Local Union 2131, Electrical Workers

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 24, 1975

217 N.L.R.B. 46 (N.L.R.B. 1975)

46 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Local Union 2131, International Brotherhood of Elec-
trical Workers , AFL-CIO and Rucker Electronics,
a Division of the Rucker Company. Case
20-CB-3193
March 24, 1975
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS FANNING, KENNEDY, AND PENELLO
On December 12, 1974, Administrative Law Judge
Russell Stevens issued the attached Decision in this
proceeding. Thereafter,^the Charging Party filed excep-
tions and a supporting brief, and the General Counsel
filed an answering 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
briefs' and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings,
and conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge and
to adopt his recommended Order.'
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Re-
lations Act, as amended , the National Labor Relations
Board adopts as its Order the recommended Order of
the Administrative Law Judge and hereby orders that
Respondent, Local Union 2131, International Brother-
hood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, its officers,
agents, and representatives , shall take the action set
forth in the said recommended Order.
i The Charging Party's request for oral argument is denied. In our view
the record, including the exhibits and briefs, adequately sets forth the posi-
tions of the parties
2 The Charging Party excepts to the Administrative Law Judge's denial
of its motion, which the General Counsel opposed, to amend the complaint.
We conclude that the Administrative Law Judge properly denied the mo-
tion Local 1012, United Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers ofAmerica
(UE) (General Electric Company), 187 NLRB 375 (1970). We also conclude
that the Administrative Law Judge properly did not find that the Respond-
ent violated the Act with respect to Helen Crabb The Charging Party
asserts, inter alia, that the Administrative Law Judge should have deter-
mined the extent to which she was fined for working following her resigna-
tion from the Respondent, and have ordered pro rata reimbursement. How-
ever, apart from any other consideration, there is nothing in the record to
indicate that she was fined
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
RUSSELL STEVENS, Administrative Law Judge: This matter
was heard at San Francisco, California, on September 24 and
30, October 1, and November 4, and at Concord, California,
on November 6, 1974.' Rucker Electronics, a Division of
the Rucker Company, hereinafter referred to as the Com-
pany, filed on May 14 an unfair labor practice charge against
Local Union 2131, International Brotherhood of Electrical
Workers, AFL-CIO, hereinafter referred to as the Union,
alleging illegal threats to fine nonmembers. On June 26, the
Company filed an unfair labor practice charge against the
Union, alleging violent and coercive conduct by the Union
and-refusal to bargain in good faith. On July 31, the Regional
Director for Region 20 of the National Labor Relations
Board filed an order consolidating Cases 20-CB-3179 and
20-CB-3193, based upon the aforesaid charges, for hearing
and decision.
On October 1, after hearing opened (on September 24), the
parties moved to sever Case 20-CB-3179 on the ground it
had been settled by stipulation, and the motion was granted.
The complaint' in Case 20-CB-3193, issued July 31 and
alleging illegal threat of imposition of fines in violation of
8(b)(1)(A) of the National Labor Relations Act (hereinafter
referred to as the Act), was set for hearing at San Francisco
on November 4. After hearing opened on November 4, the
Administrative Law Judge received a letter from Respon-
dent's counsel (A.L.J. Exh. 1), who advised that he did not
intend to participate in the hearing.
Issues
The principal issue is whether Respondent Union disci-
plined employees of Respondent after they resigned from the
Union.
Upon the entire record,' and from my observation of the
witnesses and their demeanor, I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I THE BUSINESS OF COMPANY
At all times material herein, the Company has been and
now is, a California corporation with a manufacturing plant
located in Concord, California, where it is engaged in the
manufacture and sale of electronic components. In the course
and conduct of its business operations during the past year,
the Company sold and shipped goods and products valued in
excess of $50,000 directly to purchasers located outside the
State of California. The complaint alleges, the answer admits,
and I find that the Company at all times material herein has
been an employer engaged in commerce and in operations
affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6),
and (7) of the Act.
II THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Local Union 2131, International Brotherhood of Electrical
Workers, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within the mean-
ing of Section 2(5) of the Act.
I All dates are in 1974 unless stated to be otherwise.
2 As amended at hearing
3 On November 27, Counsel for the Charging Party filed herein a motion
of correct transcript. Said motion is hereby granted.
217 NLRB No. 9
LOCAL UNION 2131, ELECTRICAL WORKERS
III THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Introduction
Respondent instituted a strike, with accompanying picket-
ing, at the Company's Concord,-California, plant on April 29.
Prior to the strike, certain of the Company's employees who
were members of Respondent Union resigned from the Union
and thereafter returned to the plant; other employees who
were members of Respondent Union resigned their member-
ship and returned to work after commencement of the strike.
After the resignations, Respondent Union initiated disciplin-
ary proceedings against the former members who had re-
signed . The General Counsel's case is based upon the theory
that the Union 's action in disciplining former members, oc-
curring after the effective date of their resignation , restrained
and coerced those employees in violation of Section
8(b)(1)(A).
B. Pertinent Testimony
In General Counsel 's brief, there was included an appendix
which summarizes evidence concerning action taken against
the employees as alleged in the complaint. The facts set forth
in that summary have been carefully checked against the
transcript. As noted above, Respondent's counsel declined to
appear at the hearing, and there is no reason to doubt the
authenticity of the facts and figures given in said summary.
Under such circumstances, that summary is adopted and is
set forth in part as follows [attached as Appendix B].
C. Analysis and Conclusions
Disciplining by a union of members who have resigned
from union membership , is a violation of Section 8(b)(1)(A)
of the Act. N.L.R.B. v. Granite State Joint Board, Textile
Workers Union of America, Local 1029, AFL-CIO (Interna-
tional Paper Box Machine Co.), 409 U.S. 213, 217 (1972);
Production, Electronic & Aero-Dynamic Lodge No. 1327, In-
ternational Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers,
AFL-CIO (Dalmo Victor Company, a Division of Textron
Corporation), 192 NLRB 1015 (1971); International Chemi-
cal Workers Union, Local 143, AFL-CIO (Lederle Laborato-
ries, Division of American Cyanamid Company), 188 NLRB
705, 708 (1971).
The form of discipline is immaterial. District Lodge No. 99
and Lodge No. 2139, both affiliated with International As-
sociation of Machinists & Aerospace Workers, AFf -CIO
(General Electric Company), 194 NLRB 938 (1972), enfd. as
modified 489 F.2d 769 (C.A. 1, 1974). Communication Work-
ers of America, AFL-CIO Local 1170 (Rochester Telephone
Corporation), 194 NLRB 872, 873 (1972).
Similarly, the fact that fines were not actually levied pursu-
ant to the disciplinary action taken against employees is im-
material . It is the threat that is at the core of decisions on this
point. San Francisco-Oakland Mailers' Union No. 18, Inter-
national Typographical Union (Northwest Publications, Inc.),
172 NLRB 2173 (1968).
The Supreme Court pointed out in Granite State Joint
Board, supra, that it was not deciding whether a union consti-
tution or bylaws could restrict resignation. However, that
point is not involved in this case, because there is no evidence
47
that any employee involved herein ever waived , or agreed to
any restriction on, his statutory right to resign from Respond-
ent.
Based upon foregoing , it is quite clear that Respondent
Union disciplined its former members, after their resignation,
in violation of Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act.
D. Charging Party's Argument
At hearing, the Charging Party moved to'amend the com-
plaint to add the names of those people who resigned from
the Union, and who returned to work after their resignation
was transmitted to the Union , but prior to the time the resig-
nations became effective . That motion was denied by me on
the ground that to do so without concurrence of the General
Counsel would be contrary to law.
The Charging Party's argument in support of its conten-
tion that the Union violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act
when it disciplined former members after they had resigned,
is based on the same line of cases relied on by the General
Counsel . In addition to its argument concerning the principal
issue in the case, however, the Charging Party further pressed
in argument that it should have been allowed at hearing to
amend the complaint to add the names of employees who sent
letters of resignation , or who made oral statements of resigna-
tion to the Union, and returned to work prior to the time such
resignations were "effective ." As stated at hearing, a charging
party has no standing to secure expansion of the basic issues
by motion to amend a complaint without concurrence of the
General Counsel. International Union of Electrical, Radio
and Machine Workers, AFL-CIO (NECO Electrical Product
Corp.), 289 F.2d 757 (C.A.D.C., 1960). As pointed out above,
the General Counsel declined at hearing to concur in the
motion to amend submitted by the Charging Party. Under
such circumstances, the Charging Party's argument is con-
trary to existing law.
IV THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of Respondent, set forth in section III, above,
occurring in connection with the operations of Respondent,
described in section I, above, have a close, intimate, and
substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among
the several States, and tend to lead to labor disputes burden-
ing and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce.
THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has engaged in unfair labor
practices in violation of Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act, I shall
recommend that it be ordered to cease and desist therefrom,
and to take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate
the policies of the Act.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon
the entire record, I hereby make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Rucker Electronics , a Division of the Rucker Company,
is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
48 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
2. Local Union 2131, International Brotherhood of Electri-
cal Workers, AFL-CIO, is, and at all times material herein
has been, a labor organization within the meaning of Section
2(5) of the Act.
3. By filing charges against, ordering to appear before a
trial board, conducting disciplinary proceedings against, and
levying fines against nonmembers and former members of the
Union for conduct occurring while said persons were not
members of the Union, Respondent Union has engaged in,
and is engaging in, unfair labor practices within the meaning
of Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
Upon the above findings of fact, conclusions of law, and the
entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, I
hereby issue the following recommended:
ORDER4
Respondent, Local Union 2131, International Brother-
hood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, its officers, agents,
and representatives, shall:
1. Cease and desist from.
(a) Filing charges against, ordering to appear before a trial
board, conducting disciplinary proceedings against, or levy-
ing fines against any nonmember of Respondent Union or
against any former members of Respondent Union for con-
duct occurring while any individual was not a member of said
Union.
(b) In any like or related manner interfering with, restrain-
ing, or coercing employees in the exercise of their rights
guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action, which is found
necessary to effectuate the purposes of the Act:
(a) Withdraw all disciplinary proceedings pending against
all nonmembers or former members for conduct occurring
while the individuals were not members of Respondent, in-
cluding all disciplinary action taken against each of the fol-
lowing named persons, and any and all persons similarly
situated, for working behind a picket line:
Jean Agnew
Bonnie Diaz
Jean Englert
Deborah Alameda
Rosalina Bautista
Rose Doolin
Ludivina Abenoja
Teopista Calipes
Patricia Evans
Marge Gauntt
Helen Gleason
Janet Hanscome
Alice Harper
Mary Pree
Janet Hopkins
Concepcion Colipapa
Pacita Fangon
Cecilia Del Castillo
Delia Floriendo
Jaime Floriendo
Berry Nesmith
Delores Foster
Sachiko Higgins
Avelina Ignacio
Janet (Sherman)
Freeman
Leola Moore
Billie Hopkins
Linda Loera
Rosalina Llosa
Alice (Olson) Morrison
Delphic Lawson
Cynthia Parker
Thelma (Crosby)
Powell
Erma Taylor
Shawn (Brown) Phillipy
Katheleen Bellamy
Linda Mullins
Estrella Ruelos
Verna Sanders
Minnie (Sylvester) -
Stanton
Anna ' (Vallero) Collins
(b) Rescind all fines assessed against any of the above-
mentioned persons, and any and all persons similarly situ-
ated, for conduct occurring after their resignation'from Re-
spondent, including working behind a picket line.
(c) Reimburse any of the above-mentioned persons, and
any and all persons similarly situated, for fines collected
against them for conduct occurring after their resignation
from Respondent, with interest thereon at the rate of 6 per-
cent per annum from the time said sums were paid, and notify
each of the above-named persons, by letter, of the action
taken in accordance therewith. -
(d) Completely expunge and excise from its records all
references and other evidence in its file to threats to fine or
discipline, including any intraunion charges, citations, fines,
or other disciplinary action or disciplinary proceedings
against any nonmember of Respondent or any former mem-
bers of Respondent for conduct occurring after resignation
from the Respondent, including working behind a picket line.
(e) Notify all of the above-mentioned persons, and any and
all persons similarly situated, by letter, that the fines or other
disciplinary action will be rescinded and all moneys collected
in payment thereof will be refunded, and of the other steps
taken to comply with the Order.
(f) Post in conspicuous places in its business office, hiring
hall, and meeting places copies of the attached notice marked
"Appendix A".5 Copies of said notice, on forms provided by
the Regional Director for Region 20, after being duly signed
by authorized representative of Respondent, shall be posted
by Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and be
maintained for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous
places, including all places where notices to employees are
customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Re-
spondent to ensure that the notices are not altered, defaced,
or covered by any other material.
(g) Sign and mail sufficient copies of said notices to the
Regional Director for Region 20, for posting by the Company
at all locations where notices to employees are customarily
posted, if the Company is willing to do so.
(h) Notify the Regional Director for Region 20, in writing,
within 20 days from the date of this- Order, what steps Re-
spondent has taken to comply herewith.
4 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 find- In the event that the Board's Order is enforced by a Judgment of a
ings, conclusions, and recommended Order herein shall, as provided in United States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by
Section 102.48 of the Rules and Regulations, be adopted by the Board and Order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursuant
become its findings, conclusions, and Order, and all objections thereto shall to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order
be deemed waived for all purposes. of the National Labor Relations Board "
LOCAL UNION 2131, ELECTRICAL WORKERS 49
APPENDIX A
NOTICE
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
To All: Members, Officers, Representatives and
Agents
To All: Employees of Rucker Electronics, A Division
of the Rucker Company
WE WILL NOT file charges against, order to appear
before a trial board, conduct disciplinary proceedings
against, or levy fines against any nonmember of the
Union or against any former member of this Union for
conduct occurring while the individual was not a mem-
ber.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere
with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of
their rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the National
Labor Relations Act.
WE WILL withdraw all disciplinary proceedings pend-
ing against all nonmembers or former members for con-
duct occurring while the individuals were not members
of this Union, including all disciplinary action taken
against each of the following named persons, and any
and all persons similarly situated, for working behind a
picket line:
Jean Agnew
Bonnie Diaz
Jean Englert
Erma Taylor
Mary Pree
Janet Hopkins
Rose Doolin
Patricia Evans
Marge Gauntt
Helen Gleason
Anna (Vallero) Collins
Rosalina Bautista
Ludivina Abenoja
Teopista Cahpes
Delia Floriendo
Jaime Floriendo
Rosalina Llosa
Delphia Lawson
Deborah Alameda
Cynthia Parker
Janet Hanscome Pacita Fangon
Alice Harper Barry Nesmith
Billie Hopkins Delores Foster
Linda Loera Sachiko Higgins
Alice (Olson) Morrison Avelina Ignacio
Thelma (Crosby)
Powell Leola Moore
Concepcion Colipapa Kathleen Bellamy
Cecilia Del Castillo Linda Mullins
Janet (Sherman)
Freeman
Shawn (Brown)
Phillipy
Minnie (Sylvester)
Stanton
Estrella Ruelos
Verna Sanders
WE WILL rescind all fines assessed against any of the
above-mentioned persons, and any and all persons simil-
arly situated, for conduct occurring after their resigna-
tion from this Union, including working behind a picket
line.
WE WILL reimburse any of the above-mentioned per-
sons, and any and all persons similarly situated, for fines
collected against them for conduct occurring after their
resignation from this Union, with interest thereon at the
rate of 6 percent per annum from the time said sums
were paid, and notify each of the above-named persons,
by letter, of the action taken in accordance therewith.
WE WILL completely expunge and excise from our re-
cords all references and other evidence in our files to
threats to fine or discipline, including any intraunion
charges, citations, fines or other disciplinary action or
disciplinary proceedings against any nonmember or any
former member of this Union for conduct occurring
after resignation, including working behind a picket line.
LOCAL UNION 2131, INTERNATIONAL
BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL
WORKERS, AFL-CIO
50 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
APPENDIX B
Resign'n - Resign'n
Letter Letter Return Show
Name Sent Received to-Work Charged Cause Fined
Jean Agnew Apr. 28 Apr. 29 May 2 Yes Yes Yes
Bonnie Diaz May 13 May 14 1/ May 15 Yes Yes Yes
Jean Englert Apr. 27 Apr. 29 2/ May 2 Yes Yes Yes
Deborah Alameda July 3 July 5 37 July 7 Yes Yes Yes
Rosalina Bautista May 24 May 28 May 29 Yes No No
Helen Crabb 4/ Aug. 10 Aug. 12 Aug. 12 Yes No No
Rose Doolin Aug. 22 Aug. 23 1/ Aug. 26 Yes No No
Ludivina Abenoja Aug. 15 Aug. 16 J Aug. 19 Yes No No
Teopista Calipes May 17 May 20 May 22 Yes Yes Yes
Patricia Evans July 26 July 27 1/ July 30 Yes No No
Marge Gauntt June 19 June 20 1/ July 1 Yes 5/ Yes Yes
Helen Gleason Apr. 26 Apr. 30 May 1 Yes Yes Yes
Janet Hanscome May 23 May 24 May 28 Yes 5/ Yes No
Alice Harper Aug. 21 Aug. 22 Aug. 26 Yes No No
Billie Hopkins May 2 May 3 May 6 Yes Yes Yes
Linda Lo ra 29A Ye 5/ Y Ne
Rosalina Llosa May 24 May 28
pr.
May 29
s -
Yes
es
No
o
No
Alice (Olson)
Morrison Apr. 29 Apr. 30 May 1 Yes Yes Yes
Delphia Lawson July 3 July 5 3/ July 11 Yes Yes Yes
Centhia Parker Aug. 9 Aug. 10 1/ Aug. 12 Yes No No
Th l (C b )e ma ros y
Powell June 14 June 15 L/ June 17 Yes Yes Yes
Erma Taylor July 22 Yes No No
Mary Pree July 3 July 5 3/ July 8 Yes Yes Yes
Janet Hopkins May 2 May 3 May 6 Yes Yes Yes
Concepcion
Colipapa May 17 May 20 May 23 Yes Yes No
Pacita Fangon May 24 May 28 May 29 Yes No No
Cecilia Del
Castillo May 6 May 7 May 8 Yes Yes Yes
Delia Floriendo May 3 May 4.1/ May 8 Yes Yes Yes
Jaime Floriendo May 3 May 4 1/ May 8 Yes Yes Yes
Barry Nesmith June 27 June 28 July 1 Yes 5/ Yes Yes
Delores Foster July 5 July 6 if July 8 Yes Yes Yes
Sachiko Higgins Apr. 29 Apr. 30 May 2 Yes Yes Yes
Avelina Ignacio May 11 May 12 1/ May 29 Yes No No
t ( Sh n)J ermaane
Freeman July 19 July 20 Aug. 26 Yes No No
Leola Moore July 3 July 5 3/ July 8 Yes Yes No
Shawn (Brown)
Phillipy July 23 July 24 1/ July 29 Yes 5/ Yes No
Kathleen Bellamy June 25 June 26 1/ July 1 Yes 5/ Yes No
Linda Mullins Apr. 26 Apr. 27 J Apr. 29 Yes Yes Yes
Estrella Ruellos May 6 May 7 May 9 Yes Yes Yes
Verna Sanders July 3 July 5 3/ July 8 Yes Yes Yes
)Mi ti (S l ernn vese y
Stanton July 3 July 5 1/ July 8 Yes Yes Yes
Anna (Vallero)
Collins Apr. 23 Apr. 24.1/ June 27 Yes Yes Yes
1/ No evidence of actual date of receipt of resignation letter. In the
absence of evidence, the day after the mailing date has been designated
as the date of receipt. See Local 1012, U. E. (General Electric Co.
187 NLRB 375 (1970).
2/ No evidence of actual date of receipt. Since April 28, the day after
the mailing was a Sunday , Monday April 29 has been designated as the
date of receipt.
3/ No evidence of actual date of receipt. Since July 4, the day after the
mailing was a holiday, July 5 has been designated as the date of receipt.
4/ Helen Crabb' s name has been deleted from the Complaint because the evidence
indicated she returned to work the same day her resignation was received.
5/ Although there was no evidence that this employee received a charge
accusing her of working behind the picket line , the "show cause" notice
received by the employer with reference to a charge filed against the
employee, a copy of which was supportive.