Local Lodge No. 1198, District Lodge No. 99, International Association Of Machinists And Aero-Space Workers, Afl--Cio

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 22, 1986

278 N.L.R.B. 154 (N.L.R.B. 1986)

154 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Local Lodge No. 1198 , District Lodge No . 99, Inter-
national Association of Machinists and Aero-
space Workers, AFL-CIO and Interstate Food
Processing Corp.
Interstate Food Processing Corp . and Dawn Leves-
que, Petitioner and Local Lodge No. 1198, Dis-
trict Lodge No. 99 , International Association of
Machinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO.
Cases 1-CB-6092 and 1-UD-196
22 January 1986
DECISION, ORDER, AND DIRECTION
OF SECOND ELECTION
BY CHAIRMAN DOTSON AND MEMBERS
JOHANSEN AND BABSON
On 31 July 1985 Administrative Law Judge
George F. Mclnerny issued the attached decision.
The Respondent and the General Counsel filed ex-
ceptions and supporting briefs.
The National Labor Relations Board has delegat-
ed its authority in this proceeding to a three-
member panel.
The Board has considered the decision and the
record in light of the exceptions and briefs and has
decided to affirm the judge's rulings, findings, and
conclusions and to adopt the recommended Order
as modified.'
1. Substitute the following for paragraph 2(c).
"(c) Make whole employees Andrew Higgins,
Lennie Levesque, Lynn Flannery, Kimberly
Adams, Rita Hamilton, Kenneth Hayden, Sylvia
Ouellette, and David Ossie for any loss of earnings
and other benefits suffered as a result of the dis-
crimination against them, in the manner set forth in
the remedy section of the decision."
2. Insert the following as paragraph 2(d) and re-
letter the remaining paragraphs.
"(d) Reimburse $15.50 to those employees listed
in the judge's decision who paid June 1984 dues,
with interest computed in the manner prescribed in
Florida Steel Corp., 231 NLRB 651 (1977). See gen-
erally Isis Plumbing Co., 138 NLRB 716 (1962)."
3. Substitute the attached notice for that of the
administrative law judge.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the election in
Case 1-UD-196 be set aside and a new election
held.
[Direction of Second Election omitted from pub-
lication.] -
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES AND MEMBERS
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board adopts the
recommended Order of the administrative law
judge as modified below and orders that the Re-
spondent, Local Lodge No. 1198, International As-
sociation of Machinists and Aerospace Workers,
AFL-CIO, its officers, agents, and representatives,
shall take the action set forth in the Order as modi-
fied.
i The General Counsel has excepted to the judge's failure to order the
Respondent to reimburse to employees moneys which the employees paid
to the Respondent in response to its unlawful demand of 2 July 1984. We
find merit in this exception
Of the $35 each employee paid to the Respondent, $15.50 represented
monthly dues for June 1984 and the remainder represented an initiation
fee. As the Respondent could not lawfully assess dues for June 1984,
which was within the 30-day statutory grace period, we shall order the
Respondent to reimburse $15.50, with interest, to each employee who
paid June dues in response to the Respondent 's unlawful demand. We
will not, however, require the Respondent to reimburse the initiation fees
paid because the employees were obligated to pay those fees, albeit at a
later tune. See Electrical Workers IUE Local 601 (Westinghouse Electric),
180 NLRB 1062, 1063 (1979)
The General Counsel has also excepted to the judge's inclusion in his
order of a make-whole remedy for employee Vince Brown, who was not
named in the complaint and for whom the General Counsel is not seeking
any relief. Under these circumstances, we shall delete Brown's name
from the Order. We further find, as requested by the General Counsel
and in accordance with the parties' stipulation, that Yvette Blaisdell paid
$35 to the Respondent on 24 July 1984.
The judge inadvertently failed to cite Florida Steel Corp, 231 NLRB
651 (1977), for the rate of interest on any backpay due the employees.
The National Labor Relations Board has found
that we violated the National Labor Relations Act
and has ordered us to post and abide by this notice.
WE WILL NOT give effect to, implement, or in
any manner enforce a practice which fails to grant
to employees of Interstate Food Processing Corp.
the statutory time before requiring that they pay
dues or other fees, and WE WILL NOT fail to give
these employees adequate notice of the amounts
and method of computation of such fees when the
statutory period has elapsed.
WE WILL NOT cause or attempt to cause Inter-
state Food Processing Corp. to discharge or other-
wise discriminate against its employees where we
are not entitled to collect dues or other fees from
these employees.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner re-
strain or coerce you in the exercise of the rights
guaranteed you by Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL remove from our records any demand
for the discharge of any employee of Interstate
Food Processing Corp. to whom we did not grant
the statutory time before requiring that they pay
dues or other fees.
WE WILL notify Interstate Food Processing
Corp. in writing, with copies to the employees af-
278 NLRB No. 25
MACHINISTS LOCAL 1198 (INTERSTATE FOOD) 155
fected, that we rescind any demands for the termi-
nation of their employment, and ' that we have no
objection to their continued employment in their
former _ or substantially equivalent positions with
full seniority and other rights.
WE WILL make whole employees Andrew Hig-
gins, Lennie Levesque, Lynn Flannery, Kimberly
Adams, Rita Hamilton , Kenneth Hayden, Sylvia
Ouellette, and David Ossie for any loss of earnings
and other benefits suffered as a result of the dis-
crimination against them, with interest.
WE WILL reimburse $15.50 to those employees
who paid June 1984 dues in response to our unlaw-
ful demand of 2 July 1984, with interest.
LOCAL LODGE No. 1198, INTERNA-
TIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS
AND AEROSPACE WORKERS, AFL-
CIO
Don C. Firenzi, Esq., for the General Counsel.
Peter R Kraft, Esq., Herbert H. Bennett and Associates, P.
A., of Portland, Maine, for the Charging Party Em-
ployer.
Sam Luterotty, of Washington, D.C., for the Respondent
Union.
Dawn Levesque, of Fort Fairfield, Maine , for Petitioner,
pro se.
DECISION AND REPORT ON OBJECTION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
GEORGE F. MCINERNY, Administrative Law Judge.
On 5 July 19841 Dawn Levesque, an individual, an em-
ployee of Interstate Food Processing Corp. (the Compa-
ny), and also a member of Local Lodge No. 1198, Inter-
national Association of Machinists and Aerospace Work-
ers, AFL-CIO, (the Union or Respondent), filed a peti-
tion in Case 1 UD-196 requesting an election under the
auspices of the National Labor Relations Board, wherein
the Company's employees would vote on whether or not
to withdraw the Union's union-shop authority under Sec-
tion 9 of the National Labor Relations Act.
On 18 October 1984 -the Union, the Company, and
Levesque agreed , in a Stipulation for Certification Upon
Consent Election, on the time and place for the union-
shop 'deauthorization election. The election was held on
1 November, resulting in a 79-to-53 vote in favor of, re-
taining the Union's union-shop authority,; The Petitioner,
Levesque, filed timely objections on 8 November to con-
duct affecting the results of the election, as follows:2,
(1) First the Union filed a number, of unfair labor
`practice charges 'against the company which were
untrue. The unfair labor practice charges unfairly
stalled our election for several months. The Union
' There being no evidence here concerning Distract Lodge No 99, that
organization is dismissed from the complaint.
2 The grammar is as set out in the original objections
should not have been allowed to abuse the law and
delay our election on false charges.
(2) Second the Union tried to scare employees by
threatening to fire people and actually having
people fired because they hadn't paid union dues.
The Union was trying to get rid of employees who
the Union thought would vote against them.
(3) Third the Union tries to have people who had
either been fired or who had quit to be included in
the vote. There was a lot of people who the Union
were no longer employees that the Union had to
get on the eligibility list. As I understand it, the
number of eligible voters is very important. The
Union tried to-make a much ,bigger list of voters
than there should have been.
(4) Fourth, the Grand Lodge Representative
union stewards and Local `Union officials told
people in letters and in person a lot of lies about
what deauthorizing the Union. They told employees
that a deauthorization meant getting rid of the
Union and that we would not have an open shop in-
stead of a closed shop. They said that if we deauth-
orized we would lose overtime, vacations, seniority
and other fringe benefits. They also said that the
company would get rid of employees and fire them
for any reason if the union was deauthorized. They
told employees that the company not me was
behind the deauthorization petition. They told em-
ployees that a number of us employees who were
exercising our legal rights to deauthorize had been
corrupted and bought off by the company.
A lot of- employees believed all these lies and
voted, against deauthorizing the Union because of
them.
During the last few months the Union has' scared
the employees, told them lies about deauthorization,
and'told them lies about those of us who supported
the deauthorization petition.
The Regional Director for Region 1 conducted an in-
vestigation of these objections , concluding on 28 Novem-
ber that the matter covered by Objection 2 was also the
subject of another case , and that the objections should be
consolidated with the other case for hearing.
The other case referred to, Case 1-CB-6092 , was initi-
ated through a charge filed 'on - 22 October With the
Board by the Company, alleging that ` the Union had
committed certain unfair labor practices in violation of
Section 8(b)(1)(A) and (5) of the Act. This charge was
amended on 10 December adding additional alleged vio-
lations of Section 8(b)(2)' of the Act: Then, on 11 De-
cember, _ the ' Regional' Director issued an order consoli-
dating Cases 1-UD-196 and 1-CB-6092, issuing a com-
plaint in the latter case and assigning ' the -consolidated
cases for hearing.
Following appropriate notice , a hearing on these mat-
ters was held 'before me in Presque Isle, Maine, on 4 and
5 February 1985, at which all parties were represented,
the Company and the General Counsel by counsel, and
were afforded the opportunity to produce testimony and
documentary evidence,, to examine and cross-examine
witnesses , and to argue orally . Following the close of the
156 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
hearing, the Company and the General Counsel submit-
ted briefs, which have been carefully considered.
Based on the entire record, including my observation
of the witnesses and their demeanor, I make the follow-
ing
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. JURISDICTION
The Company is a corporation which maintains an
office and place of business in Fort Fairfield, Maine,
where it is in the business of processing and selling peas
and potatoes. During the calendar year ending 31 De-
cember 1984 , it sold and shipped from its plant goods
valued at over $50,000 directly to points outside the
State of Maine.
There is no question that the Company is an employer
engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6)
and (7) of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
There is no question that the Union is a labor organi-
zation within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
The Company and the Union here had been involved
in a collective-bargaining relationship for the Company's
production workers for some years.3 The latest, but one,
contract between them ran from 2 March 1981 to 28
February 1983. Following the expiration of that agree-
ment, there was a strike , then a series of bargaining ses-
sions involving Grand Lodge Representative William H.
Layman, and Herbert Bennett, the Company's attorney,
resulting in a contract which was actually signed on 1
June 1984 and made effective as of 21 May 1984 until 24
May 1987.
The contract contains certain union security provi-
sions, as follows
Article II
UNION SECURITY
Section 1.
All -employees in the bargaining units must as a
condition of continued employment be either a
member of the Union and pay union dues or pay an
agency fee to the Union, but not both.
Section 2.
All employees within the bargaining unit on the
effective date of this agreement who are not union
members must as a condition of continued employ-
ment, pay to the Union, while on the active payroll,
an agency fee equal in amount to monthly member-
ship dues, beginning with the month following the
month in which they accumulate thirty (30) days'
continuous service in the bargaining unit since their
last date of hire or rehire. Employees entering the
bargaining unit without seniority after the effective
date of this agreement who do not become union
members or having become, do not remain union
members must as a condition of employment, while
on the active payroll, pay such fee to the Union
commencing the month following the month in
which they accumulate thirty (30) days service in
the bargaining unit.
Section 3.
Employees who are union members on the effec-
tive date of this agreement shall continue to pay
membership dues to the Union as a condition of em-
ployment while in the bargaining unit ; employees
within the bargaining unit who are not union mem-
bers on the effective date of this agreement and
choose to become members of the Union shall pay
while on the active payroll , an original initiation fee
and membership dues to the Union, as a condition
of continued employment while in the bargaining
unit and while remaining a union member.
Section 4.
Any employee required to pay an agency fee,
membership dues , or initiation or reinstatement fee
as a condition of continued employment who fails
to tender the agency fee or inititation , reinstate-
ment, or periodic dues uniformly required, shall be
notified in writing of his/her delinquency. A copy
of such communication shall be mailed to the Com-
pany not later than fifteen (15) days prior to such
request that the Company discharge any employee
who is not in good standing as required by this Ar-
ticle.
Section 5.
After the initial contract, employees, who are not
members of the Union and have paid their service
fee, shall be entitled to vote on any future contract.
Should this entitlement to voting privileges on the
acceptance or rejection of contracts be denied, then
the requirement that non-members pay a service fee
will become null and void. After employees who
are not members of the Union tender their service
fee, there shall be no additional financial obligations
or requirements to the Union.
Both the General Counsel and the Company maintain
that the plain language of these provisions does not
permit an interpretation that initiation fees or their equiv-
alent was encompassed within this article. When I first
read the article , noting particularly section 1 , 1 agreed
with this, ruling at one point that I would not receive
testimony about the intent of the parties during negotia-
tions on this issue4 and , at another point , declining to
hold open the record to receive rebuttal testimony from
the Company's attorney and chief negotiator Herbert
Bennett.
8 More accurately , the Company and its predecessor, the Great Atlan-
tic and Pacific Tea Company, Inc.
4 Despite my ruling, quite a bit of evidence got into the record con-
cerning the discussions on this issue
MACHINISTS LOCAL 1198 (INTERSTATE FOOD)
In reading the entire article on union security, howev-
er, I can see where there may well be some ambiguity on
the question of whether the parties contemplated that ini-
tiation fees would be required of employees. Looking at
section 1 alone, it seems clear that dues or agency fees
alone are required; but when one reads section 4, it
would seem that initiation or reinstatement fees are, in
fact, also required.
Because of my rulings at'the hearing, I do not think it
would be fair to the parties if I were now to use William
Layman's testimony as the basis for a finding that initi-
ation fees were a part of article II, but using the lan-
guage of section 4 together with reference to Layman's
letter of 26 June to General Manager Chris French; the
letter of about 2 July to French from Union President
Lawrence Gallop; the memorandum of 11 July from
management official Steve Henning to all employees; and
the Company's answers to union grievances; all which
are in evidence here, I have no difficulty in finding that
the parties clearly understood that the obligations of the
Company's employees under the contract included the
payment of initiation or reinstatement fees, as well as
dues or agency fees.
The next question is whether the Union was entitled to
collect such fees, or whether such actions themselves
violated the law, Professional Engineers Local 151 (Gener-
al Dynamics Corp.), 272 NLRB 1051 (1985). The record
here, however, is not clear enough for me to determine
which employees were employed before the strike in
1983, or whether any of these employees resigned from
the Union. Thus, I can make no finding on this issue,
which, in any event, was not a part of the complaint, and
not fully litigated at this hearing.
The sole questions left for decision, here,-5 are, first,
whether the demands made by the Union in July 1984
for the discharge of employees and the subsequent dis-
charges of employees violated Section 8(b)(1XA) and (2)
of the Act; and, second, whether the union-shop deau-
thorization election of 1 November 1984 should be set
aside.
On the question of the Union 's demands for discipli-
nary action against employees for nonpayment of fees,
there is no question of fact.
William Layman and Chris French met on 25 June to
discuss some individual grievances. During the course of
that meeting, Layman raised the question of the payment
of initiation fees, and told French the amount that each
employee would be required to pay. This last was not
difficult since all, members and agency fee people, paid
the same-$35-of which $15.50 was dues and the re-
mainder an initiation or reinstatement fee. Layman fol-
lowed up this conversation with a letter to French dated
26 June in which he set out the fees noted above, and
indicated that these fees would be due as of 1 July 1984,
for all employees who had not paid either dues or
agency fees. On 2 July, at Layman's direction, the secre-
tary-treasurer of the local, union, Lodge 1198, sent to
each employee who had not paid the fees a form entitled
5 In his brief, the General Counsel abandoned the position that the fees
in question here were excessive or discrumnatory within the meaning of
Sec 8(bx5) of the Act
157
"Local Lodge 1198 form lA," which described the em-
ployee's delinquency, and served also as "the required
fifteen (15) day notice to discharge the above employ-
ee. . . ." After that, around 15 July, Union President
Lawrence Gallop sent to French a list of 125 names of
delinquent employees, and requested that the Company
terminate all of them.
The Company took no action on people who were
then in layoff status, were out sick, or who had quit or
been terminated for other reasons. But between 19 July
and 15 August, it did terminate nine employees: Andrew
Higgins, Lennie Levesque, Lynn Flannery, Kimberly
Adams, Rita Hamilton, Kenneth Hayden, Sylvia Ouel-
lette, David Ossie, and Vince Brown. A number of other
employees, as listed in the complaint, paid either union
dues or an agency fee. The names of these employees to-
gether with the amounts paid and the dates on which
payments were made, was stipulated by the parties as
follows:
Susan Achorn, August 1, $35, agency.
Wayne Adams, August 1, $35, agency.
Shirley Amnot, July 17, $35, agency.
Gene Anderson, September-22, $35, initiation.
Wayne Ballard, August 31, $35, agency.
Ida Beaulieu, July 17, $35, agency
Frances Beckwith, July 17, $35, reinstatement.
Lucy Bellefleur, September 24, $35, initiation.
Noella Bernier, July 27, $35, agency.
Juanita Berube, July 27, $35, agency.
Donald Bishop-sometime in the first weeks of
July, $93, reinstatement.
Yvette Blaisdell, July 24, agency.
Kevin Bonderson, July 28, $35, initiation.
Lola Boulier, July 16, $35, reinstatement.
Hattie Brooker, October 30, $35, initiation.
Gerald Brouette, July 25, $35, agency.
Angie Brown, August 10, $35, agency.
Phllis Brown, July 17, $35, agency.
Dolly Butler, August 21, $35, agency.
Minnie Butler, July 20, $35, agency.
Robert Caldwell, July 18, $35, agency.
Donald Chapman, July 17, $35, reinstatement.
Ernest Chapman, July 17, $35, reinstatement.
Douglas Clifford, July 25, $35, agency.
Timothy Cole, September 22, $35, initiation.
Pauline Craig, July 14, $35, reinstatement.
Florence Davenport, July 20, $35, agency.
Larry Davenport, July, 18, $35, agency.
Judy DeMerchant, September 28, $35, agency.
Jeanne Deveau, October 6, $35, agency.
Madeline Dionne, September 22, $35, agency.
Eva Donovan, July 20, $35, agency.
Hope Doughty, July 16, $35, reinstatement.
Kent Doughty, July 18, $35, agency.
Danny Dufour, July 22, $35, agency.
Stephen Dumond, July 11, $35 reinstatement.
Vincent Emery, July 17, $35, reinstatement.
Cecilia Guimond, September 28, $35 agency.
Michael Guimond, October 20, $46.50, agency.
Becky Hafford, July 17, $35, agency.
Elouise Helstrom, July 20, $35, agency.
158 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Otis Hewitt, July 28, $35, agency,
Winslow Kenney, July 21, $35, reinstatement.
Virginia Larrabee, November 8, $35, reinstate-
ment.
Raymond Leavitt, July 25, $35, agency.
Austin Levesque, July 17, $35, agency.
Dawn Levesque, there are two entries, July 18,
$35, agency; that check apparently bounced
and there was a payment on August 18 of
$50.50, agency.
Simone Levesque, August 15, $35, agency.
Carolyn Lilly, July 17, $35, agency.
Yvonne Madore, August 4, $35, agency.
Olive McDougal, August 14, $35, initiation.
Pauline McDougal, August 10, $35, agency.
Walter McDougal, July 17, $35, agency.
Randy McGrath, July 17, $35, agency.
Shirley McShaw, August 14, $35, agency.
Lendal Mills; August 10, $35, initiation.
Bertha Morin, July 20, $35, agency.
Arnold Murchison, July 20, $35, reinstatement.
Wyona O'Nela, August 14, $35, agency:
Linda Pechkam, July 24, $35, reinstatement.
Gertrude Petty, September 22, $35, agency.
Donald Rand, July 18, $35, agency.
Linda Rand, July 18, $35, agency.
Jane Rogers, July 18, $35, agency.
Jeannie St. Jarre, July 21, $35, agency.
Robert St. Peter, July 20, $35, agency.
Linda Sutherland, July 17, $35, agency.
It is the position of the General Counsel, as expressed
on the record here, that all of these employees were re-
strained and coerced, by the, Union either to join the
Union or to pay an agency fee. I have examined all of
the evidence here, including the Union 's communications
of 26 June to French, and to all employees on 2 July,
together with the testimony of several employees who
were convinced that they would have lost their jobs if
they had not paid what the Union demanded, that the
General Counsel is correct, and that the,Union's actions
were responsible for the reactions of the employees.
It seems clear, also, that the Union 's actions in de-
manding initiation , fees , reinstatement fees, dues, and
agency fees were unlawful under Section 8(b)(1)(A) of
the Act. The, old contract had expired in 1983, and the
employees were, under no obligation to pay dues or other
fee to the Union. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals, 258 NLRB
29 (1981). The new contract was signed on 1 June 1984,
so that the 30-day statutory, period prescribed in the first
proviso to Section 8(a)(3), would have begun on that
date, making a demand requiring these payments for any
period before 1 July, premature and unlawful. The
Union's demand for payments covering the month of
June 1984 was therefore a violation of Section
8(b)(1)(A), and the accompanying threat of discharge for
nonpayment a violation of Section 8(b)(1)(A) and (2).
Kaiser Foundation Hospitals, supra at 31.
The actual discharges of nine employees, effected by
the Company at the demand of the Union, likewise con-
stitute violations of Section 8(b)(1)(A) and (2) of the Act.
The General Counsel and the Company also contend
that because the 2 July notice did not explain how the
$35 fee demanded had been calculated, the demand was,
on its face,' defective. In this case there is no question
about the total amount or the place where payment was
to be made. The only question concerned the fact that
the amount on the 2 July letter was not broken down as
to initiation or reinstatement fees, and the dues or agency
fees. I think this defect comes within the proscription of
the Board's decisions in this area. Moreover, the Union's
letter of 26 June to French, containing a breakdown of
the $35 amount, shows that copies were sent to the fi-
nancial secretary, and all officers and stewards of Local
Lodge 1198, Thus, anyone interested in the figures,
would have been required to seek help from one of those
officers or stewards. Harsh Investment Corp., 260 NLRB
1088, 1092 (1982). In this instance, the Union has violat-
ed Section 8(b)(1)(A).
With respect to the General Counsel's contention that
the, 2 July notice did not allow a reasonable period of
time to make payments. I do not think there is enough
evidence here to permit me to make the requested find-
ing. Although the stipulated dates showing when, em-
ployees actually paid show a wide spread of time, there
is no evidence here of the disparity of special situations
or unusual circumstances present in United Metaltronics
Local 958 (Pharmaseal Laboratories), 254 NLRB 601
(1981).
IV. REPORT ON OBJECTIONS
The objections to the election are listed above:
The Regional Director for Region 1 consolidated
those matters for hearing before me in this matter, and I
make the following findings and recommendations.
Concerning Objection 1, Chris French testified that
William Layman had told him after a prior union-shop
deauthorization was filed that French did not have to
"worry about an election because he [Layman] was
going to run so many charges against the company that
they would never see an election up in that plant." This
was, of course, alleged to have been said before the filing
of the instant petition , but, in any event , is imprecise and,
standing alone , does not convince me that , if it was said,
it proves that any charges filed were "untrue" or were
filed primarily for the purpose of stalling the election.
Concerning Objection- 2, my findings of violations of
Section 8(b)(1)(A) and (2) above are ample justification
for a further finding that the Union's conduct unfairly af-
fected the results of the election.
There is no evidence on and I find no merit to Objec-
tions 3 and 4.
Based on my finding that Objection 2 is meritorious, I
recommend that the election in Case 1-UD-196 be set
aside, and a new election be held in the unit found to be
appropriate.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that the Union has engaged in and is en-
gaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of
the Act, I shall recommend that it cease and desist there-
from and that it take certain affirmative action designed
to effectuate the policies of the Act.
MACHINISTS LOCAL 1198 (INTERSTATE FOOD)
Having found that the Union has violated Section
8(b)(1)(A) and (2) by demanding the discharge of 125
employees named above, I shall recommend that the
Union remove such demand from its own records and
notify the Company in writing that it has no objection to
the continued employment of such persons.
Having found that the Union has violated Section
8(b)(1)(A) and (2) by demanding the discharges, and
causing the discharges of Andrew Higgins , Lennie
Levesque, Lynn Flannery, Kimberly Admans, Rita Ham-
ilton, Kenneth Hayden, Sylvia Ouellette, David Ossie,
and Vince Brown, I shall recommend that it remove
from its records any reference to the demand for their
discharge, and notify the Company that it has no objec-
tion to their reemployment, and that it pay to them
amounts of money calculated to make them whole for
the discrimination against them, all in the manner pre-
scribed in F. W. Woolworth Co., 90 NLRB 289 (1950),
with interest in accordance with Isis Plumbing Co., 138
NLRB 716 (1962).
It is further recommended that Case 1-UD-196 be re-
manded to the Regional Director, that the election held
there on 1 November 1984 be set aside, and a new elec-
tion conducted when the Regional Director deems ap-
propriate.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Employer, Interstate Food Processing Corp., is
an employer within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7)
of the Act.
2. The Union is a labor organization within the mean-
ing of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. Respondent has violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) and (2)
of the Act by unlawfully threatening to discharge, and
by actually causing the discharge of, certain employees
of the employees herein.
.On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and
on the entire record, I issue the following recommend-
s
ORDER
The Respondent, Local Lodge No . 1198 , International
Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers,
AFL-CIO, its officers , agents, and representatives, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Giving effect to, implementing , or in any manner
enforcing a practice which fails to grant to employees of
r If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec 102 46 of the Board's
Rules and Regulations, the findings, conclusions, and recommended
Order shall, as provided in Sec. 102.48 of the Rules, be adopted by the
Board and all objections to them shall be deemed waived for all pur-
poses
159
Interstate Food Processing Corp. the statutory time
before requiring that they pay dues, initiation or rein-
statement fees or agency fees, and failing to give employ-
ees adequate notice of the amounts and method of com-
putation of such fees when the statutory period has
elapsed.
(b) Causing or attempting to cause Interstate Food
Processing Corp. to discharge or otherwise discriminate
against its employees where Respondent is not entitled
under the Act to do so.
(c) In any like or related manner interfering with, re-
straining , or coercing employees in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action designed to ef-
fectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Remove from its records any demands for the dis-
charges of any of the employees named in this decision.
(b) Notify Interstate Food Processing Corp., in writ-
ing, with copies to all the employees whose names are
mentioned in this decision, that it rescinds any demands
for the termination of their employment, and that it has
no objection to their continued employment in their
former or substantially equivalent position with full se-
niority and other rights.
(c) Make whole the nine employees actually dis-
charged for any loss of earnings they may have suffered
because of their unlawful discharges by paying to them
sums of money specified in the remedy section V of this
decision.
(d) Post at its facility in Presque Isle, Maine, copies of
the attached notice marked "Appendix."7 Copies of the
notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for
Region 1, after being signed by the Respondent's author-
ized representative, shall be posted by the Respondent
immediately upon receipt and maintained for 60 consecu-
tive days in conspicuous places including all places
where notices to employees are customarily posted. Rea-
sonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to ensure
that the notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by
any other material.
(e) Forward to the Regional Director for Region 1
signed copies of the notice sufficient in number for post-
ing by Interstate Food Processing Corp., that Company
being willing, at all locations where notices to their em-
ployees are customarily posted.
(f) Notify the Regional Director in writing within 20
days from the date of this Order what steps the Re-
spondent has taken to comply.
7 If 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 Nation-
al 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 "