Local 212 UAW

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 6, 1981

257 N.L.R.B. 637 (N.L.R.B. 1981)

LOCAL 212 UAW
Local 212, International Union, United Automobile,
Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers
of America (UAW) (Chrysler Corporation,
Vernor Tool & Die Plant) and Melvin F.
Nance. Case 7-CB-4577
August 6, 1981
DECISION AND ORDER
On December 2, 1980, Administrative Law
Judge Thomas D. Johnston issued the attached De-
cision in this proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent
filed exceptions and a supporting brief.
The Board has considered the record and the at-
tached Decision in light of the exceptions and brief
and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings,' and
conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge and
to adopt his recommended Order.
Respondent excepts to the Administrative Law
Judge's finding that it violated Section 8(b)(1)(A)
of the Act by removing Melvin Nance from his po-
sition as chairman of its fair employment practices
committee because Nance filed with the Board a
charge against Respondent. Respondent's conten-
tion is that, inasmuch as Nance's removal did not
affect his employment status or cause him to suffer
any loss of seniority, money, or union membership,
the removal was an internal union affair not subject
to the prohibitions of Section 8(b)(1)(A).
However, the removal was motivated by
Nance's having filed a Board charge. The Adminis-
trative Law Judge so found and Respondent con-
cedes as much.2 To that extent the discipline impli-
cates a policy imbedded in Federal labor law,3 "the
policy of keeping people 'completely free from co-
ercion' . . . against making complaints to the
Board." N.L.R.B. v. Industrial Union of Marine &
Shipbuilding Workers of America and its Local 22
[United States Lines Co.], 391 U.S. 418, 424 (1968).
"Any coercion used to discourage, retard, or defeat
that access is beyond the legitimate interests of a
labor organization." Id.
Therefore, simply because the discipline imposed
here, as Respondent alleges, results in no loss of se-
niority, money, or membership does not dictate the
' Respondent has excepted to certain credibility findings made by the
Administrative Lasw Judge. It is the Board's established policy not to
overrule an administrative law judge's resolutions with respect to credi-
bility unless the clear preponderance of all of the relevant evidence con-
vinces us that the resolutions are incorrect. Standard Dry Wall Products,
Inc., 91 NLRB 544 (1950), enfd. 188 F.2d 362 (3d Cir. 1951). We have
carefully examined the record and find no basis for reversing his findings.
2 "IT]he removal was based upon Nance's filing of a false charge'
against an Officer of the Union." (Respondent's brief to the Board at p.
5.) 'hat the party imposing the discipline believes the charge is false of
course could not serve to overcome the policy of unfettered employee
access to the Board and, as the Administrative Law Judge noted, we
have long held as much. See cases cited in Waterman Industries. Inc., 91
NLRB 1041, fn. 8 (1950).
a See Scofield v. .N.L.R.B.. 394 U.S. 423. 430 (1969).
257 NLRB No. 90
conclusion that the discipline was a plainly internal
union affair left unregulated by Section 8(b)(1)(A)
by virtue of the proviso to it. While losses of se-
niority, money, or membership may be relevant to
the inquiry into whether or not the discipline
indeed was "coercive," the absence of such partic-
ular effects does not negate a finding that the disci-
pline here was coercive. Patently, Nance was co-
erced. That Respondent openly would remove him
from office because he filed a charge with the
Board is likely to have an adverse impact upon his
willingness to seek access to the Board in the
future. The removal is further likely to indicate to
other unit employees that the exercise of their right
to file charges against Respondent might result in
union sanctions. 4 Given the importance of the
policy favoring unfettered employee access to the
Board, it is too speculative to contend that other
unit members might distinguish the discipline
meted out to Nance on the basis that he is a union
officer and they are not. In any event, that would
appear to be two-edged. For another unit member
might just as reasonably view the fact that Re-
spondent meted out discipline to an officer for
filing charges with the Board as indicating the fact
that Respondent would be even less hesitant to
impose discipline on rank-and-file members for
filing such charges.
Although we recognize the important interests
served by a union being able to fill its offices and
internal committee memberships with individuals it
believes best will serve the union and its member-
ship, prohibiting a union from removing an officer
because he or she has filed a charge with the
Board hardly undermines that interest to any sub-
stantial degree.
Therefore, for the reasons set forth above, we
agree with the Administrative Law Judge that Re-
spondent's removal of Nance from its fair employ-
ment practices committee for filing a charge with
the Board was violative of Section 8(b)(1)(A) of
the Act.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Re-
lations Board adopts as its Order the recommended
Order of the Administrative Law Judge and
hereby orders that the Respondent, Local 212, In-
ternational Union, United Automobile, Aerospace
and Agricultural Implement Workers of America
(UAW), Highland Park, Michigan, its officers,
' See General Teamsters Local Union No. 528. affiliated isith Intlernation-
al Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and I/lpers of
America (Theatres Service Companyl. 237 NLRB 258 (1978)
637
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
agents, and representatives, shall take the action set
forth in the said recommended Order.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
THOMAS D. JOHNSTON, Administrative Law Judge:
This case was heard in Detroit, Michigan, on April 30,
1980, pursuant to an amended charge' filed on October
11, 1979,2 by Melvin F. Nance, an individual, and a com-
plaint issued on November 16.
The complaint alleges that Local 212, International
Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural
Implement Workers of America (UAW) (herein called
the Respondent), violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Act, as amended (herein called
the Act), by removing its member, Melvin Nance, from
his position as member and chairman3 of its fair employ-
ment practices committee at the Chrysler Corporation,
Vernor Tool & Die Plant (herein called the Company),
because Nance filed unfair labor practice charges with
the Board in the instant case.
The Respondent, in its answer, dated November 23,
denies having violated the Act as alleged and asserts its
action in removing Nance from his position as chairman
is not covered by Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act, and that
the Respondent's action in removing Nance was in the
interest of providing leadership of the fair employment
practices committee where it can function in cooperation
with the officers of the Respondent and not to take ac-
tions hostile to the Respondent.
The issue involved is whether the Respondent violated
Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act by discriminatorily remov-
ing Nance as chairman of the fair employment practices
committee because he filed an unfair labor practice
charge with the Board.
Upon the entire record in this case and from my obser-
vations of the witnesses, and after due consideration of
the briefs filed by the General Counsel and the Respond-
ent, I hereby make the following: 4
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER
Chrysler Corporation, a Delaware corporation with its
principal office and place of business located at Highland
Park, Michigan, operates plants in Michigan including its
Vernor Tool & Die Plant located at Detroit, Michigan,
which is the only facility involved in this proceeding,
and is engaged in the business of the manufacture, sale,
and distribution of automobiles, and related products.
During 1978, a representative period, Chrysler Corpora-
tion, in the course of its operations, received gross rev-
enues in excess of $500,000 and it purchased and re-
ceived goods and materials valued in excess of $50,000,
The original charge was filed on September 25, 1979.
2 All dates referred to are in 1979 unless otherwise stated.
3 The General Counsel defines member and chairman as being the same
position.
' Unless otherwise indicated, the findings are based on the pleadings,
admissions, stipulations, and undisputed evidence contained in the record,
which I credit.
which were delivered to its Vernor Tool & Die Plant lo-
cated at Detroit, Michigan, directly from points located
outside the State of Michigan.
Chrysler Corporation, including its Vernor Tool &
Die Plant, is an employer engaged in commerce within
the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Local 212, International Union, United Automobile,
Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of
America (UAW), is a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Background
The Company, which is engaged in the manufacture,
sale, and distribution of automobiles and related prod-
ucts, operates a plant located at Detroit, Michigan. Its
employees are represented by the Respondent which has
a collective-bargaining agreement with the Company
covering them. This agreement contains grievance and
arbitration procedures. Further, section (4) of the agree-
ment, which prohibits discrimination because of race,
color, religion, age, sex, national origin or handicap, pro-
vides, in pertinent part, as follows:
Any employee who claims that, in violation of said
principle, he has been denied rights guaranteed by
this Agreement may complain as provided in the
grievance procedure. Any such claim, when pre-
sented in writing, pursuant to Step l(d) of the griev-
ance procedure, must contain a full statement of the
facts giving rise to the claim and the reasons why
the employee believes he has been discriminated
against. If appealed to Step 2, the Plant Shop Com-
mittee of the Local Union, before deciding whether
to take the grievance up with the Labor Relations
Supervisor or his designated representative, may
refer the claim to the Chairman of the Fair Em-
ployment Practices Committee of the Local Union
for a factual investigation and report.
This section further provides that the grievance and
arbitration procedures shall be the exclusive contractual
procedure for remedying such claims.
Included among the Respondent's officials are Presi-
dent Joe Zappa, Vice President Samuel Weary, and Re-
cording Secretary Ted Brooks.' Donald Britton is the
administrative assistant to President Zappa.
B. The Removal of Melvin Nance
Melvin Nance, the discriminatee, is employed by the
Company. From May 1978 up until his removal from the
position about October 4, he held the position with the
Respondent of chairman of the fair employment prac-
tices committee.6 The appointment of Nance to the posi-
These three individuals are agents of the Union under the Act.
6This position does not entitle the holder to any special seniority or
monetary payment except reimbursement by the Respondent for work-
time lost from the Company. Further, the person holding the position is
not an employee of the Respondent.
638
LOCAL 212 UAW
tion of chairman which is an appointive position, had
been approved by President Zappa.
Following the filing of a grievance concerning the dis-
charge of an employee named William Adams, this
grievance was turned over to Nance as chairman of the
fair employment practices committee for purposes of
making a factual investigation and report as provided for
in the collective-bargaining agreement.
According to Nance, Adams was an alcoholic and his
investigation was to determine whether the Company
had discharged Adams for that reason,7 which he had
been informed by the Michigan Civil Rights Commission
was a handicap protected by the Michigan Handicappers'
Civil Rights Act.8 As part of his investigation Nance at-
tempted to see the records of other company employees
to ascertain whether they had violated the same compa-
ny rules as Adams had without their having the same
disciplinary action being taken against them. He had fur-
nished a list of names of those individuals whose records
he wanted to see to the head of labor relations at the
Company, and he also had discussions with various offi-
cials of the Respondent about getting the Company to
produce these records for his inspection.
Nance testified upon requesting President Zappa9 to
contact the Company's personnel management to show
him the records of the individuals he had listed, Zappa
informed him he would check with the International to
see what their position was and would have them call
and talk to the head of Labor Relations at the Company
and then have Vice President Weary contact him.
President Zappa acknowledged having such a conver-
sation with Nance except he stated Nance wanted to
check all of the records in the department where the dis-
charged employee Adams had worked.
During the next week and a half, Nance stated without
denial that he contacted Vice President Weary on two
occasions about whether he had received any informa-
tion from President Zappa about the records. Weary in-
formed him he had not, but promised to contact Zappa,
who was involved in negotiations, '° and get the informa-
tion.
President Zappa stated that, after Vice President
Weary informed him that Nance had been calling him
about information Zappa was supposed to obtain for
Nance, he contacted Homer Jolly,"1 who is the assistant
director of the Chrysler department of the International,
concerning Nance's request for the records. Jolly in-
formed him Nance would have the right to look at the
records but not to go on some witch hunt, and, if he was
specific as to how the discharged employee was being
treated as opposed to another person and as to what re-
cords he wanted to look at, he had a right to do that.
Zappa then related the information to Vice President
Weary with instructions for him to inform Nance of this
information.
I The reason given for Adams' discharge was absenteeism.
'MCL Ann. §3.550 (101) (1977).
9 The date of this conversation was not established.
'o President Zappa was chairman of the Chrysler negotiating commit-
tee.
" Jolly did not testify.
Nance testified when he contacted Vice President
Weary again, Weary informed him President Zappa had
talked to the International whose position was that it was
the Company's duty to show him the records. However,
Weary also informed him he did not know who was han-
dling the Company's plant at the time, but would let him
know as soon as they had someone.
While Vice President Weary stated that President
Zappa had instructed him to inform Nance if he had a
specific name then the Company should be obligated to
go ahead and let him see the records, he did not testify
regarding this conversation with Nance, whom I credit.
Later, Nance stated he again contacted Vice President
Weary who informed him Administrative Assistant Brit-
ton was handling the Company's plant. Nance then con-
tacted Britton but upon asking Britton if he would tell
the head of labor relations at the plant what the Union's
position was Britton's response was, that he was not
going to have Nance telling him how to do his job.
Nance denied that was what he was doing, and when he
told Britton he was asking him to help him in the per-
formance of his job, Britton repeated his previous state-
ment.
Administrative Assistant Britton, who was also ap-
pointed to his position by President Zappa and whose
duties are to assist Zappa in handling grievances and
problems, acknowledged Nance had called him but did
not testify concerning what was said or deny Nance's
version which I credit.
Following his conversation with Britton, Nance con-
tacted Vice President Weary and arranged a meeting
with him that morning, at which time a meeting was
then held between Nance, Vice President Weary, and
Administrative Assistant Britton.
Nance testified at this meeting after he explained to
Vice President Weary what had happened, Weary called
Britton into the office and told him Nance had a call he
would like for Britton to make. Britton's reponse was he
was not going to have Nance telling him how to do his
job, which Nance denied and said he was simply asking
Britton to call the head of labor relations at the plant and
inform them of the Respondent's position on showing its
records. He also mentioned they had a man out there
without a job who was trying to get back to work. Brit-
ton then inquired how the man was being discriminated
against, whereupon Nance told Britton the man was an
alcoholic which made him a handicapper. When Britton
mentioned whoever heard of alcoholism being a handi-
cap, Nance explained he had contacted the Civil Rights
Commission and they had informed him alcoholism was
a handicap under the handicapper's bill. Britton, using
profanity, indicated they did not know what they were
talking about, whereupon he showed Britton a copy of
the Michigan Handicappers' Civil Rights Act, which he
stated Britton picked up, looked at, and then threw
down.
Nance also stated that during the conversation Britton
asked him if he wanted to see all the records, whereupon
he showed Britton a list of names, i2 which Britton did
" This list of names was not received in evidence
639
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
not take. After Britton, who received a telephone call,
left the room, Nance stated that he told Weary that
Weary was Britton's boss, and Weary replied he did not
like to get involved in that sort of thing. He then told
Weary the only reason he was down there was because
President Zappa wanted him to do this through the
Union rather than an outside agency, which he was
doing but told Weary not to say he did not give him a
chance to do something about it.
Administrative Assistant Britton acknowledged during
the conversation that Weary told him Nance wanted him
to make a telephone call to management; and that Nance
had informed him that he considered Adams to be handi-
capped because he was an alcoholic and the Civil Rights
Commission has said an alcoholic is a handicapped
person; whereupon he had used profanity indicating to
Nance the Civil Rights Commission did not know what
they were talking about.
However, Britton denied Nance showed him a list of
names, but stated that Nance requested him to call man-
agement and have them open up the records on the em-
ployees so he could find records of employees similar to
Adams and see why management did not discharge or
take action against them, whereupon his response was
that he did not think it was a good idea to compare one
record against another because they would simply tele-
type to management to take action against those other
people they would use in comparison. Britton also stated
he asked Nance whether he had the names of some of
the people he wanted to investigate and how many
people he was asking them to do this on, but denied
Nance had any names or knew how many he may have
to have although he said Nance further informed him
pursuant to his inquiry that he wanted everbody's.'3
Vice President Weary, who did not give his version of
the conversation, stated that Nance wanted Britton to
call the personnel director and tell the Company to give
him permission to examine anyone's records he wanted
to see and denied that Nance produced any list of names
of individuals whose records he wanted Britton to call
the Company about.
I credit Nance's version of this conversation. Apart
from my observations of the witnesses, Nance's testimo-
ny was acknowledged in part by Britton, and Weary did
not testify specifically concerning what was said.
Both Weary and Britton, at the hearing, denied that at
the time of this meeting they had any knowledge about
Adams' grievance, and Weary further stated that they
could not call the Company or request something of that
nature without having more knowledge of what they
were talking about.
On September 25, Nance, as chairman of the fair em-
ployment practices committee, filed the original charge
against the Respondent in the instant case which pro-
vides as follows:
Since on or about Sept. 10, 1979, the above labor
organization, by its agent Don Britton, failed to
fairly represent William Adams in the processing of
"a Nance denied ever asking to see the records of everyone in the plant
or that Britton had asked him to give him the names of the ones he
wanted him to check.
his grievance because of arbitrary and discriminato-
ry reasons.
According to Nance, he filed the charge at Adams' re-
quest and it was his job to find the facts and evidence
involved in the discrimination regarding Adams' griev-
ance; and until he completed his investigation, the griev-
ance could not go any further.
Harold Hamric, who was a committeeman for the Re-
spondent, credibly testified, without denial, that he at-
tended a meeting held about October 4 by President
Zappa at which the Respondent's officials, Vice Presi-
dent Weary, Secretary-Treasurer Dominic Ricci, and Re-
cording Secretary Brooks were present. Also present
were committeeman Harold David, Chief Stewart
Harvey Karpinski, and Patrick Waszkiewicz, who is
plant chairman of the committee. Zappa informed them
Nance was being taken off the fair employment practices
committee. Although David and Karpinski protested
Zappa was wrong and demanded Nance be left on as
chairman of that committee saying it was not right to
take him off because they needed him and he was a good
man, Zappa informed them he was taking him off and
that was it and he had also told the International. Re-
cording Secretary Brooks, who was sitting next to
Hamric, showed him the unfair labor practice charge
which Nance had filed and told him to look what Nance
did to them and said, "He can't do that." This was the
only reason Hamric could recall being given for Nance's
removal from the committee.
Hamric stated that at the time the unfair labor practice
charge was filed Adams' grievance was still at the
second step of the grievance procedure and was being
investigated by Nance. It had not yet reached the level
of the local union. t4
Nance testified the same day this meeting was held
about October 4 he learned from committee members
who had attended the meeting he was no longer on the
committee. He then contacted Vice President Weary,
who confirmed it and, pursuant to his inquiry about the
reason he was removed, Weary told him it was because
he had filed the charge with the National Labor Rela-
tions Board. Weary did not deny having such a conver-
sation with Nance, and I credit Nance's undisputed testi-
mony.
Since that date Nance has not been on the fair employ-
ment practices committee.
President Zappa testified that after receiving the unfair
labor practice charge filed by Nance he discussed what
had happened with both Vice President Weary and Ad-
ministrative Assistant Britton and felt disappointed in
Nance who he said had always discussed the grievances
he was investigating with him before but had not dis-
cussed this case with him. He stated that, since he had
determined neither Britton nor the Respondent could be
guilty of the charge, he made the decision that Nance
could no longer be compatible, they could not trust him
representing the factfinding group they had in the plant,
' Under the terms of the collective-bargaining agreement, the officers
of the Respondent did not become involved in the grievance procedure
until step 3.
640
LOCAL 212 UAW
or to be honest any longer, and he had no need to have
someone like that representing the Respondent and could
no longer serve the purpose he was intending to serve.
Article 33 of the Respondent's constitution provides an
appeal procedure members are to use to challenge ac-
tions, decisions, or penalties imposed by the Respondent.
Nance admitted he did not utilize this procedure. His
reasons were because of the resistance he had met in
dealing with the Respondent which had refused the op-
portunity he had given them, Adams was out of work
and his investigation was just beginning, and because it
was his right under the Act to file the charge.
C. Analysis and Conclusions
The General Counsel contends that the Respondent
violated Section 8(b)(l)(A) of the Act by discriminatorily
removing Nance from his position as chairman of the fair
employment practices committee because he filed the
original charge with the Board in this case. The Re-
spondent denies having violated the Act. Its position, as
expressed in its brief, is that Nance's removal was "solely
an intraunion matter and that the removal was based
upon Nance's filing of a false charge against an officer of
the Union" and also that the charge was derogatory
against the Union and one of its officials.
Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act prohibits a union from
restraining or coercing employees in the exercise of their
rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act.
A union may not coerce employees in their right to
file charges with the Board. N.L.R.B. v. Industrial Union
of Marine & Shipbuilding Workers of America and its
Local 22 [United States Lines Company], 391 U.S. 418
(1968). While a union has a legitimate interest in filling
its offices with people who it considers can best serve
the union and its membership, see Shenango Incorporated,
237 NLRB 1355 (1978), such legitimate interest does not
extend to the removal of an employee from union office
because he filed a charge with the Board and to do so
violates Section 8(b)(l)(A) of the Act. See General
American Transportation Corporation, 227 NLRB 1695
(1977), enforcement denied 581 F.2d 473 (5th Cir. 1978).
Further, the fact the party taking the action against the
employee believes the charge filed is false or the ultimate
proof does not sustain the validity of the charge is no de-
fense. Waterman Industries, Inc., 91 NLRB 1041, 1043,
fn. 8 (1950). Moreover, a union member is not required
to first exhaust his internal union remedies before resort-
ing to the Board's processes. N.L.R.B. v. Industrial
Union of Marine & Shipbuilding Workers of America,
supra.
The findings supra, establish Nance while serving as
chairman of the fair employment practices committee
was removed from the committee about October 4 by
the Respondent after he had filed the original unfair
labor practice charge against the Respondent with the
Board in the instant case on September 25 on behalf of a
discharged employee of the Company whose grievance
he was assisting in investigating pursuant to his duties as
chairman to determine whether the employee had been
discriminatorily discharged. Not only did the Respond-
ent's vice president, Weary, inform Nance the reason he
was removed from his position was because he filed the
charge with the Board which was also the same reason
Recording Secretary Brooks indicated to committeeman
Harold Hamric, but President Zappa himself acknowl-
edged he removed Nance as a result of his having filed
the charge albeit he claimed it was false. No evidence
was proffered to show or any contention made, apart
from the filing of the charge, that Nance had not been
properly performing his duties as chairman. Rather,
President Zappa's own testimony indicates he had no
complaints about Nance's performance other than his
filing of the charge which Zappa, as noted, claimed was
false.
Insofar as the original charge itself is concerned which
alleges the Respondent by its agent Britton failed to
fairly represent Adams in the processing of his grievance
because of arbitrary and discriminatory reasons, the evi-
dence, supra, establishes Administrative Assistant Britton,
although designated by the Respondent to handle the
matter, had refused Nance's request to contact the Com-
pany about obtaining the records which Nance felt were
necessary to examine for purposes of determining wheth-
er the discharged employee Adams may have been treat-
ed differently than other employees who may have been
similarly situated. If so, this could have been a factor to
consider in determining whether Adams was discrimina-
torily discharged and without such records Nance could
not complete the investigation for which he was, as
chairman, responsible for conducting. Although Nance's
testimony regarding his limited request for records was
credited rather than that of Vice President Weary and
Administrative Assistant Britton, even the Respondent's
own evidence fails to establish Weary and Britton spe-
cifically informed Nance, as was approved by the Inter-
national, that a request for specific records would be
proper, yet they claimed his request was too broad.
Rather, the evidence based on Britton's statements to
Nance indicate Britton's reasons for not honoring the re-
quest was because he objected to what he felt was Nance
telling him how to do his job. Thus, under these circum-
stances, which indicate Britton while assigned to handle
Nance's request for records acted arbitrarily and pre-
vented Nance from proceeding with his investigation
dealing with Adams' grievance, the original charge was
not shown to be false as the Respondent contends.
Based on the foregoing evidence and for the reasons
indicated and applying the applicable principles of law
herein set forth and rejecting Respondent's defenses,
which I find have no merit, I find about October 4
Nance was removed by the Respondent from his position
as chairman of the fair employment practices committee
because he filed the original unfair labor practice charge
against the Respondent with the Board in this case, and
the Respondent thereby violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) of
the Act.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent set forth in section
III, above, found to constitute unfair labor practices oc-
curring in connection with the operations of the Compa-
ny described in section , above, have a close, intimate,
641
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
and substantial relationship to trade, traffic, and com-
merce among the several States and tend to lead to labor
disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the
free flow thereof.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Chrysler Corporation, including its Vernor Tool &
Die Plant is an employer engaged in commerce within
the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. Local 212, International Union, United Automobile,
Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of
America (UAW), is a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. By removing Melvin Nance from his position as
chairman of the fair employment practices committee
about October 4, 1979, because he filed the original
unfair labor practice charge with the Board in the instant
case, the Respondent has engaged in unfair labor prac-
tices in violation of Section 8(b)(l)(A) of the Act.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in cer-
tain unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section
8(b)(1)(A) of the Act, I shall recommend that it cease
and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action
to effectuate the policies of the Act.
Accordingly, having found that the Respondent un-
lawfully removed Nance from his position as chairman
of the fair employment practices committee it shall be
ordered to immediately reinstate Nance to his former po-
sition as chairman of the fair employment practices com-
mittee with all rights and privileges previously enjoyed
by him in such position and if that position no longer
exists then to a substantially equivalent position.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of
law, and the entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c)
of the Act, I hereby issue the following recommended:
ORDER 5s
The Respondent, Local 212, International Union,
United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Imple-
ment Workers of America (UAW), its officers, agents,
and representatives, shall:
I. Cease and desist from:
(a) Removing any chairman or member of the fair em-
ployment practices committee from their position for
filing unfair labor practice charges with the Board.
(b) In any like or related manner restraining or coerc-
ing employees in the exercise of their rights guaranteed
in Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action deemed neces-
sary to effectuate the policies of the Act:
"s In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of
the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the
findings, conclusions, and recommended Order herein shall, as provided
in Sec. 102.48 of the Rules and Regulations, be adopted by the Board and
become its findings, conclusions, and Order, and all objections thereto
shall be deemed waived for all purposes.
(a) Offer Melvin Nance immediate reinstatement to his
former position as chairman of the fair employment prac-
tices committee with all rights and privileges previously
enjoyed in such position and if that position no longer
exists then to a substantially equivalent position.
(b) Post at its business office and other places where it
customarily post notices to its members copies of the at-
tached notice marked "Appendix." 6 Copies of said
notice, on forms furnished by the Regional Director for
Region 7, shall, after being duly signed by an authorized
representative of the Respondent, be posted by it imme-
diately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for
60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, in-
cluding all places where notices to members are custom-
arily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Re-
spondent to insure that said notices are not altered, de-
faced, or covered by any other material.
(c) Furnish the Regional Director for Region 7, signed
copies of such notice in sufficient number to be posted
by Chrysler Corporation at its Vernor Tool & Die Plant,
the Company being willing.
(d) Notify the Regional Director for Region 7, in writ-
ing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what
steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint be, and
hereby is, dismissed insofar as it alleges unfair labor prac-
tices not specifically found herein.
16 In the event that this Order is enforced by a Judgment of the United
States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by
Order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursu-
ant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an
Order of the National Labor Relations Board."
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO MEMBERS
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT remove any chairman or member
of the Fair Employment Practices Committee from
their position because they filed unfair labor prac-
tice charges with the National Labor Relations
Board.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner re-
strain or coerce employees in the exercise of their
rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the National
Labor Relations Act, as amended.
WE WILL immediately reinstate Melvin Nance to
his former position as chairman of the Fair Employ-
ment Practices Committee with all rights and privi-
leges previously enjoyed in such position, and if
that position no longer exists then to a substantially
equivalent position.
LOCAL 212, INTERNATIONAL UNION,
UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AEROSPACE AND
AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF
AMERICA (UAW)
642