International Brotherhood Of Electrical Workers, Local 1547, Afl-Cio

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 31, 1986

280 N.L.R.B. 1362 (N.L.R.B. 1986)

1362 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers,
Local 1547, AFL-CIO and Homer Electric As-
sociation and Kathleen O'Quinn , and Annette
J. Valaer and Ellen R. Holsberry and Jan E.
Baird and Jill Blackwell and Gisela V. Agda-
mag and Elsie E. Albertson and Bernadette D.
Wilson and Ruth L. Plymire and Carol M.
Drew. Cases 19-CB-5658, 19-CB-5673-1, 19-
CB-5673-2, 19-CB-5673-3, 19-CB-5673-4,
19-CB-5710-1, 19-CB-5710-2, 19-CB-5710-3,
19-CB-5710-4, 19-CB-5710-5, and 19-CB-
5710-6
31 July 1986
DECISION AND ORDER
By MEMBERS JOHANSEN, BABSON, AND
STEPHENS
On 15 May 1986 Administrative Law Judge
Gerald A. Wacknov issued the attached decision.
The Respondent filed exceptions and a supporting
brief.
The National Labor Relations Board has delegat-
ed its authority in this proceeding to a three-
member panel.
The Board has considered the decision and the
record in light of the exceptions and brief and has
decided to affirm the judge's rulings, findings, and
conclusions and to adopt the recommended Order.
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board adopts the
recommended Order of the administrative law
judge and orders that the Respondent, International
Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 1547,
AFL-CIO, its officers , agents, and representatives,
shall take the action set forth in the Order.
Daniel R . Sanders, Esq., for the General Counsel.
Randall G. Simpson, Esq. (Jermain, Dunnagan 8c Owens),
of Anchorage, Alaska, for the Respondent.
Richard R Huffman, Esq. (Kemppel, Huffman d: Ginder),
of Anchorage, Alaska, for the Employer.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
GERALD A. WACxNov, Administrative Law Judge.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing with respect to this matter
was held before me in Homer , Alaska, on 13 March
1986. Charges were filed in this proceeding between 28
October and 12 December 1985 by Homer Electric As-
sociation (the Employer), and 10 employees.'
1 The 10 employees are Kathleen 0' Quinn , Annette J Valaer, Ellen
R Holaberry , Jan E . Baird , Jill Blackwell , Gisela V Agdamag, Elsie E
Albertson , Bernadette D Wilson , Ruth L Plymire , and Carol M Drew
Following the issuance of several complaints , the Re-
gional Director for Region 19 of the National Labor Re-
lations Board (the Board) issued a second order consoli-
dating cases and consolidated complaint and notice of
hearing on 24 December 1985 , alleging violations by
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local
1547, AFL-CIO (Respondent) of Section 8(bXl)(A) and
(2) of the National Labor Relations Act (the Act).
All parties were afforded full opportunity to be heard,
to call , examine , and cross-examine witnesses , and to in-
troduce relevant evidence. Since the close of the hearing,
briefs have been received from the General Counsel and
counsel for Respondent.
On the entire record , and based on my observation of
the witnesses and consideration of the briefs submitted, I
make the following
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. JURISDICTION
The Employer is an Alaska corporation, with its prin-
cipal office and place of business in Homer , Alaska,
where it is engaged in the business of distributing elec-
tricity to retail customers . The Employer , in the course
and conduct of its business operations , has annual gross
sales of goods and services in excess of $250,000, and an-
nually purchases and causes to be transferred and deliv-
ered to its facilities within the State of Alaska 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
directly from sources outside the State.
It is admitted , and I find , that the Employer is, and has
been at all times material, an employer engaged in com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of
the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
It is admitted , and I find, that Respondent is, and has
been at all times material, a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
111. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The Issues
The principal issues raised by the pleadings are wheth-
er Respondent violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act by
bringing internal union charges against various individ-
uals for violation of its constitution and bylaws and
thereafter imposing fines against these individuals after
they resigned from the Union and crossed an established
picket line; and whether Respondent violated Section
8(bXl)(A) and (2) of the Act by attempting to cause the
Employer to discharge the individuals for alleged failure
to comply with the contractual union-security provision.
1. The facts
Homer Electrical Association has two collective-bar-
gaining agreements with Respondent covering two sepa-
rate units, the outside unit consisting of maintenance and
warehouse employees , and the inside unit, comprised of
280 NLRB No. 158
ELECTRICAL WORKERS IBEW LOCAL 1547 (HOMER ELECTRIC)
administrative and clerical employees . The outside unit
employees engaged in an economic strike in August
1985 , during a period when the inside agreement, which
contained both a union -security clause and a contract
provision permitting inside employees to honor a valid
picket line, was then in effect.
At the commencement of the strike all inside employ-
ees honored the picket line of the outside unit . Thereaf-
ter, between 28 August and 4 September 1985, 10 inside
employees , all Charging Parties herein, resigned from the
Union by sending telex messages to this effect to Re-
spondent's office in Anchorage, Alaska, and by simulta-
neously mailing confirming certified letters to Respond-
ent.
The various telex messages were sent at the request of
the employees by an individual , Donald Scherck, who
customarily utilizes Western Union 's telex services for
business purposes . Scherck accessed Western Union
through his computer, sent the messages , and within sev-
eral hours received confirmation by means of a "mailbox
scan" that the messages had been received by the Union.
Thereupon, the 10 employees crossed the picket line and
returned to work.
Thereafter, Respondent charged each of the 10 em-
ployees with violations of its bylaws and constitution.
Following internal union proceedings , six of the employ-
ees were fined varying amounts pursuant to the charges.
Charges against four employees, who had never been
formal members but rather were financial core members
of the Union , were dismissed. In addition, Respondent
attempted to cause the Employer to discharge the 10 em-
ployees for failure to comply with the union-security
clause, and filed a grievance to this effect . The Employer
refused to take the requested action as the employees
continued to meet their "financial core" obligations to
the Union.
2. Analysis and conclusions
The law is clear that a union may not lawfully restrict
the right of a member to resign at any time. Machinists
Local 1414 (Neufeld Porsche-Audi), 270 NLRB 1330
(1984); Pattern Makers League v. NLRB, 473 U.S. 95
(1985). Further, it has been consistently held that, as
stated by the Board in Electrical Workers IBEW Local 66
(Houston Lighting Co.), 262 NLRB 483, 486 (1982), "so
long as the desire to resign is clearly communicated... .
[S]uch communication may be made in any feasible way
and no particular form or method is required."
Respondent does not deny that it received the telex
messages , but contends in its brief that messages of resig-
nation sent by telex or telegram are invalid because there
is no way the Union is able to verify that the employees
themselves sent the messages , and because no hard copy
confirmation exists . Thus, Respondent maintains that res-
ignation must be by letter, telephone, or face-to-face
communication, in order to facilitate verification of the
employee 's personal and voluntary decision to resign,
and that "the telex method lacks the guarantees of re-
ceipt and verification crucial to a determination that an
individual has voluntarily withdrawn membership." Ac-
cordingly, the Union argues that the employees ' resigna-
tions were not effective until the Union received the
1363
confirmation letters signed by the employees, several
days following their return to work.
Respondent 's suggestion that a telex communication or
telegram does not constitute a feasible method of effect-
ing resignation from the Union is palpably erroneous.
Respondent does not contend that the messages it re-
ceived were not authorized by or caused to be sent by
the employees, or that the union constitution and bylaws
provided for an exclusive method of resignation . Having
received the messages identifying the employees as the
senders, the presumption arises that this in fact was the
case. Thereafter, Respondent acted at its peril in refusing
to accept the messages as valid and authentic expressions
of the employees' notification of resignation . Moreover,
it is clear that Respondent's argument is merely a sham,
as no action was taken against the employees until well
after Respondent admittedly received the confirmation
letters.
I therefore conclude that by bringing charges against
the Charging Parties, each of whom timely resigned
from the Union prior to crossing the picket line, and by
imposing fines against them, Respondent has violated
Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act. Further, by attempting to
cause the Employer to discharge the employees, each of
whom has continued to pay dues and fees required of fi-
nancial core members . Respondent has also violated Sec-
tion 8(b)(1)(A) and (2) of the Act. Hershey Foods Corp.,
207 NLRB 897 (1973), enfd. 513 F.2d 1083 (9th Cir.
1975); Food & Commercial Workers Local 506 (Alpha Beta
Co.), 265 NLRB 1290 (1982).
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Employer is an employer engaged in commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the
Act.
2. The Respondent is a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. The Respondent has violated Section 8(bXl)(A) and
(2) of the Act by refusing to give effect to the valid res-
ignations from membership of employees and thereafter
fining employees , and by attempting to cause the Em-
ployer to discharge them for alleged failure to comply
with the contractual union security provisions after the
employees have become "financial core" members.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has engaged in unfair
labor practices , I shall recommend that Respondent be
ordered to cease and desist therefrom and take certain af-
firmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the
Act.
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and
on the entire record, I issue the following recommend-
ed2
8 If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the Board's
Rules and Regulations, the findings , conclusions, and recommended
Order shall , as provided in Sec. 102.48 of the Rules, be adopted by the
Board and all objections to them shall be deemed waived for all pur-
poses.
1364 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ORDER
The Respondent , International Brotherhood of Electri-
cal Workers, Local 1574, AFL-CIO, its officers, agents,
and representatives, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Bringing charges against or imposing fines upon
employees who have resigned from and are no longer
members of Respondent because of postresignation con-
duct protected by Section 7 of the Act.
(b) Attempting to cause Homer Electric Association to
discharge employees for alleged failure to comply with
contractual union-security provisions after the employees
have become "financial core" members.
(c) In any like or related manner restraining or coerc-
ing employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed
them by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to
effectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Rescind and remove from its records all discipli-
nary action taken against Kathleen O'Quinn , Annette J.
Valaer, Ellen R. Holsberry , Jan E. Baird, All Blackwell,
Gisela V. Agdamag, Elsie E. Albertson, Bernadette D.
Wilson, Ruth L . Plymire, and Carol M. Drew because of
their postresignation conduct and notify them in writing
that the fines levied against them have been rescinded
and that all records of disciplinary action against them
have been removed.
(b) Withdraw its grievance and notify Homer Electric
Association in writing that the Union has no objection to
the continued employment of the named employees pro-
vided they remain financial core members of the Union.
(c) Post at its business office and meeting halls copies
of the attached notice marked "Appendix."3 Copies of
the notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director
for Region 19, after being signed by the Respondent's
authorized representative, shall be posted by the Re-
spondent 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 cov-
ered by any other material.
(d) Mail to the Regional Director for Region 19 signed
copies of the notice for posting by the Employer , if it is
willing, in places where notices to employees are cus-
tomarily posted. Copies of said notice to be furnished by
the Regional Director , after being duly signed by Re-
spondent's authorized representative, shall be returned
forthwith to the Regional Director.
(e) Notify the Regional Director in writing within 20
days from the date of this Order what steps the Re-
spondent has taken to comply.
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES AND MEMBERS
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT bring charges against or impose fines
upon employees who have resigned from and are no
longer members of International Brotherhood of Electri-
cal Workers, Local 1547, AFL-CIO because of postre-
signation conduct protected by Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL NOT attempt to cause Homer Electric Asso-
ciation to discharge employees for alleged failure to
comply with contractual union-security provisions after
the employees have become "financial core" members of
the Union.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner restrain or
coerce you in the exercise of the rights guaranteed you
by Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL rescind and remove from our records all dis-
ciplinary action taken against Kathleen O'Quinn, Annette
J. Valaer, Ellen R. Holsberry, Jan E. Baird, Jill Black-
well, Gisela V. Agdamag, Elsie E. Albertson, Bernadette
D. Wilson, Ruth L. Plymire, and Carol M. Drew be.
cause of their postresignation conduct and notify the
named employees in writing that the fines levied against
them have been rescinded and that all records of discipli-
nary action against them have been removed.
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELEC-
TRICAL WORKERS, LOCAL 1547, AFL-CIO
i 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 Nation-
al Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of
the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National
Labor Relations Board."