Food & Commercial Workers Local 1439 (Allied Employers)

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 8, 1985

275 N.L.R.B. 995 (N.L.R.B. 1985)

FOOD & COMMERCIAL WORKERS LOCAL 1439 (ALLIED EMPLOYERS)
United Food and Commercial Workers Union, Local
No. 1439 AFL-CIO and Allied Employers, Inc.
Case 19-CB-4314
8 July 1985
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN DOTSON AND MEMBERS
HUNTER AND DENNIS
On 22 July 1983 Administrative Law Judge
Gerald A. Wacknov issued the attached decision.'
The General Counsel, the Charging Party, and the
Respondent filed exceptions and supporting briefs,
and the Respondent filed a response to the General
Counsel's exceptions.
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.
This proceeding involves the lawfulness of fines
imposed by the Respondent on a group of employ-
ees who resigned their union memberships and re-
turned to work during a strike. The judge conclud-
ed that the fines imposed against 23 individuals vio-
lated Section 8(b)(1)(A).2 He also dismissed the
complaint allegations concerning three employees
pursuant to the General Counsel's posthearing
motion.3 For the reasons set forth below, we agree
with the judge that the fines imposed against the 23
employees violated Section 8(b)(1)(A). We also
find, however, that the fines imposed against
Ricard, Holmes, and Smith likewise violated Sec-
tion 8(b)(1)(A).
Subsequent-to the judge's decision in the instant
case, the Board issued its decision in Machinists
Local 1414 (Neufeld Porsche-Audi), 270 NLRB 1330
(1984), holding that a union cannot lawfully restrict
its'members'-right to-resign and that any fines im-
posed against members who resign and then return
to work during a strike violate Section 8(b)(l)(A).
The Neufeld rule, which renders any restriction on
resignations unenforceable, clearly obviates the sig-
nificance of whether a particular employee did or
did not have actual notice of the union's restric-
tions on resignation.
' The case was previously submitted to the Board pursuant to a stipu-
lation by the parties By an order dated 9 November 1982 the Board
granted the General Counsel's motion to withdraw the stipulation and
remand the case to the Regional Director for further processing
2 The judge based his conclusion on his finding that the 23 employees
did not have actual notice of the Respondent 's 30-day restriction on res-
ignations
2 The General Counsel's motion, made in his brief to the judge, was
predicated on the fact that Jim Ricard , Pat Holmes , and Mary Smith had
actual notice of the Respondent 's resignation restrictions prior to their re-
signing -
995
Applying these principles to the instant case, we
note that all 26 employees at issue resigned their
union memberships prior to their returning to
work. Thus, the fines imposed against all 26 were
for postresignation conduct and were, therefore,
unlawful under Neufeld. Accordingly, the Union
violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) by imposing fines
against the 23 individuals who did not know of the
Union's 30-day restriction and the three employees
who did know about the restriction.
REMEDY
Pursuant to our established practice, we shall
order the Respondent to cease and desist from its
unlawful activities and to take certain affirmative
actions including expunging the restriction on res-
ignations from its governing documents. Engineers
& Scientists Guild (Lockheed-California), 268 NLRB
311 (1983).4 We shall also order the Respondent to
rescind the fines and the discipline unlawfully im-
posed against the employees at issue, refund to
them, with interest, any fines already paid, and
make them whole for any loss of earnings, benefits,
travel expenses, or any other expenses incurred as a
result of their need to defend themselves against
the charges unlawfully preferred against them. La-
borers Northern California Council (Baker, Co.), 275
NLRB 278 (1985).5
ORDER
The National -Labor Relations Board orders that
the Respondent , United Food and Commercial
Workers Union, Local No. 1439, AFL-CIO, Rich-
land, Washington , its officers, agents, and repre-
sentatives, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Maintaining in its governing documents arti-
cle 4(L) of its constitution to the extent it provides:
Any member who is otherwise entitled to
resign his or her membership while remaining
employed within the jurisdiction of the Inter-
national Union must give 30 days ' notice by
certified mail to the Local Union in which he
or she is a member before his or her resigna-
tion may become effective.
(b) Restraining or coercing employees in the ex-
ercise of the rights guranteed by Section 7 of the
Act by preferring and processing internal charges
based on postresignation conduct , and by imposing
fines based on these charges.
* Member Dennis adheres to the position she set forth in Neufeld
-Porsche-Audi , supra at 1336, fn 22
- 5'-See also Liberty Mutual Insurance Co, 235 NLRB 1387 ( 1978), and
Baptist Memorial Hospital , 229 NLRB 45 (1977)
275 NLRB No. 140
996 DECISIONS-OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
(c) In any like or related manner restraining or
coercing employees in the exercise of their Section
7 rights.
2. Take the following affirmative action neces-
sary to effectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Expunge from its governing documents arti-
cle 4(L) of its constitution set forth above.
(b) Cancel, withdraw, and rescind the charges
and fines- imposed against the below-named em-
ployees and refund to them any moneys they may
have paid as a result to these fines, with interest, as
prescribed in Florida Steel Corp., 231 NLRB 651
(1977):
Loreen Baird
Robert Bootsma
Earl "Kim"
Byington
Robert Campeau
Clint Clawdus
Ron Clawdus
Terry Dronen
Toni Fallert
Steve,Garcia
Don Harvey
Margaret. Harmon
Pat Holmes
Terry Hunt
Troy McGowan
Victor Baugher
Jessy Martinez
Robert McCary,
Gilbert Miley
Jim Ricard
Tom Richardson
William Rowe III
Jon Schwartz
Mary Smith
Vern Steck
William D. Writesman
Shirley Krossin
(d) Expunge from the above-named employees'
records any reference to the charges or fines im-
posed against them and inform them, in writing,
that such action has been taken. -
(e) Post at business offices and meeting halls
copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix."6
Copies of the notice, on forms provided by the Re-
gional Director for Region 19, after being signed
by the Respondent's authorized representative,
shall be posted by the -Respondent immediately
upon receipt and maintained for 60 consecutive
days in conspicuous places including all places
where notices to members 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 material.
(f) Furnish the Regional Director for Region 19
signed copies of the notice, in the number designat-
ed by the Regional Director, for posting by the
various employers involved herein, if they are will-
ing, at places where they customarily post notices
to employees. -
6 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 Na-
tional Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursuant to a Judgment
of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the Nation-
al Labor Relations Board "
(g) Notify the Regional Director in writing
within 20 days from the date of this Order what
steps the Respondent has taken to comply.
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES AND MEMBERS
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the iJnited' States' Government
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 maintain in our governing docu-
ments article 4(L) of our constitution to the extent
it provides:
Any member who is otherwise entitled to
resign his or her membership while remaining
employed within the jurisdiction of the Inter-
national Union must give 30 days' notice by
certified mail to the Local Union in which he
or she is a member before his or her resigna-
tion may become effective.
WE WILL NOT restrain or coerce employees in
the exercise of the rights guaranteed by Section 7
of the Act by perferring and processing internal
charges based on postresignation conduct, and by
imposing fines based on these charges.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner re-
strain or coerce employees in the exercise. of their
Section 7 rights.
WE WILL expunge from our governing docu-
ments the restriction on resignations set forth
above.
WE WILL cancel, withdraw, and-, rescind the
charges and fines imposed against the following
employees and refund to them any moneys they
may have paid as a result of these fines, with inter-
est:
Loreen Baird
Robert Bootsma
Earl "Kim"
Byington
Robert Campeau
Clint Clawdus
Ron Clawdus
Terry Dronen
Toni"Fallert
Steve Garcia
Don Harvey
Margaret Harmon
Pat Holmes
Terry Hunt
Troy McGowan
Victor Baugher
Jessy Martinez
Robert McCary
Gilbert Miley
Jim Ricard
Tom Richardson
William Rowe `III
Jon Schwartz
Mary Smith
Vern Steck
William- D. Writesman
Shirley Krossin
FOOD, & COMMERCIAL WORKERS LOCAL 1439 (ALLIED EMPLOYERS)
WE WILL make whole the'above-named employ-
ees for any loss of earnings, benefits,' travel ex-
penses, or any other expenses incurred by them as
a result of their need to defend themselves against
the charges unlawfully preferred against them.
WE WILL expunge from the above-named em-
ployees' records any reference to the charges or
fines imposed against them and inform them, in
writing; that,this action has been taken.
UNITED, FOOD AND COMMERCIAL
WORKERS UNION , LOCAL No. 1439, -
AFL-CIO- - -
DECISION
. STATEMENT OF THE-CASE
GERALD A - WACKNOV, Administrative Law Judge.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing with respect to this matter
was held before me in Richland, Washington, on May 3,
1983. The initial charge was filed on November 5, 1981,
by Allied Employers, Inc (the Association).
Thereafter, on December 23, 1981, the Regional Di-
rector' for' Region 19 of the National Labor Relations
Board (the Board) issued a complaint and notice of hear-
ing alleging a violation by United Food and Commercial
Workers Union, Local No. 1439, AFL-CIO (Respond-
ent) of Section 8(b)(1)(A) of ;the National Labor Rela-
tions Act (the Act). Thereafter the matter was stipulated
directly to the Board for decision
On December 1, 1982, following a remand of- the
matter by the Board pursuant to the General Counsel's
request, an amended. complaint and notice of hearing was
issued, again alleging a violation by Respondent • of Sec-
tion 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act, but premised on a theory dis-
tinctly different from-that encompassed by the original
complaint, Respondent's answer to the amended com-
plaint, duly filed, denies the commission of any 'unfair
labor practices. -
The parties were afforded a full opportunity. -to be
heard, to call, examine, and cross-examine witnesses, and
to, introduce relevant- evidence - Since the close of the
hearing, briefs have been received from the General
Counsel, counsel for Respondent, and counsel for the
Charging Party. _
On the entire record, and based on my observation of
the witnesses and consideration of the briefs submitted, I
make the following I i
FINDINGS OF FACT
I.' JURISDICTION
Allied Employers, Inc. is an association of-employers
which, inter alia, represents Mark and Pak, Albertson's,
and certain-other retail grocery chains operating stores
located in Richland, Kennewick, and Pasco, Washington.
Mark and Pak and,Albertson's, in the course and con-
duct, of their 'respective business operation, each have
annal gross sales of goods and services valued in excess
of $500,000, and annually- purchase and cause to be trans-
ferred and delivered to their respective facilities within
997
the State of Washington goods and materials valued in
excess of $50,000 directly from sources outside the State;
or from suppliers within the State which in turn obtained
such goods and materials directty from sources outside
the State. -
Based on the foregoing admissions; I find that Mark
and Pak, Albertson's and, derivatively, Allied Employ-
ers, -Inc. are, and have been at all times material herein,
, employers. engaged in commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
It is admitted that Respondent is, and has been at all
times material herein, a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The Issues
The principal issue raised by the pleadings is whether
Respondent violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act by
fining or otherwise disciplining members for crossing Re-
spondent's picket line.
B. The Facts
During the fall of 1981, Respondent and the Associa-
tion were engaged in negotiations for a multiemployer
retail grocery store clerks' contract covering a number
of retail grocery companies doing business in the vicinity
of Kennewick, Pasco, and Richland, Washington (com-
monly referred to as the Tri-Cities area). In the course of
those negotiations, Respondent commenced an economic
strike against one employer, and the remaining employ-
ers responded by locking out their employees who were
represented by Respondent At this point in time, in late
October 1981, -various employers of the Association dis-
tributed information to their striking or locked out em-
ployees advising and suggesting that they convert their
status from that of regular or full members of Respond-
ent to that of dues paying members only. by sending an
appropriate letter to Respondent. In this manner, they
were advised, they would be free to return to work
without fear of fines or other- retribution by Respondent.
On October 20, 1981, Respondent held a general mem-
bership meeting in the Labor Temple at Richland, Wash-
ington.'At that meeting, Respondent explained that it in-
tended to treat the aforementioned anticipated letters as
resignations, and the members were advised that if they
crossed the picket lines or returned to work during the
strike, or, otherwise violated the obligations of member-
ship, they would be - subjected to fines, suspension, cen-
sure, or expulsion during the 30-day 'period following re-
ceipt of those letters in accordance with Respondent's
constitution:} - - -
' Respondent's constitution, at art 4(L), provides as follows
(L) Any-member who is otherwise entitled to resign his or her mem-
bership while remaining employed within the jurisdiction of the
International Union must give 30 days' notice by certified mail to the
Local Union in which he or she is a member before his or her resig-
nation may become effective
998 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Commencing on October 21 and thereafter, 34 mem-
bers of Respondent advised it, in writing, of their intent
to immediately change their status from a regular
member to a "dues paying member only." However, one
employee, John Schwartz, specifically stated in his letter
that he was resigning "from regular membership" but
would continue to pay his monthly dues. Subsequent to
submitting the aforementioned letters, but less than 30
days thereafter, the individuals crossed the- picket line
and returned to work. Thereupon, Respondent sent a
letter to each of these 34- individuals advising them of
disciplinary proceedings which had been instituted
against them.
Thereafter, on March 4 and 5, 1982, Respondent con-
ducted hearings with respect to the 34 individuals before
a union trial board. As a result, charges were dismissed
against 4 indiviudals, 10 individuals were assessed fines
amounting from $300 to $3000, and the remaining 20
were censured. All those who were censured or fined
have appealed that result through counsel to the United
Food and Commercial Workers International Union, in
accordance with internal union procedures.
C. Analysis and Conclusions'
During times material' herein, the Dalmo Victor2 case
was pending before the Board. The Board's decision
issued on September 10, 1982. Attempting to accommo-
datethe interests of employees who may desire to resign
their` union membership during the course of a strike,
with, the legitimate interests of a union in evaluating its
economic leverage prior to committing itself and its
members to a strike situation, the Board, in Dalmo Victor,
essentially by a 3-to-2 margin, enunciated, 263 NLRB at
987, that-
a rule which restricts a union member's right
to resign for a period not to exceed 30 days after
the tender of such a resignation reflects a reasonable
accommodation between the right of union mem-
bers to resign from the union and return to work,
and the union's responsibility to protect the interests
of employees who maintain their membership, as
well as its need to dispose of administrative matters
arising from such resignations.20 Such a rule gives
clear guidance to employees and unions alike con-
cerning their respective responsibilities and further
adds stability to the field of labor relations.
20 Obviously, where the member has not been apprised of the
existence of such a rule prior to tendering his resignation , then the
member's -resignation becomes effective immediately rather than
upon the expiration of the 30-day period following such tender of
resignation See General Teamsters Local 439, International Brother-
hood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America
(Loomis Courier Service, Inc), 237 NLRB 220, 223 (1978), Ex-Cell-
0 Corporation, 227 NLRB at 1048 Further, where the members
have been' apprised of the existence of such a rule, the running of
the 30-day period before the resignation becomes effective must be
triggered solely by the member's notice to the union , and not con-
tingent on any other obligations
2 Machinists Local 1327 Malmo Victor), 263 NLRB 984 (1982)
The -rationale underlying the allegations in the initial
complaint herein,. issued on December 23, 1981, was
predicated upon then existing Board law which appeared
to permit members' resignations at any time and ren-
dered unlawful any restrictions on such resignations-'
Upon the issuance of the Dalmo Victor decision, the com-
plaint herein was amended and, as currently constituted,
no longer alleges that the 30-day restriction provision
contained in Respondent's constitution- is, unlawful.
Rather, the unlawful conduct now alleged is Respond-
ent's failure to advise the employees "that the aforesaid
30-day restriction would be considered applicable to
their change of status or that their letters and actions
were not in conformity with the constitutional require-
ment, or giving them an opportunity to amend' their
course of action after so advising them."
After supplemental investigation of this matter, on
remand by the Board, it was ascertained that certain in-
dividuals involved in the initial complaint had attended
the aforementioned October 20, 1981 meeting, at which
time they were specifically advised by, union - representa-
tives of their obligations,4 but nevertheless crossed the
picket line prior to the expiration of 30 days, in violation
of the constitutional provision. As a result, these individ-
uals were determined to have been lawfully fined or cen-
sured and their names have been deleted from the instant
amended complaint. The.General Counsel further con-
cedes in his brief that, as established by the evidence,
three, additional individuals attended the meeting, and he
moves to also delete these individuals from the com-
plaint. This request is granted. Thus the names of Jim
Ricard, Pat Holmes, and Mary Smith shall be stricken
from the complaint. The remaining 23 individuals, it is
alleged, were not in attendance at the meeting, nor were
they, after exhibiting substantial - uncertainty regarding
membership requirements, otherwise specifically advised
of their obligations. Therefore, according to the General
Counsel, under the authority of Teamsters Local 610
(Browning-Ferris Industries), 265 NLRB 886 (1982), and
Dalmo Victor, supra, Respondent has acted unlawfully
with respect to these individuals.
In the Loomis Courier Service case, supra, cited and
relied on by the Board in Dalmo Victor, the administra-
tive law judge stated (237 NLRB at 223):
Regarding Foster's knowledge of the constitu-
tional provision governing resignation, there is no
evidence he was provided with a copy of the con-
stitution or was otherwise informed about this pro-
vision. Respondent's failure to inform Foster of its
rule governing resignation so that he could effec-
tively resign, and thus, refrain from supporting Re-
spondent's strike free from discipline, constitutes a
breach of Respondent's fiduciary duty to "deal
fairly" with him.
3 See cases and analysis in_ Dalmo Victor.
4 In agreement with-the positions of Respondent and the General
Counsel , I find that the members ' letters attempting to change their status
from full members to dues paying members only were properly treated as
letters of resignation to which the 30-day restriction on resignation might
properly apply See Hershey Foods Corp., 207 NLRB 897 (1974), enfd
513 F 2d 1083 (9th Cir'1975)
FOOD & COMMERCIAL WORKERS LOCAL 1439 (ALLIED EMPLOYERS) - 999.
Similarly, in the Excello case, also cited by the Board
in Dalmo Victor, the Board stated (227 NLRB 1045, 1048
(1977):
It is now well established that where "there is no
evidence that the employees . . . either knew of or
had consented to any limitation on their right to-
resign ," union members are free to resign at will
and Section 7 of the Act protects their right. to
hrzr&urn 'to work ddiih 'y'arstiike ' which had com-
menced while they were union . members. [Footnote
omitted.]
. . . Further, the bare reference to the - constitu-
tion alone is an o insufficient basis from which to
infer knowing consent to the unstated limitations on
resignation , at least where , as here, there is no evi-
dence that employees were provided with a copy of
the constitution or' otherwise informed of the re-
quirements of the-provision governing resignation.
It may be conclusively inferred , and I -find, that. those
employees who sent letters advising that they intended
to become dues paying members only, or, in the case of
Schwartz, who stated he was resigning from regular
membership but would continue to pay dues, had specific
knowledge that they were precluded from - resigning
from the Union for a 30-day period. Indeed , the letters
they sent were contrived attempts to circumvent this re-
striction , and thereby indicate awareness of the constitu-
tional limitations on outright resignations.
Respondent argues that , under all the " circumstances,
the members should also have known or anticipated that
the "dues-paying-member-only". letter would be charac-
terized and treated as a letter of resignation , particularly
when the constitution and bylaws of the Union make no
provision for a dues paying only class of membership,
and that fines or other discipline would be imposed on
them should they violate the 30 -day resignation provi-
sion . Contrary to Respondent 's position , however,'there
is no evidence that the members knew that dues-paying-
member-only status or, synonymously, " financial core-
membership ,- was not an option which they were imme-
diately entitled to exercise with impunity. It is reasonable
to presume that the members, who followed their em-
ployers' guidance in submitting the dues-paying -member-
only letters, believed that this was a viable alternative to
resignation which would circumvent the 30-day resigna-
tion provision and preclude any intraunion fines or pen-
alties. Indeed , this was the Association 's intent, and there
is no evidence that the union members , who most likely
were confused regarding the significiance of the letters,
knew with any degree of certainty, even assuming their
familiarity with Respondent 's constitution, that the letter
they had written was invalid and would be treated as
something other than what it purported to be. In this
regard , they were misled by their respective employers
or the Association. However, it would appear that even
in such circumstances , a high standard of responsibility,
denominated a "fiduciary responsibility," is imposed
upon a collective-bargaining representative because of
the representative 's significant control over the very live-
lihood of an employee. Teamsters Local 512 (Ralph's Gro=
eery), `247 NLRB 934, 935 (1980); -Loomis Courier Service,
supra ; R. H. Macy & Co., 266 NLRB 858 ( 1983). Certain-
ly the dues-paying-member-only letters did not conform
to any provision of Respondent 's constitution or bylaws,
and the receipt of such letters , known by Respondent to
have been expressly encouraged by the various employ-
ers herein , should have reasonably put Respondent on
notice that its members were seeking a way to return to
work which would safeguard them from 'the imposition
of intraunion charges and penalties , and believed the let-
ters would serve this purpose. Indeed ,- Respondent seems
to have recognized' its fiduciary responsibility and cor-
rectly advised its members who attended the October 20,
1981 meeting that the letters were tantamount to, and
would be treated as , resignations to which the 30-day
resignation requirement applied.
However , regarding those 23 members who were not
in attendance at the meeting 's there is no evidence that,
prior to returning to work , they were aware of Respond-
ent's determination that the letters would be treated as
letters of resignation . It would have been a relatively
simple ministerial task for Respondent to so advise them,
as it had advised its-members who attended the meeting,
thus permitting them the opportunity , after actual notice,
to adhere to the 30-day resignation requirement. I con-
clude that , by failing - to do so, Respondent has not ful-
filled its fiduciary responsibilities . - Having treated the
dues-paying -member-only letters as letters of resignation,
prior to so advising certain employees , named infra, who
in good faith believed that they were privileged to cross
the picket line with impunity , the "resignations" of these
23 indidivuals became effective immediately. Thus, the
subsequent imposition of the fines and the censuring of
the individuals is violative of Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the
Act, as the former members, having constructively re-
signed , were no longer subject to union sanctions. See
Dalmo-Victor, supra, and cases cited therein at fn. 20;
Teamsters Local 610 (Browning -Ferris Industries), supra.
The Association takes the position , contrary to the po-
sition of the General Counsel , that the Dalmo Victor case
was wrongly decided , and urges that the Board in this
proceeding reconsider Dalmo Victor and adopt the dis-
senting opinions of Chairman Van De Water and
Member Hunter , who found unlawful any restriction im-
posed on a union member 's right to resign . Moreover,
the Association , in an apparent effort to circumvent the
explicit intent , of the Dalmo Victor decision , maintains
that union members should be able to automatically
change their status from full or regular members to the
status of dues paying members only, and thus immediate-
ly insulate themselves from the imposition of any union
penalty•.or fines should they elect to return to work
during the course of'a strike , despite lawful time limita-
tions upon resignation imposed by a union constitution or
bylaws. Regarding the Associations ' threshhold conten-
tion ; Dalmo Victor is binding on me . See Schulte's IGA
Foodliner, 241•NLRB 855 , 856 (1979). The simple answer
to the" Association 's additional argument is that employ-
5 I credit the testimony of employees Robert McCary and Don
Harvey, as well as the other employees who testified , that they did not
attend the October 20, 1981 meeting
1000 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ees always maintain the right to become financial core
members; e however, once an employee has voluntarily
become a full member, there appears to be no compelling
reason , under the current status of Board law as enunci-
ated in Dalmo Victor, why the 30-day restriction on res-
ignations, which applies to resignations from full mem-
bership to nonmembership , should not also equally apply
to resignations from full membership to financial core
membership . Thus, this argument of the Association ap-
pears to be without merit.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Association and its, constituent members are en-
gaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6)
and (7) of the Act. -
2. Respondent is a labor organization within the mean-
ing of Section 2(11) of the Act.
3. Respondent has violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) by pre-
ferring and processing charges against the following em-
ployees, and imposing fines and/or discipline on them:
Loreen Baird . Troy McGowan
Robert Bootsma Victor Baugher
Earl "Kim" Byington Jesse Martinez
Robert Campeau • Robert McCary
Clint Clawdus Gilbert Miley_
Ron Clawdus Jim Ricard
Terry Dronen - Tom Richardson
6 See Food & Commercial Workers Local 506 (Alpha Beta Ca), 265
NLRB 1290 (1982); Hershey Foods Corp, supra. .
Toni Fallen William Rowe III
Steve Garcia Jon Schwartz
Don Harvey Vern Steck -
Margaret Harmon William D. Writesman
Terry Hunt Shirley Krossin
THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has engaged in certain
unfair labor practices , I , shall recommend that it be re-
quired to cease and desist therefrom, and from like or re-
lated conduct. Affirmatively, Respondent will be re-
quired to rescind the unlawfully imposed fines or other
discipline, expunge any reference thereto from its files
and records, immediately notify the employees of such
action, and reimburse them for any part thereof which
may have been collected , - with interest thereon as pre-
scribed in Florida Steel Corp., 231 NLRB 651 (1977).7 In
addition , Respondent will be required to post an appro-
priate notice. Counsel for the General Counsel has also
requested that the employees be reimbursed for their ex-
penses in processing this matter , including attorney's
fees, lost wages for worktime spent at hearings, and
transportation costs . I conclude that the cases cited by
the General Counsel in support of this request are inap-
posite,8 and the request is hereby denied.
'[Recommended Order omitted from publication.]
7 See generally Isis Plumbing Co., 138 NLRB 716 (1962)
8 George Angle; 242 NLRB 744 (1979); Liberty Mutual Insurance Co.,
235 NLRB 1387, 1388 (1978), enf. dented on other grounds 592 F.2d 595
(1st Cir . 1979); Baptist Memorial Hospital, 229 NLRB 45 , 56 (1977), enfd
in relevant part 583 F .2d 906 (6th Ctr. 1978)