Local 1842, Int'l Brotherhood of Electrical Etc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 31, 1959

124 N.L.R.B. 794 (N.L.R.B. 1959)

794 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
presently, and probably will be, in the future, the only employees not
transferred from Evansville.
On these facts and the record as a whole we find that the St. Louis
Assembly Plant is not a new operation but represents the consolida-
tion and relocation of the operations of the two Evansville plants.8
The employees of the St. Louis Assembly Plant are therefore part of
the nationwide production and maintenance unit, including steam
engineers, established by the collective bargaining of the Employer
and the UAW. The requested production and maintenance unit
limited to the employees of the St. Louis Assembly Plant is inap-
propriate. Accordingly, we shall amend the UAW's certificates in
Cases Nos. R-1407 and R-2209 in accordance with these findings. We
further find that the 1958 collective-bargaining agreement is a bar to
this proceeding, and we shall therefore dismiss the petition.'
[The Board amended the certifications of representatives issued in
Cases Nos. R-1407 and R-2209 to include in the unit description
thereof the production and maintenance unit employees including
steam engineers of the Employer's St. Louis Assembly Plant, Valley
Park, Missouri.]
[The Board dismissed the petition in Case No. 14-RM-194.]
8 General Motors Corporation , Cadillac Motor Car Division, 120 NLRB 1215 , at 1221 ;
The Mennen Company, 105 NLRB 677 ; Ford Motor Company, 92 NLRB 188.
9 As the parties are primarily concerned with the status of the four steam engineers,
and as the latter 's duties and functions have been fully litigated , we shall determine their
alleged supervisory status. The record shows that the steam engineers work under the
supervision of the chief engineer who, in addition to supervising the regular day shift,
spends some time on the other two shifts and is available for call and advice at all hours.
The engineers work alongside one boiler operator and one fireman on each shift whom
they assist and occasionally direct in the maintenance and repair of powerhouse ma-
chinery. This direction is of a routine character and in the nature of the guidance
given by a skilled craftsman to less experienced personnel . The steam engineers have no
authority to hire, discharge , assign, reward , discipline , transfer , or promote any employee,
nor can they effectively recommend such action . We find that they are not supervisors
within the meaning of the Act, but that they are employees included in the multiplant
bargaining unit covered by the national contract between the Employer and the UAW.
Craft severance of the steam engineers of that plant is also inappropriate , as bargaining
for steam engineers was substantially on a nationwide basis and craft severance must be
coextensive with the existing bargaining unit. Compare United States Gypsum Company,
119 NLRB 1415 , at 1418.
Local Union No. 1842, International Brotherhood of Electrical
Workers, AFL-CIO [Avco Manufacturing Corporation , Crosley
Division] and Gene J. Klopp . Case No. 9-CB-362. August 31,
1959
DECISION AND ORDER
On January 26, 1959, Trial Examiner John H. Eadie issued his
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding , finding that
the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair
124 NLRB No. 86.
LOCAL 1842, INT'L BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL ETC. 795
labor practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom
and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the
Intermediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the Respondent
filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and a supporting brief.
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made
at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed.
The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the In-
termediate Report, the exceptions and brief, and the entire record
in the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recom-
mendations of the Trial Examiner with the following modifications.
We agree, for the reason set forth below, with the Trial Examiner's
conclusion that the Respondent Union violated Section 8(b) (2) and
(1) (A) in causing the Company to discharge Klopp, the individual
filing the charge in this case.
When Klopp was hired by the Company on October 9, 1956, the
Ecurrent union-security agreement required employees to join the
Union after a 6-week probationary period. However, Klopp had
previously joined the Union. Beginning in December 1956 his union
dues were checked off by the Company pursuant to written authoriza-
tion. In February or March 1957 he paid a $10 union assessment,,
and was issued a new membership card expressly subject only to then
continued payment of future dues.
In June 1957 the Union's financial secretary told Klopp for the
first time that he would have to pay back dues for October and No-
vember 1956. Klopp refused to do so. The Union thereupon de-
manded that the Company discharge Klopp, pursuant to the union-
security agreement, for failure to pay regular monthly dues; and on
July 29, 1957, the Company did so.
We are thus presented with a situation where the Union refused
to abide by its agreement extending a 6-week probationary or grace
period to employees before union membership would become a condi-
tion of employment. Instead, the Union demanded that because of
his union membership when hired by the Company, Klopp pay dues
without: any grace period whatsoever, and obtained his discharge for
refusing to do so. However, the agreement contained no such require-
ment. Moreover, even if the Union had a different union-security
agreement, requiring the immediate payment of dues without any
preliminary grace period for new employees who were union mem-
bers, such an agreement would clearly be beyond the limits permitted
by the proviso to Section 8(a) (3). We do not regard cases like
Waterway Terminals Corporation, 120 NLRB 1788, 1790, or Food
Machinery and Chemical Corporation, 99 NLRB 1430, or Hubley
Manufacturing Company, 121 NLRB 170, as applicable to the dif-
ferent situation in this..ease.
796 - DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ORDER
Upon the entire record in this case and pursuant to Section 10(c)
of the National Labor Relations Act, the National Labor Relations
Board hereby orders that the Respondent, Local Union No. 1842,
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, and
its officers, representatives, agents, successors, and assigns :
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Causing or attempting to cause the Company or any other
employer to discriminate against an employee within the meaning
of Section 8(b) (2) of the Act.
(b) In any like or related manner restraining or coercing em-
ployees of the Company, or any other employer, in the exercise of
the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, except to the extent
that such rights may be affected by an agreement requiring member-
ship in a labor organization as a condition of employment, as author-
ized in Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action, which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Notify Gene J. Klopp and the Company, in writing, that it
withdraws its objection to Klopp's employment and requests the
Company to offer him immediate and full reinstatement, without
prejudice to his seniority or other rights and privileges.
(b) Make whole Gene J. Klopp for any loss of pay suffered as a
result of the discrimination against him, in the manner set forth in the
"Remedy" section of the Intermediate Report.
(c) Post at its business offices and meeting places in Cincinnati,
Ohio, copies of the notice attached hereto marked "Appendix."'.
Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for the
Ninth, Region, shall be duly signed and posted immediately upon
receipt thereof and maintained for 60 consecutive days thereafter in
conspicuous places, including all places where notices to members are
customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken to insure that
such notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(d) Return. to the Regional Director for the Ninth Region, for
posting by the Company, if willing, copies of the notice signed as
aforesaid.
(e). Notify the Regional Director for the Ninth Region in writing,
within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps have been taken
to comply herewith. . .
MEMBER FANNING, concurring in part and dissenting in part :
I agree, for a reason other than that relied on by the majority or
by the Tri.al-Examiner•, that the^Respondent violated Section &(b) (2)-
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."
LOCAL 1842 , IWT'L BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL ETC. 797
and (1) (A) in causing the discharge of Klopp. Respondent asserts,
as an affirmative defense, that it was justified in causing Klopp's dis-
charge under the terms of a union-security contract because of Klopp's
delinquency in paying dues. The union-security clause provided that
all new employees were required to join the Union on the 30th day
following the effective date of the contract or after completing 6
weeks of employment, the probationary period, whichever was later.
However, the contract was executed on March 2, 1955, and retroac-
tively made effective from January 11, 1955. Consequently, it is clear
that, by the terms of the contract, new employees hired between Janu-
ary, 11 and February 17, 1955, were required to become union members
without being accorded the minimum 30-clay grace period prescribed
in Section (a) (3). The union-security clause was therefore unlawful
and cannot stand as a defense.'
I must dissent, however, from the dictum of the majority which
holds unlawful a union-security agreement because it does not provide
that a 30-day grace period be accorded new employees who are al-
ready members of the union. Just as the required statutory grace
period is held not to apply to old employees who are union members
on the effective date of the contract,' for the same reasons it is not
applicable to new employees who are existing members or who choose
to join the union within the grace period otherwise afforded.4 By
requiring a 30-day grace period in order to validate a union-security
clause under Section 8(a) (3), all that Congress intended was that
newly hired employees and nonmembers previously employed be
accorded such a grace period before they may be compelled to obtain
membership in the union.' It is inconceivable to me that there was
any congressional intention that employees who voluntarily decide to
belong to the union before the end of the grace period, and immedi-
ately receive all membership benefits, including fraternal, should be
absolved from paying their regular dues while they are already mem-
bers during the grace period. My colleagues have no legal justifica-
tion, in my opinion, to now summarily read such a prohibition into
the Act.
CHAIRMAN LEEDOM took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision and Order.
2 Associated Machines , Inc., 114 NLRB 390, 402-403; Tacoma Harbor Lumber & Timber
Co., 108 NLRB 912, 916. The entire union-security clause was tainted and rendered
basically defective by the unlawful provision. See Imperial Wire Company, Inc., 118
NLRB 775.
E.g., Charles A. Krause.Milling Co., 97 NLRB 536 ; Whyte Mfg. Co., 109 NLRB 1125
(Member Rodgers dissenting in these cases ). See also Waterway Terminals Corp., 120
NLRB 1788, 1790.
4 Chisholm-Ryder Company, Inc., 94 NLRB 508.
5 Charles A. Krause Milling Co., 97 NLRB 536, at 540-541.
798 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL MEMBERS OF LOCAL UNION No. 1842, INTERNATIONAL
BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS, AFL-CIO AND TO ALL
EMPLOYEES OF AVCO MANUFACTURING CORPORATION, CROSLEY
DIVISION
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 you that :
VVE WILL NOT cause or attempt to cause Avco Manufacturing
Corporation, Crosley Division, or any other employer, to dis-
criminate against any employee within the meaning of Section
8(b) (2) of the Act.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner restrain or coerce
employees of the Company or any other employer in the exercise
of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, except to the
extent that such rights may be affected by an agreement requiring
membership in a labor organization as a condition of employment,
as authorized in Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
WE have notified Gene J. Klopp and the Company, in writing,
that we Withdraw our objection to Klopp's employment and re-
quest the Company to offer him immediate and full reinstatement.
WE WILL make whole Gene J. Klopp for any loss of earnings
suffered by reason of the discrimination against him.
LOCAL UNION No. 1842, INTERNATIONAL
BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS,
AFL-CIO,
Labor Organization.
Dated---------------- By-------------------------------------
(Representative ) ( Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof,
and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
INTERMEDIATE REPORT
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon charges filed by Gene J. Klopp , an individual , the General Counsel of the
National Labor Relations Board, by the Regional Director for the Ninth Region,
issued an amended complaint, dated June 2, 1958, against Local Union No. 1842,
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, herein called the Re-
spondent , alleging that the Respondent had engaged in unfair labor practices within
the meaning of Section 8(b)(1)(A) and (2) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Act, as amended, herein called the Act. The Respondent
filed an answer on or about June 9, 1958, in which it denied the commission of any
unfair labor practices.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held at Cincinnati, Ohio, on August 19, 20, and
21, 1958, before the duly designated Trial Examiner. At the close of the General
Counsel's case, the Respondent moved to dismiss the amended complaint. Ruling
was reserved . The Respondent renewed its motion to dismiss at the close of the
LOCAL 1842, INT'L BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL ETC. 799
whole case. Ruling again was reserved. The motion to dismiss the complaint is dis-
posed of as hereinafter indicated. The parties argued orally on the record and filed
briefs with the Trial Examiner after the conclusion of the hearing.
Upon the entire record and from my observation of the witnesses, I make the
following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY
Avco Manufacturing Corporation, Crosley Division, herein called the Company,
is a Delaware corporation which operates plants and does business in various States
of the United States. In Ohio it owns and operates several plants, including a plant
at 2360 Glendale-Milford Road, Evendale, Ohio, the plant involved herein, where
it is engaged in the manufacture of electronic equipment, consisting of fire control
systems, radar tracking devices, and balloon tracking devices. It has contracts with
the United States Army, the United States Navy, and the United States Air Force.
During the period of 12 months preceding the hearing herein the Company, in the
course and conduct of its business, has received in excess of $1,000,000 for products
manufactured at its Evendale Plant, which products were sold, shipped, and delivered
by the Company directly to the appropriate United States Government defense in-
stallations located outside the State of Ohio.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Local Union No. 1842, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-
CIO, is a labor organization which admits to membership employees of the Company.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
At the times material herein the Company had a collective-bargaining agreement
with the Respondent. The union-security clause in the contract provides in part as
follows:
During the first six (6) weeks of employment, new employees shall be con-
sidered probationary employees and not subject to the terms of this agreement,
except as to wages and hours. . All probationary employees shall be re-
quired to become members of the Union as a condition of continued employ-
ment . . . on the completion of six (6) weeks on the payroll of the Company,
... and shall be so advised by the Company at the time of their employment.
Gene J. Klopp was hired at the Company's Evendale Plant on October 9, 1956.
Some few years prior to this date he had been employed at the Company's Plant 7.
While he was employed at Plant 7, he was a member of Local Union No. 1061, In-
ternational Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO. When his employment
was terminated at Plant 7, Klopp secured a withdrawal card from Local No. 1061.
Some few days after Klopp was hired at the Evendale Plant of the Company, he
had a conversation with Frank Ulm, president of the Respondent at the time. Em-
ployee Carl Schwing, a steward and member of the executive board of the Respond-
ent, was present during the conversation. Klopp told Ulm that he had worked at
Plant 7 and that he had a withdrawal card from Local 1061. Ulm told him, "Well,
when your six weeks probationary period is up, . you just bring in your card and
I'll take care of the matter." Within a week after the expiration of his probationary
period, Klopp gave his withdrawal card to Ulm, who stated, "I'll take care of it."
Thereafter he heard nothing further from Ulm on the subject. In accordance with
its contract with the Respondent, the Company deducted union dues from Klopp's
wages on and after December 7, 1956. No checkoff of dues was made for the
months of October and November 1956.
During about February 1957, the Respondent levied a special dues assessment of
$10 on all of its members. On or about March 1, 1957, Klopp paid to Schwing the
amount of the assessment. Within a few days he received a pink "Membership
Card" of the Respondent, which states that the bearer "Is A Member. This card is
valid when accompanied by dues deduction check stubs or official receipts showing
paid up dues."
By letter dated May 27, 1957, employee Betty Kee, financial secretary of the Re-
spondent, advised the Company that a number of employees were delinquent in ti e
payment of dues and initiation fees. Klopp was listed in the letter as not having paid
an initiation fee. The Company sent a letter dated May 31, 1957, to Klopp as
follows:
According to our contract with I.B.E.W., Local 1842, one of the conditions
of continued employment in your job with the Crosley Division of the Avco
800 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Manufacturing Corporation is that you must become a member of the Union
within six weeks of employment and maintain such membership in good
standing.
. We have, been notified by the Union that you have failed to comply with that
condition.
Consequently, unless we are notified by the Union that you have put yourself
in good membership standing by June 10, 1957 we will be obliged by the terms
of our contract to terminate your employment with the company on that date.
At about the time of. the above letter or shortly thereafter, Klopp had a conver-
sation with employee Bill Harper, a steward and member of the executive board
of the Respondent.' Harper told Klopp that he was delinquent for nonpayment of
the initiation fee. Klopp said that he did not owe it as he had come in as a member
of Respondent on a withdrawal card. Harper replied, "I'll check into it for you." 2
After getting a report from Harper, Kee sent a letter dated June 18, 1957, to the
International of the Respondent, which states in part as follows:
Gene J. Klopp, marked as fee due, worked at Plant #7 (Local #1862) before
coming here. He had a Withdrawal card from # 1862, which he turned over
to our former President, Frank Ulm. Mr. Ulm said he would take care of the
matter of getting him into our Local. He failed to do this. The matter has
just been brought to my attention.and since the office of Local #1862 is now
closed, I was wondering if you could check on it and help me get it straightened
out? He started work here 10-9-56.
The International replied to Kee to the effect that Klopp's withdrawal card
should be accepted (in lieu of payment of the initiation fee of $10), but that Klopp
should be charged for dues for October and November 1956.3
During about the latter part of June 1957, Kee went to Klopp's department and
talked to him during the lunch hour. Schwing was present during the conversation.
Shee told him, in substance, that after receiving Harper's report about the withdrawal
card, she had written to the International; that the International had ruled that his
withdrawal card should be accepted; and that he did not have to pay the initiation
fee but would have to pay dues for October and November. Klopp replied that he
did not owe the dues, and was not going to pay them. In explanation, he related
his conversation with Ulm when he first was employed.
Kee sent the following letter, dated July 17, 1957, to the Company:
Please be advised that the following member of Local 1842, Gene J. Klopp
(20634 ), is not in good standing with our Union . Mr. Klopp is not in good
standing because of failure to pay regular monthly union dues.
Therefore , as provided in Article I, Section 3, Part (c) of our current
agreement , you are hereby notified that we will expect discharge of the men-
tioned employee ten (10 ) days after receipt of this letter . At the end of this
ten (10 ) day period we will inform you if the above employee has regained
good standing in the Union.
On July 18, 1957 , the Company sent a letter to Klopp , identical to that dated
May 31 , 1957 , except that the termination date was set forth as July 29, 1957. It is
undisputed that Klopp took no action following the receipt of this letter until July 29.
Charles Coomer was president of the Union from June 7, 1957, until August 15,
1957. Shortly after the lunch hour on July 29, 1957 , Coomer went to DeShong's
office and presented him with the following letter , dated July 29:
On July 17, 1957 you were advised by letter from the Financial Secretary
Miss Betty J. Kee that Mr. Gene J. Klopp ( 20634 ) was not in good standing with
the Union . The Union received its copy of form E-431 to Mr. Klopp. Since
he has still not put his self in good standing with this Local Union 1842 the
Union Desires this Employee Discharge this date Under Article I, Section 3,
Part (c ) of the current agreement Between crosley Div. Avco Mfg . Corp. and
Local Union 1842, AFL* CIO.
i Klopp was unable to identify Harper. Kee testified that she sent Harper to see Klopp
about his initiation fee.
3 E. Lucian DeShong, Jr., manager of Industrial Relations of the Company, testified to
the effect that the Respondent withdrew its request for,.Klopp's discharge on June 10.
3 The Respondent's dues amounted to $2.50 per month. The above ruling was in accord-
ance with the Respondent's constitution.
LOCAL 1842, INT'L BROTHERHOOD OP' ELECTRICAL ETC. 801
DeShong notified Robert Hoffman, the Company's "Hourly Placement Super-
visor," of the Respondent's action, who in turn notified Carl Baxley, Klopp's super-
visor. Baxley told Klopp that he was writing up his termination papers.
At about 2 p.m. Klopp met Coomer in the plant and offered to pay his "union
dues." Coomer refused to accept payment.4 He told Klopp, in substance, that
he could not accept his dues as under a new policy the financial secretary was the
only one authorized to make collections, and that Kee was at the Respondent's
office at the time.5 Shortly after the above conversation, Klopp again met Coomer
and offered to pay his dues. Coomer refused to accept payment, telling him that
he would have to see the financial secretary. When Klopp said, "You mean to say
I am going to get fired?" Coomer replied, "Well, I turned the letter in to Lu DeShong
between 1:00 and 1:30 this afternoon."
At about 3:30 p.m. Klopp met Kee in front of Hoffman's office.6 He told her
that he wanted to pay "his dues." She refused to accept payment, stating that she
was not permitted to collect dues or write receipts until after 3:48 p.m.
Shortly before 3:48 p.m., Coomer had a conversation with Hoffman at the latter's
office. Klopp was present. Hoffman said, "Charley, here is a man [Klopp] who
wants to see you about giving you some money." Coomer replied, "It's too late."
He then left Hoffman's office.
Starting at 3:48 p.m. Kee collected union dues in the lobby of the plant. Klopp
told her that he wanted to pay his dues. She refused to accept payment, saying
that Coomer had told her she could not take his dues. Schwing was present at the
time.?
Employee Sue Drane testified credibly and without contradiction that she had a
conversation with Coomer about I week after Klopp's discharge; that she said, "they
tell me you fired [Klopp] about his dues . . . I heard . that he offered to pay
the dues, and that you wouldn't accept"; that Coomer replied, "that's right . . . he
got smart with my secretary, and I told him I didn't want his money, I wanted his
job"; 8 that on July 29, 1957, during working hours in the morning, she gave Kee
a check for her union dues; that during April 1958, she again gave Kee a check for
her union dues during working hours; that "it is a company policy not to pay your
union dues during company time"; and that she knew that dismissal could result
if an employee was caught collecting union dues on company time and property.8
* Coomer testified that at his first meeting with the officers and stewards of the Re-
spondent after he became president he ordered that "there would be no money collected
by any officer or representative of the union except by the financial secretary, not even
myself" ; and that there was an agreement with the Company to the effect that the
Respondent could collect dues from employees in the lobby of the plant after quitting time,
or 3 :48 p.m., and that otherwise money was not to be collected from employees in the
plant. Kee testified that officials of the International had ordered that only the financial
secretary could collect money due the Respondent. She testified without contradiction
that Walter Dewar, her foreman, at sometime after February 1957, had threatened her
with discharge if he caught her "taking dues money in the plant."
6 Klopp testified that he told Coomer that he would get permission to leave his job
early so that he could go to the union office in order to pay his dues; and that Coomer
told him, "you don't have to do that. She will be here at 3 :00 o'clock in front of Mr.
Hoffman's office." I do not credit Klopp's testimony in this respect as it is in serious
conflict with statements in his affidavit. Coomer, when questioned if he told Klopp that
Kee would be in the plant at 3 p.m., testified, "Not to my recollection, I did not."
d Klopp testified that he met Kee at 3 or 3 :05 p.m. In his affidavit he states he went
to meet Kee "at about 3 :30 p.m." Kee testified that she talked to Klopp " sometime
between 3 :30 and 3:48."
7 Schwing and Klopp testified credibly to the above. Kee testified that she did not
"recall" making such a statement. She testified that she told Klopp, in substance, "that
it was my understanding that he had been fired at 3 :48 ; therefore, I couldn't take his
dues."
8 Kee testified that on one occasion Klopp "talked real smart . . . he spoke kind of
bad language."
9 Schwing testified that as a steward of the Respondent he collected union dues and
assessments on company time and property. He admitted, however, that after the assess-
ment of $10 had been collected, the Company ordered that union dues were not to be
collected on company time and property, and that Kee alone was authorized to collect
dues in the lobby of the plant after working hours.
525543-60-vol. 124-52
802 - DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
I find that by causing the Company to discharge Klopp on July 29, 1957, the
Respondent violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) and (2) of the Act. In my opinion the
evidence shows that Coomer sought Klopp's discharge for reasons other than his
failure to tender periodic dues. This is apparent from his conversation with Drane
shortly after Klopp's discharge.
Further, Hoffman, an official of the Company, in effect invited Coomer to call
off the discharge by telling him that Klopp wanted to pay his dues. It is to be
noted that this occurred before 3:48 p.m., the time when the discharge was to
become effective. Coomer could have accepted the dues at that time without fear
of violating the Company's rule, inasmuch as Hoffman apparently gave permission
for the collection, or could have arranged for payment to Kee. Although he already
knew from two conversations with Klopp earlier in the day that he wanted to
and was ready to pay his dues, Coomer merely replied to Hoffman that it was "too
late." The evidence clearly shows that it was not "too late" to call off the discharge.
I can only conclude from this evidence that Coomer was motivated illegally.
It was brought out in the testimony that Klopp believed that the Respondent was
demanding payment of dues for October only; and that when he made his offers of
payment to Coomer and Kee he was prepared to pay dues for 1 month. The Re-
spondent contends that this was not a valid tender. This contention is rejected.
The evidence shows that on each occasion Klopp stated that he wanted to paw "1 us
dues," without specifying a particular amount or month.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent, set forth in section III, above, which occurred
in connection with the operations of the Company set forth in section I, 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 com-
merce and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Since it has been found that the Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices,
it will be recommended that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative
action, including the posting and distribution of appropriate notices, designed to
effectuate the policies of the Act. Accordingly, it will be recommended that the
Respondent notify Klopp and the Company, in writing, that it has withdrawn its
objections to Klopp's employment by the Company. It will also be recommended
that the Respondent make Klopp whole for any loss of pay he may have suffered
by reason of the Respondent's unlawful conduct, by payment to him of a sum of
money equal to that which he normally would have earned as wages from the date
of his discharge to 5 days after the Respondent serves written notice upon the
Company of its withdrawal of objections to Klopp's employment, less his net earn-
ings, if any, during such period. The back pay shall be computed in the manner
established by the Board in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record in the
case, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Company is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.
2. The Respondent is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5)
of the Act.
3. By causing the Company to discharge Gene J. Klopp, the Respondent has
engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section
8(b) (2) of the Act.
4. By restraining and coercing employees of the Company in the exercise of the
rights under Section 7 of the Act, the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging
in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(b) (1) (A) of the Act.
5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
[Recommendations omitted from publication.]