International Telephone and Telegraph Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 31, 1953

107 N.L.R.B. 649 (N.L.R.B. 1953)

FEDERAL TELEPHONE AND RADIO COMPANY 649
We find that a question affecting commerce exists con-
cerning the representation of employees of the Employer
within the meaning of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7)
of the Act.
4. We find that the following employees of the Employer
at its turkey processing plant in Nephi, Utah, constitute an
appropriate unit for the purposes of collective bargaining
within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act: All production
and maintenance employees including slaughterers, pickers,
eviscerators, freezers , packers, and shippers, but excluding
office clerical employees, and supervisors as defined in the
Act.
5. The Employer contends that no election should be directed
because of the turnover of employees in the processing plant
during the season and from season to season , and because the
Petitioner's showing of interest is based on authorization cards
signed by employees some of whom in all probability will not
be employed at the time of the election. This contention is with-
out merit. The showing of interest is an administrative matter
and not subject to attack. The Employer also points to a line
of cases 6 in which the Board has dismissed petitions because the
records disclosed that the Employer's operations were not
scheduled to begin until 6 months after the hearing was held.
These cases do not involve seasonal industries and hence are
not applicable to the present situation. As the record discloses
that the Employer recruits its employees from the same labor
market each year and as more than 30 percent of the employees
employed in any one season can reasonably be expected to re-
turn the following season, we shall, in accordance with the
Board's usual policy with respect to seasonal industries, direct
that an election be held at or about the approximate seasonal
peak on a date to be determined by the Regional Director for
the Twentieth Region, among the employees in the appropriate
unit who are employed during the payroll period immediately
preceding the date of the issuance of the notice of election by
the Regional Director.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
6 A. O. Smith Corp. , 100 NLRB 1379; A. R . Tohl, 97 NLRB 93.
FEDERAL TELEPHONE AND RADIO COMPANY, A DIVISION
OF INTERNATIONAL TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH COR-
PORATION and INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MA-
CHINISTS, AFL. Cases Nos. 2-CA-3003 and 2-CA-3047.
December 31, 1953
DECISION AND ORDER
On September 28, 1953, Trial Examiner Albert P. Wheatley
issued his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceed-
107 NLRB No. 146.
650 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ing, finding that the Respondent had not engaged in the unfair
labor practices alleged in the complaints, as set forth in the
copy of the Intermediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter
the General Counsel and the charging Union filed exceptions
to the Intermediate Report with supporting briefs. The General
Counsel's exceptions were limited to Case No. 2-CA-3003.
The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial
Examiner at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error
was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board
has considered the Intermediate Report, the exceptions and
briefs, and the entire record in the case, and to the extent
not inconsistent with the findings and conclusions made below,
hereby adopts the Trial Examiner's findings, conclusions,
and recommendations.
The complaint in Case No. 2-CA-3003 alleges that the
Respondent violated Section 8 (a) (5) of the Act by enter-
taining a grievance processed by the International Union of
Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers, CIO, herein called
the IUE, in behalf of Ernst, an individual employee included
in a unit for which the International Association of Machinists,
AFL, herein called the IAM, was certified as bargaining agent.
The Trial Examiner found that Ernst's grievance was not
presented through the IUE, that the Respondent properly ad-
justed the grievance in accordance with the provisos to
Section 9 (a), and that this complaint should therefore be dis-
missed. We do not'agree.
On the underlying factual situation, the Trial Examiner
held that the grievance was processed through "friends" of
Ernst rather than through the IUE. On this point the record
shows the following facts. The IUE was the certified bargain-
ing agent in the plantwide production and maintenance unit.
Reitman, attorney for the IUE, drafted for Ernst's signature
a document purporting to authorize the IUE chief steward,
Castelli, and the IUE business agent, Lowenthal, to present
and process Ernst's grievance without the intervention of the
IAM, the certified bargaining agent. Other communications to
the Respondent with respect to Ernst's grievance were signed
by Castelli and Lowenthal, were drafted byReithman, and were
written on IUE stationery. Castelli was a friend of Ernst, but
Lowenthal and Reitman were not. The self-serving assertion
that the IUE did not process the grievance as a union matter
is the only indication throughout the record that Ernst was not
in reality represented by the IUE. We consider the evidence
persuasive that in fact Ernst acted through the IUE which had
represented him in the past.I
'Prior to the Board's certification of the IAM on June 5, 1952, as bargaining representative
for the electricians' unit in which Ernst was included, this unit was part of the production
and maintenance unit represented by the IUE 98 NLRB 1324. The IAM and the Respondent
executed a 2-year contract effective October 8, 1952
FEDERAL TELEPHONE AND RADIO COMPANY 651
The question of law here is whether or not under Section 9
(a) an employee may present an individual grievance to his
employer through a rival union of his choice when there
exists a certified bargaining representative for the unit in which
he is included. The pertinent provisions of Section 9 (a) read as
follows:
Provided, That any individual employee or a group of
employees shall have the right at any time to present
grievances to their employer and to have such grievances
adjusted, without the intervention of the bargaining repre-
sentative , as long as the adjustment is not inconsistent
with the terms of a collective-bargaining contract or
agreement then in effect: Provided further, That the
bargaining representative has been given opportunity to
be present at such adjustment.
Prior to the 1947 amendments, instead of these two clauses,
the Act contained a single proviso , as follows:
Provided, That any individual employee or group of
employees shall have the right at any time to present
grievances to their employer.
The legislative history of the original 1935 Act shows
clearly that the earlier proviso was not intended to permit
the defeated or minority union any rights to represent em-
ployees. Thus, the proposed bills in both House and Senate
originally contained, at the end of the proviso, the words,
"through representatives of their own choosing."' These
words were eliminated in order to avoid the implication that
the "individual" or "group" might select any representative
it wished. 3
In interpreting the original proviso in the Hughes Tool
Company decision in 1944, the Board said:
[ Individual employees and groups of employees
are permitted "to present grievances to their employer"
by appearing in behalf of themselves--although not through
any labor organization other than the exclusive represent-
ative--at every stage of the grievance procedure, but . . .
2 Hearings before the Senate Committee on Education and Labor on S. 1958, 74th Cong.,
1st Sess., p. 4; Hearings, House Committee on Labor, on H R 6288, 740: Cong , 1st Sess.,
p 4.
3House Hearings, op. cit., 211, also see idem, p 301; House Report No. 1147, 4th Cong.,
1st Sess , p. 12; Comparison of S. 2926 (73rd Cong.) and S. 1958 (74th Cong ), Senate Com-
mittee Print, March 11, 1953, p. 3. The use of the phrase "through representatives of their
own choosing" in the Railway Labor Act had been interpreted as meaning that a rival union
could represent employees in a grievance session. Elgin, Joliet & Eastern Ry. Co. v. Burley
et al., 325 U. S. 711 ) 722, 737 See also 40 Ops. Att'y Gen 494 (1949)
652 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the exclusive representative is entitled to be present and
negotiate at each such stage concerning the disposition to
be made of the grievance . . . 4
The U . S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, enforcing in
part the Board's order in Hughes Tool, stated that the deleted
words of the proviso ''were not added , apparently because they
would include other unions ." The court commented:
It was not thought good to allow grievance hearings
to become clashes between rival unions. We think an
inexperienced or ignorant griever can ask a more ex-
perienced friend to assist him but he cannot present
his grievance through any union except the [majority]
representative. S
The Respondent now argues that the provisos as written in
1947 must be construed as meaning that greater latitude than
before is permitted an employee or group who chooses to deal
directly on grievances , and that now they may present griev-
ances "through representatives of their own choosing " includ-
ing a rival union . However, the legislative history of the 1947
amendments does not support the view that the amendments
effected a change in this respect . It shows instead , that the
80th Congress was concerned with another aspect of the old
proviso --an aspect also involved in the Hughes case . This is
the extent to which the proviso encroaches upon the exclusive
authority existing by statute in the majority representative.
Discussing the new provisos , Senator Taft stated:
The Board has not given full effect to this right as
defined in the present statute since it has adopted a
doctrine that if there is a bargaining representative
he must be consulted at every stage of the grievance
procedure , even though the individual employee might
prefer to exercise his right to confer with his employer
alone . The current Board practice received • some support
from the courts in the Hughes Tool case . . ., a decision
which seems inconsistent with another circuit court's
reversal of the Board in N. L . R. B. v. North American
Aviation Company ( 136 F . 2d 898). The revised language
would make it clear that the employees right to present
grievances exists independently of the rights of the bar-
gaining representative , if the bargaining representative
has been given an opportunity to be present at the ad-
justment, unless the adjustment is contrary to the terms
of the collective bargaining agreement then in effect. 6
4 56 NLRB 981, 982.
514 F . 2d 69, 73.
6 Senate Report No . 105, 80th Cong., 1st Sess. , March 24, 1947.
FEDERAL TELEPHONE AND RADIO COMPANY 653
It is thus clear that these changes were directed only toward
assuring the individual griever the right to confer with his
employer without participation of the certified bargaining
agent. This conclusion is also borne out by the fact that the
North American Aviation case, cited by Senator Taft as
apparently inconsistent with the Hughes case, does not involve
the minority union problem in issue here . Furthermore, the
House Conference Report, like the Senate Report, discusses
only limitation of the bargaining representative's role. 7 Equally
significant is the fact that the 1947 legislative history in no way
refers to the intent which unequivocally emerged from the 1935
legislative history. It is clear, then, that the 80th Congress, with
knowledge of the Board's construction of the old proviso in
Hughes Tool and the Fifth Circuit's support of that construction,
gave no indication of rejecting that construction or of a differ-
ent intent.8
Concededly, the effect of the new provisos is necessarily an
added encroachment on the majority rule principle of Section 9
(a) in that the bargaining representative's participation in
grievances is further circumscribed. However, as the General
Counsel correctly argues , these provisos could not have been
intended to confer rights upon the minority union. Indeed,
to read such a broad meaning into the provisos would ef-
fectively disrupt the peaceful application of the majority
rule inherent in the Board's certification and would lead to
instability in industrial relations not consonant with the
spirit and objectives of the 1947 amendments. 9
For the foregoing reasons, and on the record as a whole,
we find, contrary to the Trial Examiner, that the Ernst
grievance was presented to the Respondent by the IUE, and
that the Respondent violated Section 8 (a) (5) and (1) of the
Act by accepting and considering a grievance presented and
processed in behalf of an individual employee by a union other
than the certified bargaining agent for the unit in which the
griever was included.
The Effect of the Unfair Labor Practice upon Commerce
The conduct of the Respondent set forth herein, occurring
in connection with the operations of the Respondent, have a
close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic,
and commerce among the several States, and tend to lead to la-
bor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free
flow thereof.
T House Conference Report No. 510, on H. R. 3020, 80th Cong., 1st Sess., p. 46.
817 Univ. Chi. L. R. 540 (1950); 50 Col. Law Rev. 731 (1950); 63 Harvard 361 (1949).
9 With due respect to that court, we believe that the Second Circuit Court, in its opinion
in Douds v. Retail Store Union, 173F. 2d 764, read more than was warranted into the provisos
in saying that they permit processing grievances through a rival union in spite of the existence
of a certified union.
654 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The Remedy
Having found that the Respondent committed an unfair
labor practice by accepting and considering a grievance
presented and processed by a union other than the majority
representative of its employees, we shall order that it
cease and desist from such practices in the future. In carrying
out the statutory requirement that the policy of the Act be
effectuated by means of cease-and-desist order commensurate
with the unlawful conduct shown in this case, we deem it
unnecessary to issue an order broader than the scope of
antiunion motivation on the part of the Respondent.
Conclusion of Law
1. The International Association of Machinists, AFL, is
a labor organization admitting to membership employees of
the Respondent.
2. All electricians employed by the Respondent at the
Respondent's Clifton, New Jersey, plant, excluding guards and
all supervisors as defined in the Act, constitute a unit ap-
propriate for collective bargaining within the meaning of
Section 9 (b) of the Act.
3. The International Association of Machinists, AFL, is now
and during all times material has been the exclusive repre-
sentative of its employees in the aforesaid appropriate unit
for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning
of Section 9 (a) of the Act.
4. By accepting and considering a grievance presented and
processed by a union other than the International Association
of Machinists, AFL, the exclusive majority representatives of
its employees in the aforesaid appropriate unit, the Respondent
has engaged in an unfair labor practice within the meaning of
Section 8 (a) (5) and (1) of the Act.
5. The aforesaid unfair labor practice is an unfair labor
practice affecting commerce within the meaning of Section
2(6) and (7) of the Act.
ORDER
Upon the entire record in this case, and pursuant to Section
10 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that Federal
Telephone and Radio Company, a Division of International
Telephone and Telegraph Corporation, Clifton, New Jersey,
its officers , agents, successors , and assigns , shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Accepting or considering grievances of any of its em-
ployees presented or processed through any labor organization
other than the majority representative of such employees in
the appropriate unit, where such representative exists.
FEDERAL TELEPHONE AND RADIO COMPANY 655
(b) In any like or related manner refusing to bargain collec-
tively with the representative of its employees in the aforesaid
appropriate unit.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board
finds will effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Post at its plant in Clifton , New Jersey , copies of the
notice attached hereto and marked "Appendix A."10 Copies of
such notice , to be furnished by the Regional Director for the
Second Region ( New York, New York ), shall, after being
duly signed by the Respondent ' s representative , be posted by
the Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and main-
tained by it for a period of sixty ( 60) consecutive days there-
after in conspicuous places, including all places where notices
to employees customarily are posted . Reasonable steps shall
be taken by the Respondent to insure that said notices are not
altered, defaced , or covered by any other material.
(b) Notify the Regional Director for the Second Region in
writing ten ( 10) days from the date of this Order what steps
the Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
[The Board dismissed the complaint in Case No. 2-CA-
3047.1
10 In the event that this Order is enforced by a decree of a United States Court of Appeals,
there shall be substituted for the words "Pursuant to a Decision and Order " the words
"Pursuant to a Decree of the United States Court of Appeals. Enforcing an Order."
APPENDIX A
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to a Decision and Order of the National Labor
Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the
National Labor Relations Act, we hereby notify our employees
that:
WE WILL NOT accept or consider any grievances
presented or processed by a union other than the Inter-
national Association of Machinists , AFL, the exclusive
majority representative of our employees inthe bargaining
unit described below:
All electricians employed by us at our Clifton, New
Jersey, plant , excluding guards and all supervisors
as defined in the Act.
656 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner refuse to
bargain collectively with the representative of our em-
ployees in the unit described above.
FEDERAL TELEPHONE AND RADIO COMPANY, A
DIVISION OF INTERNATIONAL TELEPHONE AND
TELEGRAPH CORPORATION,
Employer.
ted ............... . By........................... ........................
(Representative ) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date
aD
hereof, and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any
other material.
Intermediate Report'
In Case No. 2-CA-3003 the question for determination is: Did Federal Telephone and
Radio Company, a Division of International Telephone and Telegraph Corporation, herein
called Respondent,2 in violation of Section 8 (a) (5) and (1) of the National Labor Relations
Act, as amended, herein called the Act, process a grievance presented by a rival union
(International Union of Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers, CIO, herein referred to as
the IUE) in derogation of the exclusive right to bargain of the International Association of
Machinists, AFL, herein referred to as the IAM9
Case No. 2-CA-3047 involves the discharge of Peter Rossi and the question for determina-
tion herein is whether said discharge violated Section 8 (a) (3) and (1) of the Act.
Case No. 2-CA-3003
For several years prior to 1952 there was in effect between Respondent and the IUE a
collective-bargaining contract concerning production and maintenance employees, including
electricians, at Respondent's Clifton, New Jersey, plant. In 1951 the IAM sought certification
as the representative of certain craft groups, including electricians. This Board found that
the electricians were entitled to separate representation (to be severed from the production
and maintenance unit), if they so desired, and directed that an election be held among all
electricians at Respondent's Clifton plant to determine whether they desired to be repre-
sented, for the purposes of collective bargaining, by the IAM or by the IUE or by neither
(see Federal Telephone and Radio Corp., 98 NLRB 1324). Such an election was conducted and
a majority of the votes were cast for the IAM. A certification issued June 5, 1952. On October
8, 1952, Respondent and the IAM executed a collective-bargaining contract effective until
October 8, 1954, and year to year thereafter concerning, Inter alia, all electricians at Re-
spondent's Clifton, New Jersey, plant.
On February 2, 1953, Respondent imposed a 3-day layoff (February 2, 3, and 4) upon
Raymond J. Ernst, an electrician in the unit covered by the IAM contract.
On the day that Ernst returned to the plant he met Louis Castelli, IUE chief steward, in
the cafeteria and discussed the suspension and asked Castelli to "represent me as a personal
friend." Ernst and Castelli were personal friends. Castelh agreed to do so. The next evening
Castelli and Al Loewenthal, business agent of the IUE, conferred with Ernst at the latter's
home. Following this meeting, Sid Reitman, an attorney for the IUE, prepared for Ernst's
signature, a document designating and authorizing Loewenthal and Castelli to present and
adjust his grievance, and prepared for Loewenthal's and Castelh's signatures, a letter re-
i The above- numbered cases were consolidated for hearing and the hearing was held before
the undersigned in New York City on August 10 and 11, 1953
2Respondent engages, in New Jersey, in the manufacture and sale of communication equip-
ment and related products and annually receives from States other than New Jersey, and
ships to States other than New Jersey, substantial quantities of materials and supplies.
There is no issue herein concerning jurisdiction.
FEDERAL TELEPHONE AND RADIO COMPANY 657
questing a conference concerning the grievance. Copies of these documents are attached hereto
as Appendices A and B.
During the early part of February1953. Respondent received the letter prepared by Reitman
and signed by Loewenthal and Castelli (Appendix A) together with the designation and authori-
zation signed by Ernst (Appendix B) and a "statement of grievance " signed by Ernst (Appendix
C).
By letter dated February 9, 1953, Respondent acknowledged receipt of the aforementioned
correspondence and suggested a meeting for February 11, 1953. (A copy of this letter is
attached hereto as Appendix D). A copy of this letter was sent to John B. MacKenzie, business
representative of the IAM. By telegram, dated February 10, 1953, MacKenzie disputed Re-
spondent's "legal right to have any representative of the IUE-CIO meet ... concerning any
grievance for any person in your [our ] bargaining unit" and requested an immediate reply.
Respondent telephoned MacKenzie's office and left a message to the effect that Respondent
.,was acting within the Taft-Hartley law in arranging a meeting with Mr. Loewenthal and
Mr. Castelli" and that the meeting would be held as scheduled.
On or about February 7, 1953, Paul Dick, IAM steward for the electricians, asked Ernst
"if he wished to submit a grievance" through the IAM. Ernst told Dick he had already "sub-
mitted a grievance and that Al Loewenthal and Louis Castelli were going to represent him."
Nevertheless, Dick, on or about February 10, 1953, filed with Respondent a "grievance form
concerning Ernst's suspension.
On or about February 11, 1953, a meeting concerning Ernst's layoff was held which was
attended by L. B. Dicker, plant engineer in charge of plant maintenance, Ernst, Loewenthal,
Castelli, L. Keller (president of IAM), Joseph Dichiara (vice president of IAM), and Paul
Dick (IAM steward). When the meeting opened the IAM representatives challenged the right
of Loewenthal and Castelli to be present and a discussion ensued as to whether they were
there as personal representatives for Ernst or as representatives of the IUE. Loewenthal
and Castelli stated they were there as personal friends of Ernst. Tucker attempted to get
a discussion of the grievance but was not successful because the IAM representative insisted
Loewenthal and Castelli were there as representatives of the IUE and had no right to be
present and that the meeting was therefore illegal Finally A. E. Sinclair, director of indus-
trial relations, joined the conference and attempted to get a discussion of the Ernst matter
but was not successful because the IAM representatives again challenged the right of Loewen-
thal and Castelli to be present. This meeting ended about 4 p. in. Another meeting was held
the next day at which Joseph A. Abbot, director of personnel and labor relations, and L. B.
Dicker represented Respondent. LAM officials again challenged the right of Loewenthal and
Castelli to be present and Abbott stated that "Under the Taft-Hartley Law," he was allow-
ing them as individuals to represent Ernst and that those present should discuss the Ernst
matter. A discussion then ensued concerning Ernst's suspension but the JAM representatives
did not participate in this discussion. At the conclusion of this meeting Abbott announced
that Respondent's original decision (to lay off Ernst) "would stand."
By letter dated February 19,1953, theJAMnotified Respondent of a desire to have the griev-
ance concerning Ernst, filed by the IAM, arbitrated. However, on March 4, 1953, the IAM
filed the charge involved herein and thereafter the IAM notified Respondent that it wanted to
withdraw the Ernst grievance from arbitration , pending a decision in the instant matter.
Counsel for the General Counsel concedes that unless Loewenthal and Castelli represented
Ernst in their capacity as officials of the IUE the complaint herein should be dismissed and
contends that the facts reveal that they handled the Ernst grievance as representatives of
the IUE. Counsel for the General Counsel notes their positions in the IUE, calls attention to
the fact that Loewenthal and Reitman were not personal friends of Ernst, and notes that the
correspondence was prepared by the IUE attorney and was on IUE stationery and similar
correspondence was used by Loewenthal and Castelli to initiate other grievances. However,
it is also noted that the "designation and authorization" (Appendix B) names Loewenthal and
Castelli, not the IUE, as Ernst's representative and that the letter (Appendix A), although
written on IUE stationery, does not otherwise indicate it is from the IUE, whereas other
correspondence from the IUE bears the title of the person signing such correspondence. 3
Furthermore, as indicated above, Ernst requested that Castelli, as a "personal friend,"
represent him and at the meetings on February 11 and 12, 1953, Loewenthal and Castelli
claimed to be present as personal friends of Ernst and did not claim to be present as IUE
representatives. In view of the entire record herein the undersigned finds the evidence
3See General Counsel's Exhibits 26 (Appendix F) and 27.
658 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
adduced insufficient to establish that Loewenthal and Castelli handled this Ernst grievance
in their official capacities as representatives of the IUE, rather than as personal repre-
sentatives of Ernst.
Counsel for the General Counsel further contends that since Loewenthal and Castelli
handled this matter as officials of the IUE, Respondent's handling of the grievance constituted
a handling of the grievance with a rival union and were acts in derogation of the IAM's ex-
clusive right to bargain and an unfair labor practice. The General Counsel relies on Hughes
Tool Co. v. N. L. R. B., 147 F. 2d 69 (C. A. 5). Respondent contends that, assuming arguendo
that Loewenthal and Castelli handled this matter as officials of the IUE, nevertheless, Re-
spondent did not commit an unfair labor practice. Respondent relies upon Douds v. Local
1250, et al., 173 F. 2d 764 (C. A. 2). Since the undersigned has found that Loewenthal and
Castelli handled this matter as more experienced friends of Ernst and that the evidence is
not sufficient to establish that they handled it as representatives of a rival union, the under-
signed is not resolving this dispute.
It will be recommended that the complaint in this matter be dismissed in its entirety.
Case No. 2-CA-3047
Prior to 1952 Respondent and the IUE were parties to a collective-bargaining agreement
concerning production and maintenance employees, including pipefitters, at Respondent's
Clifton, New Jersey, plant. In 1951 the IAM sought certification as the representative of
certain craft groups, including pipefitters. This Board found that the pipefitters were en-
titled to separate representation (to be severed from the production and maintenance unit),
if they so desired, and directed that an election be held among the pipefitters to determine
whether they desired to be represented, for the purpose of collective bargaining, by the IAM
or by the IUE or by neither (see Federal Telephone and Radio Corp., 98 NLRB 1324). Such
an election was conducted on May 27, 1952, with the following results:
Approximate number of eligible voters 17
Void ballots 0
Votes cast for IAM 8
Votes cast for IUE 7
Votes cast against participating unions 0
Valid votes counted 15
Challenged ballots 2
Valid votes counted, plus challenged ballots 17
The 2 challenges involved Peter Rossi and Roland Alling. In his report on challenges the
Board's Regional Director concluded that Rossi was not eligible to vote (not in the unit
sought by the IAM) and recommended that the challenge to his ballot be sustained. The perti-
nent portion of the Regional Director's report is attached hereto as Appendix E.
On August 13, 1952, this Board sustained the challenge to the ballot of Rossi, and on August
26, 1952, the IAM was certified as the collective-bargaining representative of "all pipefitters
at the Employer's Clifton, New Jersey, plant."
On September 10, 1952, Respondent and the IUE executed a contract effective until September
10, 1954, covering production and maintenance employees except for "those employees for
whom the International Association of Machinists has been certified." This contract contains
union-security provisions and provides, inter alla (in article II, section 7):
Section 7. Union Security:
(1) Any employee on the payroll as of the effective date of this Agreement who, 30
days after the date of such Agreement , is not a member of the Union , shall not be re-
quired to become a member of the Union as a condition of continued employment.
(2) Any employee on the payroll as of the effective date of this Agreement who, 30
days after the date of such Agreement , is or becomes a member of the Union , shall as
a condition of employment maintain his membership in the Union to the extent of paying
regular current monthly dues and a single initiation fee.
a s o u s a s
FEDERAL TELEPHONE AND RADIO COMPANY 659
(4) Any employee covered by either clause (2) or clause (3) may have his regular
current monthly dues deducted from his earnings by signing the authorized wage assign-
ment, and if no such authorization is in effect, he must pay his regular current dues
directly to the Union.
The contract also provides for the checkoff, upon proper authorization by the employee,
of regular current monthly dues. The contract further provides, with respect to deductions:
"Errors made by the Company in the deduction and/or remittance of monies under this
Agreement shall not be considered by the Union as a violation of this Agreement."
The prior contract between Respondent and the IUE, effective for 2 years from September
5, 1950, which the Board found not to be a bar to an election in the RC case mentioned above
because it required payment of special dues, also contained union-security and checkoff
provisions.
Peter Rossi, a pipefitter in Respondent's employ for several years prior to the events
involved herein, in 1950 signed and filed with Respondent a checkoff authorization. Thereafter,
until September 1952, dues on behalf of the WE were regularly deducted from his pay. The
evidence is conflicting as to whether Rossi in August 1952, by letter, canceled his checkoff
authorization. This matter will be discussed below. However, as already noted, Respondent
ceased dues deduction from Rossi's pay in September 1952. Rossi did not thereafter pay or
offer to pay his dues to the IUE.
Following the certification of the IAM as the collective-bargaining representative for
electricians and millwrights, A. E. Sinclair, Respondent's director of industrial relations,
on or about August 1, 1952, directed Respondent's payroll department to "discontinue check-
off deductions" on behalf of the IUE for electricians and millwrights and advised "it is
satisfactory to continue checkoff deductions for the balance of the maintenance employees
until further notice." On August 21, 1952, (after the Board's determination of August 13, 1952,
that Rossi was not in the unit sought by the IAM and therefore not eligible to vote), Sinclair
advised Respondent's payroll department inter alia: "See me before any dues deductions
are made in September for pipefitters...."
Upon receipt of Sinclair's memorandum of August 21, 1952, Respondent's payroll depart-
ment ceased making dues deductions from the earnings of Respondent's pipefitters, including
Rossi,4 and Rossi's dues-deduction authorization card, together with the cards of others,
was put in Respondent's "dead file." Other instances of improper cessation of checkoff of
dues were discovered by Respondent when the IUE complained about nonreceipt of dues.
However, the error with respect to Rossi was not discovered until after Rossi's discharge.
Respondent (Sinclair) had no explanation as to why this error was not discovered sooner,
except that it was not discovered because of "an oversight." After the Board's decision
concerning pipefitters (in the representation case mentioned above), the IUE removed from
its active files the checkoff cards ofpipefitters,including Rossi, and Rossi's dues delinquency
was not discovered by the IUE until specific inquiry concerning his dues was made by an
IUE steward. Upon discovery that Rossi's dues were not being paid, the IUE endeavored to
get Rossi "to pay his dues." There is no evidence that the IUE, Rossi, or anyone else,
raised any question concerning Respondent's failure to deduct Rossi's dues or made any
mention of Respondent's obligation, if any, to make up Rossi's dues payments.
In November 1952 one of the IUE stewards told Louis Castelli, IUE chief steward, about
some dues-delinquent members. Castelli in checking about these members also found out
that Rossi was delinquent. Castelli then asked Sam Rissol, the IUE steward assigned to
Rossi's group, to contact Rossi. About a week later Rissol suggested to Castelli that he
(Castelli) ask Rossi to pay his dues. Castelli and Rossi were personal friends. Castelli
asked Rossi why he did not "pay up" and Rossi answered, "I am not paying any union any
dues."
In January 1953, Castelli telephoned Rossi and told him he must pay his dues if he wanted
to work. Rossi stated that "until the proper representative notifies me I will not pay any
dues." Castelli told Rossi he (Castelli) would have George Nelson, financial secretary of the
IUE, write a letter and Rossi replied, "I have mine on file with the Board." Castelli did not
4As noted above, the Board had ruled, in effect, that all pipefitters except Rossi constituted
a separate unit and had left Rossi as an employee in the production and maintenance unit.
Accordingly, his dues deductions should not have been discontinued unless he revoked his
prior authorization. However, Sinclair testified he made an error in stopping the deductions
from Rossi's pay and that he did not discover this error until after Rossi's discharge.
660 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
understand the reference to the Board and called Sid Reitman, WE attorney, for clarification.
Reitman was not able to clarify the matter.
During the latter part of January or early part of February 1953, Castelli saw Joseph
Dichiara, vice president of the IAM, (who was also a personal friend of Rossi) and told him
about Rossi's delinquency and asked him to contact Rossi about his du&:s. Dichiara said, "He
knows he has to pay his dues. I will speak to him. I will get him to pay his du .s." 5
A. E. Sinclair, Respondent's director of industrial relations, heard about the NE's efforts
to get Rossi to pay his dues and, on two occasions (apparently in February) at top grievance
meetings, told IAM officials, including Larry Keller, then president of IAM, and Dichiara
that he "had heard through the grape vine that Mr. Rossi was delinquent in his dues to the
IEU [IUE] " and suggested that if they had any interest in tae matter they had better get it
straightened out.6 These IAM officials discussed (in Sinclair's presence) the possibility of
the IAM paying Rossi's IUE dues. However, no such action was taken.
About February 14, 1953, Louis Castelli told Rossi he was 5 months behind in dues and
he was going to have him "fired" if he didn't pay up. Rossi told Castelli he (Rossi) "took it
upon myself to join the IAM."
By letter dated February 16, 1953, the IUE advised Rossi that unless he made payment of
the required dues he would be subject to discharge and requested that he effect payment
within 15 days. A copy of this letter is attached hereto as Appendix F. Rossi took no action
toward paying WE dues.
By letter dated March 11, 1953, the IUE wrote Respondent:
Please be advised that Local 447, IUE-CIO requests the dismissal of Peter Rossi,
Badge #36736 for failure to maintain monthly dues for the months of September thru
December, 1952 and January and February 1953.
This request is made in compliance with Article II, Section 7, Paragraph 2 of the
current agreement between Federal Telephone and Radio Corporation and Local 447,
IUE-CIO.
On March 24, 1953, Rossi was called to Sinclair's office and told that he was being dis-
charged in accordance with the contract between Respondent and the WE for failure to pay
dues to the WE. Rossi did not make any comments and was discharged.
On March 25, 1953, Rossi and Dichiara called at the office of Carl S. Carlson, international
representative of the IAM, and requested that Carlson file an unfair labor practice charge.
Carlson inquired about Rossi's membership in the WE and upon learning that he had been
a member of the WE asked, "what happened to that membership." Rossi told Carlson "he
resigned." Carlson asked "how" and Rossi said "by letter." Carson asked if Rossi "had
a copy" and Rossi said "yes" but not with him. This is the first occasion throughout the
events involved herein and outlined above that any reference was made by Rossi or Dichiara
to Rossi's resignation from the WE.
By letter dated March 27, 1953, Rossi complained to Respondent about his discharge and
for the first time informed Respondent that he was not a member of the IUE during the times
material herein. This letter is attached hereto as Appendix G. This letter did not indicate
that he had resigned from membership in the WE or make any reference to a written instru-
ment of resignation except for a paragraph reading: 7
I. Peter Rossi , was not a member of Local 447 during the period referred to in the above
mentioned part of the contract . Further I am prepared to prove that I was NOT A
MEMBER OF LOCAL 447 WE at the time . All interested parties were sufficiently notified
contractually that I was not a member of local 447. All parties obliged me BY NOT CON-
5 Dichiara denied the remarks attributed to him by Castelli and testified he told Castelli
"I did not think Pete should pay his dues, and it was none of my business to tell Pete to go
and pay his dues." Dichiara did not impress the undersigned as a straightforward witness
and, as noted hereinafter, much suspicion is cast upon his entire testimony
6In January 1953 Rossi signed and filed with Respondent a checkoff authorization on behalf
of the IAM. However, no dues deductions on behalf of the IAM were made from his pay. There
is no evidence of any conversations concerning this authorization.
7It also states: "Repeatedly I complained to you about the threats I have received from the
IUE." There is no evidence in this record of any such complaints.
FEDERAL TELEPHONE AND RADIO COMPANY 661
TINUING TO DEDUCT MY DUES during the period following the signing of the 447
contract.
Rossi's Resignation from IUE
Rossi testified that on August 28, 1952, be mailed to Respondent and to the IUE notarized
letters resigning from membership in the IUE and canceling his dues-deduction authorization.
Copies of these letters are attached hereto as Appendices H and I. Rossi further testified
that he and Joseph Dichiara, then vice president of IAM, composed the letters and that upon
advice from Dichiara and Larry Keller, then president of IAM, he (Rossi) had the letters
notarized . Rossi also testified that he mailed the letters, properly addressed and stamped,
while enroute to certain bowling alleys and upon arrival at the bowling alleys told Dichiara
that he (Rossi) had mailed them. Rossi further testified that "sometime in September, I
imagine, maybe a little later," while in Dichiara's "cellar," he gave Dichiara copies of
these letters together with other papers. Rossi testified that after sending these letters he
did not discuss "with anyone other than Mr. Dichiara" the fact that he had sent them.
Dichiara testified that on or about August 28, 1952, Rossi came to the bowling alleys in
question and told him that he (Rossi) had just come "from the notary's house and had the
originals of the letters notarized and others not notarized and dropped them in the mail box
on the way to the bowling alley. That is when he [Rossi] gave me [Dichiara] the copy of the
letter. " Dichiara further testified that Rossi gave him several copies (three or more copies)
of each letter and that at the time Rossi gave him copies of the letters in question Rossi did
not also give him "any other papers." It is also noted that the testimony of Rossi and
Dichiara as to the number of these letters notarized is not mutually consistent and that
Dichiara's testimony with respect to this matter is not consistent with the record herein.
The record reveals at least one notarized copy of each letter. It is further noted that the
testimony of Rossi and Dichiara concerning the number of copies made is not mutually
corroborative. Dichiara further testified that he did not reveal the existence of these letters
until after Rossi's discharge, that he first revealed their existence, after the filing of the
charge herein, at an IAM executive board meeting--that Board met twice a month-- and then
to this Board's field examiner assigned to investigate this case.
Neither Keller nor the notary public testified herein and there is no showing that they
were not available.
Officials of Respondent and of the IUE, including the addressees of the letters in question,
testified that they did not receive such letters and that they never heard of such letters until
after Rossi's discharge. Their testimony concerning nonreceipt, and lack of awareness, of
these letters is credited by the undersigned. Moreover, this record in its entirety casts
considerable suspicion that such letters were not written until after the date of Rossi's dis-
charge and thus creates skepticism about the testimony of Rossi and Dichiara. The under-
signed finds it difficult to believe that Rossi and Dichiara, a union official familiar with this
type of proceeding, would fail to reveal the existence of such letters throughout the course
of events outlined above. It seems more probable that Rossi in one of his conversations with
Castelli about dues delinquency, after receipt of the WE letter advising him that he was
subject to discharge unless he paid WE dues (Appendix F), or at the time of his discharge
would have come forward with some statement concerning these letters, had they existed.
Also it seems reasonable to believe that Dichiara would have made some comment about
these letters either to Castelli or to the LAM and that either he or Keller would have made
some reference to them at the meetings where Sinclair told the IAM officials about Rossi's
dues delinquencies and suggest that they might "straighten out" this matter. Nevertheless,
the record reveals that no mention of them was made.
Conclusions Regarding the Rossi Case
Counsel for the General Counsel contends that Rossi resigned from membership in the
IUE "by letter dated August 28th" and that after that date there was "no longer any basis
to pay dues [to] , nor for maintaining his membership" in the IUE, and that "therefore the
discharge for that reason is illegal." As noted above, the undersigned finds that Rossi did
not resign from the IUE. Accordingly, the undersigned concludes that this position of the
General Counsel lacks merit.
Counsel for the General Counsel further contends that if Rossi did not in fact resign from
membership in the WE he, nevertheless, could not be discharged for nonpayment of dues.
662 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
This contention is premised on the proposition that under the contract and Rossi's dues-
deduction authorization Respondent was obliged to deduct Rossi's IUE dues and that it was
Respondent's failure, not Rossi's, which caused Rossi's delinquency and that Respondent
cannot, therefore, rely upon nonpayment of dues as justification for Rossi's discharge. The
undersigned believes this contention to be without merit . It was Rossi 's obligation to maintain
his membership in the IUE by paying current monthly dues. While the contract provided
that he "may have his regular current monthly dues deducted from his earnings," it also
provided that if there is no dues-deduction authorization in effect, "he must pay his regular
current dues directly to the Union." In September 1952, or shortly thereafter, Rossi became
aware that his dues were not being deducted and, accordingly, aware that his dues-deduction
authorization was not in effect. It appears, therefore, that under the terms of the contract,
after September it was Rossi's obligation to pay his IUE dues or take some action to make
his authorization effective. Furthermore, the Act permits an agreement requiring member-
ship in a labor organization to the extent of requiring the employee "to tender the periodic
dues" (Section 8 (a) (3) (B)) and to permit Rossi to shift this obligation under the circum-
stances noted herein does not appear consistent with the intent of Congress. The contention
advanced by Counsel for the General Counsel may be meritorious in some circumstances,
for instance, where there is an improper cessation of checkoff of dues and the employee is
discharged without prior warning and opportunity to rectify the delinquency. But such is not
the situation herein. In addition, it may be argued that this position of the General Counsel
is not consistent with the intent of the parties to the contract as expressed in article II,
Section 5, of the contract which provides:
The Union agrees to save the Company harmless for any action or actions commenced
by any employee against the Company, for any claim arising out of such deductions
[dues deductions] and the Union assumes full responsibility for the disposition of the
funds so deducted once they have been turned over to the Union as above provided.
Errors made by the Company in the deduction and/or remittance of monies under this
agreement shall not be considered by the Union as a violation of this Agreement.
[Recommendations8 omitted from publication.]
8 The undersigned is cognizant that the reader of this report will visualize many unanswered
questions. However, the record herein is such that the undersigned cannot supply the answers
thereto without too much speculation, surmise, and guess.
APPENDIX A
INTERNATIONAL UNION
OF
ELECTRICAL, RADIO AND MACHINE WORKERS
LOCAL 447, CIO
25 Washington Avenue
Nutley, N. J.
February 5, 1953
Federal Telephone and Radio Corporation
100 Kingsland Road
Clifton, New Jersey
Attention : Mr. A. E. Sinclair
Dear Mr. Sinclair:
We enclose herewith designation and authorization of Ray Ernst , Badge No . 60876 , Depart-
ment 89 , requesting presentation of a grievance on his behalf without intervention of the
International Association of Machinists , in accordance with Section 9 (a) of the National Labor
Relations Act and provisos therein contained.
Annexed to such authorization is the statement of grievance as executed by Mr. Ernst.
Section 9 (a) of the National Labor Relations Act provides in part that.
FEDERAL TELEPHONE AND RADIO COMPANY 663
... any individual employee ... shall have the right at any time to present grievances
to their employer and to have such grievances adjusted without intervention of the bar-
gaining representative, as long as the adjustment is not inconsistent with the terms of a
collective bargaining contract or agreement then in effect ..."
Determinations by the National Labor Relations Board have held that under this section
of the statute an individual may designate anyone, whether or not a representative of the
certified bargaining agent, to present a grievance on his behalf and that the employer is re-
quired to deal with such designee with respect to such grievance on behalf of the employees.
Accordingly, we request a conference with you or the appropriate representatives of the
company for the purpose of processing the enclosed grievance. Please communicate with us
to schedule a mutually convenient time and place to discuss this matter.
Very truly yours,
s/ Al Loewenthal s/ Louis Castelli
Al Loewenthal Louis Castelli
APPENDIX B
Al Loewenthal
I hereby designate and authorize Louis Castelli to present and adjust the following
grievance on my behalf with my employer, Federal Telephone and Radio Corporation, without
the intervention of the International Association of Machinists, in accordance with Section
9(a) of the National Labor Relations Act and the provisos therein. I request Federal Telephone
and Radio Corporation to accept such grievance for consideration and adjustment.
s/ Raymond J. Ernst
Signature of Employee
Dept. No. 8971
Foreman: s/ C. Amos
Statement of Grievance:
s/ Raymond J. Ernst
Signature of Employee
APPENDIX C
STATEMENT OF GRIEVANCE
The company has violated Article 13 of the agreement dated October 8, 1952 between the
company and Federal Craft Lodge No. 947, District 161 of the International Association of
Machinists, AF of L in effecting disciplinary action upon me on February 2, 1953 by imposing
a three day layoff.
In the event it be determined that the company has authority to impose disciplinary layoffs
under the contract, the company has violated the aforesaid agreement in that the three day
layoff hereinabove described was not for just cause.
The disciplinary layoff under the terms of the notice of disciplinary action was for violation
of company rule No. 1. Such penalty was improper in that I was not guilty of excessive ab-
senteeism, and the penalty did not follow the schedule of penalties as expressed in the book
of company rules for violation of rule No. 1.
The disciplinary measure was further unjustifiably imposed in that I was denied the right
to be present and participate in the presentation of my grievance which was in violation of
the aforementioned contract.
s/ Raymond J. Ernst
Signature of Employee
664 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
APPENDIX D
February 9, 1953
Mr. Al Loewenthal, Business Agent
International Union of Electrical, Radio and
Machine Workers
Local 447, CIO
25 Washington Avenue
Nutley, New Jersey
Re: Ray Ernst- Dept. 89
Badge No. 60876
Dear Mr. Loewenthal:
I have your letter of February 5th relative to Mr. Ernst's request that you represent him in
the presentation of a grievance, in accordance with Section 9(a) of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act. I suggest that you meet with Mr. Tucker to discuss this matter on Wednesday,
February 11, at 2:00 P. M. in his office.
In accordance with Section 9(a) of the National Labor Relations Act, the I.A.M. will be per-
mitted the opportunity to be present at this meeting.
Very truly yours,
A. E. Sinclair, Director
Industrial Relations
cc: Mr. John B. MacKenzie, Business Representative
District 161
International Association of Machinists
1133 Main Street, Paterson, N. J.
cc: Mr. L. B. Tucker
BACKGROUND
APPENDIX E
The Employer has plants located at Clifton and Passaic and East Newark, New Jersey.
Only the Clifton plant is involved in this proceeding. The employees in all of the voting
groups concerned in this case fall ultimately under the supervision of Walter F. Long,
manager of plant engineering and maintenance, who is in charge of all maintenance operations
at the Clifton, New Jersey, plant, the Passaic, New Jersey, plant and one East Newark, New
Jersey, plant. Immediately below Long in authority is Andrew Newcomb, assistant manager
of the plant engineering and maintenance, who spends all of his time at the Clifton plant except
for occasional trips to the Passaic and East Newark plants. Newcomb is the direct supervisor
of the six foremen who are in charge of the maintenance employees, working in and out of
the Clifton, New Jersey, plant. Anthony Peluso, who is superintendent of maintenance in
charge of the Passaic plant's maintenance operations and special assignments in all plants
supervised by Long, spends about three-quarters of his working time on the average in the
Passaic plant and the rest of his time in the other plants. He is subordinate to Long and
Newcomb in authority. Maintenance employees working at Passaic fall under his supervision.
Since May 1951 at the latest, various crews of maintenance employees from the Clifton
plant have been assigned to do various maintenance jobs at the Passaic plant in connection
with preparing that plant for production. Such crews vary in number of employees and in
classification, depending upon the particular jobs. The lengthof time of any particular assign-
ment to the Passaic plant varies with the jobs to be done; it may be days, weeks, or months.
At any one time, there may be crews of maintenance men at the Passaic plant totalling from
approximately four to twenty in number. Long anticipates that the Passaic plant will be com-
pleted for full production by about June 1953.
FEDERAL TELEPHONE AND RADIO COMPANY
THE CHALLENGES
665
A. Voting Group 3 - There are two challenges in this group, one involving Peter Rossi
and the other Roland Alling, The facts concerning their eligibility to vote are as follows:
Rossi , a pipefitter , was challenged by Local 447 on the ground that he was an employee of
the Employer 's Passaic , New Jersey, plant and not an employee of the Employer's Clifton,
New Jersey, plant. Since approximately January 1952, Rossi worked a full basic work week
continuously in the Passaic plant up to and including the date of the election, i Long testifies
that Rossi was assigned to the Passaic plant in January 1952 after Long, Peluso and foreman
Lombard agreed that Rossi should stay at the Passaic plant to keep production lines going by
repairing production facilities and making other minor repairs . Long testifies that the
Company does not anticipate bringing Rossi back to the Clifton plant. Rossi testifies that he
works at pipefitting assigned to the construction crew, installs new equipment, maintains
toilets and maintains the air lines on the production equipment. Rossi is supervised by Peluso
and Sam Rizzolo , the latter being an electrician group leader whom the Company similarly
does not anticipate bringing back to the Clifton plant.
Rossi shares overtime with Clifton pipefitters on a rotating basis, performing such over-
time mainly or entirely at the Clifton plant on Saturdays.
Rossi is on the Clifton payroll and he, or other employees for him , pick up his pay check
at the Clifton plant. He punches in at the Passaic plant, as generally do all maintenance em-
ployees who are assigned to the Passaic plant for jobs lasting approximately two days or
more.
Long alleged that Rossi maintains classification seniority among the Clifton pipefitters
for reduction in force and other purposes . He further alleged that except for Rossi, four
carpenters , one electrician , namely Rizzolo, and one millwright, the men assigned to any
job at the Passaic plant are not steadily employed at Passaic but work frequently in the Clifton
plant, spending about 80 percent of their time on the average in the Clifton plant and the
remainder of their time in the Passaic or East Newark plants.
Peluso alleged that Rossi is assigned to the Passaic plant on a permanent basis . Peluso
further stated that he asked Long if he could have a pipefitter permanently assigned to
Passaic, and that after Long suggested Rossi, Peluso told Rossi he was assigned to Passaic.
The evidence indicates that Rossi, himself, was never told whether his assignment was
permanent or temporary.
Under all the facts and circumstances of Rossi's assignment and work at the Passaic plant,
including the fact that his assignment there appears to be a permanent one, it is concluded
that Rossi was not eligible to vote and it is accordingly recommended that the challenge to
Rossi's ballot be sustained.
'Rossi continued working at the Passaic plant up to June 24 , 1952, when he was assigned
to an emergency job at the Clifton plant, which was expected to last for five days. At the
completion of the job, he was scheduled to return to the Passaic plant.
APPENDIX F
International Union
of
Electrical , Radio and Machine Workers
Local 447, CIO
25 Washington Avenue
Nutley, New Jersey
Mr. Peter Rossi
22 Lake St.
Belleville, N. J.
Dear Mr. Rossi:
February 16, 1953
This is to advise you that you are delinquent in your dues to Local 447, IUE-CIO for the
months of September , October, November and December '52, and January and February, '53.
The total amount due for your back dues is $12.00.
666 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
In accordance with Article XIII, Section 4 of the Constitution and By-Laws of Local 447,
IUE-CIO, notice is hereby given you of your delinquency . In the event you fail to pay your
back dues within fifteen (15) days from the date of this letter, you will be suspended from
membership in the union.
In addition , under the terms of the agreement between Local 447, IUE-CIO and the company.
Article 2 , Section 7 Paragraph 2. continued membership in the union is required as a condi-
tion of employment for all employees hired after the effective date of the union security
provision , and continued membership is required as a condition of employment for all em-
ployees who are members of the union as of the effective date of the union security provision.
Unless you continue your membership in the union by the payment of the required dues, you
will be subject to discharge.
In order to avoid any unnecessary embarrassment to yourself , you will please come in to
the union office within fifteen (15) days from the date of this letter, and effect payment of
your back dues.
Fraternally yours,
s/ Joseph Budzianoski (1st Vice Pres.)
Joseph Budzianoski (Acting Pres.)
s/ George Nelson
George Nelson
Financial Secretary
APPENDIX G
March 27, 1953
A. E. Sinclair , Director
Industrial Relations
Federal Telephone and Radio Co.
100 Kingsland Road
Clifton, N. J.
Dear Sir:
I am writing this letter which I want you to accept as a formal grievance:
You summoned me into your office last Wednesday, March 25 and in the presence of Mr.
Reitman and other I.U .E. officials you told me you were separating me from the payroll in
accordance with Article II Section 7 of the I.U .E. contract. You then had me escorted off the
Co. premises by the plant police and did not give me the slightest chance to enter my side
of the story.
I must emphasize right here that I consider your conduct far below any standards of men
in the position you hold. Your act was definitely one of collusion with the I.U.E.
I do not admit to the fact that I should be included in the IUE bargaining unit since I peti-
tioned to belong to another unit under the Craft Sererence Provision of the Taft Hartley Law
and voted to sever myself from the IUE unit . Every attempt has been made on your part and
the IUE to force me ..... against my wishes to belong to a union other than one OF MY OWN
CHOOSING. Repeatedly I complained to you about the threats I have received from the IUE.
You did nothing about them YOU finally went along with their act of vengence.
Since you assume that I am a member of the IUE bargaining unit and so separated under
the provisions of the IUE contract , I would like to inform you that under that contract YOU
HAD NO RIGHT TO SEPARATE ME. I refer to Article II sec . 7 (1). Therefore I emphatically
state this:
I, Peter Rossi, was not a member of local 447 during the period referred to in the above
mentioned part of the contract . Further I am prepared to prove that I was NOT A MEMBER
OF LOCAL 447 IUE at that time . All interested parties were sufficiently notified contractually
that I was not a member of local 447. All parties obliged me BY NOT CONTINUING TO DE-
DUCT MY DUES during the period following the signing of the 447 contract.
FEDERAL TELEPHONE AND RADIO COMPANY 667
In view of the preceeding paragraph, Mr. Sinclair, I must again remind you that you had
NO RIGHT TO EXERCISE any action against me resulting in my separation.
I insist that you put me back to work at the CLIFTON PLANT until such time as my case
is finally settled. I am a married man with 3 children and have worked for FT&R 10 years.
I want my job and I want to be paid for all lost time until I am put back to work.
Very truly yours,
cc/ T. M. Douglas , H. Roemer
s/ Peter Rossi
APPENDIX H
20 Lake St.
Belleville, N. J.
August 28, 1952
Mr. A. E. Sinclair
Federal Telephone and Radio Co.
100 Kingsland Road
Clifton, N. J.
Dear Sir:
Please be advised that I have resigned my membership in Local 447, I.U.E. C.I.O. as of the
above date.
I insist that the Co. stop deducting dues from my paycheck.
I am exercising my rights under the provisions of the law.
Very truly yours,
s/ Peter Rossi
Peter Rossi
(Notary signed and sealed)
APPENDIX I
20 Lake St.
Belleville, N. J.
August 28, 1952
Mr. George Nelson, Fin. Sec.
Local 447 I.U.E, - C.I.O.
25 Washington Ave.
Nutley, N. J.
Dear Sir:
I am writing you that I no longer wish to be a member of local 447 I.U.E. - C.I.O. and insist
that you do not make any further dues deductions from my paychecks.
Very truly yours,
s/ Peter Rossi
Peter Rossi
(Notary signed and sealed)