Local 25, Teamsters

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 3, 1975

220 N.L.R.B. 76 (N.L.R.B. 1975)

76 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Local No. 25 , International Brotherhood of Team-
sters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of
America (Tech Weld Corporation) and Timothy D.
Cook, Sr. Case 1-CB-2749
September 3, 1975
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MURPHY AND MEMBERS FANNING
AND JENKINS
Upon a charge duly filed by Timothy D. Cook, Sr.,
on October 18, 1974, as amended on November 15,
1974, the General Counsel of the National Labor Re-
lations Board, by the Regional Director for Region 1,
issued a complaint on December 11, 1974, as amend-
ed on January 31, 1975, against Local No. 25, Inter-
national Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen and Helpers of America, hereinafter
referred to as Respondent. Such complaint alleges
that Respondent has engaged in, and is engaging in,
unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section
8(b)(1)(A) of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended, by restraining and coercing the aforemen-
tioned employee in the exercise of his rights guaran-
teed in Section 7 of the Act. The General Counsel
argues that the Respondent has attempted and is at-
tempting to collect from said employee union dues as
a condition of employment, pursuant to a valid
union-security clause, but retroactively for a period
when no contractual obligation existed. Respondent
filed an answer on December 18, 1974, denying the
commission of any unfair labor practices.
On April 9, 1975, the parties executed a stipulation
in which they agreed to certain facts, waived a hear-
ing before an Administrative Law Judge and the is-
suance of an Administrative Law Judge's Decision,
and submitted the case to the National Labor Rela-
tions Board for findings of fact, conclusions of law,
and an order based upon a record consisting of the
charges, the complaint and notice of hearing, the an-
swer, and the stipulation of facts.
On April 18, 1975, the Board approved the stipula-
tion of the parties and ordered the proceeding trans-
ferred to the Board, granting permission and time for
the filing of briefs. Thereafter, the General Counsel
and Respondent filed briefs.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au-
thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
Upon the basis of the stipulations, the briefs, and
the entire record in this proceeding, the Board makes
the following findings:
1. BUSINESS OF EMPLOYER
The employer is a Massachusetts corporation with
its principal office and place of business at 70
Blanchard Road, Burlington, Massachusetts, en-
gaged in the manufacture, sale, and distribution of
metal products. The employer purchases large quan-
tities of metal , used by it in the manufacture of metal
products, in States of the United States other than
the State of Massachusetts and causes them to be
transported from and through various States of the
United States to the State of Massachusetts. Employ-
er sells and transports in interstate commerce, sub-
stantial quantities of metal products from its plant to
States other than Massachusetts. Employer annually
purchases metal valued in excess of $50,000 from
points outside the State of Massachusetts.
The parties stipulated, and we find, that the em-
ployer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act, and we find that it
will effectuate the purposes of the Act to assert juris-
diction herein.'
II. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Facts
On April 27, 1973, the Board certified Respondent
Local No. 25 as the exclusive bargaining representa-
tive for the following unit of employees at the Tech
Weld Corporation facility in Burlington, Massachu-
setts:
All production and maintenance employees of
the Employer at its Blanchard Road, Burlington,
Massachusetts plant, including working leaders,
but excluding draftsmen, technical engineers, ar-
chitects, investigators, foremen, assistant fore-
men, office and clerical employees, professional
employees, guards and supervisors as defined in
the Act.
After a series of negotiating meetings, Local No.
25 and the employer entered into a collective-bar-
gaining agreement on August 29, 1973, that contains
a valid union-security clause in article 2, section 1?
The contract provided for wage increases for mem-
bers of the unit, ranging from a minimum of 35 cents
1 Siemons Mailing Service, 122 NLRB 81 (1958).
2 This provision reads- "All present employees who are members of the
Union on the effective date of this contract or the date of execution of this
contraot , whichever is the later, shall remain members of the Union as a
condition of employment All present employees who are not members of
the Union and all employees hired hereafter shall become and remain mem-
bers of the Union as a condition of employment on and after the thirtieth
(30) day following the beginning of such employment or the effective date
of this Contract or the date of execution of this Contract, whichever is the
latest "
220 NLRB No. 16
LOCAL 25, TEAMSTERS 77
per hour to a maximum of 50 cents per hour. Twenty
cents of such wage increase was retroactive to Febru-
ary 15, 1973, and the remaining increase was retroac-
tive to May 1, 1973. Agents of the Respondent in-
formed the employees during August 1973 that they
must pay back dues from May 1973.
Timothy D. Cook, Sr., James Senter, Armand Du-
fresne, Thomas Pinard, and Thomas J. Seeley have
all paid to Respondent the initiation fee and have
paid and are continuing to pay their dues obligations
for the period from September 1, 1973, to the present.
From and after various dates in September 1973, Re-
spondent has notified each of the above-named em-
ployees that he is in arrears of union dues for the
period May 1, 1973, to September 1, 1973.
On October 4, 1973, Respondent posted a notice
on the bulletin board at the employer's facility stat-
ing that employees who had not paid dues by Octo-
ber 15, 1973, would be terminated under the terms of
the collective-bargaining agreement. To date, no at-
tempt has been made by Respondent to discharge
those employees who are in arrears on their dues for
the period May 1, 1973, to September 1, 1973.
B. The Contentions of the Parties
The General Counsel contends that Respondent
cannot lawfully cause the discharge of employees for
failure to tender dues for a period when there was no
contract in existence with the employer. According
to established precedent in this regard, his argument
runs, Respondent Union can cause the employer to
terminate an employee only for a refusal to tender
periodic dues and initiation fees which become due
during the existence of a valid union -security clause.
Despite the obvious benefits derived from the retro-
active wage increase in the contract, the General
Counsel asserts the same does not impose an obliga-
tion on the employees for the payment of dues under
a retroactive application of the contract as a condi-
tion of employment. For these reasons, he maintains
that Respondent violated and is violating Section
8(b)(1)(A) of the Act by insisting on the payment of
such dues.
Respondent counters with the argument that Sec-
tion 8(a)(3) of the Act establishes the effective date of
the contract, rather than the date of execution, as the
time when a union can require the payment of peri-
odic dues as a condition of employment. Since the
Board did not certify the collective-bargaining unit
until April 27, 1973, Respondent submits the employ-
ees involved herein owe back dues from May 1, 1973,
or the date of the second retroactive wage increase
under the agreement. In this connection, Respondent
argues that, if a union were unable to require the
payment of retroactive dues, a union would be en-
couraged to strike immediately upon certification to
expedite the bargaining process.
C. Discussion and Conclusion
We find that the date both Respondent and the
employer executed the collective-bargaining agree-
ment is diapositive of the issues in this proceeding.
Although the wage increases negotiated therein were
retroactive to February 15 and May 1, 1973, Respon-
dent Union could not lawfully demand, as a condi-
tion of continued employment, the payment of dues
for those months elapsed before the execution of
such contract. Consequently, the Respondent may
only collect lawful dues and initiation fees for the
time period commencing with the date of the collec-
tive-bargaining agreement which contains a valid
union-security clause.
The Board has held that a union-security clause
may not be retroactively applied? In the Namm's Inc.
case, the Board reasoned:
. .. back dues are plainly more that [sic] peri-
odic dues or initiation fees that could lawfully
be imposed by a labor organization upon em-
ployees covered by a union-security agreement
as a condition of obtaining membership in good
standing. [102 NLRB at 467.]
Respondent would have the Board differentiate
between the decisions above and the instant proceed-
ing due to the retroactive nature of the wage increase
for the employees. In other words, the situation here
is distinguishable because the workers receive mone-
tary benefits in return for the payment of back dues.
However, the Board rejected such a contention in
International Union of District 50, United Mine Work-
ers.4 In that instance, the United Mine Workers and
Ruberiod executed an agreement on April 21, 1967,
that was retroactive in its entirety to the beginning of
the year. The Board held that the union could not
demand dues from members for periods before the
execution of the agreement. That decision is control-
ling in this case.
Accordingly, we find that Respondent violated
Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act by threatening employ-
ees with discharge for failure to pay dues under the
retroactive application of the union-security clause.
Upon the basis of the foregoing facts and upon the
entire record in the case, we make the following:
3 Namm's Inc, 102 NLRB 466 (1953 ), International Union of District 50,
and Local Union No 14029, International Union of District 50, United Mine
Workers of America (Ruberoid Company, a Division of General Aniline and
Film Corporation), 173 NLRB 87 (1968)
4 Supra, fn. 3
78 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Respondent , Local No. 25, International Broth-
erhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs, Warehousemen
and Helpers of America, is a labor organization with-
in the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
2. By restraining and coercing employees in the
exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act,
the Respondent Union has engaged in and is engag-
ing in unfair labor practices within the meaning of
Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act.
3. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair
labor practices affecting commerce within the mean-
ing 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 Re-
lations Board hereby orders that the Respondent,
Local No. 25, International Brotherhood of Team-
sters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of
America, Burlington, Massachusetts, its officers,
agents, and representatives, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Requiring employees subject to a union-securi-
ty agreement authorized by Section 8(a)(3) of the
Act, as a condition of employment, to pay retroactive
dues or fees under express or implied threats of dis-
charge.
(b) In any like or related manner restraining or
coercing employees of the Tech Weld Corporation,
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 employ-
ment, as authorized by 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) Post at its offices and meeting halls in Burling-
ton, Massachusetts, copies of the attached notice
marked "Appendix." 5 Copies of said notice, on
forms provided by the Regional Director for Region
1, after being duly signed by Respondent's official
representative, shall be posted by it immediately
upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60
consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places,
including all places where notices to members are
customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken
by the Respondent Union to insure that said notices
are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other ma-
terial.
(b) Mail to the Regional Director for Region I
signed copies of the notice attached hereto as the
Appendix, for posting, if the employer is willing, at
the employer's facility in Burlington, Massachusetts,
in places where notices to employees are customarily
posted.
(c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 1, in
writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order,
what steps the Respondent Union has taken to com-
ply herewith.
5In the event that this Order is enforced by a Judgment of a United
States Court of Appeals , the words in the notice reading " Posted by Order
of the National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursuant 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
Notice to all members of Local No. 25, International
Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehouse-
men and Helpers of America, and to all employees of
the Tech Weld Corporation:
WE WILL NOT require employees subject to a
union-security agreement authorized by Section
8(a)(3) of the Act, as a condition of employ-
ment, to pay retroactive dues or fees under ex-
press or implied threats of discharge.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner,
restrain or coerce employees of the Tech Weld
Corporation, in the exercise of the rights guaran-
teed in Section 7 of the Act, except to the extent
that such rights may be affected by an agree-
ment requiring membership in our labor organi-
zation as a condition of employment, as author-
ized by Section 8(a)(3) of the Act.
LOCAL No. 25, INTERNATIONAL
BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS,
WAREHOUSEMEN AND HELPERS OF AMERICA