International Brotherhood Of Electrical Workers, Local 1547

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 27, 1986

278 N.L.R.B. 236 (N.L.R.B. 1986)

236 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers,
Local 1547 and Telon Electric Corporation.
Case 19-CB-5382
27 January 1986
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN DOTSON AND MEMBERS
JOHANSEN AND BABSON
On 19 September 1985 Administrative Law
Judge Frederick C. Herzog issued the attached de-
cision. The Respondent filed exceptions and a sup-
porting brief, and the General Counsel filed limited
exceptions with respect to the recommended
Order.
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
as modified.2
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board adopts the
recommended Order of the administrative law
judge as modified below and orders that the Re-
spondent, International Brotherhood of Electrical
Workers, Local 1547, its officers, agents, and repre-
sentatives, shall take the action set forth in the
Order as modified.
1. Add the following as a continuation of the
sentence in paragraph 2.
"and from in any like or related manner restrain-
ing or coercing Telon Electric Corporation in the
selection of its representatives for the purpose of
collective bargaining or the adjustment of griev-
ances."
2. Insert the following as paragraphs 3(e) and
3(f) and reletter the subsequent paragraphs.
"(e) Return any fines, with interest, to Donald
Stebbins and Terry Callander collected from them
pursuant to any such disciplinary proceedings.
"(f) Notify, in writing, Telon Electric Corpora-
tion that the Respondent has no objection to
Donald Stebbins working for it as a supervisor."
1 In its exceptions , the Respondent asserts that it did not contest the
supervisory status of Donald Stebbins but only contested his status as col-
lective-bargaining representative or grievance adjuster We agree How-
ever, we fail to see how any misconstruction of the Respondent's argu-
ment could have affected the result here As the judge found, Stebbins
did in fact adjust grievances and is therefore unquestionably a representa-
tive of Telon within the meaning of Sec 8(b)(1)(B) of the Act.
2 The judge inadvertently failed to include in the recommended Order
all of the cease-and-desist provisions and affirmative relief required by his
findings and reflected in his recommended notice We conform the rec-
ommended Order to those findings
Melvin R. Kang, Esq., for the General Counsel.
Bradley D. Owens, Esq. (Jermain, Dunnagan & Owens), of
Anchorage, Alaska, for the Respondent.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
FREDERICK C. HERZOG, Administrative Law Judge.
This matter was tried before me in Anchorage, Alaska,
on 11 June 1985.1 The charge was filed on 18 January
1985 by Telon Electric Corporation (the Employer). The
complaint issued on 27 February 1985 against Interna-
tional Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 1547
(Respondent), alleging that Respondent violated Section
8(b)(1)(A) and (B) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Act2 by initiating internal union
charges against and fining an employee of the Employer,
based on conduct which occurred after the employee
had resigned his membership in Respondent and by initi-
ating internal union charges and fining a supervisor of
the Employer, based on conduct which occurred while
the supervisor was a representative of the Employer for
purposes of collective bargaining or' the adjustment of
grievances.
At the trial all parties were afforded the right to par-
ticipate, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to
produce evidence in support of their respective positions.
In addition, the parties were afforded the right to file
briefs and make oral argument at the conclusion of the
trial.
Based on the record3 thus compiled, plus my consider-
ation of the demeanor of the witnesses and the briefs
filed by counsel for the General Counsel and Respond-
ent, I make the following
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. JURISDICTION
The complaint alleges that the Employer is a Washing-
ton corporation, with an office and place of business situ-
ated at Woodinville, Washington, where it is engaged in
1 This method of setting forth dates conforms with current Board
practice
2 29 U S C. § 151, et seq , provides, in pertinent part-
Sec. 8• . . . (b) It shall be an unfair labor practice for a labor orga-
nization or its agents-
(1) to restrain or coerce (A) employees in the exercise of the rights
guaranteed in section 7 Provided, 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 membership therein; or
(B) an employer in the selection of his representatives for the pur-
poses of collective bargaining or the adjustment of grievances, .
Sec. 7• Employees shall have the right to self-organization, to
form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively
through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in
other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or
other mutual aid or protection, and shall also have the right to re-
frain from any or all such activities except to the extent that such
right may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a
labor organization as a condition of employment as authorized in
section 8(a)(3)
2 I grant the General Counsel's unopposed motion to remove R Exhs
3 and 4. Neither was offered nor received into evidence, but were, never-
theless, included in the record transmitted to me after the trial by the
court reporter.
278 NLRB No. 32
ELECTRICAL WORKERS IBEW LOCAL 1547 (TELON ELECTRIC) 237
the business of electrical contracting ; that , during the 12
months preceding issuance of the complaint its gross
sales of goods and services exceeded $500,000; that
during the same period it sold and shipped goods or,pro-
vided services from its Washington facilities - to customers
within that State which were themselves engaged in
interstate commerce by other than indirect means of a
total value in excess of $50,000; and that during the same
period the Employer purchased and caused to be deliv-
ered to its facilities within the State of Washington goods
and materials valued in excess of $50,000 directly from
sources outside said State or from suppliers within said
State which in turn obtained such goods and materials
directly from sources outside said State.
All of this was denied by Respondent's answer. How-
ever, the evidence was uncontradicted at trial that the
Employer, a Washington corporation, is engaged in the
business of electrical contracting, and that during the .cal-
endar year 1984 it performed services and sold goods di-
rectly to customers outside the State of Washington
valued in excess of $50,000, and, during the same calen-
dar year, purchased goods directly from suppliers outside
the State of Washington valued in excess of $50,000.
Accordingly, I find and conclude that at all times ma-
terial herein the Employer was an employer engaged in
commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and
(7) of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION
The complaint alleges, the answer admits, and I find
that Respondent is, and has been at all times material
herein, a labor organization within the meaning of Sec-
tion 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The Facts
In April 19844 a general contractor named Olympic
Constructors, a division of Olympic Prefabricators, Inc.,
obtained a contract from Conoco, Inc. to perform con-
struction work at the Milne Point Operations Complex,
Milne Point, Alaska, a support facility for Conoco's oil
pipeline operations . Later that same month Olympic
granted the Employer a subcontract on the project.
The Employer began performance of its subcontract at
its facility located at Boise, Idaho. There it constructed
modular units which were later shipped to'the project
site, assembled , and installed . While the Employer had a
collective-bargaining agreement covering its Boise oper-
ations, it had no agreement with any labor organization
regarding work to be performed in Alaska.
The Employer's project superintendent for this sub-
contract was Donald Stebbins . Stebbins was a member of
the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers
(AFL-CIO & CLC), Local Union No. 46 from 13 Feb-
ruary 1980 until sometime after the commencement of
his employment with the Employer.
Stebbins was entirely responsible for running the
project for the Employer. According to the credited tes-
4 All dates refer to the calendar year 1984 unless stated otherwise.
timony of Robert Johnson, and that of Stebbins , Stebbins
independently hired and fired employees on the project,
authorized overtime , committed the Employer' s credit,
dealt with the general contractor and Alaskan state offi-
cials, and settled grievances and complaints advanced by
employees.
By mid-August work had advanced to the point that
Stebbins was ready to move the project's work from
Boise to Alaska . Accordingly, he hired or caused the
Employer to hire employees to go to Alaska with him.
One such employee was named Terry Callander. Cal-
lander, who was hired by Johnson on 18 August, was
also a member of IBEW Local Union No. 46, having
joined on 11 June 1975. However, based on advice he so-
licited from Johnson , on 23 August (apparently-3 days
before he began work in Alaska) Callander sent a letter
to, IBEW` Local Union No. 46 which read as follows:
To Whom it May Concern:
I, Terry D. Callander, hereby change my status
with the union from that of a full member in good
standing, to that of a dues paying member only.
I recognize my obligation to continue to tender
periodic dues as uniformly required of all members.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
/s/ Terry D. Callander
Member
There is no showing in the record about when, or
whether, this letter 's contents were passed on from
IBEW Local Union No. 46 to Respondent , the local
union having jurisdiction over the locale of the jobsite'in
Alaska.5
Work began on the Alaska phase of the subcontract in
late August, with the complement of workers eventually
expanding to nearly 30. As of 23 October there were ap-
proximately 20 to 25 employees , but by 4 December the
work complement had shrunk to around 10 men , as the,
job apparently neared completion.
Respondent immediately learned of the arrival of the
Employer on the scene , of course , and arranged for elec-
trical workers to seek employment with it , so they could
carry out- an organizational drive . One such employee
wrote Respondent 's business representative and organiz-
er, on 15 September, in pertinent part:
Well I don't know if you've herd [sic] about how
we tried to run Telon's main people off the slope.
We brought some pressure down on them . . . . I've
got enough representation cards for 31 percent. I'll
get them to you. . . . The 'Superintendent Don
Stebbins is IBEW Local #46, he 's been breaking
every rule. Here's a list of everyone' name I've got.
5 I conclude that Respondent obviously did have some sort of contact
with IBEW Local Union No. 46 concerning this matter How else would
it have learned of the fact asserted in its letters to Stebbins and Callander,
discussed later herein , that the Employer had a dispute with Local 46?
Or possibly even the fact that Stebbins and Callander were members of
Local 46
238 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Superinten [sic]-Don Stebbins Local #46 Seattle-
WHSH
Terry Challandar [sic] Local #46
P.S. I never got a copie [sic] of the organizing
letter, please send me one for my records.
On 23 October Respondent wrote to both Stebbins and
Callander advising that charges had been filed against
them for alleged violations of the IBEW bylaws and
constitution, and notifying them of a hearing date of 20
November in Anchorage, Alaska. Each violation was
stated as "solicit[ing] and knowingly [going] to work for
[the Employer] on the Conoco [project]. [The Employer]
is a non-union electrical contactor from Seattle who is in
dispute with the I.B.E.W." On 4 December each was
sent a letter by Respondent advising that Respondent's
"trial board" had found them guilty of violating the
IBEW's bylaws and not guilty of violating its constitu-
tion. Each was notified that he had been assessed a fine
of $4000, based on approximately 2 weeks' wages. Nei-
ther Stebbins nor Callander has paid their fines, but each
has been advised that such fines are "court collectible."
B. Conclusions and Reasons
1. Donald Stebbins' fine
Respondent contends that its actions regarding Steb-
bins are privileged by virtue of the fact that he was a
member, that he was not a supervisor, that the discipline
imposed was no greater than that which it imposed on
others by the same trial board, that Stebbins was not in
fact a "representative for purposes of collective bargain-
ing or grievance adjustment, and that neither Stebbins
nor the Employer were subjectively coerced or re-
strained."
Although I do not agree with all of Respondent's con-
tentions, I do find that Stebbins was a member of Re-
spondent, that the discipline imposed on him was not out
of line with that imposed on others at the same time, and
that there is no showing on this record of subjective or
successful coercion or restraint upon either Stebbins or
the Employer.
However, I have difficulty imagining a case where
possession of supervisory authority could be more clear-
ly shown. Stebbins was the sole management representa-
tive on this project. In addition to acting independently
to hire and fire, and dealing for the Employer with the
general contractor and state officials, he literally lived
among the employees. Nor can it seriously be claimed
that he failed to adjust employees' grievances, or that he
did so as a representative of the Employer, i.e., among
other things, as a result of employee complaints to him
he caused employees' furnaces and outhouses to be re-
paired , surely ' matters of no small moment on Alaska's
North Slope in the fall and winter seasons.
Respondent argues that under certain cases decided by
the Ninth Circuit Court of Appealss no violation can be
found unless it is also found that a union's "true intent"
or "motive" was to interfere with the Employer's selec-
tion of Stebbins as its bargaining representative or griev-
ance adjuster, and/or unless there is "actual" evidence of
an intent by a union to represent an employer's employ-
ees.
Neither case nor argument is of aid to Respondent.
Given the fact that the charge against Stebbins recited
on its face that the Employer was "in dispute" with
IBEW Local Union No. 46, and the unrebutted, clear
evidence of ongoing organizational efforts, coinciding
very closely in time with the filing of Respondent's
charge against Stebbins, Respondent's argument in this
respect can, at best, be described as specious. As noted
by the Ninth Circuit in NLRB v. Electrical Workers
IBEW Local 952, id., at 440, a union's intent or motive
may be inferred from the circumstances, and when the
very nature of a union's conduct leads to a natural, fore-
seeable consequence, the Board is justified in finding that
the result obtained was the result intended. I find that all
times material Respondent sought to organize the em-
ployees of the Employer.
In this case the evidence is undisputed that Stebbins
never worked with tools or alongside employees on the
project. Thus, I have no difficulty in concluding that Re-
spondent's actions against Stebbins were directed solely
at his ability to represent the Employer's interests loyal-
ly, and not at any dispute Respondent may have had
with him as a member. Compare Florida Power & Light
Co. v. Electrical Workers IBEW, Local 641, 417 U.S. 790
(1974).
Further, it does not assist Respondent to assert that
neither Stebbins nor the Employer would admit to feel-
ing subjectively coerced or restrained. For it is the exer-
tion of pressures reasonably leading to such subjective
feelings which the Act enjoins, and not merely those
which prove successful. Compare San Francisco-Oakland
Mailers' Union 18, 172 NLRB 2173 (1968), and American
Broadcasting Co. v. Writers Guild, 437 U.S. 411, 429-436
(1978), in which the Supreme Court held that the test
was whether union sanctions may adversely affect the su-
pervisor's performance of his collective bargaining or
grievance-adjustment tasks and thereby coerce or re-
strain the employer contrary to Section 8(b)(1)(B). I find
such' a possibility to have been the case here.
Accordingly, I find and conclude that by initiating in-
ternal union charges against and by fining a supervisor of
the Employer, based on conduct which occurred while
the supervisor was a representative of the Employer for
purposes of collective bargaining or the adjustment of
grievances, Respondent violated Section 8(b)(1)(B) of the
Act.
6 NLRB v. Electncal Workers IBEW Local 73, 714 F 2d 870 (9th Cir
1980), and NLRB v Electrical Workers IBEW Local 952, 758 F 2d 436
(9th Cir. 1985)
ELECTRICAL WORKERS IBEW LOCAL 1547 (TELON ELECTRIC) 239
2. Terry Callander's fine
A union is clearly entitled to preserve the validity and
enforceability of the membership contract which its con-
stitution and bylaws represent , as those rights are set
forth in the proviso, to Section 8(b)(1)(A). See, e.g:,
NLRB v Allis-Chalmers, 388 U.S. 175 (1967); Scofield v.
NLRB, 394 U.S. 423 (1969), and the Board's decision in
Hershey Foods Corp., 207 NLRB 897 (1973), enfd. 513
F.2d 1083 (1975). Taken together, these and other cases
define an employee's duty to a'union (usually, however,
in connection with an attempt by the union to enforce a
union-security provision in a collective -bargaining agree-
ment).
These cases have led the Board to declare that "`full'
union membership may not be required of an employee
as a condition of employment , and that the term 'mem-
bership ' as used in Section 8 (a)(3) represents a financial
obligation limited to the payment of fees and dues." Food
& Commercial Workers Local 506 (Alpha Beta Co.), 265
NLRB 1290 ( 1982). All this, in turn , has led to situations
where some employees are commonly said to have "full
membership" in unions , while others are tagged with the
label of "financial core members ." The point of all this is
that "financial core members" are not bound to the "con-
tract" which "full members" have with their unions.
They are thus not subject to the sanctions set up by
unions in their constitutions and bylaws, for the consen-
sual prerequisite for union discipline is missing . NLRB v.
Textile Workers Local 1029, 409 U.S. 213 (1972).
More recently it has been held that employees are free
to resign from unions at any time . Machinists Local 1414
(Neufeld Porsche-Audi), 270 NLRB 1330 (1984), and Pat-
tern Makers v. NLRB, 473 U.S. 95 (1985).
Thus, it seems that Respondent's fine of Callander can
be deemed lawful only if Callander remained a member
of Respondent at the time he engaged in the conduct
which Respondent found violative of its bylaws. This
issue turns, obviously, upon whether Callander's letter,
set forth above, is found to be a valid resignation from
Respondent.'
Respondent asserts that it was not. Yet, in its brief, Re-
spondent concedes that no particular form or method is
required to communicate an intent to resign so long as
the intent is conveyed clearly in any feasible way . Allied
Workers Local 80 (Capital-Husting), 235 NLRB 1264
(1978).
I conclude that Callander' s letter meets this test. Cer-
tainly one would never suggest that it is a model of clar-
ity, but it nonetheless seems sufficient to me to squeeze
through the door marked "clear ' expression of intent."
Whoever received the letter could not safely presume
that Callander had no intent in writing the letter. (I make
no finding that Respondent had a duty to inquire as to its
meaning, though it may well have been the prudent
course of action for Respondent to follow.) Despite the
inartful phrasing, and the usage of the word "member"
throughout , Callander 's letter does seem to me to be in-
capable of any construction other than a request to end
whatever type membership he had previously held in
Respondent . Although it makes no mention of the term
"financial core," I deem that concept to also have been
conveyed with sufficient clarity to have given any rea-
sonable reader the requisite notice of his intent to resign.
A far more difficult question is posed , and considerable
light thrown on this issue, simply by asking, "What else
can Callander's letter be read, to convey?" In my opinion
any reasonable official of IBEW Local No. 46 would
have read Callander's letter as a "Hershey letter."8
I agree with Respondent 's argument that in the ab-
sence of a collective -bargaining relationship , and per-
force any union-security agreement, Hershey has no
direct application to the issue before me. But even
though it must be conceded that Callander had no power
to demand that a special class of membership be created
by Respondent or its sister, Local Union No. 46, I
cannot agree that Respondent was free to simply ignore
the arrival of Callander's letter . Because that letter con-
veys clearly that Callander wanted "out" as a "full
member" I find it to have been a sufficiently clear evi-
dence of intent to resign , I make no decision as to
whether Callander may confidently rely on that letter in
someday advancing the claim that he has retained "finan-
cial core" membership in Respondent since sending the
letter.
It follows from the above that I should, as I do, find
that by initiating internal union charges against and
fining an employee of the Employer based on conduct
which occurred after said employee had resigned his
membership , Respondent violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) of
the Act.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
UPON COMMERCE
The activities of Respondent set forth above have a
close , intimate, and substantial relationship to trade, traf-
fic, and commerce among the several States , and tend to
lead to industrial strife burdening and obstructing-'com-
merce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has engaged in, and is
engaging in, unfair labor practices in violation of Section
8(b)(1)(A) and (B) of the Act, I shall order it to cease
and desist therefrom and to take certain affirmative ac-
tions necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act.
On the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and on
the entire record in this case , I make the following.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The -Employer, Telon Electric Corporation, is an
employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.
2. Respondent is a labor organization within the mean-
ing of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. Inasmuch as Respondent conducted proceedings
based on internal union charges and/or took disciplinary
action against a supervisor of the Employer for said su-
7 Regardless of whether or not it also sufficed to convert him to a "fi-
nancial core " member e Referring to the case of Hershey Foods Corp, supra
240 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
pervisor's actions while he was acting as a representative
of the Employer for purposes of collective bargaining or
the adjustment of grievances Respondent has engaged in
and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 8(b)(1)(B) of the Act.
'4. Inasmuch as Respondent conducted proceedings
based on internal union charges and/or took disciplinary
action against an employee of the Employer for that em-
ployee's actions done when said employee was no longer
a member of the IBEW Local No. 46, or bound by the
constitutional provisions or bylaws of Respondent's inter-
national union affiliate, Respondent has engaged in and is
engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of
Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act.
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and
on the entire record,9 I issue the following recommend-
edno
ORDER
The Respondent, International Brotherhood of Electri-
cal Workers, Local 1547, its officers, agents, and repre-
sentatives, shall
1. Cease and desist from processing internal union
charges and/or taking disciplinary action against non-
member employees, including Terry Callander, for their
having engaged in conduct thought to be violative of
Respondent's or its International affiliate's constitution or
bylaws, when such employees have previously resigned
from Respondent or its International affiliate; and from
in any like or related manner restraining or coercing em-
ployees in the exercise of their rights guaranteed in Sec-
tion 7 of the Act.
2. Cease and desist from processing internal union
charges and/or taking disciplinary action against supervi-
sors for employers, including Donald Stebbins, for their
having engaged in conduct thought to be violative of
Respondent's or its International affiliate's constitution or
bylaws, for such supervisor's actions while acting as a
representative of an employer for purposes of collective
bargaining or the adjustment of grievances.
3. Take the following affirmative action necessary to
effectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Cancel all such outstanding disciplinary actions
taken against the supervisor and the nonmember employ-
ee.
(b) Until authorized by the Regional Director for
Region 19 to take the expunction actions, set forth below
in paragraph (c), preserve, and, on request, make avail-
able to the Board or its agents, all records of charges,
disciplinary proceedings, and disciplinary actions taken
against the supervisor and the nonmember employee.
(c) Subject to the interim records-preservation require-
ments, set forth above in paragraph (b), permanently
remove from its union files and records all references to
disciplinary proceedings and disciplinary actions taken
9 All outstanding motions, if any, mconsustent with this recommended
Order are overruled
10 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.
against supervisors acting as representatives of employers
for purposes of collective, bargaining or adjustment of
grievances, as well as for actions taken against non-
member employees for alleged violations of union rules
when they were nonmembers.
(d) Immediately notify the supervisor and the non-
member, employee, in writing, that any disciplinary pro-
ceedings or actions taken against them, as set forth
above, are of no force and effect, and that internal union
files and records will be purged of any references to
such proceedings or actions as soon as permission is ob-
tained from the Regional Director for Region 19.
(e) Post the attached notice marked "Appendix.""
Copies of the notice shall be prepared by the Regional
Director for Region 19 and furnished to Respondent.
Upon receipt they shall be signed by a responsible offi-
cial of Respondent and shall be immediately posted
thereafter for a period of 60 consecutive days in conspic-
uous places in Respondent's offices and meeting halls, in-
cluding in all locations where notices to members are
customarily posted. Signed copies of said notice shall
also be furnished by the Regional Director for Region 19
to the Employer for posting, provided the Employer is
willing to do so.
(f) Notify the Regional Director in writing within 20
days of this Order what steps Respondent has taken to
comply with it.
" 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 "
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 process internal union charges, fine,
and/or take disciplinary action against nonmember em-
ployees, including Terry Callander, for their having en-
gaged in conduct claimed to be violative of union consti-
tutions or bylaws when such employees have previously
resigned their membership with us or any affiliated
union.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner restrain or
coerce employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed by
Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act.
WE WILL NOT restrain or coerce Telon Electric Cor-
poration in the selection of its representatives for the
purpose of collective bargaining or the adjustment of
grievances by preferring charges, holding a trial or
fining, or attempting otherwise to cause the removal of
any such representative, including Donald Stebbins, from
performing supervisory, executive, or managerial func-
tions for the Employer.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner restrain or
coerce Telon Electric Corporation in the selection of its
ELECTRICAL WORKERS IBEW LOCAL 1547 (TELON ELECTRIC) 241
representatives for the . purpose of collective bargaining
or the adjustment of grievances.
WE WILL cancel all outstanding disciplinary actions
taken against Donald Stebbins and Terry Callander, and
we will immediately notify Donald Stebbins and Terry
Callander that the disciplinary proceedings against them
are null, void, and of no force or effect, and that our in-
ternal union files and records will be purged of any ref-
erences to such proceedings after obtaining permission
and authorization to do so from the Regional Director
for Region 19 of the Board ; and after obtaining such per-
mission and authorization.
WE WILL permanently remove from our files and
records all references to such disciplinary proceedings.
WE WILL return any fines , with interest, to Donald
Stebbins and Terry Callander collected from them pursu-
ant to any such disciplinary proceedings.
WE WILL notify, in writing, Telon Electric Corpora-
tion that we have no objection to Donald Stebbins work-
ing for it as a supervisor.
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELEC-
TRICAL WORKERS , LOCAL 1547