International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Local 385 (Walt Disney Parks and Resorts U.S., Inc. d/b/a Wa

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 20, 2018

366 NLRB No. 96 (N.L.R.B. 2018)

366 NLRB No. 96
NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the
bound volumes of NLRB decisions. Readers are requested to notify the Ex-
ecutive Secretary, National Labor Relations Board, Washington, D.C.
20570, of any typographical or other formal errors so that corrections can
be included in the bound volumes.
International Brotherhood of Teamsters Local 385
(Walt Disney Parks and Resorts U.S., Inc. d/b/a
Walt Disney World Co.; United Parcel Service,
Inc.) and Hector L. Santana-Quintana and Sha-
ron Masuda and Heather Raleigh and Arlene C.
Behrens and Mitchell Kent and Jacob Greene
and Baringthon Brudy and Dolores Nicosia.
Cases 12–CB–136934, 12–CB–149945, 12–CB–
149949, 12–CB–152211, 12–CB–152912, 12–CB–
159647, 12–CB–162916, and 12–CB–180519
June 20, 2018
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS PEARCE, KAPLAN, AND EMANUEL
On March 22, 2017, Administrative Law Judge Mi-
chael A. Rosas issued the attached decision. The Re-
spondent filed exceptions and a supporting brief, the
General Counsel and Charging Parties Sharon Masuda,
Heather Raleigh, Mitchell Kent, and Jacob Greene (col-
lectively, the Represented Charging Parties) filed an-
swering briefs,1 and the Respondent filed replies. The
General Counsel filed cross-exceptions and a supporting
brief, and the Respondent filed an answering brief. The
Represented Charging Parties filed cross-exceptions, a
supporting brief, and a reply brief, and the Respondent
filed an answering brief.
The National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the decision and record in
light of the exceptions and briefs and has decided to af-
firm the judge’s rulings, findings,2 and conclusions only
to the extent consistent with this Decision and Order.3

1 Charging Parties Hector Santana-Quintana, Arlene Behrens,
Baringthon Brudy, and Dolores Nicosia are not represented.
2 The Respondent has excepted to some of the judge’s credibility
findings. The Board’s established policy is not to overrule an adminis-
trative law judge’s credibility resolutions unless the clear preponder-
ance of all the relevant evidence convinces us that they are incorrect.
Standard Dry Wall Products, 91 NLRB 544 (1950), enfd. 188 F.2d 362
(3d Cir. 1951). We have carefully examined the record and find no
basis for reversing the findings.
Pursuant to the General Counsel’s exceptions, we have corrected
several inadvertent errors made by the judge in his decision, such as
misspellings, typographical errors, misnomers, and mistaken refer-
ences. These inadvertent errors have not affected our disposition of this
case.
3 The Respondent argues that the allegations regarding Charging
Party Santana-Quintana should be dismissed because the Regional
Director’s decision to hold Santana-Quintana’s charge in abeyance for
14 months before determining that further proceedings were warranted
violated Sec. 10(b) under Ducane Heating Corp., 273 NLRB 1389
Based on the judge’s factual findings that the Re-
spondent repeatedly and deliberately failed to respond in
any manner to the Charging Parties’ letters, telephone
calls, and/or in-person inquiries regarding revocation of
their dues checkoff authorizations, we affirm his conclu-
sions that the Respondent violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) by

(1985), enfd. mem. 785 F.2d 304 (4th Cir. 1986), and was an abuse of
the General Counsel’s prosecutorial discretion. In Ducane Heating, the
Board held that “a dismissed charge may not be reinstated outside the
6-month limitations period of [Sec.] 10(b) absent special circumstances
in which a respondent fraudulently conceals the operative facts under-
lying the alleged violation.” Id. at 1390. However, Ducane Heating is
not applicable here because the Regional Director did not dismiss San-
tana-Quintana’s charge but instead held it in abeyance. Further, the
Regional Director’s decision to hold Santana-Quintana’s charge in
abeyance was a prosecutorial decision about what steps to take before
issuing a complaint, and the General Counsel has unreviewable discre-
tion to make such prosecutorial decisions under Sec. 3(d) of the Act.
See BCI Coca-Cola Bottling Co., 361 NLRB 839, 843 fn. 11 (2014);
see also NLRB v. Food & Commercial Workers Local 23, 484 U.S. 112
(1987).
The Respondent also argues that the allegations regarding Masuda
and Raleigh should be dismissed because the Regional Director dis-
missed their charges on July 31, 2015, but then reinstated them on
February 12, 2016. However, at the time of reinstatement, Masuda’s
and Raleigh’s appeals of the Regional Director’s dismissals were pend-
ing before the General Counsel, and the Board has held that a Regional
Director’s reinstatement of a previously dismissed charge while an
appeal of the dismissal is pending is “proper and consistent with
longstanding practice and in accord with Ducane Heating Corp., su-
pra.” Children’s National Medical Center, 322 NLRB 205, 205 (1996).
The judge included a notice-mailing remedy in his recommended
Order, but omitted the Board’s standard notice-posting remedy. We
shall include the Board’s standard notice-posting remedy in the Order.
Because the Respondent’s members who are affected by its violations
number in the thousands and are spread across central Florida, we shall
also retain the judge’s notice-mailing remedy to ensure that those
members are informed of the Order. Member Pearce joins his col-
leagues in including the Board’s standard notice-posting remedy in the
Order, but he would not retain the judge’s notice-mailing remedy, as
the judge did not articulate why the standard notice-posting remedy
would be insufficient to remedy the effects of the Respondent’s unfair
labor practices.
We shall further modify the judge’s recommended Order to conform
to our findings and the Board’s standard remedial language. We shall
substitute a new notice to conform to the Order as modified. Addition-
ally, we shall amend the judge’s remedy to require the Respondent to
pay any interest owed at the rate prescribed in New Horizons, 283
NLRB 1173 (1987), compounded daily as prescribed in Kentucky River
Medical Center, 356 NLRB 6 (2010). We note that the Respondent is
required to only pay interest to Charging Parties Santana-Quintana and
Behrens because it has already reimbursed them for the dues deducted
from their wages and remitted to the Respondent from May 20, 2014 to
September 22, 2014, and from October 31, 2014 to May 19, 2015,
respectively.
We reject, as unwarranted, the Represented Charging Parties’ re-
quested extraordinary remedies because we find that the Respondent’s
violations are not “so numerous, pervasive, and outrageous that such
remedies are necessary to dissipate fully the coercive effects of the
unfair labor practices found.” Federated Logistics & Operations, 340
NLRB 255, 256 (2003) (internal quotations omitted), enfd. 400 F.3d
920 (D.C. Cir. 2005).
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD2
restraining and coercing the Charging Parties in the exer-
cise of the rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the
Act.4
The judge also found that the Respondent violated
Section 8(b)(1)(A) by failing to honor the Charging Par-
ties’ membership resignation requests. We adopt the
judge’s findings that, as alleged in the complaint, the
Respondent violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) by failing to
honor Masuda’s and Raleigh’s resignation requests.
Nevertheless, the Respondent has correctly pointed out
that the complaint does not allege such violations regard-
ing Charging Parties Santana-Quintana, Behrens, Kent,
Brudy, Nicosia, and Greene. However, “the Board may
find and remedy a violation even in the absence of a
specified allegation in the complaint if the issue is close-
ly connected to the subject matter of the complaint and
has been fully litigated.” Pergament United Sales, 296
NLRB 333, 334 (1989), enfd. 920 F.2d 130 (2d Cir.
1990).
Here, the resignation issue is closely connected to the
subject matter of the complaint. The complaint alleges

4 Members Kaplan and Emanuel find it unnecessary to pass on the
judge’s duty-of-fair-representation analysis. Member Pearce agrees
that it is unnecessary to pass on the judge’s duty-of-fair-representation
analysis as to Charging Parties Santana-Quintana and Behrens. Be-
cause the Respondent denied Santana-Quintana’s and Behrens’ timely
requests to revoke their dues checkoff authorizations, Member Pearce
finds that they were thereby restrained and coerced in the exercise of
their Sec. 7 right to refrain from supporting the Respondent. However,
Member Pearce would rely on the judge’s duty-of-fair-representation
analysis as to Charging Parties Masuda, Raleigh, Kent, Greene, Brudy,
and Nicosia. Although these Charging Parties’ revocation requests
were untimely, Member Pearce agrees with the judge’s finding that the
Respondent acted arbitrarily by ignoring the Charging Parties’ revoca-
tion requests and by failing to respond to their repeated efforts to re-
quest revocation in any way, in some instances for months at a time.
He also observes that this conduct was more than mere negligence or
mismanagement. See, e.g., Amalgamated Transit Union Local 1498
(Jefferson Partners), 360 NLRB 777, 778 (2014).
The complaint does not allege that the mandatory window periods
for revocation of dues checkoff authorizations are unlawful, and Mem-
bers Pearce and Emanuel note that the Board has long found that such
mandatory window periods are lawful when, as here, the parties volun-
tarily agreed to them. See, e.g., Frito-Lay, Inc., 243 NLRB 137, 139
(1979) (“The employees voluntarily executed checkoff authorizations .
. . . The authorizations provided that they would be irrevocable except
for two escape periods . . . . Since the employees did not revoke their
authorizations during either of these escape periods, the Union and the
Employer were justified in considering the authorizations still valid.
Hence, we see no good reason to hold unlawful Respondent Union’s
request (or the Employer’s acquiescence in that request) that the Em-
ployer continue to deduct dues pursuant to such outstanding checkoff
authorizations.”).
Member Pearce notes that while the Respondent’s centralized man-
agement of resignation requests and requirement that resignation re-
quests be submitted in writing were lawful and served a legitimate
union interest, the Respondent did not lawfully implement its system
for handling these resignations.
that the Respondent failed to honor or respond to the
dues-checkoff revocation requests of Charging Parties
Santana-Quintana, Behrens, Kent, Brudy, Nicosia, and
Greene, and those Charging Parties’ resignation requests
were set forth in the same communications as their re-
quests to revoke their dues-checkoff authorizations.
We also find that the resignation issue has been fully
litigated. In response to the complaint allegations that it
failed to honor Masuda’s and Raleigh’s resignation re-
quests, the Respondent’s only defense—which the judge
discredited—was that it sent responsive letters that stat-
ed, in part, “Your written request to forfeit your member-
ship has been received and honored effective this date.”
The Respondent entered into evidence similar letters that
it claims to have sent in response to the resignation re-
quests of Santana-Quintana, Behrens, Kent, Brudy, Nico-
sia, and Greene. Accordingly, it seems clear that the
Respondent would not have altered its conduct or pre-
sented additional evidence at the hearing if specific alle-
gations had been made concerning those employees’
resignation requests. See Pergament United Sales, supra,
296 NLRB at 335.
Turning to the merits, we agree with the judge’s find-
ings that the Respondent failed to honor the resignation
requests of Santana-Quintana, Behrens, Kent, Brudy, and
Nicosia in violation of Section 8(b)(1)(A). The Re-
spondent admitted that it did not honor Santana-
Quintana’s resignation request for 4 months and did not
honor Behrens’ resignation request for over 9 months.
See Affiliated Food Stores, 303 NLRB 40, 40 fn. 2, 45
(1991) (finding that a union’s 10-week delay in honoring
a resignation request violated Section 8(b)(1)(A)). Fur-
ther, the judge discredited the Respondent’s claims that it
sent letters in response to the initial resignation requests
of Kent, Brudy, and Nicosia.
However, we reverse the judge’s finding that the Re-
spondent violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) by failing to honor
Charging Party Greene’s resignation request because
Greene admitted that, shortly after he initially requested
to resign from membership in the Respondent, he re-
ceived a letter from the Respondent honoring his request.
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board orders that the
Respondent, International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Local 385, its officers, agents, and representatives, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Failing and refusing to honor employees’ requests
to resign from membership in the Respondent.
(b) Failing and refusing to honor employees’ timely
requests to revoke their dues-checkoff authorizations and
to respond in any manner to their untimely requests to
revoke their dues checkoff authorizations.
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, LOCAL 385 3
(WALT DISNEY PARKS AND RESORTS U.S., INC. D/B/A WALT DISNEY WORLD CO.)
(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) Honor the requests of Baringthon Brudy and
Dolores Nicosia to resign from membership in the Re-
spondent.
(b) Honor the requests of Mitchell Kent, Jacob
Greene, Baringthon Brudy, and Dolores Nicosia to re-
voke their dues checkoff authorizations.
(c) Reimburse Sharon Masuda, Heather Raleigh,
Mitchell Kent, Jacob Greene, Baringthon Brudy, and
Dolores Nicosia for the dues deducted from their wages
and remitted to the Respondent since February 15, 2015,
January 8, 2015, March 31, 2015, June 14, 2015, June
21, 2016, and July 6, 2016, respectively, with interest, in
the manner set forth in the remedy section of the judge’s
decision as amended in this decision.
(d) Pay interest to Hector Santana-Quintana and Ar-
lene Behrens on the dues deducted from their wages and
remitted to the Respondent from May 20, 2014 to Sep-
tember 22, 2014, and from October 31, 2014 to May 19,
2015, respectively.
(e) Preserve and, within 14 days of a request, or such
additional time as the Regional Director may allow for
good cause shown, provide at a reasonable place desig-
nated by the Board or its agents, all payroll records, so-
cial security payment records, timecards, personnel rec-
ords and reports, and all other records, including an elec-
tronic copy of such records if stored in electronic form,
necessary to analyze the amount of backpay due under
the terms of this Order.
(f) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at
its Orlando, Florida facility copies of the attached notice
marked “Appendix.”5 Copies of the notice, on forms
provided by the Regional Director for Region 12, after
being signed by the Respondent’s authorized representa-
tive, shall be posted by the Respondent and maintained
for 60 consecutive days in conspicuous places, including
all places where notices to employees and members are
customarily posted. In addition to physical posting of
paper notices, notices shall be distributed electronically,
such as by email, posting on an intranet or an internet
site, and/or other electronic means, if the Respondent
customarily communicates with its members by such
means. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respond-

5 If this Order is enforced by a judgment of a United States court of
appeals, the words in the notice reading “Posted and Mailed by Order
of the National Labor Relations Board” shall read “Posted and Mailed
Pursuant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforc-
ing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board.”
ent to ensure that the notices are not altered, defaced, or
covered by any other material. In addition, within 14
days after service by the Region, the Respondent shall
duplicate and mail, at its own expense, a copy of the
signed notice to all of its members who have been repre-
sented by the Respondent during their employment with
Walt Disney Parks and Resorts U.S., Inc. d/b/a Walt
Disney World Co. at its Lake Buena Vista and Bay Lake,
Florida facilities and United Parcel Service, Inc., at its
Orlando and Gainesville, Florida facilities since May 20,
2014.
(g) Within 14 days after service by the Region, deliver
to the Regional Director for Region 12 signed copies of
the notice in sufficient number for posting by Walt Dis-
ney Parks and Resorts U.S., Inc. d/b/a Walt Disney
World Co. at its Lake Buena Vista and Bay Lake, Florida
facilities and United Parcel Service, Inc., at its Orlando
and Gainesville, Florida facilities, if they wish, in all
places where notices to employees are customarily post-
ed.
(h) Within 21 days after service by the Region, file
with the Regional Director for Region 12 a sworn certifi-
cation of a responsible official on a form provided by the
Region attesting to the steps that the Respondent has
taken to comply.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint is dismissed
insofar as it alleges violations of the Act not specifically
found.
Dated, Washington, D.C. June 20, 2018
______________________________________
Mark Gaston Pearce, Member
______________________________________
Marvin E. Kaplan, Member
______________________________________
William J. Emanuel, Member
(SEAL) NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES AND MEMBERS
POSTED AND MAILED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD4
The National Labor Relations Board has found that we
violated Federal labor law and has ordered us to post and
obey this notice.
FEDERAL LAW GIVES YOU THE RIGHT TO
Form, join, or assist a union
Choose representatives to bargain on your behalf
with your employer
Act together with other employees for your bene-
fit and protection
Choose not to engage in any of these protected
activities.
WE WILL NOT fail and refuse to honor your requests to
resign your union membership.
WE WILL NOT fail and refuse to honor your timely re-
quests to revoke your dues checkoff authorizations, and
WE WILL NOT fail and refuse to respond in any manner to
your untimely requests to revoke your dues checkoff
authorizations.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner restrain or
coerce you in the exercise of the rights listed above.
WE WILL honor the requests of Baringthon Brudy and
Dolores Nicosia to resign from membership.
WE WILL honor the requests of Mitchell Kent, Jacob
Greene, Baringthon Brudy, and Dolores Nicosia to re-
voke their dues checkoff authorizations.
WE WILL reimburse Sharon Masuda, Heather Raleigh,
Mitchell Kent, Jacob Greene, Baringthon Brudy, and
Dolores Nicosia for the dues deducted from their wages
and remitted to us since February 15, 2015, January 8,
2015, March 31, 2015, June 14, 2015, June 21, 2016, and
July 6, 2016, respectively, with interest.
WE WILL pay interest to Santana-Quintana and Arlene
Behrens on the dues deducted from their wages and re-
mitted to us from May 20, 2014, to September 22, 2014,
and from October 31, 2014, to May 19, 2015, respective-
ly.
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF
TEAMSTERS, LOCAL 385
The Board’s decision can be found at
www.nlrb.gov/case/12-CB-136934 or by using the QR code
below. Alternatively, you can obtain a copy of the decision
from the Executive Secretary, National Labor Relations
Board, 1015 Half Street, S.E., Washington, D.C. 20570, or
by calling (202) 273–1940.
Rafael Aybar, Esq., for the General Counsel.
Thomas J. Pilacek, Esq., of Winter Springs, Florida, for the
Respondent.
John C. Scully and Alyssa K. Hazelwood, Esqs. (Right to Work
Legal Defense Foundation), of Springfield, Virginia, for the
Charging Parties.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
MICHAEL A. ROSAS, Administrative Law Judge. This case
was tried in Kissimmee, Florida, on October 3–4 and Novem-
ber 21–22, 2016. The consolidated complaint alleges that the
International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Local 385 (Local
385 or Respondent) violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Act (the Act)1 by engaging in a pattern
of intentionally ignoring or delaying its responses to the re-
quests at various times by eight Local 385 members (the Charg-
ing Parties), employed by Walt Disney Parks and Resorts US,
Inc. d/b/a Walt Disney World Co. (Disney or WDW) and the
United Parcel Service, Inc. (UPS), to revoke dues check-off
authorizations and/or for information regarding how to revoke
dues check-off authorization.
Local 385 denies the allegations, alleging that (1) the dues
revocation requests were untimely and did not conform to with
the requirements of the dues-checkoff authorization form
signed by Charging Parties; (2) one or more of the charges in
the complaint are asserted in an improper attempt to equate
their rights under Communications Workers of America v. Beck,
487 U.S. 735 (1988) with requests to revoke dues-checkoff
authorizations; and (3) Local 385 does not have an obligation to
honor Beck requests because its collective-bargaining agree-
ments with Disney and UPS are in Florida, a “right-to-work”
state in which application of “agency shop” collective-
bargaining agreement (CBA) provisions are prohibited.
On the entire record, including my observation of the de-
meanor of the witnesses, and after considering the briefs filed
by the General Counsel, Local 385 and the Charging Parties, I
make the following
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. JURISDICTION
At all material times, Disney, a Florida Corporation with its
principal office and place of business located in Lake Buena
Vista, Florida, has been engaged in the operation of a vacation,
recreational and entertainment complex, where it annually de-
rives gross revenues in excess of $500,000 and purchases and

1 29 U.S.C. §§ 151–169.
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, LOCAL 385 5
(WALT DISNEY PARKS AND RESORTS U.S., INC. D/B/A WALT DISNEY WORLD CO.)
receives at its State of Florida facilities goods valued in excess
of $50,000 directly from points outside Florida. Similarly,
UPS, an Ohio and New York Corporation with its principal
office and place of business located in Atlanta, Georgia, and
with places of business located throughout the United States,
including the State of Florida, has been engaged in the opera-
tion in the pick-up and delivery of packages for companies and
individuals. Local 385 admits, and I find, that Disney and UPS
are employers engaged in commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act and the Local 385, as well
as the Service Trades Council (SCTU) are labor organizations
within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
II. ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Local 385’s Representation of Disney and UPS Employees
1. Jurisdiction
The STCU is a labor organization comprised of six labor or-
ganizations, including Local 385. Local 385 is the exclusive
labor representative for approximately 9,000 employees in up
to 52 bargaining units covering 20 counties within Florida. At
all relevant times, Local 385 and Disney have been parties to
collective-bargaining agreements that are effective by their
terms from March 30, 2014 to September 21, 2019. Among
those CBAs, Local 385 is a party to five separate agreements
with Disney in Orlando. They include CBAs between Disney
and the STCU for approximately 4000 to 5000 full-time and
part-time employees. Two of those bargaining units are at issue
and are defined as follows:
Regular Full-Time
All of WDW ‘s regular full time employees who are in the
classifications of work listed in Addendum A of the March
30, 2014 to September 21, 2019 regular full-time collective-
bargaining agreement between STCU and WDW at Walt
Disney World Resort in Bay Lake, Florida, excluding all oth-
er employees, security and supervisors as defined in the Labor
Management Relations Act of 1947, as amended.2
Regular Part-Time
All of WDW’s regular part time employees who are in the
classifications of work listed in Addendum A of the March
30, 2014 to September 21, 2019, regular part-time collective-
bargaining agreement at the Walt Disney World Resort in
Lake Buena Vista, Florida, excluding all other employees, se-
curity and supervisors as defined in the Labor Management
Relations Act of 1947, as amended.3
Section 5 at Articles 8 of the part-time employees’ CBA and
Article 9 of the full-time employees’ CBA provide for the peri-
odic withholding of union membership dues, initiation fees,
and/or service charges for employees who authorize such with-
holdings by Disney, and provides for the monthly remittance of
those monies to the member unions of the STCU, including
Local 385.4
Six of the charging parties (Santana-Quintana, Masuda, Ra-

2 GC Exh. 2.
3 GC Exh. 3.
4 Id. at 7.
leigh, Behrens, Kent, and Nicosia) are Disney employees who
were covered by either the full-time or part-time STCU CBAs.
Local 385 is also party to five CBAs with UPS, including the
National Master United Parcel Service Agreement (NMA).
Local 385 has approximately 2000 to 2500 members covered
by the NMA at approximately 45 to 50 work locations. Two of
the charging parties (Brudy and Greene) are UPS employees
who are covered by current NMA, which is effective by its
terms from August 1, 2013 to July 31, 2018, covering the terms
and conditions of employment of the following employees:
Feeder drivers, package drivers, sorters, loaders, unloaders,
porters, office clericals, clerks, mechanics, maintenance per-
sonnel (building maintenance), car washers, UPS employees
in its air operation, and certain other employees as described
in the August 1, 2013 to July 31, 2018 collective-bargaining
agreement between Local 385 and its member unions, and
UPS.5
Article 3, Section 3 of this collective-bargaining agreement
provides for the periodic withholding of initiation fees, dues
and/or uniform assessments of Local 385 and remittance of
those monies to Local 385 where it has geographic jurisdiction
over the unit employees who have authorized such withhold-
ings by Disney, and provides for the monthly remittance of
those monies to the member unions of the STCU.6
2. Union staff
Clay Jeffries has been the president of Local 385 since Sep-
tember 1, 2016. Prior to that, he served as secretary-treasurer
from January 1, 2001 until August 2016. Jeffries also served as
business agent from 1997 through 2016. As secretary-
treasurer, he reported to the president, Michael Stapleton. Jef-
fries was responsible for the communications and financial
operations of Local 385. He negotiated agreements, was re-
sponsible for processing all membership dues for Local 385 and
participated on grievance panels involving UPS.
Between May 2014 and June 2016, Local 385’s headquarters
in Orlando, Florida housed the offices of approximately 13–14
employees, including Jeffries. Local 385’s staff included:
business agents Nidia Grajales, Concannon and Walt Howard;
Michelle Concannon, an office secretary responsible for insur-
ance and pensions, and receiving, opening, date-stamping let-
ters (but not envelopes) and distributing Local 385’s mail;
Laura Stapleton, a bookkeeper, updates Local 385 records and
posts dues to the individual records of members.7
As secretary-treasurer, Jeffries’ regular work hours were
from Monday through Friday, 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. However, Jef-
fries often traveled from the office to visit employees in the
various bargaining units and was usually out of the office dur-
ing the third week of the month attending grievance arbitration
regular panels with UPS. He was also out of the office for up
to three times a year for up to 2 weeks at a time participating in
deadlocked grievance panels.

5 GC Exh. 4 at 2.
6 Id. at 7–9.
7 Jeffries was frequently vague and evasive, as in this instance when
asked whether staff reported to him and he professed not to understand
the question. (Tr. 29.)
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD6
3. Procedure for resigning from Local 385 and revoking
dues authorization
The check-off authorization forms for both STCU-covered
employees at Disney and UPS employees provide that they
renew themselves annually unless revoked within a specified
window period. The STCU window period for Disney employ-
ees is between 20 and 10 days prior to the anniversary of the
date the employee signed the card. The Local 385 window
period for UPS employees is between 75 and 60 days prior to
the membership anniversary date. Both forms require that a
request to revoke check-off authorization must be by written
notice to both the union and the employer. Signed dues author-
ization forms are filed with Local 385 and copies provided to
Disney and UPS for payroll processing of dues deductions.
Once processed with Disney, Local 385 continues to receive
automatic remittances from Disney until the latter determines
that an employee has transferred out of Local 385’s jurisdiction
or has separated from employment, or LOCAL 385 notifies
Disney that a timely revocation request has been received. In
the case of UPS, Local 385 bills the employer for check-off
remittances on a weekly basis. When a timely revocation re-
quest is received, Local 385 is supposed to remove the employ-
ee from its UPS billings.
4. Local 385’s Practices in Processing Resignation and Dues
Revocation Requests
Local 385 maintains approximately 100,000 check-off au-
thorization cards in its physical files. They are maintained
physically because a copy of the card cannot be scanned into its
electronic system known as TITAN. The information in the
TITAN system for anyone on check-off, including both UPS
and Disney employees, is based on the employee’s social secu-
rity number, which is written on the authorization card.
Local 385 began keeping electronic files for each member
about 8–10 years ago, and hard copies were shredded. Howev-
er, its computer system crashed in 2015 and Local 385 reverted
to hard copy files. If a revocation request does not fall within
the applicable window period, Local 385 is supposed to send a
letter explaining that, with a copy of the member’s authoriza-
tion card. If a Disney employee meets the window require-
ment, Local 385 sends an email to the employer’s payroll of-
fice. In the case of a UPS employee, Local 385 simply removes
the member from the dues check-off billing.
Local 385 does not, however, have a form letter that is used
when members request information about their window period.
Nor does Jeffries usually respond to telephone voicemail mes-
sages from members seeking to revoke their dues authorization.
Local 385 premises that longstanding policy and practice on a
memorandum issued to Local 385 office staff in or around 2006
by then president and business manager Michael Stapleton,
relating to members’ requests to resign from the union and
cancel dues deductions:
We continue to receive complaints from the National Labor
Relations Board about employees of the Local Union giving
out wrong information to member/referrals about Forfeiting,
Resigning, Quitting, or any other form of stopping their dues
deductions or their Membership with the Local Union.
The Local Union has complied and will comply with the Na-
tional Labor Relations Act by giving out ONLY the proper in-
formation on Forfeiting, Resigning, Quitting, or any form of
stopping their dues deductions or their Membership with the
Local Union.
If anyone (Member or Referral Hall etc.) wants to Forfeit, Re-
sign, Quit or any form of cancelling Membership or Dues de-
duction THEY MUST STATE THEIR DESIRE IN
WRITING TO THE SECRETARY-TREASURER ONLY.
The Secretary-Treasurer will send them a written response to
their request.
NO ONE is to answer ANY questions to anyone (Member or
Referral Hall etc.) in person, over the phone, or in any written
correspondence with/or in regards to Forfeiture, Resigning,
Quitting or any form of stopping their dues deductions or their
Membership with the Local Union. YOU MUST REFER
ANYONE WITH QUESTIONS TO THE SECRETARY-
TREASURER ONLY!!!
Anyone that comes into or mails in a written request to the
Local Union to Forfeit, Resign, Quit or any form of cancel-
ling Membership or Dues deduction must be sent to drop off
their letter with Paula Graf ONLY for date stamping!!
If we receive any more complaints from the Labor Board
about misinformation disciplinary action will follow.
This interoffice memo is not to be handed out or posted. It is
for your education and compliance only.8 (emphasis in origi-
nal)
Consistent with Local 385 policy since 2006, Jeffries has
been the only Local 385 employee who has handled members’
requests to revoke their dues withholding authorization, even
when he is on leave. Letters requesting revocation are kept in
member files, which occupy about 45–50 cabinets. While some
files are kept electronically, membership and authorization dues
forms are maintained in paper files. An attempt to store these
records electronically failed when the storage load caused Lo-
cal 385’s computer system to crash in 2015. Local 385 current-
ly has about 100,000 authorization cards in its physical files.
Upon receipt of a written request to revoke dues authoriza-
tion, Jeffries checks with the bookkeeper, Laura Stapleton, to
confirm membership in the unit. He then checks the dues
check-off authorization card to determine whether the request is
within the window and is supposed to respond to the member in
writing. If the revocation request falls outside the time period
for such action, Jeffries is supposed to send the member written
correspondence with a copy of the dues authorization card. If
the request falls during the window period, Jeffries will notify
the employer to stop their deductions electronically or through
the billing process. In Disney’s case, Jeffries is supposed to
notify the employer by email and remove the employee from
Local 385’s dues billing sheet.
Jeffries does not respond to telephone or voicemail requests
to revoke dues authorization because they are not in writing.

8 This memorandum was issued in September 2006 when Paula
Graff was staff secretary. (R. Exh. 1.)
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, LOCAL 385 7
(WALT DISNEY PARKS AND RESORTS U.S., INC. D/B/A WALT DISNEY WORLD CO.)
Nor does he treat member requests for information regarding
their membership and the applicable window period for dues
revocation as a request to revoke dues withholding. He is sup-
posed to let them know whether they signed a dues check-off
authorization or not. If a member sees Jeffries in person and
verbally requests dues revocation, he instructs them to make the
request in writing.
5. Local 385’s enrollment process
Local 385’s collective-bargaining agreements with Disney
and UPS have union dues check-off provisions authorizing the
employers to deduct union dues from employees’ paychecks.
Individuals who sign and date dues check-off authorizations
on triplicate forms used by Local 385 at UPS and other em-
ployers receive a copy upon signature. Local 385 does not
receive a copy of SCTU dues check-off authorization cards
executed by individuals who sign and date them when they are
not employed within Local 385’s authorized jurisdiction under
the SCTU/Disney CBA, but subsequently transfer to a function
over which Local 385 has jurisdiction under the CBA; there-
fore, Local 385 is unable to provide a copy or information
about revocation to such individuals. Local 385 is not respon-
sible for SCTU practices and procedures which do not conform
with Local 385’s practices and procedures or the actions or
inactions of other constituent unions, over which it has no con-
trol.
B. Charging Parties Seek to Resign and Revoke Dues
Check-Off Authorization
Each of the eight Charging Parties, except for Dolores Nico-
sia, signed dues-checkoff authorizations that by their terms
were irrevocable for 1 year or the term of the applicable CBA,
whichever was sooner, and were subject to automatic renewal
unless the employee provided written notice during a certain
window period before the renewal date. The window period for
dues-checkoff authorization revocation for the Charging Parties
who worked for Disney (Santana-Quintana, Masuda, Raleigh,
Behrens, Kent and Nicosia) was “not more than 20 days and
not less than ten (10) days” prior to their periodic renewal
dates. The window period for Charging Parties who worked for
UPS (Greene and Brudy) was “at least sixty [60] days, but not
more than seventy-five [75] days” prior to their periodic renew-
al date. The dues-checkoff authorizations also expressly stated
that they were not contingent on “my present or future mem-
bership” with Local 385.9
1. Hector L. Santana-Quintana
Hector Santana-Quintana began his employment with Disney
as a part-time bus driver at Disney in June 2013 and became
full time in September 2013.10 He joined the Union on June 1,
2013, by signing the following 3 sections of a union authoriza-
tion card: Application for Membership and Check-Off of Ser-
vice Charge; Service Fee Authorization; and Check-off Author-
ization for Political Contributions from Wages. Union dues

9 GC Exhs. 5, 9, 14, 29, 56, 63, and 66; R. Exh. 7 at 2.
10 Santana-Quintana, who appeared pursuant to subpoena by the
General Counsel and refused to meet with him prior to the hearing, was
a credible witness. (Tr. 114–115.)
started being withheld shortly thereafter. The annual window
period for revocation of his dues was May 12 to 22. Santana-
Quintana, however, was not provided with a copy of the card at
the time.11
On May 20, 2014, Santana-Quintana sent a letter by certified
mail resigning his union membership, revoking his union dues
check-off authorization, and requesting the return of his signed
authorization card. Santana-Quintana’s letter, which was time-
ly sent, was received by the Union and a return receipt was
signed by Michelle Concannon on May 21, 2014.12
After not hearing from Local 385, Santana-Quintana filed an
unfair labor practice charge on September 17, 2014. On Sep-
tember 22, after receiving a copy of Santana-Quintana’s charge
from the Board, along with a copy of the May 20 letter, Jeffries
sent a letter to Santana-Quintana acknowledging the latter’s
timely request to revoke his union membership and dues check-
off authorization. He explained that Santana-Quintana’s letter
had been misfield and enclosed a check in the amount of
$148.50 reimbursing Santana-Quintana for union dues deducted
from his paycheck from May 21 to September 22.13
Jeffries’ response did not, however, include a copy of Santa-
na-Quintana’s authorization card as requested and, on Novem-
ber 17, 2014, Santana-Quintana filed an amended charge com-
plaining of that omission. Jeffries responded by mailing Santa-
na-Quintana’s card to him on December 11, 2014.14
2. Sharon Masuda
Sharon Masuda, a full-time character captain at Disney,
signed a STCU check-off authorization form on March 7, 2000.
Unbeknownst to Masuda, her annual window period for revok-
ing her authorization was February 15 to 25, as she did not
receive a copy of her authorization card at the time. Union
dues deductions commenced immediately.
In a letter sent on August 4, 2014, and received by the Union
on August 5, 2014, Masuda notified Jeffries that she was re-
signing her membership in the Union and revoking her dues
authorization. She also requested, in case she was outside the
window period for revoking her dues, a copy of her dues au-
thorization card and information regarding the applicable
dates.15
I am employed by Walt Disney World. This letter is to inform
you that I hereby resign as a member of Teamsters Local
#385. My resignation is effective immediately. Since I have
resigned my membership in the union, you must now imme-
diately cease enforcing the dues check-off authorization
agreement that I signed.
If you refuse to accept this letter as both an effective resigna-
tion and an immediately effective [dues] check-off revocation,

11 GC Exh. 5.
12 Jeffries was not credible about whether he was aware of Santana-
Quintana’s letter when it was received by the Union in or around May
21, 2014. He was vague and hesitant when asked if he found Santana-
Quintana’s file after receiving the charge and his excuse that the letter
was misplaced was not credible either. (GC Exh. 6.)
13 GC Exh. 7; R. Exh. 5.
14 GC Exh. 8; R. Exh. 6.
15 GC Exh. 20(a)–(b).
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD8
I ask that you promptly inform me, in writing, of exactly what
steps I must take to effectuate my revocation of the dues
check-off authorization. More specifically, if you contend that
I must meet a “window period” in order to revoke my dues
check-off authorization, I ask that you promptly send me a
copy of the actual dues deduction authorization form that I
signed, and also tell me specifically what “window period”
dates I must meet in order to revoke the dues check-off au-
thorization. (emphasis in original)
The Union did not respond to Masuda’s letter.16 Masuda,
however, did not give up. Using sample form letters from the
National Right To Work Legal Defense Foundation (NRTW)
website, Masuda sent 4 more virtually identical letters between
September 18, 2014, and November 20, 2014, notifying Local
385 resigning her union membership and requesting revocation
of her union dues check-off authorization. Jeffries did not reply
to any of these letters.17
On November 21, 2014, Masuda also sent an email to Dis-
ney requesting a copy of her authorization card.18 On Novem-
ber 24, 2014, Disney replied that it was no longer in possession
of Masuda’s authorization form, which had been returned to
Local 385.
On December 8, 2014, Masuda visited Local 385’s offices
and attempted to meet with Jeffries in order to get her authori-
zation card and resign from the union. She spoke with Laura
Stapleton, who told her that Jeffries was not in the office and
she needed to write a letter. Masuda explained that she had
already written several letters, so Stapleton took her contact
information and said someone would call her. No one called
that day or the next and, on December 10, 2014, Masuda placed
a telephone call to Jeffries, but got his voicemail and left him a
message.19
Several months elapsed and Masuda received no response.
On March 9, 2015, she sent Local 385 another letter, this time
by certified mail. On March 10, 2015, Masuda learned from
Disney’s payroll department that she signed her authorization
card on or about the time she commenced her employment in

16 Jeffries testified that he replied to Masuda’s August 4, 2014 letter
in a letter, dated August 8, 2014, and enclosed a copy of her authoriza-
tion card. I credit Masuda’s credible testimony over Jeffries’ uncor-
roborated testimony that such a letter was actually mailed to Masuda.
(R. Exh. 7 at 1–2; Tr. 105, 407–408, 473–475, 525.) Masuda’s testimo-
ny was consistent with that of the other charging parties who testified
that they too never received responses from the Union to their resigna-
tion/revocation/information request letters. To refute such a claim, the
Union did not call the employee responsible for receiving and mailing
correspondence—Michelle Concannon. As such, there can be no pre-
sumption of regularity that Jeffries’ letters were received.
17 Based on the previous explanation regarding the credibility of Ma-
suda vs. Jeffries as to whether the Union mailed out replies, I find that
the Union did not mail out his replies to Masuda, dated November 3
and 17, 2014. (Tr. 86–89, 101, 409–410, 526; R. Exh. 8 at 1–2; R. Exh.
9 at 1–2.)
18 Masuda credibly testified that she sent the 4 letters, including 3 by
regular mail, after reading advice on the NRTW website that she need-
ed to know what her union membership anniversary date was in order
to resign from the union. (GC Exh. 19–24; Tr. 84–89, 100–101.)
19 Masuda’s credible testimony regarding her call to Jeffries was un-
disputed. (Tr. 91–93, 110–111.)
March 2003. Local 385 finally responded to Masuda on March
10, 2015, accepting her resignation from the union, but denying
her request to revoke the dues check-off authorization as un-
timely. On February 19, 2016, Masuda sent another letter to
Local 385 requesting resignation and revocation. Jeffries re-
ceived the letter, but did not reply to Masuda. Instead, he
emailed Disney on February 25, 2016, to stop deducting dues
from Masuda’s paycheck. On February 25, 2016, union dues
were deducted from Masuda’s paycheck for the last time.20
3. Heather Raleigh
Heather Raleigh, also a full-time character at Disney, signed
a STCU dues-checkoff authorization card on January 28,
2007,21 and has had dues deducted beginning on February 28,
2007.22 At the time, HERE Local 362 was the STCU member
union representing Raleigh’s unit. As of March 2007, her un-
ion dues were remitted to Local 385. According to her authori-
zation form, the annual window period for revoking her dues
authorization was January 8 through January 18.
At some point in 2014, Raleigh decided to resign her union
membership. She accessed the NRTW website for information
about the resignation process, which advised union members to
ascertain the animal window period for taking such action. On
November 13, 2014, using a form letter from the NRTW web-
site, Raleigh mailed a letter to Local 385 resigning and revok-
ing her union dues for non-CBA purposes. She also sent a
letter to Disney’s payroll office on November 13 informing of
her union resignation and requesting they stop deducting dues.
Disney responded that the dues deduction would have to be
requested by Local 385.23 The Local 385 letter, stamped re-
ceived on November 14, stated:
I hereby resign as a member of Teamsters Local 385. My res-
ignation is effective immediately. I will continue to meet my
lawful obligation of paying a representation fee to the union
under its “union security” agreement with Walt Disney Parks
and Resorts.
Furthermore, I object to collection and expenditure of a fee
for any purpose other than my pro rata share of the union’s
costs of collective bargaining, contract administration, and
grievance adjustment, as is my constitutional right under
Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, 431 U.S. 209 (1977).
Pursuant to Chicago Teachers Union v. Hudson, 475 U.S. 292
(1986), I request that you provide me with my First Amend-
ment procedural rights, including: reduction of my fees to an
amount that includes only constitutionally chargeable costs;
notice of the calculation of that amount, verified by an inde-

20 Masuda conceded that, based on the information contained in her
authorization card, every letter that she sent Local 385 was outside the
window period, except for the February 19, 2016 letter. (GC Exh. 24–
28; Tr. 97–111.) However, she credibly testified that she was unaware
of the window period because did not recall when she signed the form.
(Tr. 113.) Jeffries had no excuse for neglecting to respond to any of
Masuda’s letters, relying instead on his notification to Disney to stop
withholding dues from her paycheck. (Tr. 419–420.)
21 GC Exh. 29.
22 GC Exh. 30–32.
23 GC Exh. 33, 35.
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, LOCAL 385 9
(WALT DISNEY PARKS AND RESORTS U.S., INC. D/B/A WALT DISNEY WORLD CO.)
pendent certified public accountant; and notice of the proce-
dure that you have adopted to hold my fees in an interest-
bearing account and give me an opportunity to challenge your
calculation and have it reviewed by an impartial decision
maker.
Accordingly, I also hereby notify you that I wish to authorize
only the deduction from my wages of representation fees lim-
ited to those costs that are lawfully chargeable under the First
Amendment to the United States Constitution. If I am re-
quired to sign a form to make that change, please provide me
with the necessary form.
Please reply promptly. Any further collection or expenditure
of dues or fees from me made without the procedural safe-
guards required by the First Amendment to the United States
Constitution will violate my civil rights under the Federal
Civil Rights Act of 1871, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and the U.S.
Constitution.
Finally, please consider this objection to be permanent and
continuing in nature.
Local 385 did not respond to that letter.24 Accordingly, on
November 20, Raleigh went to Local 385’s office and spoke to
Nidia Grajales, the referral hall administrator. Grajales in-
formed Raleigh that she needed to speak with Jeffries, but he
was not in the office. As Raleigh was leaving, she called Jef-
fries’ telephone number and left a voicemail message explain-
ing that she was resigning her union membership, revoking her
dues-check off authorization, and wanted a copy of her dues
authorization card. Raleigh left another voicemail message the
next day, November 21. After leaving the second message,
Raleigh called and spoke with bookkeeper Laura Stapleton,
who also referred her to Jeffries. Jeffries did not respond to
either voicemail message. On November 24, 2014, desperate to
ascertain her anniversary date in order to determine the window
period for withdrawal, Raleigh again contacted Disney’s human
resources office seeking to obtain a copy of her authorization
card in order to ascertain her anniversary date, but was unsuc-
cessful.
Not one to give up, Raleigh left another voicemail for Jef-
fries on December 1, 2014. Again, he did not respond. The
next day, Raleigh spoke with Grajales in the front office. Gra-
jales in turn, referred her to Laura Stapleton. Stapleton told
Raleigh that she did not have her card, but Jeffries just arrived.
Raleigh went to Jeffries’ office and finally got to meet with
him. She explained that she left several voicemail messages
requesting a copy of her dues authorization form, but never
heard back. After getting Raleigh’s identifying information,
Jeffries told Raleigh that it would take a few days to locate her
form. Raleigh called Jeffries on December 5, 2014, and left a
voicemail to ascertain whether Jeffries finished his investiga-

24 Raleigh credibly testified that she never received Local 385’s No-
vember 17, 2014 letter allegedly sent via regular mail. She lived at the
same address for 3 years and only recently moved to another address.
(Tr. 222–225; R. Exh. 14 at 1–2.) Moreover, for the reasons previously
stated, I do not credit Jeffries’ testimony that Local 385 mailed the
November 17 letter. (Tr.421–422.)
tion of her file. Once again, Jeffries did not respond.25
Raleigh initiated a new round of pursuit notifying Jeffries
and Stapleton by certified mail of her resignation and revoca-
tion of dues on February 22 and 27, 2015, along with email
notification to Disney on February 27.26 The letters to Local
385 contained identical language and were received shortly
after they were mailed:
I am employed by Walt Disney Parks and Resorts in the Right
to Work state of Florida. Effective week ending March 7th,
2015, I resign from membership in the Teamsters Local 385
Union and all of its affiliated unions. My union anniversary
date as provided to me by Walt Disney Parks and Resorts
Global HR Operations Representative, Yamira, is March 4,
2007. This fulfills the requirement to resign within a 10 day
window of my union anniversary date.
Since I have resigned my membership in the union, you must
now immediately cease enforcing the dues check-off authori-
zation agreement that I signed. The dues check-off authoriza-
tion was signed solely in conjunction with, and in contempla-
tion of, my becoming a member of the union and, as such, is
no longer valid. See IBEW (Lockheed Space Operations
Company), 302 NLRB 322 (1991); Washington Gas Light
Co., 302 NLRB 425 (1991) (employer in RTW state must
cease dues deduction upon receipt of resignation/revocation).
If you refuse to accept this letter as both an effective resigna-
tion and an immediately effective dues check-off revocation, I
ask that you promptly inform me, in writing, of exactly what
steps I must take to effectuate my revocation of the dues
check-off authorization.
Furthermore, I object to collection and expenditure of a fee
for any purpose other than my pro rata share of the union’s
costs of collective bargaining, contract administration, and
grievance adjustment, as is my constitutional right under
Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, 431 U.S. 209 (1977).
Pursuant to Chicago Teachers Union v. Hudson, 475 U.S. 292
(1986), I request that you provide me with my First Amend-
ment procedural rights, including: reduction of my fees to an
amount that includes only constitutionally chargeable costs;
notice of the calculation of that amount, verified by an inde-
pendent certified public accountant; and notice of the proce-
dure that you have adopted to hold my fees in an interest-
bearing account and give me an opportunity to challenge your
calculation and have it reviewed by an impartial decision
maker.
Accordingly, I also hereby notify you that I wish to authorize
only the deduction from my wages of representation fees lim-
ited to those costs that are lawfully chargeable under the First

25 I based the findings regarding Raleigh’s conversations with Jef-
fries and other Local 385 staff, as well as voicemail messages left for
Jeffries, between November 20 and December 5, 2014, on Raleigh’s
credible testimony. (Tr. 230–235.) Jeffries, on the other hand, had no
memory of ever meeting with or receiving voicemail messages from
Raleigh, which I find highly incredible and consistent with Jeffries
pattern of ignoring resignation and revocation requests. (Tr. 460–461.)
26 Raleigh also delivered the February 22 letter to Concannon. (GC
Exh. 36–38; Tr. 236–238.)
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD10
Amendment to the United States Constitution. If I am re-
quired to sign a form to make that change, please provide me
with the necessary form.
Please reply promptly. Any further collection or expenditure
of dues or fees from me made without the procedural safe-
guards required by the First Amendment to the United States
Constitution will violate my civil rights under the Federal
Civil Rights Act of 1871, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and the U.S.
Constitution.
The letter I have sent on Thursday, November 13th, 2014
which was signed for by your office and all other phone calls,
emails, and personal visits since have been ignored from
Teamsters and I was never given a response. I have kept rec-
ords of every attempt to contact the union and if I am not noti-
fied in writing by March 7th, 2015 that my resignation from
the union has been approved and processed, I will have no
further choice but to retain legal counsel and contact the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board. This notice will be sent via cer-
tified USPS Mail, electronically via email, as well as in per-
son on Tuesday, February 24th, 2015 and understand this is
the last formal request you will receive directly from myself
and not a lawyer, and consider this objection to be permanent
and continuing in nature.
Jeffries finally responded on February 27, March 2 and 5,
2015, but still omitted information as to Raleigh’s anniversary
date. The letters contained identical language:27
Your written request to forfeit your membership has been re-
ceived and honored effective this date. However, please be
aware that your revocation of membership does not automati-
cally absolve you from your responsibility to continue to pay
a service fee regardless of your membership unless and until
you provide the appropriate written notice of revocation with-
in the time specified in the check-off authorization agreement.
The application for membership and check-off authorization
and assignment, which you signed on January 28, 2007 spe-
cifically, provides that payment of this fee “is not conditioned
on my present or future membership in the Service Trades
Council Union or any of its affiliates.” It further states:
“This authorization shall remain in effect until revoked by me
and shall be irrevocable for a period of one (1) year from the
date hereof or until the termination date of any applicable col-
lective bargaining agreement, whichever occurs sooner, and
unless I revoke this authorization by sending written notice to
my Employer and the Union not more than (20) days and not
less than ten (10) days prior to the expiration of each period of
one (1) year, or of each applicable collective bargaining
agreement between my Employer and the Union, whichever
occurs sooner; this authorization shall be automatically re-
newed from year to year.”
Because of this language, to which you agreed, you are obli-
gated to continue to pay the service fee by way of check-off
pending written notice of revocation provided within the spec-
ified time.

27 R. Exhs. 15–17; GC Exh. 39–41.
Jeffries’ February 27 letter crossed in the mail with another
letter by Raleigh on the same date renewing her request to re-
sign her union membership and revoke her dues check-off au-
thorization.28 She also sent a copy of her letter to Disney with
an explanation that Local 385 was ignoring her requests.29 Still
not having received the information she needed in order to
comply with Local 385’s window requirement for revoking
dues authorization, Raleigh filed a charge on April 13, 2015.
In a letter, dated March 5, Jeffries finally provided Raleigh
with the date that she signed the authorization form and stand-
ard language relating to the window period for dues revoca-
tions. A copy of her dues check-off form, however, was not
enclosed.30
Nearly a year elapsed before Raleigh followed up with simi-
lar resignation and revocation requests in letters, dated January
15, 16, 17, and 18, 2016, all sent by certified mail, return re-
ceipt requested.31 The letters contained virtually identical lan-
guage:
I am employed by Walt Disney Parks and Resorts and have
resigned as a Union Member previously in 2015. Based on in-
formation given to me by the Union, I hereby revoke my
Dues Deduction Authorization immediately. If this is not suf-
ficient, notify me immediately as to what I must do to revoke
my dues. My union anniversary date as provided to me by the
responses given to me by Clay Jeffries on February 27th,
2015, March 2nd, 2015, and March 5th, 2015 is January 28th,
2007. This fulfills the requirement to resign within a 10 day
window of my anniversary date, but not longer than 20 days.
This notice will be sent via certified USPS Mail every day
from now until January 28th, 2016 as well electronically via
email to ensure that this notification has been received and
consider this objection to be permanent and continuing in na-
ture. My lawyer, John Scully, has also received this notice.
Please reply promptly.
Jeffries did not respond to any of these letters. None did he
ever send Raleigh a copy of her union authorization card.32
Instead, he sent an email to Disney on January 29, 2016, re-
questing that it stop deducting union dues from Raleigh’s
paycheck.33 Raleigh’s Local 385 union dues were no longer
deducted from her paycheck beginning on February 4, 2016.34
4. Arlene Behrens
Arlene Behrens has been employed by Disney since Novem-
ber 2012. She was initially assigned to work at the turnstiles.
On November 13, 2012, Behrens signed a dues check-off form

28 GC Exh. 37.
29 GC Exh. 38.
30 R. Exh. 17 at 1.
31 GC Exh. 42–45.
32 Given Jeffries pattern and practice of ignoring member requests
for the return of their dues authorization cards I credit Raleigh’s testi-
mony over his that he never complied with her requests for a copy of
that document and that she finally saw a copy of it when the General
Counsel showed it to her shortly before the hearing. (Tr. 241–242; 421–
422, 424–425.)
33 R. Exh. 18; 32.
34 GC Exh. 46–47.
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, LOCAL 385 11
(WALT DISNEY PARKS AND RESORTS U.S., INC. D/B/A WALT DISNEY WORLD CO.)
allowing Disney to deduct dues from her paycheck and remit
them to HERE, Local 362. She was not, however, provided
with a copy of her completed form at the time. Based on her
check-off form, the Behrens’ annual window period to revoke
her authorization was October 24 through November 3.35
On June 11, 2013, Behrens transferred to a bus driver posi-
tion, which came under the labor jurisdiction of Local 385. At
that point, Disney deducted dues from Behrens paycheck and
remitted her dues to Local 385 until May 2015.36
At some point during the summer of 2013, Behrens contact-
ed Local 385 to resign her membership and revoke her dues-
checkoff authorization. She spoke with Laura Stapleton, who
instructed her to submit her request in writing. By certified
letter dated September 12, 2013, Behrens submitted a request to
resign her union membership and revoke her dues check-off
authorization. Local 385 did not respond to Behrens’ Septem-
ber 12, 2013 letter, so she followed up with a telephone call and
inquired with Laura Stapleton about the status of her written
request. Stapleton was not helpful. Instead of following up or
assuring Behrens that she would look into the matter, Stapleton
questioned why Behrens wanted to resign and told her that she
needed to speak with Jeffries. Over the next 2 months, Behrens
called Jeffries and left over 20 telephone messages for him
inquiring about her letter. Jeffries did not respond to any of her
calls.37
Nearly a year lapsed before Behrens learned from coworkers
about the window period applicable to dues revocation re-
quests. On October 31, 2014, she sent a resignation and dues
revocation request letter to Local 385 by certified mail. In the
letter, Behrens also requested any information applicable to the
resignation and revocation process, including any applicable
window period for revocation, and a copy of her signed check-
off authorization form.38
Michelle Concannon, Local 385’s secretary, received the Oc-
tober 31 letter. Once again, there was no response from Local
385. About a week later, Behrens called Laura Stapleton at
Local 385 to inquire about the letter and got another evasive
response. Utterly indifferent to Behrens’ request, Stapleton
referred her once again to Jeffries and suggested she resend the
letter. Armed with proof that the letter had been received, Beh-
rens ignored that suggestion.39
Still having received no response to her October 31, 2014
letter, Behrens spoke to Local 385 business agent Walt Howard
about a month or two later and asked him to speak with Jeffries
about the letter. Six more months elapsed, however, without
any response from Local 385. Realizing that Local 385 was
doing everything it could do to stall her departure, Behrens
filed unfair labor practice charges on May 12, 2015 in Case 12–
CA–152211.

35 GC Exh. 14.
36 GC Exh. 48–52.
37 Behrens’ credible testimony was undisputed. (Tr. 191–197; GC
Exh. 53(a)–(c).)
38 GC Exh. 54.
39 Jeffries’ excuse that the October 31 letter was misplaced was not
credible, given his pattern of ignoring member resignation and revoca-
tion requests, coupled with Laura Stapleton’s indifference and hostility
when contacted by Behrens about the letter. (Tr. 198–200, 428–429.)
On May 19, 2015, Jeffries finally responded by sending an
email to Disney requesting that it stop deducting union dues
from Behrens’ paycheck.40 It was not until August 11, 2015,
nearly 3 months later, that Jeffries corresponded with Behrens
and enclosed a refund $224 check for dues deducted from No-
vember 2014 to May 2015. In the letter, Jeffries attributed the
delay in responding to Local 385 misplacing her letter of Octo-
ber 31, 2014. He also failed to enclose a copy of her dues-
checkoff authorization card as she requested.41
5. Mitchell Kent
Mitchell Kent has been employed by Disney as a full-time
bus driver since April 20, 2013. He signed a dues check-off
authorization form on April 20, 2013.42 Since that time, he has
had union dues deducted from his paycheck. The annual win-
dow period to revoke his authorization was from March 31
through April 10. However, Kent did not receive a copy of his
dues check-off authorization form either at the time he signed it
or at any time thereafter.43
On March 19, 2015, Kent contacted Disney’s payroll de-
partment to inquire about revoking his union dues authoriza-
tion. On March 20, 2015, he called Local 385 and spoke with
Laura Stapleton. He informed her that he wanted to resign and
revoke his union dues authorization. Stapleton informed Kent
that he needed to submit that request in writing to Jeffries.44
Kent followed up by submitting his resignation and dues revo-
cation request by certified mail to Jeffries on March 20.45 Lo-
cal 385 received the letter, but neither Jeffries nor any other
union official responded. Over the next 2 months, Kent left
several voicemail for Jeffries and Walt Howard alluding to his
March 20 letter. Those messages were also ignored and he
filed an unfair labor practice charge 6 days later.46
By letter to Local 385, dated April 18, 2016, Kent again noti-
fied the organization that he was resigning his union member-
ship and revoking his dues-checkoff authorization. By letter
dated April 29, 2016, Jeffries responded with a form letter sup-
plying the date Kent signed the authorization form and the lan-
guage setting forth the applicable window period. Kent re-
ceived this correspondence, but a copy of his dues check-off
authorization form was not enclosed. Disney has continuously
deducted union dues from Kent’s paycheck since April 2013

40 R. Exh. 20; GC Exh. 52.
41 GC Exh. 55; R. Exh. 19.
42 I credit Kent’s testimony that he was not provided with a copy of
the card when he signed it and had not seen it until the General Counsel
showed it to prior to the hearing. (Tr. 135–138; GC Exh. 56; R. Exh. 21
at 3.)
43 GC Exh. 57.
44 Kent’s credible testimony regarding his conversation with Staple-
ton was undisputed. (Tr. 140–142.)
45 Kent’s March 20, 2015 correspondence did not include a request
for a copy of his dues authorization card. (GC Exh. 58; R. Exh. 22 at 2.)
46 I did not credit Jeffries’ testimony that he responded to Kent in a
letter, dated, March 27, 2015, and enclosed a copy of his dues-checkoff
authorization form. (Tr. 442; R. Exh. 22 at 3–4.) Kent credibly denied
ever receiving such a letter and left several voicemail messages for
Jeffries that were not returned. In fact, Kent first saw Jeffries’ letter
when the General Counsel showed it to him shortly before the hearing.
(Tr. 143–147; GC Exh. 58; R. Exh. 22 at 2.)
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD12
through the present.47
6. Dolores Nicosia
Dolores Nicosia has been employed by Disney since June
14, 1995. She was initially hired as a bus driver. In 1999, Nic-
osia was promoted to the position of bus driver training coordi-
nator. Her daughter, Debra Nicosia also works for Disney. She
was hired as a character performer on March 17, 2002, and has
worked in other part-time and full-time positions since that
time. Debra has been on medical leave since January 1, 2016.
Dolores Nicosia has been a union member since July 26,
2002, based on a dues-checkoff authorization card that bears
the signature of ‘Debra” Nicosia, but bears Dolores’ address,
telephone and social security number. That form, which has
served as the basis for deducting Local 385’s deduction of un-
ion dues from Dolores Nicosia’s paycheck since October 2003,
was actually signed by her daughter, Debra. Debra, however,
has neither been a member of Local 385 nor ever had union
dues deducted from her paycheck. Based on the card signed by
Debra Nicosia, but attributable to Dolores Nicosia, the window
period for revocation was between July 6 and July 16 each
year.48
In about April or May 2016, Dolores Nicosia left several tel-
ephone messages for Jeffries, inquiring how to resign from
union membership and revoke her dues check-off authorization.
However, neither Jeffries nor any other Local 385 official re-
sponded.49 By certified letter, sent in late May 2016 and re-
ceived by Local 385 on June 1, 2016, Dolores Nicosia resigned
her union membership and requested revocation of her dues
check-off authorization, effective June 14, 2016.50
Local 385 did not respond to Nicosia’s letter.51 Accordingly,

47 Given Jeffries less than credible testimony and indifference to the
resignation requests of members, I find, based on Kent’s credible testi-
mony, that a copy of his dues check-off form was not enclosed with
Jeffries response. (Tr. 137, 148–149, 155–157; 440–441; GC Exh. 60–
61; R. Exh. 21 at 1–2.)
48 It is undisputed that Local 385 does not have a record of a dues
check-off form signed by Dolores Nicosia. (Tr. 53–54, 482; R. Exh. 31
at 3; GC Exh. 9, 12, 15.) While there is no evidence that Dolores ever
signed a dues authorization card, she conceded that she became a union
member at some point. (Tr. 292–310, 319.) Debra’s testimony that she
did not sign such a card in July 2002 was not credible. She conceded
that the first letter looked like her handwriting, but failed to recognize
the rest of the signature. Moreover, other aspects of Debra’s testimony
were not credible. While there is insufficient evidence to conclude that
Debra, 16 years old at the time, signed the form because she was un-
derage and ineligible to work, the circumstances are suspicious. She has
lived with Dolores for nearly all of the past 15 years and appeared
evasive in conceding that someone signed the authorization form. Most
peculiar was that the social security number listed on the form belonged
to Dolores. (Tr. 126–133.)
49 While I credited Dolores’ testimony that she left messages for Jef-
fries in 2016, I did not accord any weight to her uncorroborated testi-
mony that she left similar messages for Jeffries and other union offi-
cials in 2012. (Tr. 299–302, 319.)
50 The letter was dated June 14, 2016, even though it was sent 2
weeks earlier. (GC Exh. 10, 16.)
51 Although Nicosia was not credible regarding the circumstances by
which the 2002 authorization form was signed, I credit her denial over
Jeffries uncorroborated claim that he responded to her June 2016 resig-
in late June 2016, Nicosia left a telephone message for Jeffries
stating that Local 385 had not responded to her letter dated June
14, 2016, and asking whether there was anything else she need-
ed to do in order to revoke her dues-checkoff authorization and
whether her request was timely. Jeffries again failed to re-
spond.52
Shortly afterwards, Dolores Nicosia contacted Disney pay-
roll’s office explaining her efforts to resign from Local 385 and
stop the deduction of union dues from her paycheck. That ef-
fort was unsuccessful and, as of September 22, 2016, Disney
continued to deduct $12 in union dues from Nicosia’s
paychecks.53
7. Jacob Greene
Jacob Greene has been employed by UPS since August 21,
2006, as a part-time unloader in Gainesville, Florida. On Au-
gust 28, 2008, Greene signed a dues authorization card. He
received a carbon copy of the form at the time, but was subse-
quently unable to locate it.54 The authorization card stated, in
pertinent part:
. . . I understand that under current law, I may elect “non-
member” status, and can satisfy any contractual obligation
necessary to retain my employment by paying an amount
equal to the uniform dues and initiation fee required of mem-
bers of the Union. I also understand that if I elect not to be-
come a member or remain a member, I may object to paying
the pro-rata portion of regular Union dues or fees that are not
germane to collective bargaining, contract administration and
grievance adjustment, and I can request the Local Union to
provide me with information concerning its most recent allo-
cation of expenditures devoted to activities that are both ger-
mane and non-germane to its performance as the collective
bargaining representative sufficient to enable me to decide
whether or not to become an objector. I understand that non-
members who choose to object to paying the pro-rata portion
of regular Union dues or fees that are not germane to collec-
tive bargaining will be entitled to a reduction in fees based on
the aforementioned allocation of expenditures, and will have
the right to challenge the correctness of the allocation. The
procedures for filing such challenges will be provided by my
Local Union, upon request. . . .
Checkoff Authorization
And Assignment
I, Jacob Greene hereby authorize my employer to deduct from
my wages each and every month an amount equal to the
monthly dues, initiation fees and uniform assessments of Lo-
cal Union _____, and direct such amounts so deducted to be

nation and revocation letter and informed her of an anniversary date of
July 26, 2002, based on GC Exh. 9. (Tr. 56, 305, 454–458; R. Exh. 31
at 2.) Consistent with my previous findings, there is neither documen-
tary proof of mailing nor testimony by the Local 385 employee respon-
sible for mailing documents that his letter of June 3, 2016 was actually
mailed to Nicosia.
52 I based this finding on Nicosia’s undisputed testimony. (Tr. 306,
319–320.)
53 GC Exh. 12, 13(h).)
54 GC Exh. 66; R. Exh. 26 at 2.
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, LOCAL 385 13
(WALT DISNEY PARKS AND RESORTS U.S., INC. D/B/A WALT DISNEY WORLD CO.)
turned over each month to the Secretary-Treasurer of such
Local Union for and on my behalf.
This authorization is voluntary and is not conditioned on my
present or future membership in the Union.
This authorization and assignment shall be irrevocable for the
term of the applicable contract between the union and the em-
ployer or for one year, whichever is the lesser, and shall au-
tomatically renew itself for successive yearly or applicable
contract periods thereafter, whichever is lesser, unless I give
written notice to the company and the union at least sixty (6)
days, but not more than seventy-five (75) days before any pe-
riodic renewal date of this authorization and assignment of
my desire to revoke same.
Based on the terms of his check-off authorization, Greene’s
annual window period to revoke his dues authorization was
June 14 to 29. By letter to Local 385, dated August 13, 2013,
Greene requested to resign his union membership and revoke
his dues check-off authorization. In a letter dated August 16,
2013, Jeffries responded to Greene with a form letter supplying
the date Greene signed the authorization form and the language
setting forth the applicable window period.55
On September 19, 2013, Greene submitted his resignation
and dues revocation request. In identical letters to Jeffries and
then-President Michael Stapleton, the letter, which Local 385
received a few days later, stated in pertinent part:56
. . . Since I have resigned my membership in the union, you
must now immediately cease enforcing the dues check-off au-
thorization agreement that I signed. That dues check-off au-
thorization was signed solely in conjunction with, and in con-
templation of, my becoming a member of the union and, as
such, is no longer valid. See IBEW (Lockheed Space Opera-
tions Company), 302 NLRB 322 (1991); Washington Gas
Light Co., 302 NLRB 425 (1991) (employer in RTW state
must cease dues deduction upon receipt of resigna-
tion/revocation).
If you refuse to accept this letter as both an effective resigna-
tion and an immediately effective dues check-off revocation, I
ask that you promptly inform me, in writing, of exactly what
steps I must take to effectuate my revocation of the dues
check-off authorization, in accordance to federal law. More
specifically, if you contend that I must meet a “window peri-
od” in order to revoke my dues check-off authorization, I ask
that you promptly send me a copy of the actual dues deduc-
tion authorization form that I signed, and to tell me specifical-
ly what “window period” dates I must meet in order to revoke
the dues check-off authorization. (emphasis in original)
By letter dated October 3, 2013, Jeffries responded to Greene
with a form letter supplying the date he signed the authorization
form and the language setting forth the applicable window pe-

55 Greene did not rebut Jeffries’ testimony that he responded to
Greene in a letter, dated August 16, 2013. (R. Exh. 27; Tr. 449.)
Greene’s September 19, 2013 letter requesting more information re-
garding the revocation process, confirmed the continuation of Jeffries
pattern of refraining from providing requested copies of members’
authorization cards.
56 GC Exh. 68; R. Exh. 26 at 3–4.
riod.57
Subsequently, Greene submitted substantially similar resig-
nation and dues revocation notices on August 14, 2014 and
May 18, 2015. In each case, Local 385 received and date
stamped the letters a few days later. By letter dated August 22,
2014, Jeffries responded with a form letter supplying the date
Greene signed the authorization form, which included a refer-
ence to the annual window period for revoking his dues author-
ization. Greene received this letter, but a copy of his dues
check-off authorization form was not enclosed. Jeffries did not,
however, mail a response to Greene’s May 18, 2015 letter. Had
he done so, Greene would have had sufficient time to submit a
timely request to revoke his dues authorization during the peri-
od of June 15 to 30, 2015.
Still unsuccessful in getting his union dues deductions re-
voked, Greene followed up with voicemail messages for Mi-
chael Stapleton and Jeffries in or around June 2015. In his
messages, Greene inquired about the status of his dues revoca-
tion requests. None of his voicemail messages were returned.58
Greene’s last resort was to reach out to UPS Human Re-
sources Department on June 19, 2015. He explained his unsuc-
cessful efforts, commencing with his May 19, 2015 request to
have Local 385 revoke his union dues check-off authorization
and asked for UPS’ assistance in stopping the dues deductions.
That approach was also unsuccessful, as UPS has continued
deducting dues from his Greene’s paycheck.59
8. Baringthon Brudy
Baringthon Brudy began working for UPS on April 26, 1999
as a loader in Fargo, North Dakota. In 2004, he transferred to
UPS operations in Tampa, Florida. In September 2013, Brudy
transferred to UPS operations in Orlando, Florida. After com-
mencing work in Orlando, Brudy joined Local 385 by signing a
dues check-off authorization form on September 4, 2014. Ac-
cording to his authorization form, his 60 to 75 day window to
revoke his dues authorization was June 21 through July 6 each
year.60
In early July 2015, Brudy called Local 385’s office and in-
quired into revoking his union membership. He was informed
to submit his request in writing to Jeffries. By certified mail on
July 18, Brudy submitted a request to Local 385 resigning his
membership and revoking his dues check-off authorization.61
Local 385 did not respond and, in early August, Brudy fol-

57 Greene credibly denied that a copy of his dues check-off authori-
zation form was enclosed in Jeffries’ October 3 response. (Tr. 274–275,
286, 448; GC Exh. 69; R. Exh. 26 at 1.)
58 I credit Greene’s testimony that Jeffries failed to include a copy of
his dues authorization form and that he never received Jeffries’ May 22
letter responding to his May 18 letter. His testimony was corroborated
by his subsequent follow-up voicemails to Jeffries or Stapleton, all of
which went unreturned. Greene did move to another residence during
the period at issue, but he credibly testified that all of his mail was
forwarded to the new location. (GC Exh. 70–73; R. Exh. 24–25; Tr.
277–288.)
59 GC Exh. 74.
60 Brudy did not recall receiving a copy of his dues authorization
form at the time he signed it, but it was similar to the one that he signed
while working in Fargo. GC Exh. 63; R. Exh. 29; Tr. 162, 165.)
61 GC Exh. 64; R. Exh. 29.
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD14
lowed up with several telephone calls to Jeffries. Brudy left
voicemail messages for Jeffries and, on one occasion, was in-
formed that Jeffries would be in the office on August 21.62
On August 21, 2015, Brudy went to Local 385’s offices to
meet with Jeffries. A staff member informed Brudy that Jef-
fries would be out of the office that day. However, Brudy
spoke with Michael Stapleton about the status of his resignation
and dues revocation request. Stapleton wrote down Brudy’s
information and said that he would give it to Jeffries, but Brudy
was not satisfied with that response. He pressed Stapleton as to
why there was such a long delay in responding to his resigna-
tion and dues revocation request, and told Stapleton that he had
2 days to process his resignation/revocation requests. Stapleton,
not one to be easily intimidated, replied that “it will get done
whenever it gets done; you want to be a loafer, get out; go be a
loafer out in the streets.” Brudy stood his ground, causing Sta-
pleton to yell at Brudy to “get the fuck out of the office.” At
that point, Brudy got the message and left.63
Brudy’s August 21, 2015 encounter with Stapleton did not
spur a response from Jeffries and Local 385 continues to deduct
$15 dues per week.64
LEGAL ANALYSIS
LOCAL 385’S DUTY OF FAIR REPRESENTATION
The General Counsel and Charging Parties allege that Local
385 restrained and coerced employees and breached its duty of
fair representation in violation of Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act
in its handling of employee efforts to resign their union mem-
bership, revoke their dues check-off, and obtain information
relative thereto. Local 385 denies the allegations, insisting that
Jeffries responded to untimely requests by 6 of the Charging
Parties to resign their union memberships and revoke their dues
check-off authorizations. In the case of the other two Charging
Parties, Local 385 contends that their timely received revoca-
tion letters were misplaced, but upon discovery of the errors, it
acknowledged the errors and voluntarily reimbursed them.65

62 I base this finding on Brudy’s credible testimony, coupled with the
unreturned follow-up calls to Jeffries, that he never received the July
27, 2015 letter, including a copy of his dues authorization form, or any
other response from Local 385. (Tr. 169–171, 173–175, 177, 452–453;
GC Exh. 65; R. Exh. 29.) Again, there was neither documentary proof
of mailing nor corroborative testimony by a union employee that the
letter was actually mailed in the regular course of business.
63 Brudy and Stapleton conceded that the discussion got heated, but
it is clear that Stapleton became angry when Brudy insisted on an im-
mediate response and he yelled at him to get him to leave the office. I
also credit Brudy’s testimony that Stapleton called him a loafer, given
Stapleton’s pattern of also failing to respond to numerous voicemail
requests by Brudy and other Charging Parties. (Tr. 171–172, 342–344,
349–350.)
64 Given his general lack of credibility regarding the processing of
revocation requests and his pattern of failing to respond to numerous
voicemail messages from the Charging Parties, I do not credit Jeffries
vague testimony that he followed up the Stapleton incident by leaving a
voicemail for Brudy informing that Local 385 previously responded in
writing and to contact Jeffries with any further issues. (Tr. 460.)
65 The Charging Parties also contends that Local 385’s restrictions
on the ability of the Charging Parties to revoke their check-offs to an
annual 10 or 15 day period also violates the duty of fair representation.
Section 7 of the Act guarantees the employees’ rights to
“join, or assist labor organizations . . . and . . . to refrain from
. . . such activities.” 29 U.S.C. § 157. Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the
Act implements this protection by prohibiting unions from
restraining or coercing employees in the exercise of Section 7
rights. 29 U.S.C. § 158(b)(1)(A). The duty of fair representa-
tion, which derives from a union’s status under Section 9(a) of
the Act (29 U.S.C. § 159(a)) as exclusive bargaining repre-
sentative, requires a union “to represent all members fairly.”
Marquez v. Screen Actors Guild, 525 U.S. 33, 44 (1998) (citing
Ford Motor Co. v. Huffman, 345 U.S. 330, 337 (1953)). A un-
ion breaches this duty when its conduct toward a member is
“arbitrary, discriminatory, or in bad faith.” Vaca v. Sipes, 386
U.S. 171, 190 (1967).
All of the parties signed or, in the case of Dolores Nicosia,
are deemed to have signed dues check-off authorization forms.
Check-off authorizations, which instruct the employer, for a
particular period of time, to deduct union dues from employees’
wages and remit those dues to the union that represents them,
are permitted under Section 302 of the Labor Management
Relations Act (29 U.S.C. § 186). See Lockheed Space Opera-
tions Co., 302 NLRB 322, 325, 328–329 (1991). Such authori-
zations are even lawful in “right-to-work” states, such as Flori-
da, where provisions requiring the payment of union dues or-
ganization as a condition of employment would be unlawful
under Section 14(b) of the Act. 29 U.S.C. § 164(b). See Syscon
Int’l, Inc., 322 NLRB 539, 539 fn. 1 (1996).
Accordingly, Local 385 was entitled to have Disney and
UPS deduct dues from the Charging Parties’ paychecks pursu-
ant to the express authorization in their respective check-off
cards. See Electrical Workers IBEW Local 2088 (Lockheed
Space Operations), 302 NLRB 322 (1991). Moreover, that
language also obliged the Charging Parties to pay dues even
after they resigned their union membership, renewing automat-
ically each year while the applicable collective-bargaining
agreement remained in effect, unless and until they timely re-
voked their authorizations in writing. See Frito-Lay, Inc., 243
NLRB 137, 138 (1979). Local 385’s requirement that employ-
ees also notify the employer in writing was also lawful. See
Postal Service, 302 NLRB 701, 702 (1991) (requiring the sub-
mission of a dues revocation form to the employer and, if the
request was untimely, followed by the employer informing the
employee of their authorization date). See also, Boston Gas
Co., 130 NLRB 1230 (1961) (upholding requirement employee
seeking to revoke dues authorization must give written notice to
both the employer and the union).
Hector Santana-Quintana submitted a timely written request
to revoke his dues check-off authorization on May 20, 2014.
However, Local 385 did not process or honor his request until
after Santana-Quintana filed an unfair labor practice charge,
claiming that it simply made a clerical error.

In addition, they contend that the Union’s calculation of the dates in
determining whether a notice of revocation is timely is arbitrary and not
spelled out in the check-off forms. Those arguments on brief, however,
were not pled. Moreover, current Board precedent permits the form of
annual window period restrictions with respect to check-off authoriza-
tions at issue in this case.
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, LOCAL 385 15
(WALT DISNEY PARKS AND RESORTS U.S., INC. D/B/A WALT DISNEY WORLD CO.)
Arlene Behrens submitted a timely written request to revoke
her dues-checkoff authorization on October 31, 2014. She fol-
lowed-up with several telephone calls to Local 385 and spoke
with Howard on several occasions about her request to revoke.
Jeffries ignored Behrens’ letter and follow-up inquiries until
she filed unfair labor practice charges in May 2015 and Jeffries
was confronted by the Region 12 with proof of her revocation
request.
Sharon Masuda sent four letters to Local 385 and made one
visit to Local 385’s offices seeking to revoke her dues check-
off authorization well before her window of February 15 to
February 25, 2015, but received no response from Local 385.
Local 385’s failure to provide information concerning Masu-
da’s anniversary date caused her to miss her 2015 window.
Only after she made a fifth written request, on February 19,
2016, did Local 385 honor Masuda’s dues revocation request
on February 25, 2016.
Heather Raleigh notified Local 385 by letter, dated Novem-
ber 13, 2014 of her request to limit her deductions to financial
core dues. The letter was received well before the start of her
window period for revocation on January 8, 2015. Raleigh also
called and left telephone messages and visited Local 385’s
offices in December 2014, but Local 385 officials ignored those
inquiries as well. In February 2015, after her window period
closed, Raleigh mailed and hand-delivered two more letters to
Local 385. Only then did she receive a response from Local
385. Although Raleigh’s initial letter sought to pay financial
core dues, it was clear from her telephone calls and visits to
Local 385 that she was seeking to rescind her dues check-off
authorization. Local 385’s obstruction caused Raleigh to wait
another year to resubmit her revocation, which Local 385 final-
ly honored on January 29, 2016.
Mitchell Kent contacted Local 385 for information prior to
his window period of March 31 through April 10, 2015. He
was merely told to submit the request in writing and, as a result,
his March 20, 2015 revocation request was premature. Kent
received no response to his letter or telephone calls over the
next 2 months. Kent followed up with another letter to Local
385 on April 18, 2016, resigning his union membership and
revoking his dues check-off authorization. Jeffries finally re-
sponded on April 29, 2016, by supplying the date Kent signed
the authorization form and the language setting forth the appli-
cable window period, but it was too late. As a result of Local
385’s obstructive behavior prior to March 31, 2015, dues con-
tinue to be deducted from Kent’s paycheck.
Dolores Nicosia was a peculiar case. The check-off card on
file bore the name of, and was signed by her daughter, Debra
Nicosia. Debra Nicosia used Dolores’ personal information at a
time when Debra was 16 years old and probably not eligible for
legal employment. While the check-off card did not bear
Dolores Nicosia’s name, equitable considerations suggest the
absence of unclean hands on her part, thus negating her conten-
tion that she never agreed to any restrictions and should have
been able to revoke her dues check-off authorization at any
time. Dolores Nicosia facilitated or acquiesced to the hiring of
her daughter by Disney at the age of 16 based, in part, on
Dolores’ identity, and then permitted Local 385 dues to be de-
ducted from her paycheck over the next 12 years. Dolores Nic-
osia’s actions amounted to an agreement to the terms and con-
ditions of Local 385 membership. Those conditions included
the need to comply with the window period requirement for
revoking her membership. Nevertheless, Nicosia was still enti-
tled to resign and revoke her dues check-off authorization. She
sent one letter and made several telephone calls to Local 385
seeking to revoke the authorization and information about how
to revoke her authorization prior to the anniversary window
period of July 6 to 16, 2016. Nicosia received no response to
her letter or telephone calls. As a result, Nicosia sent a prema-
ture revocation notice in late May 2016, which she considered
effective on June 14, 2016. She followed up with more mes-
sages to Local 385, which were also ignored. Local 385’s fail-
ure to respond to Nicosia’s requests for information prevented
her from submitting her timely revocation notice at the com-
mencement of her window period on July 6, 2016.
Baringthon Brudy’s 60 to 75 day window to revoke his dues
authorization was June 21 through July 6 each year. However,
he did not contact Local 385 about the revocation process until
sometime in “early July” 2015. As such, there is insufficient
evidence to establish that Local 385’s subsequent indifference
and obstruction caused Brudy to miss his revocation window
period ending on July 6, 2015. However, Local 385 failure to
respond to Brudy or provide him with the appropriate infor-
mation in July and August 2015 did cause him to miss the next
annual window period, which began on June 21, 2016. As a
result, Local 385 dues continue to be deducted from his
paycheck.
Prior to 2015, Jacob Greene received information from Local
385 regarding the process and timing for properly revoking his
dues-checkoff authorization. However, he incorrectly calculat-
ed the dates of his anniversary window period by using busi-
ness days. Greene sent a letter to Local 385 on May 18, 2015
seeking to revoke his dues check-off authorization prior to the
date his window period opened in 2015, but Local 385 did not
respond to his 2015 letter or provide him with a copy of his
dues check-off authorization form. As a result Greene did not
have the necessary information to submit a timely request to
revoke his dues authorization during the period of June 15 to
30, 2015.
The Charging Parties made multiple attempts to resign, re-
voke their dues check-off authorizations and/or get the infor-
mation necessary to submit timely revocations. Some of their
requests were timely; some fell outside the annual revocation
window period. However, Local 385, by Jeffries and other
union employees, failed time and again to respond to their re-
quests or, if they did respond, did so only after the employees’
window periods closed or charges were filed. Under the facts
and circumstances, Local 385 breached its duty of fair repre-
sentation in violation of Section 8(b)(1)A) by such arbitrary,
discriminatory and bad faith conduct. See Vaca v. Sipes, 386
U.S. at 190; Postal Service, 362 NLRB No. 103, slip op. at 2
(2015) (union has an obligation to provide employees with
information regarding how to revoke their check-off even with-
out an explicit request, as long as it is clear the employee de-
sired the information), quoting Local 307, National Postal Mail
Handlers Union (Postal Service), 339 NLRB 93 (2003).
In addition, Local 385’s practices, coupled with its exclusive
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD16
reliance on one person, Jeffries, who unavailable at Local 385’s
offices for extended periods of time, created a significant ob-
stacle for the Charging Parties in their efforts to revoke their
check-off authorizations. Numerous messages and inquires left
for Jeffries and other union officials were systemically ignored
and he failed to return copies of the Charging Parties at their
request. Raleigh and Brudy went to see Jeffries in person at
Local 385’s offices. Jeffries told Raleigh that it would take a
few days to investigate and then failed to get back to Raleigh.
Brudy, on the other hand, was misled into believing that Jef-
fries would be in the office and was met by Local 385 President
Stapleton, was unable to handle Brudy’s request, except to take
a message for Jeffries and then threw Brudy out of the office
when the latter insisted on a response.
Local 385’s practice in how it handled the Charging Parties’
revocation requests constituted a separate violation of Section
8(b)(1)(A) because it made it virtually impossible for them to
revoke their dues check-offs in a timely manner, since they
were unaware of their anniversary dates and Local 385 ignored
their resignation and revocation requests. See Electrical Work-
ers Local 66 (Houston Lighting & Power Co.), 262 NLRB 483,
486 (1982) (imposition of such additional hurdles or precondi-
tions not stated in the check-off agreement and repeated frustra-
tions of an employee’s attempt to revoke his check-off authori-
zation constituted a violation of Section 8(b)(l)(A).)
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Local 385 and
the Service Trades Council (collectively referred to as the
Respondent) are labor organizations within the meaning of
Section 2(5) of the Act.
2. Walt Disney Parks and Resorts US, Inc. d/b/a Walt Disney
World Co. (Disney) and the United Parcel Service, Inc. (UPS)
are employers engaged in commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.
3. The Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices af-
fecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8(b)(1)(A)
and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act by: (1) failing or refusing to
promptly respond to member requests for revocation of union
dues check-off authorizations, even when those requests are not
made within the window period for revocation; (2) failing or
refusing to promptly respond to member requests for resigna-
tion from union membership, requests for copies of members’
dues check-off authorization cards, and requests for other in-
formation regarding the revocation of members’ union dues
check-off authorizations, without regard to whether those re-
quests are made by mail, by telephone, in person, or by other
means.
REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in certain un-
fair labor practices, I shall order it to cease and desist therefrom
and to take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the
policies of the Act. The Respondent will be ordered to honor
the resignation from union membership requests and dues
check-off authorization revocation requests of the Charging
Parties and reimburse them for the union dues deducted from
their wages and remitted to the Union for the time period dur-
ing which the Respondent failed to timely honor their dues
check-off authorization revocation requests.
Accordingly, Local 385 should be required to pay interest
owed to Santana-Quintana and Behrens based on the delay in
receiving their dues refunds, from the dates of their respective
timely revocation requests—May 20, 2014, and October 31,
2014, respectively—to the dates on which they received their
dues refunds. The appropriate remedy for the remaining
Charging Parties is to refund their dues as of the revocation
window immediately following Local 385’s obstructive con-
duct, with interest: Heather Raleigh—January 8, 2015; Sharon
Masuda—February 15, 2015; Mitchell Kent—March 31, 2015;
Dolores Nicosia—July 6, 2016; Jacob Greene—June 15, 2015;
and Baringthon Brudy—June 21, 2016.
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on the
entire record, I issue the following recommended66
ORDER
The Respondent, International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Local 385, Lake Buena Vista, Florida, its officers, agents,
and representatives, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Failing or refusing to promptly respond to member re-
quests for revocation of union dues check-off authorizations,
even when those requests are not made within the window pe-
riod for revocation.
(b) Failing or refusing to promptly respond to member re-
quests for resignation from union membership, requests for
copies of members’ dues check-off authorization cards, and
requests for other information regarding the revocation of
members’ union dues check-off authorizations, without regard
to whether those requests are made by mail, by telephone, in
person, or by other means.
(c) In any like or related manner restraining or coercing em-
ployees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them by Section
7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to effec-
tuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Honor the resignation from union membership requests
and dues check-off authorization revocation requests of Heather
Raleigh, Sharon Masuda, Mitchell Kent, Jacob Greene,
Baringthon Brudy and Dolores Nicosia, and reimburse them for
the union dues deducted from their wages and remitted to Local
385 since January 8, 2015, February 15, 2015, March 31, 2015,
June 15, 2015, June 21, 2016, and July 6, 2016, respectively,
with interest.
(b) Pay interest for the time period during which Local 385
failed to timely honor the dues check-off authorization revoca-
tion requests of Hector Santana-Quintana (May 20, 2014, to
September 22, 2014) and Arlene Behrens (November 2014, to
May 2015).
(c) Preserve and, within 14 days of a request, or such addi-
tional time as the Regional Director may allow for good cause

66 If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the
Board’s Rules and Regulations, the findings, conclusions, and recom-
mended Order shall, as provided in Sec. 102.48 of the Rules, be adopt-
ed by the Board and all objections to them shall be deemed waived for
all purposes.
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, LOCAL 385 17
(WALT DISNEY PARKS AND RESORTS U.S., INC. D/B/A WALT DISNEY WORLD CO.)
shown, provide at a reasonable place designated by the Board
or its agents, all payroll records, social security payment rec-
ords, timecards, personnel records and reports, and all other
records, including an electronic copy of such records if stored
in electronic form, necessary to analyze the amount of backpay
due under the terms of this Order.
(d) Within 14 days after service by the Region, mail copies
of the attached notice marked Appendix,67 at its own expense,
to all employee members in the bargaining units who were
represented by the Respondent during their employ by Disney
at Kissimmee, Florida, and UPS in Gainesville and Tampa,
Florida at any time from the onset of the unfair labor practices
found in this case until the completion of these employees’
work at those job locations. The notices shall be mailed to the
last known address of each of the employee members after
being signed by the Respondent’s authorized representative.
(e) Sign and return to the Regional Director sufficient copies
of the notice for physical and/or electronic posting by Disney
and UPS, if willing, at all places or in the same manner as no-
tices to employee members are customarily posted.
(f) Within 21 days after service by the Region, file with the
Regional Director a sworn certification of a responsible official
of Respondent on a form provided by the Region attesting to
the steps that the Respondent has taken to comply.
Dated: Washington, D.C. March 22, 2017
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES AND MEMBERS
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
The National Labor Relations Board has found that we violated
Federal labor law and has ordered us to post and obey this no-
tice.
FEDERAL LAW GIVES YOU THE RIGHT TO
Form, join, or assist a union
Choose representatives to bargain on your behalf with
your employer
Act together with other employees for your benefit and
protection
Choose not to engage in any of these protected activi-
ties.
WE WILL NOT fail or refuse to promptly respond to your re-

67 If this Order is enforced by a judgment of a United States court of
appeals, the words in the notice reading “Posted by Order of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board” shall read “Posted Pursuant to a Judg-
ment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the
National Labor Relations Board.”
quests for revocation of union dues check-off authorizations,
even when those requests are not made within the window pe-
riod for revocation.
WE WILL NOT fail or refuse to promptly respond to your re-
quests for resignation from union membership, your requests
for copies of your dues-checkoff authorization cards, and your
requests for other information regarding the revocation of your
union dues-checkoff authorizations, without regard to whether
those requests are made by mail, by telephone, in person, or by
other means.
WE WILL NOT fail or refuse to promptly honor your request to
resign from union membership.
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 honor the resignation from union membership re-
quests and dues-checkoff authorization revocation requests of
Heather Raleigh, Sharon Masuda, Mitchell Kent, Jacob Greene,
Baringthon Brudy and Dolores Nicosia, and reimburse them for
the union dues deducted from their wages and remitted to us
since January 8, 2015, February 15, 2015, March 31, 2015,
June 15, 2015, June 2016, and July 6, 2016, respectively, with
interest.
WE WILL pay interest for the time period during which we
failed to timely honor the dues check-off authorization revoca-
tion requests of Hector Santana-Quintana (May 20, 2014 to
September 22, 2014) and Arlene Behrens (November 2014 to
May 2015).
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS,
LOCAL 385
The Administrative Law Judge’s decision can be found at
www.nlrb.gov/case/12-CB-136934 or by using the QR code
below. Alternatively, you can obtain a copy of the decision
from the Executive Secretary, National Labor Relations Board,
1015 Half Street, S.E., Washington, D.C. 20570, or by calling
(202) 273–1940.