executed collective agreements
providing for payroll deductions, with discharge or loss of
employment unless they signed checkoff authorization
cards for collection of membership fees and periodic dues.
(c) In any like or related manner restraining or coercing
employees in the exercise of their rights guaranteed by
Section 7 of the Act;
2. Take the following affirmative action designed to
effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Post at their offices and meeting halls copies of the
attached notice marked "Appendix." 12 Copies of said
notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for
12 In the event that the Board 's Order is enforced by a Judgment of a
United States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by
Order of the National 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 "
CWA, LOCAL 6306 1103
Region 14, after being duly signed by their authorized
representatives , shall be posted by Respondents immedi-
ately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by them for
60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places,
including all places where notices to members are
customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by
Respondents to insure that said notices are not altered,
defaced, or covered by any other material.
(b) Furnish the Regional Director for Region 14 signed
copies of said notices for posting by Southwestern Bell
Telephone Company, if willing, in places where notices to
employees are customarily posted. Copies of said notices,
on forms provided by said Regional Director, shall, after
being signed by Respondents , be forthwith returned to the
Regional Director for disposition by him.
(c) Notify said Regional Director, in writing, within 20
days from the receipt of this Decision, what steps have
been taken to comply herewith.13
13 In the event that this recommended Order is adopted by the Board,
this provision shall he modified to read "Notify said Regional Director, in
writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps Respondents
have taken to comply herewith "
only acceptable method for collecting such fees and
dues.
WE WILL NOT threaten any of our members who are
employees of Southwestern Bell Telephone Company,
or of any other employer with whom we have
collective-bargaining agreements , with discharge or loss
of employment unless they sign dues or fees checkoff
authorizations for us.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner restrain
or coerce employees in the exercise of their rights
guaranteed by Section 7 of the National Labor
Relations Act.
Dated By
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO MEMBERS
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
To all members of Communications Workers of America,
Local 6306 , AFL-CIO, and Communications Workers of
America , AFL-CIO.
WE WILL NOT maintain or enforce any rule providing
that payroll deductions or checkoffs of our membership
fees and periodic dues from our members shall be the
Dated By
COMMUNICATIONS WORKERS
OF AMERICA , LocAL 6306,
AFL-CIO
(Labor Organization)
(Representative) (Title)
COMMUNICATIONS WORKERS
OF AMERICA , AFL-CIO
(LABOR ORGAIZATION)
(Representative) (Title)
This is an official notice and must not be defaced by
anyone.
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days
from the date of posting and must not be altered , defaced,
or covered by any other material.
Any questions concerning this notice or compliance with
its provisions may be directed to the Board's Office, 210
North 12th Boulevard , Room 448, St . Louis , Missouri
63101, Telephone 314-622-4167.