Local 9418, CWA

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 30, 1971

188 N.L.R.B. 291 (N.L.R.B. 1971)

LOCAL 9418, CWA 291
Local No. 9418 , Communications Workers of America,
AFL-CIO (Pacific Telephone and Telegraph Com-
pany) and Dorothy E. Hansen and Nancy M. Essel-
man. Case 20-CB-2043
January 30, 1971
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS FANNING, BROWN , AND JENKINS
Upon a charge duly filed on June 23, 1969, by
Dorothy E. Hansen and Nancy M. Esselman, herein
called Hansen and Esselman, respectively, the Gener-
al Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board, by
the Acting Regional Director of Region 20, issued a
Complaint and Notice of Hearing on December 29,
1969, against Local No. 9418, Communications
Workers of America, AFL-CIO. The complaint alleg-
ed that Respondent Union had engaged in and was
engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning
of Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the National Labor Relations
Act, as amended, by imposing excessive and arbitrary
fines of $299 on nine employees who had worked
during Respondent's strike, and thereafter obtained
judgments in civil suits and attached the wages of the
employees. On January 2, 1970, Respondent filed an
answer denying the commission of any unfair labor
practices.
On various dates between March 31, 1970, and
April 15, 1970, the parties executed a stipulation of
facts and a motion to transfer proceeding to the Board
by which they waived a hearing before a Trial Exam-
iner and the issuance of a Trial Examiner's Decision
and Recommended Order and agreed to submit the
case to the Board for findings of fact, conclusions of
law, and an order, based upon a record consisting of
the stipulation of facts and the exhibits attached ther-
eto.
On April 21, 1970, the Board approved the stipula-
tion of the parties and ordered the case transferred to
the Board, granting permission 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 powers
in connection with this case to a three-member panel.
Upon the basis of the stipulation, the briefs, and the
entire record in this case, the Board makes the follow-
ing:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I JURISDICTION
Pacific Telephone and Telegraph Company, herein
called P.T. & T., is a California corporation with an
office located in Modesto, California, where it is en-
gaged in the business of providing telephone and oth-
er communications service. During the past calendar
year, in the course and conduct of its business opera-
tions, P.T. & T. received gross revenue in excess of
$100,000. In the same period P.T. & T. purchased and
received goods and materials valued in excess of $50,
000 directly from suppliers located outside the State
of California.
We find that P.T. & T. is, and at all times material
herein has been, an employer engaged in commerce
and in operations affecting commerce within the
meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
II THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Local 9418, Communications Workers of America,
AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within the meaning
of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Facts
Respondent has been the exclusive representative
of a unit of traffic department employees of P.T. & T.
at its Modesto, California, operation. The most recent
collective-bargaining agreement was operative
through October 16, 1969.' Beginning in March 1968,
the Bell System operating companies, including
P.T. & T., Respondent, and other communications
unions, including the Communications Workers of
America, herein called CWA, engaged in contract ne-
gotiations with a view toward reaching new agree-
ments under wage reopener provisions in their then
current agreements. In April 1968 various communi-
cations unions, including CWA, began a nationwide
strike to gain their demands. On April 18, 1968, cer-
tain employees in the unit went out on strike and
picketed in support of wage demands made by Res-
pondent. The strike and picketing continued until
May 5, 1968, when Respondent and P.T. & T. reached
an amended collective-bargaining agreement effec-
tive as of May 1, 1968, to April 30, 1971.
Prior to the strike by the unit employees in support
of Respondent's demands, two employees resigned
from membership in Respondent, A.T. (Sue) Cosetino
on April 14, 1968, and Nancy Esselman on April 15,
Respondent's agreement provided for "maintenance of membership "
188 NLRB No. 49
292 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
1968. On the day the employees struck, April 18, two
employees resigned from Respondent, Dorothy Han-
sen and Donna Mathews. The following employees
resigned from membership in Respondent during the
strike: Norma Wright on April 19, Sharon Pole on
April 21, Opaline Liles on April 22, Virginia Adams
on April 22, and Janet Dunn on April 27, 1968. All of
the employees who resigned their membership in Res-
pondent crossed the picket line and worked through
the duration of the strike, but continued to pay
monthly dues. Their gross wages during the strike
were as follows: Virginia Adams, $209; A.T. (Sue)
Cosetino, $285; Janet Dunn, $126.70; Nancy Essel-
man, $251.20; Dorothy Hansen, $304; Opaline Liles,
$231; Donna Mathews, $294.50; Sharon Pole, $149.
60; and Norma Wright, $220.50.
On May 28, 1968, Respondent wrote each of the
aforementioned employees who had crossed the pick-
et line and worked, that charges had been filed against
them with the "trials court" of Respondent asserting
that they had violated Respondent's bylaws and the
constitution of the CWA 2 The trials court, on June
11, 1968, imposed fines in the amount of $299 on each
of the employees because they had worked behind
Respondent's authorized picket line. On June 12,
1968, Respondent notified the employees by letter of
the results of the trial court action.
Respondent brought suits in California Small
Claims Court to collect the fines imposed on the em-
ployees by Respondent, and on April 30, 1969, judg-
ments were rendered.' Thereafter, beginning May 19,
1969, Respondent agreed to accept monthly payments
from Pole; it collected the full amount of the judg-
ments from Adams, Liles, and Mathews; it attached
the wages of Cosetino, Dunn, and Wright; and al-
though Respondent requested that Hansen and Essel-
man pay the amount of the Judgments against them,
they have declined to pay.
nance of membership clause contained in
Respondent's contract with P.T. & T. It is further
urged that Respondent had no supportable basis upon
which to fine the employees, since Respondent fined
the employees on a contract theory, and their con-
duct, upon which Respondent sought to impose fines,
took place after their contractual obligations were ter-
minated. The General Counsel also argues that the
fines were arbitrary and unreasonable since the sum
exceeded the net earnings of all the employees in-
volved. Finally General Counsel urges that the facts
herein differ fundamentally from those in Local Lodge
1424 v. N.L.R.B. [Bryan Mfg. Co.], 362 U.S. 411,
where all of the operative facts necessary to find a
violation occurred outside the 10(b) period. Here the
unlawful conduct of Respondent did not cease once
the fines were imposed since Respondent engaged in
further unlawful acts by instituting court actions to
collect the fines and by collecting the fines based on
these actions.
Respondent contends that the complaint is barred
by the 6-month statute of limitations in Section 10(b)
and that the vice, if any in this case, was the imposi-
tion of the fines for crossing the picket lines, and that,
concededly, the fines were imposed more than 6
months prior to the filing of the charges. All that
occurred within the limitations period herein was the
institution of legal proceedings to collect the fines,
and that was not an unlawful act. Respondent also
contends that it had the right to fine members who
resigned in anticipation of or during an economic
strike and then crossed a lawful picket line, and that
it can institute legal action to collect those fines. Fi-
nally, Respondent contends that the fines were rea-
sonable and that the proviso to Section 8(b)(1)(A)
precludes interference with the internal affairs of a
union.
Conclusion
B. Contentions of the Parties
General Counsel contends that Respondent's insti-
tution of court enforcement action to collect fines
imposed on employees who crossed its picket line af-
ter resigning from Respondent and its continuing ef-
forts to collect the fines violated Section 8(b)(1)(A). It
is urged that the employees herein had voluntarily
become members of Respondent and that they were
required to remain members by virtue of the mainte-
2 Neither the Local bylaws nor the constitution contain references relative
to members resigning from Respondent.
3 Virginia Adams, $150 plus $7.10 costs; AT. (Sue) Cosetino, $200 plus
$5.10 costs ; Janet Dunn , $75 plus $ 12 costs; Nancy Esselman , $ 180 plus
$7.10 costs; Dorothy Hansen , $200 plus $790 costs, Opahne Liles, $150 plus
$7.10 costs, Donna Mathews , $200 plus $10.30 costs; Sharon Pole, $150 plus
$6.40 costs, Norma Wright, $ 180 plus $7 10 costs.
We need not, in this case, reach the underlying
issues of law, for we conclude that even were we to
decide those issued in accord with the theories ad-
vanced by the General Counsel, the complaint is time-
barred!
In International Association of Machinists andAeros-
pace Workers (Union Carbide) 5 the Board dismissed
the complaint because all of the operative facts neces-
sary to make out the claimed violation, i.e., resigna-
tion of memberships, crossing of picket lines, and
unlawful fines occurred more than 6 months prior to
4 Section 10(b) of the Act reads, in pertinent part:
Provided . . . no complaint shall issue based upon any unfair labor
practice occurring more than six months prior to the filing of the charge
with the Board and the service of a copy thereof upon the person against
whom such charge is made . .
180 NLRB No. 135.
LOCAL 9418, CWA 293
the filing of charges. The Board relied on Bryan Man-
ufacturing Co. 6 where the Supreme Court held that
Section 10(b) precludes the Board from finding a vio-
lation of the Act in those cases in which conduct
occurring within the limitations period can be
charged to be an unfair labor practice only through
reliance on an earlier unfair labor practice. Moreover,
the Board specifically found that, as herein, all that
occurred within the limitations period was the institu-
tion of legal proceedings to collect the fines, and there
is nothing unlawful in this act in and of itself.
On November 27, 1970, the Board issued a Supple-
mental Decision in Union Carbide '' in which it re-
affirmed , upon reconsideration, its Order dismissing
the complaint because it was time -barred under Sec-
tion 10(b) of the Act.
Accordingly, in these circumstances , we must dis-
miss the complaint.
ORDER
It is hereby ordered that the complaint herein be,
and it hereby is, dismissed in its entirety.
6 Supra.
7 lnternanonal Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, 186 NLRB
No. 138.