Graphic Arts International Union Local 32B

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 21, 1980

250 N.L.R.B. 850 (N.L.R.B. 1980)

DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Graphic Arts International Union, Local No. 32B,
AFI,-CIO-CLC, and Graphic Arts Internation-
al Union, Local No. 88L, AFL-CIO-CLC, and
Graphic Arts International Union, AFL-CIO-
CLC and Banta Division of George Banta Com-
pany, Inc. Cases 30-CB- 1183, 30-CB-1184,
and 30-CB-1184-3
July 21, 1980
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN FANNING AND MrEMBERS
JENKINS AND PENEI.LO
On September 6, 1978, Administrative Law
Judge Jerry B. Stone issued the attached Decision
in this proceeding. Thereafter, Respondents filed
exceptions and a supporting brief, the Charging
Party filed cross-exceptions and a brief in support
thereof and an answering brief, and the General
Counsel filed a brief in answer to Respondents' ex-
ceptions.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au-
thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the record and the at-
tached Decision in light of the exceptions and
briefs and find merit in certain of Respondents' ex-
ceptions. Accordingly, the Board has decided to
affirm the rulings, findings,' and conclusions of the
Administrative Law Judge, as modified herein, and
to adopt his recommended Order, as modified
below.
Respondents have excepted, inter alia, to the Ad-
ministrative Law Judge's finding that they violated
Section 8(b)(l)(A) by refusing to accept validly
proffered resignations from members and to his
conclusion that they violated the Act by summon-
ing their former members to appear before the ap-
propriate Local to face charges of crossing a sanc-
tioned picket line in violation of Respondents' con-
stitution and bylaws.
We do not agree with the Administrative Law
Judge that Respondents violated Section 8(b)(1)(A)
by refusing to accept resignations from their mem-
bers. However, we agree with the Administrative
Law Judge's conclusion with respect to Respond-
i Respondents have excepted to certain credibility findings made by
the Administrative Laws Judge II is the Board's established policy not to
overrule an administrative law judge's resolulions with respect to credi-
bilily unless the clear preponderance of all of the relevant evidence con-
vinces us that the resolutions are incorrect Standard Dry Wall Productls
Inc. 91 NLRB 544 (1950). enfd 188 F 2d 362 (3d Cir 1951) We have
carefully examined the record and rind ,no, hasis for reversing his findings,
In its cross-excepions,. the Charging P'arty urges that the Board's
remedy include extraordinary distribution, puhlication, and disscminalion,
of the Board's notice anid remedy This request is denied hecJaue the
facts of this case do inot uwarrallt such aclion lIruotecvs o/Boioi nt1rc lvertyl,.
228 NLRH 110)8 (1977)
250 NLRB No. 130
ents' summoning of their former members to face
charges, and we shall clarify the bases for our
agreement with his conclusion.
Respondent Locals 32B and 88L had collective-
bargaining agreements with the Employer which
expired on April 3, 1977.2 On April 4, members of
Respondent Locals 88L and 32B voted to strike
and to fine strikebreakers, respectively, $1,000 and
$200 for each day they crossed the picket lines. Be-
tween April 4 and October 8 the three Respondent
Unions engaged in a strike and picketing against
the Employer.
During September, Respondent Locals' presi-
dents, Robert Miller and Lee Schmeling, Respond-
ent International's representative, Mel Galbraith,
and Respondent International's vice president, Wil-
liam Schroeder, made statements to various media
reporters who televised or reported the inter-
views.3 They stated that under the Graphic Arts
International Union (GAIU) constitution and
bylaws members could not resign unless they left
the industry, that the resignations were not being
accepted, that charges were being brought against
persons who crossed the picket line, and that, if the
respective local executive committees upheld the
charges, individuals could be fined each time they
crossed the picket line.
On various dates in September and October
members of Respondent Locals resigned from their
respective Locals by means of letters of resignation
addressed to their Locals and served on the Locals
by the sheriffs office. Thereafter, they received a
form letter from their Locals stating that they
could not resign from Respondent Locals unless
they left the industry, were considered to be mem-
bers of their respective Locals, had violated the
GAIU constitution and bylaws by "crossing the
lawful picket lines," were being charged with vio-
lating the provisions of the constitution which
relate to obligations of membership and strike-
breaking during a sanctioned strike, and were being
summoned to appear before the executive board of
their respective Local to answer these charges. 4
Employees Leonard Paulowski, Thomas J.
Porto, and James Heinemann s had their letters of
resignation from membership served on their re-
spective Local the day before they returned to
work. There is no evidence that they crossed the
picket line or returned to work prior to the service
All dales herein refer to 1977 unless olherwisr indicated
' Miller is presidenrt of Re ,pmident L ocal 88L. Schmeling of Respond-
cut l.ocal 32B1
[ The full text of the letter is quoted in Ihe Administrative Las
Judge's Dncision at sec ill. I
' 'r hereyh correct the Adnlinlltr.ltice I iLa Judtges inadertIent error
ill Ihc spelling of the na;lles ol mnlploee,s Reilnril. Ileiinen iln, and litl-
nlillla
850)
(GRAPH'IC ARIS INIE[:RNA-1 NAL lUNION. ILOCAI 321i
of their effective resignations. Employees Maynard
A. Littmann, Leland Drews, Jr., and Donald E.
Baehman had their letters of resignation served on
their respective Local on September 22. The Em-
ployer's payroll records show that these three em-
ployees returned to work on September 23, but, ac-
cording to representations made by Respondents'
attorney, Respondents' information is that they re-
turned to work on September 22. Employees
Roger Rippl, Kenneth Nieland, Charles Rucynski,
Donald Losselyong, and Grant Bayer had their let-
ters of resignation served on their respective Local
at an undetermined time on September 15, when
they also began working. 6 The parties stipulated
that: (1) the employees' letters of resignation were
served on the appropriate Locals by a member of
the sheriffs office on or about the dates listed in
the Administrative Law Judge's Decision,7 and (2)
the dates the employees returned to work, based on
the Employer's payroll records, are contained in
the Administrative Law Judge's list. Except for the
employees named above, the other employees
either effectively resigned their union membership
and began working on the same day, or resigned
from their respective Local, and the record is silent
as to when they returned to work, if they did.
Thus, neither the stipulation nor the record estab-
lishes the exact sequence of the critical operative
events. 8
We agree with the Administrative Law Judge's
finding that, because Respondents' constitution and
bylaws do not permit voluntary resignation while a
member is an employee in the industry, a member
may, in effect, resign at will.9 Therefore, the em-
ployees' letters of resignation constituted effective
resignations as of the time of service on the respec-
tive Locals. We also agree with the Administrative
Law Judge that the statements by Respondents'
6 The Administrative L aw Judge found that these five employees had
their resignations served on Respondent at 7:50 a.m and then began
working at 8:15 a.m The record reflects that this finding was based on a
newspaper article which was introduced only as background and without
any foundation regarding the accuracy of the reported times that these
employees crossed the picket line Accordingly, we correct the findings
to reflect that these five employees returned to work at an undetermined
time on September 15
7 Respondents' counsel also conceded that the dates and times of serv-
ice recorded by the sheriffs office were approximately correct
" The record is silent on such basic information as the starting times of
the employees when they returned to work No employees were called as
witnesses, no timecards were introduced, and no evidence was presented
regarding where or when these letters of resignation wsere prepared or
signed In fact, the sole testimony at the hearing related only to the state-
ments made to the media.
U United Paperworkers International Union. Local .vo 725. AFL-CIO
(Boise Southern Companyl. 220 NLRB 812 (1975) Member Jenkins. who
dissented in International Association of ;achinists and Aerospace Workirs,
KMerrit Graham Lodge .o. 1871 (General Dynamics Corporatiurn. Elhctrric
Boot Division). 231 NLRB 727 (1979). does not adzopl the Administrative
Law Judge"s reliance on that case inasmuch as the restrlction against res-
ignations in that case related only to resignations ifter a strike had been
called
agents to the news media constituted threats to fine
former members for conduct occurring after their
effective resignation from Respondent Locals in
violation of Section 8(b)(l)(A) of the Act.'t We do
not agree with the Administrative Law Judge's
conclusion, however, that because of these threats
Respondents violated the Act by refusing to accept
the validly proffered written resignations of former
members. The proviso to Section 8(b)(l)(A) per-
mits a labor organization "to prescribe its own
rules with respect to the acquisition or retention of
membership therein"; therefore, Respondents' re-
fusal to accept the effective resignations is not a
violation of the Act because it related directly to
the retention of membership. t
Finally, while we agree with the Administrative
Law Judge's findings and conclusions that Re-
spondent Locals violated Section 8(b)(l)(A) by
summoning their former members to appear before
their executive boards, for conduct occurring after
their effective resignations,' 2 some clarification is
necessary.'s The employees who resigned from
their Locals and returned to work may be divided
into four groups: (1) employees Paulowski, Porto,
and Heinemann effectively resigned the day before
they resumed working; (2) employees Littmann,
Drews, Jr., and Baehman effectively resigned on
September 22, and according to the Employer's
payroll records they returned to work on Septem-
ber 23, but according to Respondents' attorney's
representations they returned to work on Septem-
ber 22; (3) a group of employees effectively re-
signed and returned to work on the same day at
undetermined times; and (4) a group of employees
effectively resigned and may or may not have re-
turned to work either before or after their resigna-
tions. With respect to the employees in group (1),
the evidence establishes that they were summoned
only for conduct which occurred after their effec-
tive resignations, in violation of Section
8(b)(1)(A).' 4 As to group (2) employees, the Gen-
Io Eg., Local 1012. United Electri-al, Radio & Muchmine Worlkers of
4merica (UE) (General Electric Company). 187 NLRB 375 (1970)
" See, e.g.. Bookbinders Union Locaul 60 (Interstate Book tlanufacturers.
Inc . 203 NLRB 732, 735 (1973)
2 Booster Lodge No. 405. International .4sociation of Machinists and
Aerospace Workers. AFL-CIO tThe Boeing Compuany), 185 NLRB 38(1
(1970), enfd in releant part 459 F2d 1143 (D.C Cir 1972), affd 412
US 84(1973).
"' We disasovs the Administrative Law Judge's finding in fn 14 that
Carpenters District Council of Kansas Cilt and I icitnity (Danliel Constoruc-
11ion Compaotv). 227 NLRB 72 (1976). supersedes Local 761 of the Inlerna-
lional Uniona of Electrical. Radio and Mfachine Wsorkers, AFL-CIO (General
Electric Company,, 220 NLRB 830 (1975), "as regards the csaluatiln of
basic factl for a determination of ultimale faict and conclusions Ihere-
from" In hboth cases the facts were e.aliuated in the context of the al
leged x iolatlsnl,, and the reccrd csidence
'' See e g . I 'r ied Papcror icsri Loal x, a 25 (Isosul S04ihcr i, s1upra.
Louta 205. I lihogruphr s and Phoiosngrau, ru uitr riatusol lUnional 4t'L-
( on ilins ucd
8 51
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RE ATI()NS BOARD
eral Counsel's evidence of the violation was not
successfully rebutted. Instead, there is only the uns-
worn representation made by Respondents' counsel
during the hearing. We find, therefore, that, by
summoning these employees, Respondents violated
the Act for the same reasons applicable to the em-
ployees in group (1).
With respect to the employees in groups (3) and
(4), the record does not disclose whether they
began working, thereby necessarily crossing the
picket line, before or after their effective resigna-
tions, and therefore it is possible that Respondents'
summons related to preresignation conduct. With
the evidence in this posture, we cannot conclude
that Respondents violated the Act by summoning
employees in groups (3) and (4) regarding their
preresignation conduct.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Re-
lations Board adopts as its Order the recommended
Order of the Administrative Law Judge, as modi-
fied below, and hereby orders that the Respond-
ents, Graphic Arts International Union, Local No.
32B, AFL-CIO-CLC, and Graphic Arts Interna-
tional Union, Local No. 88L, AFL-CIO-CLC, and
Graphic Arts International Union, AFL-CIO-
CLC, their officers, agents, and representatives,
shall take the action set forth in the said recom-
mended Order, as modified:
1. Delete section (1) from paragraph l(a) and re-
number the remaining sections accordingly.
2. Substitute the attached notice for that of the
Administrative Law Judge.
MEMBER PENELLO, concurring in part and dissent-
ing in part:
For the reasons set forth by the Administrative
Law Judge in his Decision, I would find, contrary
to my colleagues, that Respondents restrained and
coerced employees in violation of Section
8(b)(1)(A) of the Act by refusing to accept the
written resignations of former members. See Sales,
Service and Allied Workers' Union, Local No. 80, etc.
(Capitol-Husting Company,lInc.), 235 NLRB 1264
(1978), and United Stanford Employees, Local 680,
Service Employees International Union (The Leland
Stanford Junior University), 232 NLRB 326 (1977),
enfd. 601 F.2d 980 (9th Cir. 1979). I concur with
my colleagues in all other respects.
CIO (lhe GCenerul C;ruvure Scrvr e Co;. in ), Ig6 N RI 454 (1970()) and
Booster Lodge No. 405. 14M (BoRiug). uapra
APPENDIX
NoTICE To EMPLOYEES AND) MEMBERS
POSTED BY ORDER O0 THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WIL.L NOr[ restrain or coerce employees
in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section
7 of the Act by (1) summoning former mem-
bers to appear before Local 88L and Local
32B, respectively, to face charges of violating
the constitution and bylaws of Graphic Arts
International Union, AFL-CIO-CLC, for con-
duct engaged in after their resignations from
membership which was protected by Section 7
of the Act, and (2) threatening to fine former
members for conduct occurring after their res-
ignations from the Unions which constitutes
conduct engaged in as a right guaranteed by
Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner
restrain or coerce employees in the exercise of
the rights guaranteed them in Section 7 of the
Act.
WE WILL vacate, rescind, and expunge from
all records all union charges issued to former
members who have resigned and related to
conduct of such former members after their
resignations from the Unions with respect to
their crossing the picket lines or returning to
work at Banta Division of George Banta Com-
pany, Inc., in early September 1977 or thereaf-
ter.
GRAPHIC ARTS
UNION, LOCAI. No.
CLC
GRAPHIC ARTS
UNION, LOCAL No.
CLC
INTERNATIONAL
32B, AFL-CIO-
INTERNATIONAL
88L, AFL-CIO-
GRAPHIC ARTS INTERNATIONAL
UNION, AFL-CIO-CLC
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
J. RRYv B. STONE, Administrative Law Judge: This pro-
ceeding, under Section 10(b) of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, as amended, was heard pursuant to due notice
on November 29, 1977, at Menasha, Wisconsin.
The original charge in Case 30-CB-1183 was filed on
September 15, 1977, and was served on Respondent
Local 32B on September 16, 1977. The original charge in
Case 30-CB-1184 was filed on September 15, 1977, and
was served on Respondent Local 88L on September 16,
1977. The original charge in Case 30-CH-1184-3 was
X52
GRAPHIC ARTS INTIERNATIONAI. UNION. I OCAL 32B1
filed on September 23, 1977, and was served on Graphic
Arts International Union on the same date. The order
consolidating Cases 30-CB-1183, 30-CBH-1184, and 30-
CB-1184-3, and the consolidated complaint in this
matter was issued on November 11, 1977. The issues
concern whether Respondents have violated Section
8(b)(1)(A) of the Act by: (I) between September 12 and
30, 1977, refusing to accept validly proffered resignations
of certain memebers and by summoning said former
members to appear before Local 88L and Local 32B to
face charges of violating the constitution and bylaws of
Respondent G.A.I.U.; and (2) by the conduct of Robert
Miller, Lee Schmeling, and Mel Galbraith, in September
1977, in public statements in threatening to fine any em-
ployee who had resigned, or would resign, from Local
88L or Local 32B and who had returned, or would
return, to work during a strike at Banta Division of
George Banta Company, Inc.
All parties were afforded full opportunity to partici-
pate in the proceeding. Briefs have been filed by General
Counsel, the Charging Party, and the Respondents and
have been considered.
Upon the entire record in the case and from my obser-
vation of witnesses, I hereby make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPL.OYER L
George Banta Company, Inc., is a Wisconsin corpora-
tion whose principal offices are located in Menasha, Wis-
consin, and is engaged in the graphic communications in-
dustry. The Banta Division is a division of the George
Banta Company, Inc., and is engaged in letter composi-
tion and the printing of educational and professional
books and journals from its principal office and place of
business in Menasha, Wisconsin, and from its place of
business in Harrisonburg, Virginia.
Banta Division of George Banta Company, Inc.,
during a I-year representative period, sold and shipped
products valued in excess of $50,000 to points located
outside the State of Wisconsin. As conceded by the Re-
spondents and based on the foregoing, it is concluded
and found that the Charging Party is, and has been, an
"employer" as defined in Section 2(2) of the Act, en-
gaged in "commerce" and in industries "affecting com-
merce" as defined in Section 2(6) and (7) of the National
Labor Relations Act, as amended.
II. THE RESPONDENTS LABOR ORGANIZATION
STATUS
2
Graphic Arts International Union, Local No. 32B,
AFL-CIO-CLC,3 and Graphic Arts International
Union, Local No. 88L, AFL-CIO-CLC, 4 and Graphic
Arts International Union, AFL-CIO-CLC, 5 each is, and
The facts are based upon the pleadings and admissions therein
The facls are hased upon the pleadings and admissions therein
: Sometimes referred io herein as Rcspondclnl l.ocal 321 or lo .d1 3211
Sometimes referred to herein is Respondrlnl Iocal 81t or ocal
XgL
Sometimes referred Io hereti as Respondenl G AI U or G A I U or
Respondenl Inlernalional
has been, a labor organization within the meaning of Sec-
tion 2(5) of the Act. It is so concluded and found.
Ill. I H UNFAI R I ABOR PRAC'tICES
A. Preliminarv Isuses
1. Relationship-Locals and International union
agency
The General Counsel alleges in effect and the Re-
spondents admit that Graphic Arts International Union,
Local No. 32B, AFL-CIO-CLC, and Graphic Arts In-
ternational Union, Local No. 88L, AFL-CIO-CLC,
derive their charter, jurisdiction, and powers from
Graphic Arts International Union, AFL-CIO-CLC.
The General Counsel further alleges that Respondents
Local 88L and 32B are subject to the constitution and
laws of Respondent G.A.I.U. The Respondents' answer
asserts a denial of the allegations to such effect but states
that the respective locals are self-governing in respect to
local affairs subject only to the constitution and laws of
the International.
An examination of the constitution and laws of the In-
ternational Union and of the referred-to local unions re-
veals that, as to all matters governed by the International
constitution and laws, the referred-to locals are subject
to the authority of the International Union, and that each
local is self-governing as to local affairs subject only to
the constitution and laws of the International. The Inter-
national Union by virtue of provisions in the constitution
and laws possesses full power in conformity with the
constitution and laws to make, amend, or repeal general
laws and other resolutions affecting the government of
conduct of the International, local unions, and its mem-
bers, and to issue and recall charters of local unions. Al-
though local unions are authorized to adopt and operate
under bylaws not in conflict with the constitution or
laws of the International, such bylaws are subject to ap-
proval by the International Council. All proposals con-
cerning collective bargaining by local unions are re-
quired to be submitted to and approved by the Interna-
tional president, and all collective-bargaining agreements
of local unions are subject to approval by the Interna-
tional president. The International president has the au-
thority to require local unions to comply with the Inter-
national constitution and bylaws. The constitution and
laws of the International sets forth prescribed member-
ship requirements and obligations and how and when
resignations may be effected. The constitution and laws
defines certain offenses and provides for procedures as to
charges, trials, and appeals relating thereto. The constitu-
tion and laws contains controlling provisions relating to
the sanctioning of strikes and benefits therefrom.
The facts in this case reveal a strike engaged in by the
Respondent International, Respondent Local 32B, and
Respondent Local 88L, and assistance to both locals in
negotiations by an International representative. The facts
in this case relate to membership and questions of resig-
nations, and to charges regarding strikebreaking In such
matters local unions are clearly subject to the constitu-
tion and laws of the International.
853
I)ECISIONS ()F NATI()NAI I ABOR REI.ATIONS BOARD
Consideration of the relationship of a strike as an eco-
nomic weapon in the arsenal used in connection with
collective bargaining, the International's control over the
sanctioning of a strike, the International representative's
involvement in collective bargaining, the control that the
International has over local unions by virtue of the con-
stitution and laws, statements made by the International
representative in public relating to membership, resigna-
tions, charges, and fines, and failure of the International
representative or International Union to disavow con-
duct it clearly knew to be engaged in by the Local
Unions, 32B and 88L, requires a finding that Respondent
International, Respondent Local 32B, and Respondent
Local 88L acted jointly in regard to the conduct com-
plained of in this proceeding. 6
The General Counsel also alleges that at all times ma-
terial herein, the following named individuals have occu-
pied the positions set opposite their respective names and
have been, and are now, agents of their respective princi-
pals and above-named Respondents, within the meaning
of Section 2(13) of the Act:
CIO-CLC, binding on the International, Respondent
Local 32B, Respondent Local 88L. and, according to
such constitution and laws, binding on members. These
provisions, hereinafter set out, have a bearing upon the
issue of "resignations" presented in this case.
Such provisions are:
ARTICLE XIX
Membership
19.1. Eligibility. All persons within the jurisdic-
tion of the International shall be eligible for mem-
bership under conditions established by each Local
in its bylaws not inconsistent with the constitution
and laws of the International. Except in respect to
International membership, a member derives his
membership in the International by virtue of his
membership in a Local.
* * * *
Mel Galbraith International
Representative, G.A.I.U.
Kenneth Brown President, G.A.I.U.
William Schroeder Vice President, G.A.I.U.
John R. Gabbard Vice President, G.A.I.U.
Lee Schmeling President, Local 32B
Robert W. Miller President, Local 88L
The Respondents admit that Mel Galbraith, Kenneth
Brown, William Schroeder, John R. Gabbard, Lee
Schmeling and Robert W. Miller occupy the positions
set forth opposite their respective names. The Respond-
ents deny that such individuals are agents for all pur-
poses of the organizations set opposite their respective
names.
Considering all of the foregoing concerning the inter-
relationship of the International and local unions, Re-
spondents in this case, and the pleadings, I conclude and
find that the individuals alleged to be agents of their
principals and the Respondents are agents of the respec-
tive principals (Respondent Local 32B, Respondent
Local 88L, and Respondent International-G.A.I.U.) and
the three Respondents. To the extent that Respondents'
denial that such individuals are agents for all purposes of
the organizations set opposite their respective names may
be construed as a denial of responsibility of the conduct
complained of in this proceeding, it is rejected. All al-
leged agents hold responsible positions of such type that
members and employees have a right to believe their
statements and actions to be on behalf of their respective
organization. Respondents have been universally held re-
sponsible for similar type conduct engaged in by similar
type agents under the Act.
B. Certain Provisions-Constitution and Laws
There are certain provisions in the constitution and
laws of the Graphic Arts International Union, AFL-
" It i clear that Raespondern Local 88L and Repondenl I ocal 12B
derive their harter',, jurisdiction, and pow ers from Graphic Arit Intlerla-
tilonal Union. AFL-CI()-C C
19.3. Obligation of Membership. As a condition
of membership each applicant shall raise his or her
right hand and subscribe to the following obligation
of membership: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm)
that I will to the utmost of my abilities faithfully
discharge the duties and obligations pertaining to
membership in the Graphic Arts International
Union and of the Local into which I enter member-
ship. I shall take an affirmative part in the business
and activities of the Union and accept and discharge
my responsibilities during any sanctioned strike or
recognized lockout. I will not knowingly engage in
any conduct to undermine the wage and work
standards established by contract or other require-
ments of the Union, nor will I abuse my member-
ship by any act detrimental or injurious to the
Union or my brother and sister members. I will sup-
port the officers in the performance of their duties,
will bear true allegiance to the Union and will ob-
serve and defend its constitution, laws and bylaws."
* * * *
19.9. Resignation. A member may resign from
membership only if he is in good standing and has
ceased to be engaged as an employee or in a super-
visory capacity in an industry within the jurisdic-
tion of the International, but continues otherwise to
be associated with such industry. Upon resignation,
all rights, privileges and other benefits of member-
ship shall terminate automatically including cover-
age and benefits under any Plan except as such Plan
may expressly provide otherwise. Such person shall
thereafter be entitled to apply for membership only
as a new member upon the terms and conditions
prevailing at the time.
19.10. Bad Standing, Discipline, Expulsion. Any
member who fails to pay all fees, dues, per capita
taxes, special benefit per capita taxes, assessments or
other charges for which he is liable, as provided
854
(;RAPllIC ARTS INrEIRNATIO)NAI UNION. ()CAI. 321t
under applicable laws of the International or of the
Local. shall thereupon he in bad standing and there-
after may he expelled, as provided in Article XXII
(Revenues-Liability), without recourse to the provi-
sions of Article XX Any member may be expelled
or otherwise disciplined or penalized for any other
offense as provided in Article XX.
ARTICLE XX
Offenses. Trial and Appeals
20.1. Discipline and Penalties. Any member, any
officer or other official of any Local, and any Local
may be disciplined or penalized for the commission
of any offense specified in this Article. The disci-
pline and penalties which may be imposed in the
case of an individual shall include censure, fines,
temporary suspension, disqualification to hold or re-
moval from office or other official position, expul-
sion, or any combination thereof, and in the case of
a Local shall include censure, fine, suspension,
emergency administration, revocation of Charter, or
any combination thereof.
20.2. Offense. The offenses for which discipline
and penalties may be imposed shall be as follows:
A. Willful violation of the provisions of the obli-
gation of membership or of the oath of office as de-
fined in this Constitution.
B. Strikebreaking during any sanctioned strike or
evasion of responsibilities during a recognized lock-
out.
C. Willful failure to comply with the Constitution
or Laws of the International or By-Laws of a Local
or willful failure to comply with the collective bar-
gaining policy of the International to the detriment
of the organization.
There are also provisions in Respondent Local 88L's
bylaws having a bearing on the issues in this case. Such
provisions are:
ARTICLE II
Representation
Section 2.2 The Local and all members are subject
to the terms and provisions of the Constitution and
Laws of the International, and said Constitution and
Laws as presently constituted and as amended from
time to time shall be deemed part of these By-Laws
as if set out in full, herein, and shall be controlling
in event of any conflict with these By-Laws. Rob-
erts Rules of Order shall be followed in any matter
not treated in these By-Laws or in the Constitution
and Laws of the International.
ARTICLE XIII
Discipline
Section 13.1 Any member of the Local who is
found guilty of violating any provisions of the Con-
stitution and Laws of the International or of these
By-Laws, or of violating a decision of the Interna-
tional or Local Executive Board, or the Local, or
of dishonesty. misconduct, or conduct detrimental
to the welfare of the Local or the International, or
of conduct violative of the Local's or International's
contractural or legal obligations or detrimental to
the existence or the International or Local as an in-
stitution shall be subject to any one or more of the
following: fine, removal from office, disqualification
to run for office, suspension, or expulsion. Proceed-
ings under this Article shall be conducted pursuant
to the Constitution and Laws of the International.
There are also provisions in Respondent Local 32B's
constitution and bylaws which have a bearing on the
issues in this case. Such provisions are:
ARTICLE VIII
(of Constitution)
Section 1. The Constitution, By-Laws, General
Laws and Convention Laws of the International
Brotherhood of Bookbinders shall be a part of this
Constitution and By-Laws.
ARTICLE IV
(of Bylaws)
Discipline-Fines, Suspension and Expulsion
Section 1. Any member of this Union may be
fined, suspended or expelled for any violation of
this Constitution and By-Laws, the Constitution,
By-Laws, General Laws and Convention Laws of
the International Brotherhood of Bookbinders, or
any action which might impair the legitimate objec-
tives of this Union.
Section 2. Any member charged with a violation
of this Article shall be presented with such charge
in writing. He shall have thirty days in which to
prepare his defense and may select any member of
the Union to act as his counsel. Following the
thirty day period, the Executive Board will hear
evidence in the case and will make recommenda-
tions for action at the next regular meeting. Action
on the Executive Board's recommendation by the
members present at the regular meeting must be by
secret ballot vote. All appeals from the action of the
membership must be made to the Executive Council
of the International Brotherhood of Bookbinders.
C. Strike Votes; Resolution for Fines; Strike
Collective-bargaining agreements, in effect in April
1977, between Banta Division and Local 88L and Local
32B expired on April 3, 1977.
On April 4, 1977, Local 88L held a meeting at 5 p.m.,
and took a strike vote. Participating in the aforesaid
strike vote were all employees of a total bargaining unit
complement of 353 employees. It appears that most of
the 48 employee-members of Local 88L who later re-
signed and returned to work during September-October
855
I)ECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
1977, participated in the strike vote and the resolution of
fines discussed hereinafter.
Although the results of the strike vote are not revealed
in the record, the overall facts warrant an inference that
the employee members of Local 88L voted to strike.
During the strike vote meeting, an employee-member
made a motion that any member who crossed the picket
line be assessed a fine of $1,000 per day (apparently a
fine of $1,000 for each day such member crossed the
picket line). The record reveals that a voice vote, with-
out dissent, passed the motion for the $1,000 fine.
On April 4, 1977, Local 32B held a membership meet-
ing and conducted a strike vote. Present at such meeting
were 365 employee "members" of Local 32B. Although
the precise results of the strike vote are not revealed in
the record, the overall facts warrant an inference that
the membership voted to strike. It appears that 24 of the
26 employee-members of Local 32B who later resigned
and returned to work during September-October 1977,
participated in the strike vote and the resolution of fines
discussed hereinafter. 7
During the above-referred-to strike vote meeting, a
member made a motion to impose a $200 fine upon any
member who crossed the picket line. Such motion was
passed by unanimous voice vote.
From on or about April 4 to October 8, 1977, the
three Respondents (the International Union, Local 88L,
and Local 32B) engaged in a strike and picketing against
Banta Division of George Banta Company, Inc.
D. Resignations from the Locals
Certain employees, members of Local 88L or 32B,
signed letters of resignation, addressed to their respective
Local. Such letters of resignation were served on the ap-
propriate Local on the date and time indicated by a
member of the sheriffs office, and the respective resign-
ing employees returned to work on certain dates. [List of
employees and dates omitted from publication.]
The facts clearly reveal that Leonard Paulowski,
Roger J. Rippl, Kenneth Nieland, Charles Rucynski,
Donald Losselyong, Grant Bayer, Thomas J. Porto,
James J. Heineman, Maynard A. Littman, Leland Drews,
Jr., and Donald E. Baehman all signed their resignation
letters and that such resignation letters were served on
Respondent Locals before such employees returned to
work. As to some of such employees, the facts are clear
that they returned to work on a day other than the day
of resignation or service of letter of resignation. As to
the employees who returned to work on September 15,
1977, the overall evidence, including newspaper reports,
reveals that the letters of resignation were served on
September 15, 1977, at 7:50 a.m. and that the employees
returned to work on September 15, 1977, at 8:15 a.m. As
7 All of the employee members of Local 32B who resigned and re-
turned lo work, as indicated by the record in this matter, excepting Rich-
ard E Blank and Robert C. Miller, attended the strike vote meeting. I
have compared the names on the sign in list, those "circled" as indicating
ones who attended such meeting and later resigned and returned to wsork.
other names, signatures on resignation letters, and records relating to
those who returned to work One name which was circled on the sign in
list appears to be "Dick Underwoid-" None of the signatures on the res-
ignation letters or on the record of employees w ho returned to work ap-
pears to be similar to such circled name
to Littman, Leland Drews, Jr., and Donald E. Baehman,
the parties stipulated to the effect that such employees
returned to work on September 23, 1977. 8 As to Tum-
mett, the parties seem to agree that service of his letter
of resignation was made on September 19, 1977. It ap-
pears that the notation of service of such letter of resig-
nation as being on September 16, 1977, is in error.
E. Charges
Following the service to and receipt by Respondent
Locals 88L and 32B of the resignation letters referred to
above, President Miller of Local 88L and President
Schmeling of Local 32B met and prepared a form letter
to be used by each in responding to their members' let-
ters of resignation.
Such form letter was as follows:
Dear
Your resignation from membership dated
--------------- cannot be accepted because your status
does not meet the requirements to do so as outlined
in the GAIU Constitution and Laws, Article 19.9
which states as follows:
19.9 Resignation. A member may resign from
membership only if he is in good standing and
has ceased to be engaged as an employee or in a
supervisory capacity in an industry within the ju-
risdiction of the International, but continues oth-
erwise to be associated with such industry. Upon
resignation, all rights, privileges and other bene-
fits of membership shall terminate automatically
including coverage and benefits under any Plan
except as such Plan may expressly provide other-
wise. Such person shall thereafter be entitled to
apply for membership only as a new member
upon the terms and conditions prevailing at the
time.
In view of the above, you are considered to be a
member of GAIU Local --------------- with all the re-
sponsibilities and obligations that it entails.
As a result of your action in crossing the lawful
picket lines of Local 88L and 32B starting on
--------------- during our strike against the Banta Divi-
sion, we hereby charge you with the following of-
fenses outlined in the GAIU Constitution and Laws.
Article 20.2A. Willful violation of the provisions
of the obligation of membership or the oath of
office as defined in this Constitution.
Article 20.2B. Strikebreaking during any sanc-
tioned strike or evasion of responsibilities during
a recognized lockout.
There was a proposed stipulation. net agreed to, that such employees
had crossed the picket line on September 22, 1977 The Respondents indi-
cated at the hearing that nio real issue was being made on the point of
time of returns I would note that whether such employees returned to
work on September 22 or 23. the results in this case would not be
changed
856
GRAPHIC ARTS INTERNATIONAL UNION, I OCAI. 32B
The Obligation of Membership is covered in Ar-
ticle 19.3 of the GAIU Constitution and Laws as
follows:
19.3. Obligation of Membership. As a condition of
membership each applicant shall raise his or her
right hand and subscribe to the following obliga-
tion of membership: "I do solemnly swear (or
affirm) that I will to the utmost of my abilities
faithfully discharge the duties and obligations
pertaining to membership in the Graphic Arts In-
ternational Union and of the Local into which I
enter membership. I shall take an affirmative part
in the business and activities of the Union and
accept and discharge my responsibilities during
any sanctioned strike or recognized lockout. I
will not knowingly engage in any conduct to un-
dermine the wage and work standards established
by contract or other requirements of the Union,
nor will I abuse my membership by any act detri-
mental or injurious to the Union or my brother
and sister members. I will support the officers in
the performance of their duties, will bear true al-
legiance to the Union and will observe and
defend its Constitution, laws and by-laws."
We therefore request that you appear before the
Executive Board of GAIU Local --------------- on
--------------- at --------------- to answer these charges.
Fraternally yours,
The above form letter as completed, in the manner set
forth later herein, was sent by President Miller of Local
88L to the individuals who had written letters of resigna-
tion to Local 88L. Similarly, the form letter, as complet-
ed, was sent by President Schmeling of Local 32B to in-
dividuals who had written letters of resignation to Local
32B.9
The form letters were completed by insertion in para-
graph I of such letter the date of resignation as indicated
on the individual's letter of resignation. The blank space
in paragraph 2 of the form letter was completed by inser-
tion of the number of the local union to which the indi-
vidual (who had written the letter of resignation) be-
longed.
No precise evidence and no stipulation was presented
to reveal the dates inserted in the blank space in para-
graph 3 of the form letter. Such blank space was pro-
vided for the insertion of a date having reference to
when the individual had started "crossing the lawful
picket lines of Local 88L and 32B."
Considering the events, the resignation letters, the
abandonment of the strike and commencement of work
of the individuals who had written the resignation letters,
the format of the Locals' responsive letters to the indi-
viduals who had written the resignation letters, and state-
ments by Galbraith, Miller, and Schmeling to newspaper
and TV reporters concerning illegality of resignations
and actions to be taken, the resolutions concerning fines,
9 It appears that Presidents Miller and Schmeinig intiuted charge,
against such individuals as indicated ill he referred to letteri at ir about
the time of lransmittal oif such letter,
and the testimony of Miller and Schmeling as to the basis
for such reply letters, I am convinced that the dates in-
serted in such form letters relating to starting "crossing
the lawful picket lines of Local 88L and 32B" were the
dates that the individuals returned to work, or in some
cases, perhaps, the dates of the letters of resignation.
I note that some of the testimony of Miller and
Schmeling indicates that their records of when employ-
ees crossed picket lines differed from the dates employ-
ees returned to work. I note also that the testimony of
Miller and Schmeling indicated that investigation was
underway or was intended to be sought to determine if
the employees had engaged in collusion prior to the time
of resignation, or had crossed the picket line prior to
union receipt of such letters of resignation. The facts are
clear that the constitution and laws of the International
and the bylaws of the locals provided in effect that such
individuals could not resign and cross the picket line and
work. The facts are clear that the Respondents viewed
the resignations as illegal. Considering the testimony of
Miller and Schmeling and the facts as a whole, I am per-
suaded that the testimony of Miller and Schmeling as to
investigation of preresignation crossing of picket lines
and of considerations of censure, expulsion, explanation,
and matter other than the question of potential fines,
constitutes rationalized testimony seeking to supply a
pretextuous reason for such letters and charges. Miller's
testimony to the effect that the basis of the letters to the
individuals was that members cannot resign in such situa-
tion clearly reveals that the letters were prepared and
sent because the individuals had resigned and crossed the
picket line in connection with such resignation.
The last paragraph of the form letter (sent by the Re-
spondents Local 88L and 32B to individuals who had
written the aforementioned letters of resignation) con-
tained blanks for insertion of the local unions' number
and for date and time of appearance before the executive
board of the respective Respondent local. Such blanks
were completed by insertion of 32B or 88L for the re-
spective Local and for the dates of October 25 and Octo-
ber 31, or November 15, 1977, depending on the date of
receipt of the letter of resignation by the Unions.
It is not clear exactly when the form letters referred to
above were sent to the individuals who had written res-
ignation letters. The facts are clear that the Respondents
refused to accept the letters of resignation as resignations
when received and later, at least before November 15,
1977, in any case, sent the form letter relating to refusal
to accept such resignations and to charges against such
individuals for crossing picket lines of Local 88L and
32B.
F. Statements to Media
The General Counsel alleges that the Respondent-
"By the conduct of Robert Miller, Lee Schmeling and/
or Mel Galbraith in or about the month of September
1977, in or around Menasha, Wisconsin, in public state-
ments to the print and broadcast media in which each
said agent of his/her respective principal and Respond-
ent, relying on Respondent G.A I.U.'s constitution and
bylaws, threatened to fine any employee who had re-
857
DECISIONS (OF NAI'I)NAI I.ABO()R RE LATIONS BOARD
signed, or would resign, from Local 88L or Local 32B
and who had returned, or would return, to work during
the strike at Charging Party."
The facts are clear and are based on a composite of
the credited aspects of the testimony of Koplien, Burke,
Dix, Miller, Schmeling, and Galbraith, and the exhibits.
As indicated before, Galbraith, Miller, and Schmeling
have been found to be agents of all Respondents named
in this case. The facts are clear that Galbraith, Miller,
and Schmeling granted interviews and made statements
for both the print and television media having circulation
or viewing in the area where the strike involved in this
case existed and where employees and individuals in-
volved in the context of the strike worked and lived.
The evidence does not reveal that the agents of the Re-
spondents sought out such media. However, considering
the nature of the media, it is clear that such agents rea-
sonably knew that their statements or the effect thereof
would be published or communicated and that striking
or working employees and others would become aware
of such statements.
The following referred to televised communication or
publication of articles or interviews based on interviews
of Respondents' agents.
I. On September 14, 1977, television station WBAY-
TV presented a televised interview of Mel Galbraith by
Jerry Burke based on a taped interview of the same day
which had been edited in respect but not as to the fol-
lowing statements by Burke and Galbraith.
BANTA STRIKES-SEPTEMBER 14, 1977.-
JERR Y BURKE
Burke: Mel, what are the legal ramifications as
far as the people who have crossed the picket line
as far as the future.
Mel Galbraith: Well, they have sent us a letter
saying they have resigned. However, the Interna-
tional Constitution does not allow for a resignation
if they stay within the graphic arts industry. There-
fore, we are now sending them letters informing
them that they are still members and subject to the
fine. And we will go through the regular trial and
appeal system of our International Constitution to
uphold the thousand dollar day fine.
Burke: Although the union is fining those who
cross the line, collecting it may be another matter.
The reason is that the National Labor Relations
Board has ruled consistently in the past that such
fines are illegal. Meanwhile, TV/2 News has
learned as many as 16 other strikers may be cross-
ing the line tomorrow and at least 30 others are se-
riously considering such a move early next week.
And that is backed up by the fact that despite calls
by union leaders for all members to picket during
quitting time, it hasn't happened. And those that
have, have been keeping a low key, almost solemn
profile.
2. On September 14, 1977, The Post-Crescent pub-
lished an article by Doug Koplien which was based on
Koplien's interviews with Schroeder, G.A.I.U. Interna-
tional Vice President, and Miller, President of Local
88L. The relevant parts of the article dealing with as-
pects involved in the issues in this case and based upon
statements by Miller are set out below. Considering the
testimony of the witnesses and the article, I conclude and
find that Miller had made statements to Koplien to the
effect as factually presented by the following excerpts
from such published article:
MENASHA-Graphic Arts International Union
locals are filing charges against four persons who
crossed the picket lines Tuesday and returned to
work at Banta Division's Midway Plant.
Robert W. Miller, Local 88L president, said the
resignations of the three members of his local who
returned to work "are not legal and are not being
accepted. They can resign but they can't work in
the printing industry if they do."
Miller said the charges were going out today by
registered mail. If, after hearings through the locals'
executive committees, the individual is found to
have violated the rules, he could be fined up to
$1,000 for each time he crossed the picket lines.
Miller and Schroeder insisted that the return to
work by the four employees would not have a det-
rimental effect on the union's bargaining position. "I
don't think this seriously affects our position,"
Miller said, adding that the most effect would be
"the financial effect on those who cross the lines."
The charges being sent to the four individuals
would also be filed with the local executive com-
mittee. Appeal procedures can be carried to the In-
ternational convention and through the civil court
system, he said.
He said the union's right to fine individual mem-
bers for violation of the rules has been upheld in
court.
3. On September 15, 1977, the Neenah-Menasha Daily
Northwestern published an article based on an interview
that reporter Ruth Dix had with Miller, President of
Local 88L. Considering the testimony of the witnesses
and the article itself, I conclude and find that Miller
made statements to Dix in the referred-to interview to
the effect as reflected factually in such published article.
I note that the published article includes variance in verb
tense as "maintains," "has said" and "says." Considering
the testimony of Dix, I am persuaded that this was re-
porter's license to make the article flow. Assuming, how-
ever, that different meaning should be ascribed to differ-
ent verb usage in the article, it is clear that the attributed
remarks are consistent xwith the official position of the
Union as revealed by the constitution and laws of the In-
ternational, the bylaws of the local, and expressed state-
ments and actions otherwise.
The relevant portions of the article to this proceeding
are as follows:
(iRAP'HIC ARI'S INTI-RNAII()NAAI. UNIO)N. I()CAI. 213H
MENASHA--Five more Banta Co. workers
have left the picket lines at the firm's two plants
here and returned to work
But apparently Locals 32B and 88L of the
Graphic Arts International Union are going to file
charges against their defecting members.
Robert Miller, president of 88L. maintains the
resignations from the locals are not legal and are
not being accepted . . . .
Miller has said the crossover workers could be
fined up to $1,000 for each time they cross the
picket line but he has intimated that there are no
specific penalty provisions and that such matters are
handled on a case by case basis.
Miller says local and international union bylaws
are the basis for the pending charges.
Any appeal of the fine is one through the interna-
tional union, Miller said.
"There is no doubt in my mind," Miller said,
"that the union has the authority to levy fines."
4. On September 19, 1977, The Post-Crescent pub-
lished an article by Doug Koplien based on interviews
that Koplien had on the same date with Miller, president
of Local 88L, and with Schmeling, president of Local
32B.' ° Considering the article and the testimony of the
witnesses, I conclude and find that the facts referred to
therein are based on statements by Miller and Schmeling
to the same effect as such statements. The relevant por-
tion of such article to the issues in this case are as re-
vealed by excerpts set out below:
Robert W. Miller, Local 88L president, and Lee
Schmeling, 32B president, were noncommittal today
on whether the return-to-work movement would
continue. The two have filed charges against those
who have crossed the lines for violating the GAIU
constitution. They say that if the charges hold,
those who returned could be fined up to $1,000 per
crossing for 88L members and $200 per day for 32B
members.
Although all of those who have returned have
filed letters of resignation with either Miller or
Schmeling, the local presidents are insisting that the
resignations are illegal.
G. Miscellaneous
Subsequent to the statements made by the officials of
Respondents to news and TV media and the publication
thereof, and after the Respondents' refusal to accept res-
ignations of the individuals who had submitted resigna-
tions and the filing of charges and letters to such individ-
uals as regard such charges, the Respondents have not in
any way notified such individuals that the question of
"' A Seplember 15. 1977, article by Koplien "as e,.enlially irnilir ill
effect as regards interie., around Sepicmr cr 5I. 1977
fines had been eliminated from consideration as to such
charges as relating to the individuals crossing of picket
lines after their resignations had been received by the re-
spective Locals.
H. Contentions: Conclusions'
The General Counsel and Charging Party contend that
(1) the refusal of the Unions to accept the resignations of
the individuals who submitted resignation letters, coup-
led with the Unions' constitution and laws and/or
bylaws and the motions for assessment of fines for mem-
bers who crossed the picket lines, and coupled with the
charges brought against such individuals in the context
of the facts of this case, constituted conduct engaged in
by the Respondents which was violative of Section
8(b)(l)(A) of the Act, and (2) the statements by officials
of the Respondents to TV and news media concerning
the refusal to accept resignations from members during
the strike, the intent to file charges and reference to the
motions for fines for crossing picket lines constituted
conduct engaged in by the Respondents which was vio-
lative of Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act.
The Respondents contend in effect that the refusal to
accept resignations and the filing of internal union
charges do not constitute conduct violative of Section
8(b)(l)(A) of the Act. The Respondents contend in effect
that the statements made by officials to TV and news
media also did not constitute "threats" or conduct viola-
tive of Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act.
The Act provides that:
Section 8(b) It shall be an unfair labor practice
for a labor organization or its agents-
(l) to restrain or coerce (A) employees in the ex-
ercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7: Pro-
vided, That this paragraph shall not impair the right
of a labor organization to prescribe its own rules
with respect to the acquisition or retention of mem-
bership therein ....
Issues thus presented in this case are (I) whether the
conduct alleged to be unlawful is "restraint and coer-
cion" of employees or members and (2) if such conduct
is "restraint and coercion" of employees or members,
whether such restraint and coercion is permitted by
virtue of the proviso to Section 8(b)(l)(A). If such al-
leged conduct constitutes restraint and coercion of mem-
bers or employees with respect to Section 7 rights and is
not permitted by virtue of the proviso to Section
8(b)(1)(A), then such conduct is violative of Section
8(b)(1)(A) of the Act.
Court and Board decisional law relating to the issues
involved in this proceeding may be said to be grounded
on the decisions of the United States Supreme Court in
,..L.R.B. v. Allis Chalmers Manufacturing Company, 388
U.S. 175 (1967), and Scofield v. N.L.R.B., 394 U.S. 423
(1969), and the various court and NLRB decisions relat-
ing to such issues and refinements following such re-
ferred-to cases. The parties' briefs have alluded to and
make arguments relating to the meaning of the decisional
law and developments therein. Such cases as cited and
859i
DECISIONS OF NATIONAI. LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the arguments thereto have been considered in making
the following conclusions and findings.
1. It is clear and I conclude and find that the letters of
resignation by members of the Respondents constituted
effective resignations at time of service upon the respec-
tive Respondents. The Board has construed similar con-
stitutional provisions to the provisions in Respondents'
constitution and laws and bylaws, provisions that do not
provide for voluntary resignations while the member is
an employee in the industry, and found that members
may in effect resign at will in such circumstances.''
2. As indicated previously, the General Counsel al-
leges and contends that the Respondents violated Section
8(b)(l)(A) of the Act by the conduct of Local 88L and
Local 32B between September 12 and 30, 1977, in refus-
ing to accept the validly proffered resignations of former
members of Local 88L and Local 32B and by summon-
ing said former members to appear before Local 88L and
Local 32B, respectively, to face charges of violating the
constitution and bylaws of Respondent G.A.I.U.
As indicated above, the facts reveal that as a matter of
law members of Local 88L and 32B effectively resigned
from membership in the Unions when their written resig-
nations were served on the respective Locals. After the
time of such resignations, the Unions cannot, without
violating Section 8(b)(l)(A) of the Act, restrain or
coerce such employees (former members) for engaging in
conduct protected by Section 7 of the Act. Thus, the
Unions could not fine or threaten to fine such employees
(former members) for postresignation conduct of cross-
ing a picket line. Nor could the Unions engage in other
acts of restraint and coercion directed at interference
with such employees' (former members') right to engage
in conduct protected by Section 7 of the Act.
One of the critical questions is whether the summoning
of the employees to face charges of strikebreaking consti-
tuted a threat of fining for the employees' exercise of a
Section 7 right to cross picket lines after resignation
from the Union. Consideration of whether such conduct
by the Respondents constituted a threat to fine requires
consideration of such conduct in context with the facts
relating to the refusal to accept the employees' resigna-
tions, the Unions' constitution and laws and bylaws relat-
ing to charges, fines, and other penalties, to the Unions'
motions as to fines for crossing the picket lines, and
public statements of union officials as to the intent to
refuse to accept resignations and to file union charges to
enforce the fines, about alternatives, and about the effect
of the financial obligations on the employees.
The facts are clear that the Unions were motivated in
the filing of charges and the notification of employees as
to such charges by a desire to prevent employees, who
had resigned from the Union, from returning to work
and crossing picket lines, and to prevent members, who
desired to resign and to cross picket lines to return to
work, from doing so.
I i See Local 205. Lithographeri and Photoengravery Interrnationl aUnion.
AFL-CIO (Ihe General Gravure Service Co.). 186 NLRB 454 (1970);
Borkbinders Union Local 60 (Interitate Book Muanufacturerl), 203 NLRB
732 (1973); and International .4ssociation o/ Mac'hinitr i and Aleropacc
Workeri, Merritt Graham Liodge 'o. I871 (General Dyvnamrnc Corporauiown).
231 NL.RB 727 (1977)
Some of the evidence and argument in this case was
directed to the fact that the Unions did not necessarily
have to fine the individuals involved but might assess dif-
ferent penalties. This may be so. However, the major
emphasis of Respondents' conduct, in actions by the
Unions as to fine motions and by statements to TV and
news media, was upon the question of fines. This being
so, the Respondents would reasonably be aware that the
employees would reasonably be concerned as to the
question of possible fines.' 2 Under such circumstances, I
find it clear that Respondents' refusal to accept the em-
ployees' resignations and the summoning of such em-
ployees to face charges of strikebreaking constituted a
restraint and coercion of such employees as regards their
postresignation conduct of crossing of picket lines. 3
Such conduct constitutes restraint and coercion of such
employees because such conduct constituted in total
effect a threat to fine former members for engaging in
protected concerted activities after their resignations.
Some argument is made that the Unions may have
some possible charges against such employees for prere-
signation conduct. The record in this case does not
reveal such referred to preresignation conduct. The evi-
dence as to what the employees were charged with by
the Unions clearly encompassed conduct the employees
engaged in after their resignations.
The major violative conduct of the Unions involves
the summoning of the employees to face charges which
in effect constituted a threat to fine such employees for
postresignation protected Section 7 conduct. It is also
separately alleged and contended that the refusal of the
Unions to accept the employees' resignations constituted
conduct violative of Section 8(b)(l)(A) of the Act. For
basically the same reasons, the special facts of this case
reveal such contentions to be meritorious. The refusal to
accept resignations from the employees after they had ef-
fectively resigned in the context of the facts relating to
the Unions' constitution and laws and bylaws, the mo-
tions for fines which had been passed, and the statements
by the Unions to the news and TV media inferred to
have been conveyed to the employees, constituted re-
straint and coercion of such employees as it conveyed to
such employees that they were subject to fines for pos-
tresignation protected activity conduct.
The Respondents filed an excellent brief and made
many arguments. On the basis of Scofield, I reject Re-
spondents' argument that employees who voted on the
fine resolutions waived any Section 7 right as to imposi-
tion of fines for postresignation conduct. The Respond-
ents argue in effect that "threats to fine" are not viola-
tive of the Act because of the Section 8(b)(1)(A) proviso
and that its conduct did not constitute threats to fine. In
12 The Respondents, by irue of their colleciive-bargaining status as
representatives of the employees and members. had a fiduciary obligation
to fairly and properly and clearly adsvise and communicate to such em-
ployees and members as regards their rights to engage in protected corn-
certed activity or tot refrain therefrom Under such circumstances. the
Ulnioins' coilduct and statements must be sierwed as threats of filles to
firmer members foir their exercise of a protected Sec 7 right See Phila-
delphiau Shtraton Coirporaol,l. 136 NLRB 888. 897 (1962)
'" It is clear that such postresignlaliol conlducl. the crossing of picket
lines, constituted cinlatuct protected by Sees 7 and 8(h)( I)(A) of the Act.
860
GRAPHIC ARTS INTERNATIONAl. LNION. LOCAL 32B
the development of decisional law on the issues involved
in this case, earlier cases indicated Board holdings limit-
ed to findings of "enforcement" of fines. Later decisional
law, which I find controlling in this case. makes it clear
that citation of employees for fines, threats of fines, and
levying of fines, whether collectible or not, constitutes
conduct violative of Section 8(b)(1)(A) if directed to em-
ployees in connection with a fine unenforceable within
the meaning of the Scofield decision and for conduct en-
gaged in which is protected by Section 7 of the Act.
Thus, I find controlling the principles set forth in the
following cases. In Carpenters Local Union N'o. 22, United
Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of .4merica (William
Graziano, d/b/a Graziano Construction Co.), 195 NLRB
1, 2 (1972), the Board set forth that it had found in effect
that the Respondents had violated Section 8(b)(l)(A) of
the Act by unlawfully citing and fining an employee and
issued appropriate orders to remedy such conduct. In
Mylen Iron and Aluminum Works, Inc., 216 NLRB 865
(1975), the Board found that the threatening to fine non-
members for crossing a picket line was violative of Sec-
tion 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act. And, finally, in Carpenters
District Council of Kansas City (Daniel Construction Com-
pany), 227 NLRB 72 (1976), the Board found in a factual
situation, less strong than the facts in this case, that the
citation and initiation of charges relating to fines against
a member, when not disavowed but where the union had
ultimately dropped the matter without reprimand or
other adverse actions or comment, was violative of Sec-
tion 8(b)(l)(A) when against an employee in the exercise
of Section 7 rights. 4
Considering all of the foregoing, I conclude and find
that the Respondents, by the conduct of Local 88L and
Local 32B, in refusing to accept the written resignations
of former members of such locals, and by summoning
said former members to appear before Local 88L and
Local 32B, respectively, to face charges of violating the
constitution and byLaws of Respondent G.A.I.U., violat-
ed Section 8(b)(l)(A) of the Act.
3. As to the employees who had resigned from mem-
bership, as indicated in the record and findings in this
case, it is clear that the statements of Miller, Schmeling,
and Galbraith to the news and TV media constituted
threats to fine any employee who had resigned, or would
resign, from Local 88L or Local 32B and who had re-
turned, or would return, to work during the strike at the
Banta Division of George Banta Company, Inc. For the
same reasons as set forth above in paragraph 2, 1 con-
clude and find that the Respondents by such conduct
violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act.
As to members and employees who had not resigned
at the time that Respondents' statements to the news and
TV media could reasonably be inferred to have been re-
ceived in communication by such members and employ-
ees, I conclude and find that the Respondents' conduct
restrained and coerced such employees, in violation of
Section 8(b)(l)(A) of the Act, because restraint and coer-
I4 The above-referred-lo Carpcnieri Dirrii! Council of Kuatlru Ciy, 22'7
NLRB 72. supersedes Local 761 of the Intirnoaiolnal Un,1wonl , lectrcaol
Radio and ,lachine Workers..4FL-CIO (Gene'roal ElcirirO. 220 NL.RB 830
(1975). cited by the Respondents, as regards Ihe evaluation of basic facts%
for a determination of ultimate fact,. and conclusi on therefrom
cion of the former members of the Unions for postresig-
nation conduct in and of itself has a coercive restraint on
members, 'i even assuming that such members might be
directly coerced and restrained as members,
The Respondents' contention that Respondents did not
initiate the news and TV interviews and therefore that its
conduct is not violative is rejected, The officials who
made the statements to TV and news media reasonably
knew that such statements would be reported and that
members and former members would be aware of such
statements.
The Respondents contend in effect that the news arti-
cles and television interviews presented a balanced ac-
count, that the statements were in effect countered by
references in such articles and television interviews by
the reporters to statements by an agent of the NLRB. to
company statements, and statements re Board and court
law. The articles and television interview do appear to
reflect objective reporting. Employees' awareness of cur-
rent decisional law and of the fact that their rights may
ultimately be vindicated does not negate the unlawful-
ness of Respondents' officials' statements and does not
eliminate the coercive effect of such statements or con-
duct. It is well known that laws in and of themselves do
not prevent the breaking of laws. Thus, employees rea-
sonably were coerced and restrained by the Respondents'
statements communicated to them through reported
newspaper and television interviews.
Considering all of the above, I conclude and find that
the Respondents, by statements to news and TV media,
made threats of fining of former members who crossed
picket lines or returned to work during a strike after res-
ignation from their respective local union. Such state-
ments and threats of fine constituted conduct violative of
Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act. It is so concluded and
found.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR I.ABOR PRACTICES
UPON CONtMMFRCE
The activities of the Respondents set forth above, oc-
curring in connection with the Employer's operations,
have a close, intimate, and substantial relationship to
trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States
and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and ob-
structing commerce and the free flow of commerce.
V. CONCLUSIONS OF tIAW
1. Banta Division of George Banta Company, Inc., the
Employer, is engaged in commerce within the meaning
of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. Graphic Arts International Union, Local No. 32B,
AFL-CIO-CLC, Graphic Arts International Union,
Local 88L, AFL-CIO-CLC, and Graphic Arts Interna-
tional Union, AFL-CIO-CLC, each is a labor organiza-
tion within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. By the conduct of Local 88L and of Local 32B, in
refusing to accept the validly proffered written resigna-
tions of former members of Local 88L and Local 32B.
and by the summoning of said former members by said
i Cf t. 1 : Smitlh Lumbehr (,,mpur, ,. ItI NI RB 5()7. 5(8 11 QSth)
861
I)1t'(ISI()NS (t NAII()NAI. ABO(R RFLATIONS 13()ARD
locals to appear beftore said locals, respectively, to face
charges of violating the constitution and bylaws of
(traphic Arts Interiiational Union, AFL-CI() CLC, the
Respondents restrained and coerced employees in the ex-
ercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, and
thereby engaged in and are engaging in unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 8X(b)(1)(A) of the
Act.
4. By threatening to fine former members for engaging
in postresignation protected concerted activities, the Re-
spondents have engaged in and are engaging in unfair
labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(b)(1)(A)
of the Act.
5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor
practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Sec-
tion 2(6) of the Act.
VI. THIl RFIME)Y
Having found that the Respondents have engaged in
and are engaging in certain unfair labor practices, it will
be recommended that the Respondents cease and desist
therefrom. It will also be recommended that the Re-
spondents rescind and expunge from their records any
charges filed against former members, after the effective
date of service of resignation letters, as regards any pos-
tresignation conduct by such former employees.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of
law, and the entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c)
of the Act, I hereby issue the following recommended:
ORDER 16
The Respondents, Graphic Arts International Union,
Lccal No. 32B, AFL-CIO-CLC, Graphic Arts Interna-
tional Union, Local No. 88L, AFL-CIO-CLC, and
Graphic Arts International Union, AFL-CIO-CLC,
their officers, agents, and representatives shall:
I. Cease and desist from:
(a) Restraining and coercing employees in the exercise
of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act by (1) in
a manner constituting restraint and coercion within the
meaning of Section 8(b)(l)(A) of the Act, refusing to
accept validly proffered resignations from members, (2)
summoning former members to appear before Local 88L
"' In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102 46 of
the Rules and Regulalions of the National Labor Relations Board, the
findings, conclusions, 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 Saived for all purposes.
and Local 32B, respectively, to face charges of violating
the constitution and bylaws of Graphic Arts Internation-
al Union, AFL-CIO-CLC, as regards conduct occurring
after resignation from membership and protected by Sec-
tion 7 of the Act, and (3) threatening to fine former
members for conduct occurring after resignation from
the Union which constituted conduct engaged in as a
right protected by Section 7 of the Act.
(b) In any like or related manner restraining or coerc-
ing employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in
Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action designed to ef-
fectuate the purposes of the Act:
(a) Vacate, rescind, and expunge from all records all
union charges issued to former members who have re-
signed and relating to conduct of such former members
after resignation from the Union as regards the crossing
of picket lines or return to work of former members who
returned to work at Banta Division of George Banta
Company, Inc., in early September 1977 and thereafter.
(b) Post at its business office and meeting halls copies
of the attached notice marked "Appendix. " ?7 Copies of
said notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director
for Region 30, after being duly signed by an authorized
representative of Respondents, shall be posted by the Re-
spondents immediately upon receipt thereof, and shall be
maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in
conspicuous places, including all places where notices to
members are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall
be taken by the Respondents to insure that said notices
are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other materi-
al.
(c) Mail to the Regional Director for Region 30 signed
copies of said notice for posting by Banta Division of
George Banta Company, Inc., if the Company is willing,
in places where notices to employees are customarily
posted. Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Re-
gional Director, after being duly signed by the Respond-
ents' authorized representative, shall be returned forth-
with to the Regional Director.
(d) Notify the Regional Director for Region 30, in
writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what
steps the Respondents have taken to comply herewith.
17 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 Pur-
suant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an
Order of the National Labor Relations Board "