Loc. 959, Teamsters

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 25, 1967

167 N.L.R.B. 1042 (N.L.R.B. 1967)

1042 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Local No. 959 , International Brotherhood of Team-
sters, Chauffeurs , Warehousemen and Helpers of
America , Independent (RCA Service Company)
and P. Stephen Treadwell . Case 19-CB-1121
October 25, 1967
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS
FANNING, JENKINS , AND ZAGORIA
Upon a charge filed on March 24, 1966, by P.
Stephen Treadwell, the General Counsel of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board by the Regional
Director for Region 19 issued a complaint dated
July 26, 1966, and an amendment to the complaint
dated August 24, 1966, against Local No. 959, In-
ternational Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen and Helpers of America, Inde-
pendent, herein called Respondent, alleging that the
Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in un-
fair labor practices within the meaning of Section
8(b)(1)(A) and (2) of the National Labor Relations
Act, as amended. Copies of the charge, complaint,
and notice of hearing, and the amendment to the
complaint were duly served upon the Respondent
and the Charging Party. On August 25, 1966,
Respondent filed its answer admitting certain al-
legations to the complaint, but denying the commis-
sion of any unfair labor practices.
On January 15, 1967, the Respondent, the
Charging Party, and the General Counsel entered
into a stipulation of facts wherein they identified the
contents of the record in this case and agreed to
transfer this proceeding directly to the Board for is-
suance of a Decision and Order after the filing of
briefs and without further hearing. The stipulation
states in substance that the parties waive their
rights to a hearing before a Trial Examiner and to
the issuance of a Trial Examiner's Decision, and
that the charge, complaint, and notice of hearing,
amendment to the complaint, answer, and the stipu-
lation and exhibits attached thereto should con-
stitute the entire record in this case. On February
13, 1967, the Board approved the stipulation, or-
dered transferral of the proceedings to the Board,
and granted permission to the parties to file briefs.
Briefs were filed by the Respondent and General
Counsel.
Upon the basis of the aforesaid stipulation and
the entire record in the case, and having considered
the briefs of the parties, the Board makes the fol-
lowing:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER
RCA Service Company, a division of Radio Cor-
poration of America, is a corporation organized
under the laws of the State of Delaware. RCA is en-
gaged in the maintenance of a Ballistic Missile
Early Warning Station at Clear, Alaska. During the
past year, RCA, in the course and conduct of its
business operations in the State of Alaska,
purchased and received goods and materials and
supplies valued in excess of $50,000 directly from
outside the State of Alaska.
The parties stipulated and we find that RCA is,
and has been at all times herein, an employer en-
gaged in commerce within the meaning of Section
2(6) and (7) of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The parties stipulated and we find that Local No.
959, International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of Amer-
ica, Independent, is a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
On August 17, 1964, the Respondent was cer-
tified by the Board as collective-bargaining
representative for certain employees of RCA at its
Ballistic Missile Early Warning Station at Clear,
Alaska. On December 21, 1964, the Respondent
and RCA entered into a collective-bargaining
agreement which, by its terms, runs until December
20, 1967. The agreement contains a union-security
clause which requires all employees to become and
remain members in good standing. To remain in
good standing the Respondent's bylaws require the
payment of dues on or before the last business day
of the first month of each quarter. The bylaws pro-
vide as follows with respect to "regular" dues:'
Section 4. The dues of this Union shall be: (a)
Forty-six dollars and fifty cents ($46.50) per
quarter year, to be paid on or before the last
business day of January, April, July and Oc-
tober. However, if dues are paid by the fif-
teenth (15th) of each month, or before the fif-
teenth (15th) of each quarter, the dues shall be
ten dollars and fifty cents ($10.50) per month
or thirty-one dollars and fifty cents ($31.50)
per quarter; plus
On October 1, 1966, "regular" dues were in-
In the stipulation the parties agreed to refer to the dues provided for in
section 4(a) as "regular" dues and those in section 4(b), set forth below,
as "working" dues
167 NLRB No. 148
LOC. 959, TEAMSTERS 1043
creased to $49.50 per quarter. However, if dues are
paid by the 15th of each month the dues are $11.50
per month or if paid by the 15th of each quarter the
dues are $34.50.
In June 1963 the Respondent's membership
voted "a temporary assessment of ten cents (10
cents) per hour for the purpose of financing a union
building program and a credit union or similar pro-
gram." It also approved a resolution establishing a
committee to prepare detailed recommendations
concerning a building program and credit union.
The committee made its report in September 1963
and under the heading "Recommendation on
Amendment to the Bylaws" it stated:
The major amendment will be one which incor-
porates the ten cents (10 cents) per hour (which
is now paid pursuant to the assessment voted
in June) into the regular dues structure. The as-
sessment is good only through December 31,
1963, and, if the credit union and building pro-
grams are to get off the ground, the ten cents
(10 cents) per hour must be continued as part
of the dues structure.
Each member was given a copy of the report and in
December 1963 the membership approved the
recommendations.2
Pursuant to the vote of the membership the
bylaws were amended as follows:
SAVINGS AND LOAN PROGRAM
Section 3. To encourage thrift, and to enable
the members to obtain loans at reasonable in-
terest rates, this Union may, upon approval of
the membership, utilize a portion of each mem-
bers' dues in a savings and loan program not to
exceed 7 cents of the hourly dues. Such pro-
gram may be administered within the Union, or
by an independent institution, such as a credit
union.
BUILDING PROGRAM
Section 4. To provide suitable facilities for the
carrying on of Union business, this Union may,
upon approval of the membership, adopt a
building program which may include the
purchasing, building, or leasing of real and per-
sonal properties. To the extent that it may be
economically feasible, space in the Union's
buildings may be leased to others. Such pro-
gram shall include provision for giving each
member credit for the amount of his dues
which have been utilized in the program.
The dues portion of the bylaws was amended by ad-
ding the following:
(b) ten cents (10 cents) for each compensable
hour worked, provided, however, that because
of the lower scales in their industries, these
hourly dues shall not apply to members work-
ing as office clerical and taxicab drivers unless
a majority of such members, at special
meetings of their own, should approve such
dues. Such dues to be effective beginning
January 1, 1964.
As a result of the action of the membership in
adopting the recommendations of the committee,
the 10-cent-an-hour "working dues" are distributed
as follows:
(a) One cent goes to the cost of the administra-
tion of the credit union.
(b) Six cents goes to the credit of the member's
account if he is a member of the credit union. If the
member does not join the credit union, the 6 cents
is used for the general operating expenses of the
Union.
(c) Three cents goes to the Respondent's build-
ing program. When a member has contributed $50,
he receives a certificate. When the building program
is completed, the members may vote to redeem the
certificate. If a member is suspended, he forfeits
any interest he may have in the building fund and
any certificates then in his possession are automati-
cally voided.
In addition to the reference to a "temporary as-
sessment" at the time "working" dues were in-
itiated and in the recommendations of the commit-
tee to incorporate the "assessment" in the general
dues structure noted above, there are other such
references in the exhibits submitted with the stipu-
lation. Thus, in a letter to the membership dated
December 16, 1965, Business Agent Hildebrand
stated, in part, "This working dues assessment was
voted by the membership and made a part of the
bylaws of Local 959." In the February 1966 issue
of the Respondent's magazine, "Drive News and
Views," under a heading entitled "Working Dues
Explained" it is stated "we will attempt to explain
here in these few short lines what does happen to
your working dues assessments of the 10 cents per
hour." And the Respondent's secretary-treasurer,
Carr, makes reference to the initiation of "working"
dues as an "assessment" in his affidavit regarding
the operation of the credit union.
Since on or about November 1, 1965, the
Respondent has informed the Charging Party and
other employees that they will not be in good stand-
ing unless they pay both the "regular" and "work-
ing" dues and that it will request the Company to
discharge employees who do not do so. And since
on or about March 1, 1966, the Respondent has
refused to accept tenders of "regular" dues from the
2 The Charging Party, Treadwell, and other employees in his unit did
not participate in the vote since they were not represented by the
Respondent at the time the vote was taken
310-541 0 - 70 - 67
1044 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Charging Party and others because they did not also
tender "working" dues.
On or about April 20, 1965, an agent of Respond-
ent informed the Company that it intended to ask
for the termination of those employees who did not
tender "working" dues.
The General Counsel contends that the discount
given for prompt payment of regular dues is, in fact,
a penalty so exorbitant that it constitutes an assess-
ment for failure to pay dues on time and is therefore
violative of Section 8(b)(1)(A) and (2) of the Act.
The Respondent contends that the discount is
based upon the ease of administration and the cost-
savings permitted by the prompt payment of dues
and that there is no evidence that the discount is so
excessive as to be an "assessment."
We agree with the Respondent that the record is
insufficient to support a finding that the discount
granted for the prompt payment of dues does not
bear a reasonable relationship to the additional cost
of collecting delinquent accounts. Rather it dis-
closes only the fact that such a discount exists. In
a State such as Alaska where the population may be
scattered and mobile, it would seem not impossible
that the cost of servicing delinquent accounts might
equal or exceed the amount of the discount pro-
vided for in the Respondent's bylaws. So far as dis-
closed by this record, therefore, the discount "is not
so unreasonable as to be patently an assessment"
and the burden resting on the General Counsel to
demonstrate that the discount did not represent a
proper reduction in dues for prompt payment3 has
not been sustained. We find that, under the circum-
stances of this case, the discount for prompt pay-
ment of dues does not constitute a violation of Sec-
tion 8(b)(1)(A) and (2) of the Act.
The General Counsel also contends that the
Respondent's threats to have employees discharged
if they failed to pay the "working" dues required by
the Respondent's bylaws were a violation of Sec-
tion 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act. The Respondent argues
that the "working" dues are periodic, were not in-
tended as an "assessment," and that the purposes
to which dues are applied is not a matter within the
Board's competence, at least so long as the purpose
is germane to the legitimate interests of the mem-
bership. The Respondent therefore contends that
the threats to have employees discharged for failure
to pay the "working" dues were not violative of the
Act.
On this issue we must agree with the General
Counsel. Although the Respondent contends that
the "working" dues were intended to be a part of
the regular dues structure and not an "assessment,"
it is clear that at the time the membership initially
approved the imposition of the "working" dues they
were indeed regarded as an "assessment" to sup-
port the credit union and building programs.
Moreover , although the bylaws adopted in 1964
after the vote by the membership do not mention
the term "assessment ," it is obvious , from Business
Agent Hildebrand ' s letter of December 16, 1965,
as well as Secretary -Treasurer Carr' s reference to
the working dues as an "assessment" in his affidavit
regarding the operation of the credit union , and the
reference to the working dues in Respondent's
magazine of February 1966, that the "working"
dues are still in fact regarded as an assessment.
We find further evidence that the "working" dues
are assessments and not dues within the meaning of
the proviso to Section 8(a)(3) of the Act in the
disposition of the monies collected . Thus, as to the
portion of the funds earmarked for the credit union,
if the employee meets the conditions set forth in the
bylaws these are credited to the employee 's account
and pass under his control. The portion of the em-
ployee 's contribution intended for the building fund
results, eventually, in the employee receiving a cer-
tificate which may, in the future , be redeemed. Thus
the Respondent 's treasury receives no monies from
the dues other than what may escheat to it because
a contributing member has not complied with the
conditions set forth in the bylaws . "Dues" have
been defined as "sums of money which a member
must pay toward the support of the society in order
to retain his membership therein ."4 The "working"
dues herein are clearly not for the support and
maintenance of the Respondent as an organization
but are special purpose funds established by the
Respondent to accomplish ends not encompassed
in its duties as a collective -bargaining agent of the
employees . This is not to say that the purposes of
the funds are not beneficial to the membership or
that the Respondent cannot organize and ad-
minister such funds on a voluntary basis. We find
only that the support of such funds cannot come
from "periodic dues" as that term is used in the Act,
which are made payable under the terms of a union-
security provision , and thus may be collected from
employees upon pain of discharge.
As is implicit in the foregoing discussion, we do
not agree with the Respondent 's contention that the
examination of the purposes to which "periodic
dues" are devoted is beyond the scope of the
Board ' s authority. The term "periodic dues" is
statutory , and we are bound to interpret it in ac-
cordance with its legislative history and the in-
terpretation placed upon it by the courts. The
Supreme Court in the Radio Officers case stated:5
This legislative history clearly indicates that
Congress intended to prevent utilization of
union security agreements for any purpose
3 N L R B v Bakery & Confectionery Workers' International Union
of America, Local 12 AFL-CIO, 245 F 2d 211,214,215 (C A 3)
a Ballentine 's Law Dictionary (1948 ed p 413) See also Virginia Elec-
tric and Poiver Co v N LRB , 319 U S 533,541, Black's Dictionary
(4th ed p 590)
5 Radio Officers Union (A H Bull Steamship Co) v N L R.B, 347
U S 17,41
LOC. 959, TEAMSTERS 1045
other than to compel payment of union dues
and fees . Thus Congress recognized the validi-
ty of unions' concern about "free riders ," i.e.,
employees who receive the benefits of union
representation but are unwilling to contribute
their share of financial support to such union,
and gave unions the power to contract to meet
that problem while withholding from unions the
power to cause the discharge of employees for
any other reason.
It would thus appear that the right to charge
"periodic dues" granted unions by the proviso to
Section 8 (a)(3) is concerned exclusively with the
concept that those enjoying the benefits of collec-
tive bargaining should bear their fair share of the
cost incurred by the collective-bargaining agent in
representing them . But it is manifest that dues that
do not contribute , and that are not intended to con-
tribute, to the cost of operation of a union in its
capacity as a collective-bargaining agent cannot be
justified as necessary for the elimination of "free
riders." Here neither the "dues" for the credit
union nor those for the building fund were for the
purpose of supporting the Respondent as a collec-
tive-bargaining agent , and they therefore do not fall
within the proviso to Section 8(a)(3) of the Act.
In Food Fair Stores ,6 a case involving a special
"assessment" to aid striking employees at another
food chain , the Court of Appeals for the Third
Circuit drew the distinction which we find
delineates the "periodic dues " which a union may
validly require employees to pay. In that case the
court said:
It is clear that the term "periodic dues" in
the usual and ordinary sense means the regular
payments imposed for the benefits to be
derived from membership to be made at fixed
intervals for the maintenance of the
organization . An assessment , on the other
hand , is a charge levied on each member in the
nature of a tax or some other burden for a spe-
cial purpose , not having the character of being
susceptible of anticipation as a regularly recur-
ring obligation as in the case of "periodic
dues ." [Emphasis supplied.]
Monies collected for a credit union or building fund
even if regularly recurring , as here , are obviously
not "for the maintenance of the" Respondent as an
organization , but are for a "special purpose" and
could be terminated without affecting the continued
existence of Respondent as the bargaining
representative.
For the foregoing reasons , we find that the
"working" dues provided for in the Respondent's
bylaws are not "periodic dues" as that term is used
in the proviso to Section 8(a)(3) of the Act. The
threats to enforce the unlawful provisions by
requesting the discharge of employees refusing to
pay them were therefore violative of Section
8(b)(1)(A) of the Act.
IV. THE EFFECTS OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent set forth above
have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to
trade, traffic, and commerce among the several
States and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening
and obstructing commerce and the free flow of com-
merce.
THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged
in certain unfair labor practices, we shall order that
it cease and desist therefrom and take certain
affirmative action that we find necessary to
effectuate the policies of the Act.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact
and upon the entire record in the case, we adopt the
following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. RCA Service Company is engaged in com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of
the Act.
2. The Respondent is a labor organization within
the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. By threatening employees that it would cause
or attempt to cause their discharge if they did not
pay the "working" dues, the Respondent restrained
and coerced employees in the exercise of their
statutory rights, thus engaging in unfair labor prac-
tices within the meaning of Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the
Act.
4. The unfair labor practices enumerated above
are unfair labor practices affecting commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the
Act.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board hereby orders that the Respond-
ent, Local No. 959, International Brotherhood of
Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Help-
ers of America, Independent, its officers, agents,
and representatives, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Threatening to cause or attempting to cause
RCA Service Company to discharge or otherwise
discriminate against any employees if they do not
pay "working" dues to the Respondent.
(b) In any like or related manner restraining or
6 Food Fair Stores , Inc V . N L.R.B ., 307 F.2d 3, 11 (C.A 3).
1046 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
coercing employees in the exercise of their rights
guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, except to the ex-
tent that such rights may be affected by an agree-
ment requiring membership in a labor organization
as a condition of employment , as authorized in Sec-
tion 8 (a)(3) of the Act, as modified by the Labor-
Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of
1959.
2. Take the following affirmative action which
the Board finds will effectuate the policies of the
Act:
(a) Post at its offices and meeting halls in the
State of Alaska copies of the attached notice
marked "Appendix ."' Copies of said notice, on
forms provided by the Regional Director for Region
19, after being duly signed by an authorized
representative , shall be posted by Respondent im-
mediately upon receipt thereof , and be maintained
by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in con-
spicuous places, including all places where notices
to members are customarily posted . Reasonable
steps shall be taken by Respondent to insure that
said notices are not altered , defaced , or covered by
any other material.
(b) Notify the Regional Director for Region 19,
in writing, within 10 days from the date of this
Order, what steps have been taken to comply
herewith.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that those portions of
the complaint as to which no violations have been
found are hereby dismissed.
' 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 "a Decision and
Order" the words "a Decree of the United States Court of Appeals En-
forcing an Order "
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL MEMBERS
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, as
amended, we hereby notify you that:
WE WILL NOT threaten to cause or attempt
to cause RCA Service Company to discharge
or otherwise discriminate against any em-
ployees if they do not pay "working" dues.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner
restrain or coerce employees of RCA Service
Company in the exercise of their right to self-
organization, to form, join, or assist unions, to
bargain collectively through representatives of
their own choosing, to engage in concerted ac-
tivities for the purposes of collective bargaining
or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain
from such activities, except to the extent that
such rights may be affected by an agreement
requiring union membership as a condition of
employment, as authorized by Section 8(a)(3)
of the Act, as modified by the Labor-Manage-
ment Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959.
Dated By
LOCAL No. 959, INTER-
NATIONAL BROTHER-
HOOD OF TEAMSTERS,
CHAUFFEURS,
WAREHOUSEMEN AND
HELPERS OF AMERICA,
INDEPENDENT
(Labor Organization)
(Representative ) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecu-
tive days from the date of posting and must not be
altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
If members have any question concerning this
notice or compliance with its provisions, they may
communicate directly with the Board's Regional
Office, 327 Logan Building, 500 Union Street,
Seattle, Washington 98101, Telephone 583-4583.