Food & Commercial Workers Locals 951, 7 & 1036 (Meijer, Inc.)

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 25, 2004

341 N.L.R.B. 1013 (N.L.R.B. 2004)

FOOD & COMMERICIAL WORKERS LOCAL 951 (MEIJER, INC.) 1013
United Food and Commercial Workers Locals 951, 7
and 1036 (Meijer, Inc.) and Various Individuals.
Case 16–CB–3850 (2–6, 9–25, 27, 33, 35–36)
May 25, 2004
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN BATTISTA AND MEMBERS LIEBMAN
AND WALSH
On September 30, 1999, the National Labor Relations
Board issued a decision in this case,1 finding, inter alia,
that United Food and Commercial Workers Local 1036
violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act by notifying new
employees in its “welcoming” letter that they were re-
quired to become full members of Local 1036 as a condi-
tion of employment.2 The Board also found that Local
1036 violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) by failing to notify such
employees of their General Motors3 right to remain
nonmembers of the Union and of nonmembers’ Beck4
rights, including the right to object to paying for nonrep-
resentational activities and to obtain a reduction in fees
for such activities.5
To remedy these violations, the Board ordered Local
1036 to notify all current bargaining unit employees of
their rights under Beck and General Motors and to notify
those employees whom Local 1036 initially sought to
obligate to pay dues or fees under the union-security
clause on or after September 3, 1988, of their right to
elect nonmember status and to make Beck objections
with respect to one or more of the accounting periods
covered by the complaint. The Board further ordered
Local 1036 to process the objections of any such em-
ployees who reasonably promptly elected nonmember
status and filed objections with respect to any such ac-
counting periods and to reimburse the objecting non-
member employees for the reduction in dues and fees, if
any, for nonrepresentational activities that occurred dur-
ing the accounting periods as to which they objected.
Subsequently, Local 1036 filed a petition for review,
and the Board cross-petitioned for enforcement.6 On

1 329 NLRB 730.
2 The Board found that Local 1036 sent the welcoming letter to em-
ployees hired from September 21, 1988, until after July 11, 1990. The
Board’s decision afforded Local 1036 an opportunity to demonstrate in
compliance proceedings the point at which it ceased sending the letter
to newly hired employees. Id. at 738 fn. 45.
3 NLRB v. General Motors Corp., 373 U.S. 734 (1963).
4 Communications Workers v. Beck, 487 U.S. 735 (1988).
5 The Board’s decision also addressed certain alleged violations re-
garding Respondent United Food and Commercial Workers Local 7
and Respondent United Food and Commercial Workers Local 951.
Those alleged violations are not presently before us.
6 Certain Charging Parties also petitioned for review regarding issues
concerning solely Respondents Locals 7 and 951.
May 17, 2001, the United States Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit issued a panel decision that, with respect to
Local 1036, upheld the 8(b)(1)(A) violations but found
that the Board’s remedy was overbroad.7 Regarding the
remedy, the court stated:

[T]he Board’s remedial order goes too far. The offend-
ing letter was not sent to all employees. Reimburse-
ment is due only those employees who received the let-
ter and object. The remedy designed by the Board must
be modified.[ ]8

The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
thereafter reconsidered the case en banc. In its en banc deci-
sion, the court found that the panel opinion was correct with
respect to the allegations concerning Local 1036 and it rein-
stated that part of the opinion. The court remanded the
Board’s Order with respect to Local 1036 “to modify [the]
remedy as it was overbroad.”9
On August 1, 2002, the Board advised the parties that
the Board had accepted the remand and invited the par-
ties to submit statements of position. Local 1036, the
General Counsel, and the Charging Parties each filed a
statement of position.
The National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the parties’ statements of
position in light of the court’s remand and will revise the
remedy in accord with the court’s order. As noted above,
the court found that Local 1036’s offending letter was
not sent to all employees and that reimbursement is due
only to those employees who received the letter and ob-
ject. Accordingly, pursuant to the court’s direction, we
shall revise the remedy to make clear that the reim-
bursement remedy in this case is limited to employees
who received Local 1036’s welcoming letter.
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board reaffirms its
original Order, reported at 329 NLRB 730 (1999), as
modified below, and orders that Respondent United Food
and Commercial Workers Local 1036, its officers,
agents, and representatives, shall take the action set forth
in the Order as modified.
1. Substitute the following for paragraph B,2(c).
“(c) Notify in writing those employees who received
Respondent Local 1036’s welcoming letter on or after
September 21, 1988, of their right to elect nonmember
status and to make Beck objections with respect to one or
7 249 F.3d 1115, 1120.
8 Ibid.
9 307 F.3d 760, 774 fn. 21 (2002).
341 NLRB No. 133
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 1014
more of the accounting periods covered by the com-
plaint.”
2. Substitute the attached notice for the notice marked
“Appendix B.”
APPENDIX B
NOTICE TO MEMBERS
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government

The National Labor Relations Board has found that we vio-
lated Federal labor law and has ordered us to post and obey
this notice.

FEDERAL LAW GIVES YOU THE RIGHT TO

Form, join, or assist any union
Choose representatives to bargain on your behalf
with your employer
Act together with other employees for your bene-
fit and protection
Choose not to engage in any of these protected
activities.

WE WILL NOT fail to notify unit employees, when we
first seek to obligate them to pay dues and fees under a
union-security clause, of their right under NLRB v. Gen-
eral Motors Corp., 373 U.S. 734 (1963), to be and re-
main nonmembers, and of the rights of nonmembers un-
der Communications Workers v. Beck, 487 U.S. 735
(1988), to object to paying for our nonrepresentational
activities and to obtain a reduction in dues and fees for
such activities.
WE WILL NOT fail to provide unit employees who have
resigned their union memberships and filed Beck objec-
tions with information about the percentage reduction in
dues and fees charged Beck objectors, the basis for that
calculation, and the right to challenge those figures.
WE WILL NOT charge nonmember bargaining unit em-
ployees for nonrepresentational activities after they file
Beck objections.
WE WILL NOT threaten to have discharged, or other-
wise to interfere with the employment of, Glenn T. Hil-
ton, John B. Nosek, or any other nonmember who ob-
jects, or has objected, to paying for activities not ger-
mane to our bargaining agent duties unless such em-
ployee continues to pay full membership dues.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner restrain or
coerce you in the exercise of rights guaranteed to you by
Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL notify all bargaining unit employees in writ-
ing of their right under General Motors to be and remain
nonmembers and of the rights of nonmembers under
Beck to object to paying for our nonrepresentational ac-
tivities and to obtain a reduction in dues and fees for
such activities. In addition, the notice will include suffi-
cient information to enable the employees to intelligently
decide whether to object, as well as a description of any
internal union procedures for filing objections.
WE WILL, for each accounting period since September
3, 1988, provide Hilton and Nosek with information set-
ting forth our major categories of expenditures for the
previous accounting year and distinguishing between
representational and nonrepresentational functions.
WE WILL notify in writing those employees who re-
ceived our welcoming letter on or after September 21,
1988, of their right to elect nonmember status and to
make Beck objections with respect to one or more of the
accounting periods covered by the complaint.
WE WILL process the Beck objections of any employ-
ees who received our welcoming letter on or after Sep-
tember 21, 1988, and who elect nonmember status and
file objections with reasonable promptness after receiv-
ing notice of their right to so object.
WE WILL reimburse, with interest, Hilton and Nosek
and any other nonmember bargaining unit employees
who file Beck objections with us for any dues and fees
exacted from them for nonrepresentational activities, for
each accounting period since September 3, 1988.

UNITED FOOD AND COMMERCIAL WORKERS
LOCAL 1036