212 N.L.R.B. 768 (N.L.R.B. 1974)

Local 6306, Communication Workers

National Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsAug 7, 1974

212 N.L.R.B. 768 (N.L.R.B. 1974)

768 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Local 6306, Communication Workers of America , quent paragraphs. AFL-CIO, and Communication Workers of Ameri - 2. Delete from present paragraph 2(c) the words ca, AFL-CIO (Vactec, Incorporated) and Patricia A. "and expulsion." James and Geraldine T. Warren . Cases 14-CB- 3. Substitute the attached notice for the Adminis- 2690-1 and 14-CB-2690-2 trative Law Judge's notice. August 7, 1974 DECISION AND ORDER BY MEMBERS JENKINS, KENNEDY, AND PENELLO On April 9, 1974, Administrative Law Judge Frank H. Itkin issued the attached Decision in this proceed- ing. Thereafter, the Respondents filed exceptions and a supporting brief. 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. 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, as herein modified.' While the complaint did not allege and the Admin- istrative Law Judge did not find that Respondents violated the Act by expelling the Charging Parties from membership, he recommended that their expul- sions be vacated because they resulted from the fail- ure of the Charging Parties to pay unlawfully imposed fines. We find merit in Respondents' exception to this part of the Administrative Law Judge's recommended remedy. The Board has held that expulsion is a per- missible disciplinary measure for organizing on behalf of a rival union, and the fact that it is invoked as an alternate measure upon nonpayment of an illegal fine does not make it enjoinable 3 As this is what happened in the instant case, and as the expulsions were not even alleged to be unlawful, we shall let the expulsions stand .4 ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Rela- tions Board adopts as its Order the recommended Order of the Administrative Law Judge, as modified below, and hereby orders that Respondents, Local 6306, Communication Workers of America, AFL- CIO, and Communication Workers of America, AFL-CIO, their officers, agents, and representatives shall take the action set forth in the said recommend- ed Order, as modified herein: 1. Delete paragraph 2(b) and reletter the subse- i The Respondents have excepted to certain credibility findings made by the Administrative Law Judge It is the Board 's established policy not to overrule an Administrative Law Judge 's resolutions with respect to credibili- ty unless the clear preponderance of all of the relevant evidence convinces us that the resolutions are incorrect Standard Dry Wall Products, Inc., 91 NLRB 544, enfd. 188 F 2d 362 (CA. 3, 1951) We have carefully examined the record and find no basis for reversing his findings 2 For the reasons stated in his dissent with Member Fanning , in Interna- tional Molders ' and Allied Workers Union , Local No 125, AFL-CIO (Black- hawk Tanning Co, Inc), 178 NLRB 208 ( 1969), Member Jenkins would find that Respondent did not violate Sec 8(b)(I)(A) of the Act by fining the Charging Parties for supporting a rival union 3 Tri-Rivers Marine Engineers ,Union (United States Steel Corporation), 189 NLRB 838 (1971 ). Member Penello adopts the distinction set forth in Tri- Rivers and Blackhawk Tanning Co, between fining and expulsion used as a defensive measure where , as here, a union member is disciplined for conduct directed toward replacing the union as bargaining representative. Such a distinction , in his opinion , is not tenable in the context of the discipline of employees for crossing a picket line after resigning from the union . There, any union discipline necessarily reaches beyond the area of the union's internal affairs insulated by the proviso to Sec. 8 (b)(1)(A). See his dissenting opinion in Pattern Makers ' Association of Los Angeles and Vicinity (Lietzau Pattern Co ), 199 NLRB 97 (1972) 4 Member Jenkins joins in reaching this result although he does not agree that the fines here were illegal . Member Kennedy , consistent with his sepa- rate position in Tri-Rivers, at fn . 7, would find the Administrative Law Judge's recommended remedy to be appropriate APPENDIX NOTICE To EMPLOYEES AND MEMBERS POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government WE WILL NOT impose or sustain the imposition of fines assessed against our employee-members because they have solicited representation au- thorizations from their coemployees on behalf of a rival labor organization in support of a repre- sentation petition filed with the National Labor Relations Board or because the employee-mem- bers have appeared or testified in support of a representation petition at a Board-conducted hearing. WE WILL NOT threaten to cause Vactec, Incor- porated, to discharge our employee-members if they fail to pay such fines. WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner re- strain or coerce employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed them in Section 7 of the Na- tional Labor Relations Act. WE WILL rescind and vacate the fines assessed against our employee-members Patricia A. James 212 NLRB No. 117 LOCAL 6306, COMMUNICATION WORKERS and Geraldine T. Warren because they solicited representation authorizations from coemployees on behalf of a rival labor organization in support of a representation petition filed with the Board or because they appeared or testified in support of the representation petition at a Board-con- ducted hearing. LOCAL 6306 , COMMUNICA- TION WORKERS OF AMERI- CA, AFL-CIO (Labor Organization) Dated By (Representative ) (Title) COMMUNICATION WORKERS OF AMERICA. AFL-CIO (Labor Organization) Dated By (Representative ) (Title) This is an official notice and must not be defaced by anyone. This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting and must not be altered, defaced , or covered by any other material. Any questions concerning this notice or compli- ance with its provisions may be directed to the Board 's Office, 210 North 12th Boulevard, Room 448, St. Louis, Missouri 63101, Telephone 314-622-4167. DECISION FRANK H ITKIN , Administrative Law Judge : This case was tried before me at St Louis, Missouri , on December 18, 1973. Unfair labor practice charges were filed by Patricia A. James and Geraldine T. Warren on October 9, 1973. A consolidated unfair labor practice complaint issued on No- vember 17, 1973. The principal issue presented is whether Respondent Local 6306 , Communication Workers of Amer- ica, AFL-CIO (Local 6306), and Respondent Communica- tion Workers of America , AFL-CIO (CWA), violated Section 8(b)(I)(A) of the National Labor Relations Act by imposing and sustaining the imposition of certain fines as- sessed against employees James and Warren and by thereaf- ter threatening the employees with loss of their employment if the fines were not paid . Upon the entire record before me, including my observation of the witnesses , and after due consideration of the briefs filed by all counsel , I make the following findings of fact and conclusions of law: FINDINGS OF FACT I INTRODUCTION 769 The complaint alleges, the answers admit , and I find and conclude that Vactec, Incorporated , a corporation orga- nized under and existing pursuant to the laws of Missouri, maintains its office and place of business in Maryland Heights, Missouri , where the Company is engaged in the manufacture , nonretail sale, and distribution of photoelec- tric cells and related products; that during 1972 the Compa- ny sold and distributed at its Maryland Heights facility products valued in excess of $50,000 which were transported directly to locations outside of Missouri ; and that the Com- pany is therefore an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act. It is also undisputed and I find and conclude that Respondent Local 6306 and Respondent CWA are labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. The complaint alleges that at all times material Leroy Eagan was president of Respondent Local 6306; that Jo- seph Kelly was a representative of Respondent CWA; that Brenda Smith was chief shop steward at Vactec; and that Eagan , Kelly, and Smith were agents of Respondents within the meaning of Section 2(13) of the Act. Respondent Local 6306, in its separate answer , acknowledges that Eagan, Kel- ly, and Smith "occupy the titles set out opposite their re- spective names" in the complaint and that Eagan "is an agent of Respondent Local 6306," but denies the "agency status" of the other two persons named above . Respondent CWA, in its separate answer , admits that Eagan and Smith "occupy the positions set out opposite their names" and that Kelly "is a CWA representative within and for the Missouri- Kansas-Arkansas and Illinois area of District 6 of the Com- munications Workers of America, AFL-CIO," but "denies that all or any of the persons therein named constitute or are agents of" Respondent CWA. The evidence pertaining to these and related contentions is discussed below. II THE EVENTS CULMINATING IN THE FINING OF EMPLOYEES JAMES AND WARREN James and Warren are employed by Vactec. CWA is and has been at all times material collective -bargaining agent for a unit of Vactec employees , including production workers James and Warren . James and Warren were members of Local 6306 and CWA About September 1972, a number of Vactec employees , including James and Warren , became dissatisfied with Local 6306 and CWA. As a consequence, employee James and a number of her coworkers , as James credibly testified , met with a representative of Teamsters Local Union No. 688 during late September 1972. The Teamsters representative supplied the employees "with some authorization cards for [them ] to sign and some more to take back to the plant for the girls to sign , and he ex- plained how [they ] would file a petition at the Labor Board to have . . . one [umon] taken out and one brought in." About September 29, James "took the cards back to the plant and had the girls sign them." James was assisted by, inter altos, coworker Warren. James obtained the signatures of some 100 out of 120-125 Vactec employees on Teamsters 770 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD authorization cards. On or about October 2, 1972, Teamsters Local Union No. 688 filed a representation petition in Case 14-RC-7172, seeking to represent the Vactec employees. Respondent CWA intervened in the representation proceeding. A hear- ing on the petition was held on October 26, 1972. Respon- dent CWA asserted before the Board that the Teamsters representation petition was barred because there was in existence a bargaining agreement between Vactec and CWA. Employees James and Warren appeared at the repre- sentation proceeding in behalf of Teamsters Local Union No. 688. James testified in behalf of the Teamsters Local (G.C. Exh. 12, pp. 57-84). Subsequently, on November 15, 1972, the Board's Regional Director dismissed the represen- tation petition. The Director determined that the represen- tation proceeding was barred because there was a collective-bargaining agreement in existence between CWA and Vactec. On or about December 1, 1972, Leroy Eagan, president of Respondent Local 6306, wrote the following in a letter to Glenn E. Watts, secretary-treasurer of Respondent CWA: This is to advise that I am charging Ms. Patricia Ann James . . . of CWA Local 6306 with committing acts of dual unionism as described in Article XIX, Section 2, Paragraph B of the CWA Constitution. Both before and after the date of October 27, 1972, the accused had both orally and actively attempted to re- place CWA as collective bargaining representative of the Vactec . . . unit with the Teamster Union. As the parties stipulated, a similar letter was written by Eagan to Watts concerning employee Warren. Thereafter, on or about January 12, 1973, Watts apprised James and Warren in part as follows: This is to officially notify you that, you have been charged with dual unionism and that in accordance with the Constitution of the Union, the Executive Board has designated a Trial Court to hear these charges... . plained that he is "employed by CWA as an International Representative" and that Local 6306 is "one of the Locals assigned to [Kelly] for bargaining, grievance processing, education and other related duties." Kelly further testified at the union trial in part as follows: ... there was a hearing [before the NLRB] at which time both parties to the [representation] petition were to present whatever evidence they had, one to support a contract bar, the other to support the contention that there was no contract bar; each union [Teamsters and CWA] was allowed to present any witnesses that were necessary to support these positions . I [Kelly] appeared as a witness for CWA, and the defendant in this in- stance, Patricia James, appeared for the Teamsters. Kelly read to the union court from the transcript in the representation case, noting the testimony of James. Kelly cited to the union trial court, inter aha, James' testimony at the representation hearing involving coworker Warren in the Teamsters organizational effort. At the close of the union hearing , the designated union prosecutor stated: ... CWA is a good organization and we have a proud membership . It is not unlike other organizations of any type that can not allow its members to solicit other members to join in another organization which is con- trary to the best interests of our total membership. The union trial of employee Warren was held on Febru- ary 1, 1973, and was essentially similar to the hearing af- forded James. Kelly testified at this union hearing in part as follows: ... On October 26, 1973, there was a hearing before the NLRB for the purpose of representation. The peti- tion had been filed by the Teamsters, alleging to have a majority showing of interest cards, requesting the NLRB to issue a statement that they would be the bargaining representative, that a contract bar did not exist. The union trial of employee James was held on February 28, 1973. The proceedings were conducted by a three-man court designated by the CWA Executive Board in accor- dance with the CWA Constitution (G.C. Exh. 11). Eagan testified at the union trial in part as follows: a hearing with the NLRB evolved out of their [the dissident employees'] action and had it not been the decision of the Board that we [had] a valid contract on that date we would have been forced into a representa- tion election. And, with the rumors and stones that were circulated by the active members of the Teamsters faction in the plant, we may have lost representation rights then. Kelly also testified at the union trial of James. He ex- Warren was identified as "an active participant in this ef- fort" to oust the CWA as representative of the unit employ- ees. Kelly read from the transcript of James' testimony at the Board's representation hearing, wherein James identi- fied Warren as participating in the Teamsters organiza- tional drive.' Thereafter, on or about March 5, 1973, the union trial court found both James and Warren "guilty of violating the CWA Constitution," as charged, and directed that they i As discussed infra, there was also testimony adduced at the union trials of James and Warren pertaining to, inter aka, the claims that they "encour- aged other individuals not to attend" a CWA meeting held on October 2, 1972; that they "played a major part in disrupting this meeting" and "would not allow this meeting to, take place", that "there were attempts made to keep employees from attending this" CWA meeting of October 2; that attempts were made "to disrupt the meeting"; and that at the October 2 meeting the two employees "were loud, boisterous [and] refused to follow the normal procedures of meetings . to sign in . LOCAL 6306, COMMUNICATION WORKERS each "be fined a sum of $200 payable to the Communica- tion Workers of America and forwarded to Glenn E. Watts, secretary-treasurer ...." In the event that the two employ- ees were "in default of payment of said fine on May 2, 1973," they were "expelled from membership in the Com- munication Workers of America." The two employees ap- pealed the union court's decision to the CWA executive board. On or about May 3, 1973, Watts notified James and Warren that the CWA executive board had denied their appeals. Thereafter, on or about May 23, 1973, employees James and Warren appealed to the CWA convention, as provided in the CWA constitution. On or about June 21, 1973, the convention denied the appeal. In the case of James, the CWA convention noted: At the trial, evidence was presented to the Trial Court which substantiated that member James assisted the Teamsters Union in its attempted raid on CWA mem- bers employed at Vactec, Inc. In fact, member James appeared as a witness for the Teamsters Union in an NLRB hearing on a representation case involving Vactec, Inc. in St Louis, Missouri on Thursday, October 26, 1972. [ Emphasis supplied.] In the case of Warren, the convention noted: At the trial , evidence was presented to the Trial Court which substantiated that member Warren assisted the Teamsters Union in its attempted raid on CWA mem- bers employed at the Vactec , Inc. When Local 6306 member Patricia Ann James (see Appeal Number Two of this Committee Report) appeared as a witness for the Teamsters Union in an NLRB hearing on a representa- tion case in St. Louis, Missouri on Thursday , October 26, 1972, she testified that member Warren, along with her- self, took an active part in the attempted raid. [Emphasis supplied.] Thereafter , on or about July 18, 1973, as employee James credibly testified , Brenda Smith , Leroy Eagan , Joe Kelly, and James attended a meeting at the Ramada Inn. James recalled that following the meeting, Eagan ... asked me [James] if [James] was going to pay it [the fine], and I said I didn't know. I asked him what would happen if I didn't and he [Eagan] told me that I proba- bly would be expelled from the union. And I said, what would happen then? He said, I think it was, "Sooner or later we'd have to go for your job over it." Shortly thereafter, on or about August 17, 1973, as James credibly testified: Joe Kelly and Leroy Eagan had taken Warren and [James] to lunch and they had these papers, wanting us 771 to sign that we would be able to pay off the fines in payments . . . . We told them at the time we didn't want to sign it right then, we wanted to talk to our husbands about it . . . We [James and Warren] asked Joe Kelly what would happen if we didn't pay it, and he [Kelly] said, "the International would take you to court and sue you for it." He said, "In the long run, you'll lose more money because of taking off work and for court costs." And we said, "Well, what would hap- pen?" He said that "they'd probably take yourjob for it.,, Later, on or about September 5, 1973, James attended a Vactec stewards meeting at Local 6306's office with Leroy Eagan, Loretta Hines, Sharon Vines, Marty Thomas, Rich George, and Brenda Smith. At the meeting, as James credi- bly testified- He [Eagan] asked me if I [James] was going to pay the fine and I told him no . . . I asked him what would happen and he told me . . "Do you realize what you are doing?" And, I said yes. He said that "you'll be suspended as a steward" and that "you'll probably lose your job over it." And Brenda [Smith] ... broke in and said, "you mean you're going to let them take your job, after you thinking these girls have all been behind you, you're going to do it for them?" And I said, yes. On or about September 18, 1973, Watts wrote Eagan in part as follows. As you know, when the Convention acted (June 21, 1973) to deny the appeal of these persons, and thus to uphold the Executive Board and the Trial Panel, the "clock started" on the sixty day time period within which they were to comply with the decision of the Trial Panel or be automatically expelled. Since no such compliance took place, they ceased to be members af- ter August 21, 1973. You should make sure your Local records are noted in such a way as to insure these persons are treated like any other non-member of the Union. Some, but not all, of the matters I refer to are receipt of the Local publica- tion and/or bulletin; participation in membership meetings; and serving in any capacity as representa- tives of the Union, its Locals, or its members. This office will of course do the same consistent with our Constitution, our contract with the Company, and pro- visions of any applicable laws. Shortly thereafter, on or about September 25, Chief Steward Brenda Smith asked employees James and Warren while at work "to come back in the storeroom ... with [Smith] and Sharon Vines and Loretta Hines ...." At this meeting in the storeroom, as James credibly testified: 772 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD she [Smith] asked us [James, and Warren] if we know we were expelled from the union and we said yes. And she told us that we wouldn't be able to participate in any of the meetings or voting or holding any kind of office and that we'd still have to pay our union dues. So we asked her why we'd still have to pay our union dues if we didn't participate in anything. And she said that in order to be in good standing with the union you had to pay your union dues. We said what would hap- pen if we didn't pay it, and she said that they'll proba- bly go to your job, go to the company and take our jobs, and if we had any further questions, for us to call Leroy [Eagan]? In short, where the union member is seeking to de- certify the union, the Board has said that the public policy against permitting a union to penalize a member because he seeks the aid of the Board should give way to the union's right to self-defense. But when a union only fines a member because he has filed a decertifica- tion petition, the effect is, not defensive and can only be punitive-to discourage members from seeking such access to the Board's processes; the union is not one whit better able to defend itself against decertifica- tion as a result of the fine. The dissident member could still campaign against the union while remaining a member and therefore be privy to its strategy and tac- tics. III. DISCUSSION In Blackhawk Tanning Co., Inc., 178 NLRB 208 (1969), the Board (Member Brown concurring and Members Fan- ning and Jenkins dissenting) held that a union's fining of an employee for filing a petition seeking to decertify the union as bargaining agent of the company's employees is a viola- tion of Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act. The Board noted that the "problem involved in this and related cases is one of reconciling the public policy of protecting access to the Board with a union's right to prescribe its own rules re- specting `the acquisition or retention of membership' ...." The Board concluded that the "rule permitting a union to expel a member seeking its decertification is an exception to the rule prohibiting a union from penalizing a union member because he has sought to invoke the Board's processes." The Board explained: 2 Employee Warren corroborates in substantial part the above testimony of employee James Kelly, Eagan , Smith, Vines , and Hines substantiate in part the above testimony of James. And, relying also on the demeanor of the witnesses , I am persuaded that the testimony of James and Warren is a reasonable, complete, and credible account of the events recited herein. Insofar as the testimony of Kelly, Eagan, Smith, Hines, and Vines conflicts with the testimony of James and Warren, I credit the testimony of James and Warren as more reliable , complete, and trustworthy. In particular, I do not credit Kelly's assertions that, in effect, they did not discuss payment of the fine with James at or after the Ramada Inn meeting during July 1973. Kelly claimed, inter a/ia, "I don't recall that"; "I recall no conversation", "There was no conversation to my knowledge", and "I wasn 't present if the conver- sation occurred." Nor do I credit Kelly's assertion that at the August 17 meeting he did not tell the two employees "that they'd lose their Job or words to that effect if they didn't pay the fine." The general subject matter, however, was admittedly discussed at this meeting . Likewise, I do not credit Eagan's assertion that the subject of the employees ' fines was not discussed at or after the July meeting in the Ramada Inn. Nor do I credit Eagan's claim that the only purpose of the August 17 meeting was "to discuss with Patncia James and Geraldine Warren a method of paying the fine through a payroll deduc- tion plan." Further ,, I discredit , Eagan's assertion that at the September 5 meeting, "I [Eagan] didn 't say nothing . I had instructions that the Interna- tional would handle any problems that would anse." In addition, I discredit Chief Steward Smith's assertion that she "didn't remember anything about the fines being brought up at" the July meeting Nor do I credit Smith's assertion that at the September 5 meeting she did not "recall Leroy [Eagan] saying anything." Finally, with respect to the meeting in the storeroom at Vactec on September 25, 1 have found, as stated above, that the testimony of James and Warren is more reliable and complete than that of Smith, Vines, and Hines. In sum, on this record , I am persuaded that Eagan, Kelly, and Smith made the statements and engaged in the conduct attributed to them by James and Warren. Because the two situations-expelling a member for filing a decertification petition and fining him for the same reason-are thus qualitatively different, they call for different legal conclusions. Hence we cannot accept the view expressed in the dissenting opinion. More recently, in District Lodge No. 837, International Asso- ciation of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO (McDonnell Douglas Corporation), 206 NLRB 662 (1973), the Board (Member Jenkins dissenting) held that the labor organizations violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) when they caused a fine to be levied against a member for supporting a rival labor organization by soliciting authorization cards. And, in United States Shoe Corp., 208 NLRB No. 64 (1974), the Board (Member Fanning dissenting) held that a union vio- lated Section 8(b)(1)(A) "when it fined the complainants for their solicitation of cards on behalf of a rival union to sup- port a petition to be filed with the Board for a certification election ...." The Board noted that the "principles of Blackhawk, supra, apply equally to conduct directed toward replacing the incumbent union with another union such as in the instant case ... . Applying these principles to the instant case, I find and conclude that Respondents Local 6306 and CWA violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act by imposing and sustaining the imposition of fines assessed against employee members James and Warren because they had solicited representa- tion authorizations from their fellow employees on behalf of a rival labor organization, which authorizations were subse- quently offered in support of a representation petition filed with the Board; and because they appeared and, in the case of James, testified in support of the representation petition at the Board-conducted hearing. Thus, as the credited evi- dence recited above shows, James and Warren obtained the signatures of a substantial number of their coemployees on Teamsters authorization cards during late September 1972, in an attempt to oust the incumbent CWA as bargaining agent for the Vactec production and maintenance employ- ees. The Teamsters local filed a representation petition with the Board's Regional Director on or about October 2. A hearing on the petition was held before the Board on Octo- ber 26. James and Warren appeared on behalf of the Team- LOCAL 6306, COMMUNICATION WORKERS 773 sters local and, as noted, James testified in support of the petition. CWA opposed the petition, claiming, inter alia, that CWA and Vactec previously had agreed on a contract which barred the petition. On November 15, the Regional Director dismissed the petition. Shortly thereafter, on De- cember 1, Eagan, president of Local 6306, filed charges against James and Warren with Watts, secretary-treasurer of CWA. The two employee members were tried pursuant to the CWA constitution and found guilty of "dual union- ism." The CWA executive board and the CWA convention sustained this determination and the imposition of a $200 fine against each employee member. At the union trial, Eagan testified that "a hearing with the NLRB evolved out of their [the dissident members'] action and had it not been the decision of the Board that we [had] a valid contract on that date we would have been forced into a representation election . . . we may have lost representation rights then." Kelly, the CWA representative, similary testified at the union trial. He cited the card solicitation efforts of James and Warren and the representation hearing before the Board. Kelly read to the union court portions of James' testimony from the representation transcript. Kelly explic- itly noted that "the defendant, in this instance Patricia James, appeared for the Teamsters" at the Board hearing. At the close of the union trial, it was argued by the union prosecutor that CWA "can not allow its members to solicit other members to join in another organization which is contrary to the best interests of our total membership ..." Thereafter, on appeal, the CWA convention noted that "member James appeared as a witness for the Team- sters Union in an NLRB hearing on a representation case involving Vactec, Inc." The CWA convention similarly noted, in the case of Warren, that James had "appeared as a witness for the Teamsters Union in an NLRB hearing on a representation case" where she, James, "testified that member Warren, along with herself, took an active part in the attempted raid." Thereafter, on August 21, 1973, the two employee members were "automatically expelled" from Local 6306 and CWA because they refused to pay the $200 fines thus imposed. Here, as in Blackhawk Tanning, supra, the "problem in- volved is one of reconciling the public policy of protecting access to the Board with a union's right to prescribe its own rules respecting `the acquisition or retention of membership' .." Here, as in McDonnell Douglas Corporation, supra, "Respondents violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act when they caused a fine to be levied against [James and Warren] for supporting a rival labor organization by soliciting au- thorization cards" for the Teamsters local. Indeed, Respon- dents Local 6306 and CWA assessed and sustained the imposition of these punitive fines not only because the em- ployee members solicited authorizations which were used in support of the representation petition filed with the Board, but also because the employee members appeared and, in the case of James, testified in support of the petition at the Board hearing. Under these circumstances, "the public poli- cy of protecting access to the Board" must prevail over Respondents' "right to prescribe its own rules respecting `the acquisition or retention of membership'." Counsel for Respondents argues in his posthearing brief that "Respondents had full power and authority to take the action they did with respect to the charges of dual unionism. No union should be required to subject itself to the type of conduct [involved] here and yet be limited to the penalty of expulsion ... ... Counsel for Respondents notes, in sup- port of this contention, that evidence was adduced at the union trials of James and Warren establishing, inter aha, that the employee members engaged in loud, boisterous, and disruptive conduct at the Local 6306 meeting of Octo- ber 2, 1972; they encouraged fellow members not to attend this CWA meeting which had been called to discuss the terms of the collective-bargaining agreement negotiated be- tween CWA and Vactec; they refused to sign the register at the October 2 meeting as was customary; and there were threats and accusations uttered back and forth at this meet- ing. However, as James credibly explained, "It was loud and disorderly, but he [Kelly] explained all the things that were up on the board ...." In short, although the record indi- cates that James, Warren, and other dissident CWA mem- bers engaged in emotional and heated conduct during their effort to oust the incumbent CWA, Kelly was in fact permit- ted to explain the contract items at the October 2 meeting. In any event, on the record before me, I do not find that these related acts of misconduct charged to James and War- ren were the real reason why Respondents fined and sus- tained the imposition of fines against the two employee members. Rather, as stated, I find and conclude that the real reason for the assessment of the fines was the employee members' solicitation of authorizations on behalf of a rival union which were offered in support of the representation petition and their appearance and, in the case of James, testimony given in support of the rival union at the Board representation proceeding. I find and conclude that the fines were therefore violative of Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act. Equally violative of Secton 8(b)(1)(A) is Local 6306 Presi- dent Eagan's statement to James on July 18, 1973, that if the two employee members did not pay the fines, "sooner or later we'd have to go for yourjob over it"; CWA Represen- tative Kelly' s statement to James and Warren on August 17 that if the employee members did not pay the fines, "they'd probably take yourjob for it"; President Eagan's and Chief Steward Smith's related statements to employee member James on September 5, "you'll probably lose your job over it"; and, in this context, Chief Steward Smith's explanation to the employee members on September 25 that, in effect, "they'll probably go to your job" as an ultimate conse- quence of the employee members' conduct. Threats to cause an employer to discharge employees for their failure to pay such fines are proscribed by Section 8(b)(1)(A). Counsel for Respondents argues: "Even were the Admin- istrative Law Judge to determine that threats had been made, these could not be attributed to the International since it neither authorized nor instigated them .. .." This contention is without merit. Kelly was admittedly employed "by the CWA International whose headquarters are in Washington, D.C."; he was "assigned to District 6"; Dis- trict 6 "has no separate charter or bylaws of its own"; and he was "assigned to the Local for matters of grievance han- dling, bargaining, arbitration, education [and] things of that nature ." Kelly, together with the Local 6306 officials, fully participated in the representation proceeding, the fining, 774 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD and postheanng threats made to the employees. Indeed, both Respondent Local 6306 and Respondent CWA were fully involved in the entire sequence of events narrated above. Under the circumstances, both Respondent Local and Respondent CWA are fully responsible for not only the assessment of the fines, but also for the threats made by both Local and International representatives in an effort to collect the fines. See, e.g., Sunset Line and Twine Company, 79 NLRB 1487, 1507-15 (1948). Counsel for Respondents also argues, "to the extent any threats were supposedly made by the Local before September 18, 1973, they were `cured' by G.C. Exh. 10 ...:. This letter, summarized supra, does not purport to vitiate or cure the unlawful threats as found herein. Cf. United States Rubber Company v. N.L.R.B., 384 F.2d 660,663-664 (C.A. 5, 1967) (and cases cited). CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Vactec, Incorporated , is an employer engaged in com- merce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act. 2. Respondent Local 6306 , Communication Workers of America, AFL-CIO, and Respondent Communication Workers of America, AFL-CIO, are labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3. Respondents violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act by imposing and sustaining the imposition of a fine assessed against employee Patricia A. James because she solicited representation authorizations from her coemployees on be- half of a rival labor organization which authorizations were subsequently offered in support of a representation petition filed with the Board and because James testified in support of the representation petition at a Board -conducted hear- ing; by fining and sustaining the imposition of a fine as- sessed against employee Geraldine T. Warren because she also solicited representation authorizations from her coem- ployees on behalf of a rival union, which authorizations were subsequently offered in support of a representation petition filed with the Board , and because Warren appeared in support of the representation petition at a Board-con- ducted hearing ; and by threatening to cause Vactec, Incor- porated , to discharge employee members James and Warren if they failed to pay the above fines. 4. The unfair labor practices found herein affect com- merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. THE REMEDY Having found that Respondents engaged in conduct vio- lative of Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act, it will be ordered that they cease and desist from engaging in such conduct or in any like and related conduct and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of-the Act. Re- spondents will be ordered to rescind and vacate the fines unlawfully assessed against employees James and Warren and notify them in writing of that action. Moreover, since James and Warren were "automatically expelled" from Re- spondents as a consequence of their failure to pay the un- lawfully imposed fines, it will be directed that their expulsions from Respondents also be set aside and vacated. RECOMMENDED ORDER 3 Respondent Local 6306, Communication Workers of America, AFL-CIO, and Respondent Communication Workers of America, AFL-CIO, their officers, agents, and representatives, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Imposing or sustaining the imposition of fines as- sessed against employee members because they have solic- ited representation authorizations from their coemployees on behalf of a rival labor organization, which authorizations were subsequently offered in support of a representation petition filed with the National Labor Relations Board, or because the employee members have appeared or testified in support of a representation petition at a Board-conducted hearing. (b) Threatening to cause Vactec, Incorporated, the em- ployer of such employee members, to discharge the employ- ees if they fail to pay to Respondents the above fines. (c) In any like or related manner restraining or coercing employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed them in Sec- tion 7 of the National Labor Relations Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action designed to ef- fectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Rescind and vacate the fines assessed against employ- ee members Patricia A. James and Geraldine T. Warren because they solicited representation authorizations from coemployees on behalf of a rival labor organization which authorizations were subsequently offered in support of a representation petition filed with the Board or because they appeared or testified in support of the representation peti- tion at a Board-conducted hearing. (b) Rescind and vacate the expulsion from membership of James and Warren because they failed to pay the above fines. (c) Notify in writing employee members James and War- ren that the above fines and expulsion have been rescinded and vacated, as directed. (d) Post at Respondents' business, offices and meeting halls copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix." 4 Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 14, after being duly signed by Respon- dents' representatives, shall be posted by Respondents im- mediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by them for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to members are custom- arily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respon- dents to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (e) Mail to the Regional Director for Region 14 copies of the aforementioned notice for posting by the Employer, 3 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by, Section 102 46 of the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the findings, conclusions, and recommended Order herein shall, as provided in Section 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 4 In the event that the Board's 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 be changed to read "Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board." LOCAL 6306 , COMMUNICATION WORKERS 775 Vactec , Incorporated , if willing , in places where notices to tives, be forthwith returned to the Regional Director for employees are customar i ly posted. Copies of said notices , to such posting. be provided by the Regional Director for Region 14, shall , (f) Notify the Regional Director for Region 14, in writ- after being duly signed by Respondents ' official representa - ing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps the Respondents have taken to comply herewith.