Local Union 399, IBEW

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 21, 1972

200 N.L.R.B. 1050 (N.L.R.B. 1972)

1050 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Local Union 399, International Brotherhood of Electri-
cal Workers , AFL-CIO and Illinois Bell Telephone
Company Case 38-CB-351
December 21, 1972
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS JENKINS
AND PENELLO
On June 16, 1972, Administrative Law Judge'
Wellington A Gillis issued the attached Decision in
this proceeding Thereafter, the Respondent filed
exceptions and a supporting brief, the Charging
Party filed a brief in opposition to the exceptions,
and the General Counsel filed a brief in support of
the Decision
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel
The Board has considered the record and the
attached 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 2
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended , the National Labor
Relations Board adopts as its Order the recommend-
ed Order of the Administrative Law Judge and
hereby orders that Respondent, Local Union 399,
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers,
AFL-CIO, its officers, agents, and representatives,
shall take the action set forth in said recommended
Order
I The title of Trial Examiner was changed to Administrative Law
Judge effective August 19 1972
2 The Respondent s July 7 request for oral argument is denied inasmuch
as the record and the briefs adequately present the positions of the parties
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
WELLINGTON A GILLIS, Trial Examiner This case was
heard by me at Decatur, Illinois, on April 25, 1972, and is
based upon a charge filed on March 22 , 1971, by Illinois
Bell Telephone Company, hereinafter referred to as the
Company or Illinois Bell, upon a complaint , issued on
March 1, 1972, by the General Counsel for the National
Labor Relations Board, hereinafter referred to as the
Board , against Local Union 399 , International Brother-
hood of Electrical Workers , AFL-CIO, hereinafter re-
1 Certain inadvertent errors in the transcript are hereby corrected
ferred to as the Respondent or the Union, alleging
violations of Section 8(b)(1)(A) and (2) and Section 2(6)
and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended
(61 Stat 136), and upon an answer timely filed by the
Respondent denying the commission of any unfair labor
practices
At the hearing, all parties were represented by counsel,
and were afforded full opportunity to examine and cross-
examine witnesses , to introduce evidence pertinent to the
issues, and to engage in oral argument Subsequent to the
close of hearing, timely briefs were filed by counsel for all
parties
Upon the entire record in this case,' and from my
observation of the witnesses, and their demeanor on the
witness stand and upon substantial, reliable evidence
"considered along with the consistency and inherent
probability of testimony" (Universal Camera Corp v
N L R B, 340 U S 474, 496), I make the following
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
I COMMERCE
Illinois Bell Telephone Company is an Illinois corpora-
tion with offices and places of business located in various
places in Illinois, including a Decatur, Illinois, facility,
where it is engaged in the business of providing telephone
communications During the 12-month period immediately
preceding the issuance of complaint, the Company
received gross revenues in excess of $100,000 The parties
admit, and I find, that Illinois Bell Telephone Company is
an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act
II THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
It is admitted and I find, that Local Union 399,
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-
CIO, is a labor organization within the meaning of
Section 2(5) of the Act
III THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
The Issue
Whether, under a maintenance of membership contract,
an employee who leaves the bargaining unit to take a
supervisory position with the employer, and subsequently
returns to his former job in the bargaining unit, is
compelled to resume his dues obligation to the union
The Facts
For many years a contractual relationship has existed
between Illinois Bell and Local 399, the most recent
contract providing for a maintenance-of-membership
union-security clause In pertinent part, the clause provides
that "All employees with 30 days or more of employment
with the Company who on November 30, 1948, were
members or who thereafter become members of Local
Unions 165, 315, 336, or 399, shall maintain their
200 NLRB No 159
LOCAL UNION 399, IBEW
membership in the Umon in good standing as a condition
of employment under this Agreement after June 30, 1968 "
Robert Galka, the alleged discnminatee herein, first went
to work for the Company at its Decatur, Illinois, plant on
September 1, 1959, as a frame man The following March
1960, Galka Joined the Union Eight years later, on March
15, 1968, Galka, who was then a communications mainte-
nance man, was appointed to a supervisory position as a
station installation foreman with the Company at Decatur
This position was outside the bargaining unit represented
by the Union On February 9, 1969, Galka, at his own
request, left management and returned to the job of
communications maintenance man, back within the unit
In April 1968, shortly after Galka's elevation to foreman,
Galka talked with Don Maddox, Local 399's chief steward,
at the Company's South Garage Galka told Maddox,
"since I was in management and I wasn't in the Union any
more, that I would like to have my union dues stopped," to
which Maddox replied that he would take care of it While
at no time was Galka ever given a withdrawal card to sign,
within a month or two after the conversation with Maddox,
he stopped receiving all union literature, including copies
of the Electrical Workers' journal, and had no further
contact with Local 399 during the remainder of the time he
was foreman
In April 1969, shortly after he returned to his communi-
cations maintenance job within the bargaining unit, while
Galka was picking up some equipment in the switchboard
equipment repair room and conversing with Jun Nalefskin,
a building steward for Local 399, Nalefskin told Galka that
he had some cards for him to sign "in order for me to get
my union dues started again " Galka replied that that was
fine However, Galka never received any cards,2 nor any
further communication of any kind until 14 months later
when, in June 1970, Maddox approached Galka on the job
and told him that he was in trouble When Galka asked
why, Maddox told him it was because he owed the Union
some back dues Galka asked Maddox how he figured that
he owed any back dues if he was not a member Maddox
told him that he automatically was a member When Galka
asked why he had not received a membership card or any
union materials, Maddox replied that that was beside the
point, that he owed back dues and if he would sign a
payroll deduction card the Union would bill him later for
the back dues Galka replied that he would not sign
anything under those circumstances In leaving, Maddox
asked if he knew what this meant, to which Galka
answered that he did not care what it meant
By letter dated July 1, 1970, to G D Fritz, company
general personnel supervisor, copy to Galka, the Union,
citing the fact that Galka had returned to a job under
Local 399's jurisdiction, asserted that Galka had refused to
sign a new payroll authorization card for deduction of
union dues The letter also stated that
Mr Galka, to become a member in good standing in
this Local Union, must pay all back union dues from
2 Contrary to Galka from whose testimony the quoted testimony is
taken Nalefskm could not recall having any conversation with Galka at
that time In view of Nalefskm s mere failure to recall and the fact that
Galka testified with assurance as to the event I credit the latter s testimony
3 Maddox referred Galka to section 4 on p 78 which reads
1051
February 1969, to August of 1970, or until such time his
payroll deduction of union dues starts
If Mr Galka refuses to do this immediately, I am
requesting I B T Company to enforce the negotiated
agreement between Illinois Bell Telephone Company
and Local Unions 134, 165, 315, 336, and 399, article
III, union security
Shortly after receiving his copy of this letter, Maddox
approached Galka at his desk and asked him if he had
received it Galka replied that he had and said he would
like to talk to him about the whole thing The two
proceeded to a more private room, and discussed the
matter Galka told Maddox that he had no objections to
joining the Union Maddox indicated that that was not the
issue, that under the Union's Constitution, the copy of
which he showed Galka3 he was automatically a member
and owed the Union "all these back dues that I hadn't
paid," dating back to February 1969 Galka again
reiterated his feeling that he did not owe any back dues, to
which Maddox replied that Galka's job was at stake and
that he would hate to see him lose it for $140 of back dues
At some point, Maddox suggested that in the event that he
had a problem in repaying the amount due, time payments
could be arranged
On July 30, 1970, by letter, Fritz to Delbert Brown, local
union president and business manager, the Company
replied to the Union to the effect that, in the opinion of the
Company's legal staff, it would be a violation of the
National Labor Relations Act to discharge Galka at the
Union's request for refusing to reestablish membership,
that to do so would expose both the Company and the
Union to backpay liability, and suggesting that the Union
refer the matter to its counsel
By letter of September 24, 1970, the Union advised the
Company as follows
To clarify any possible misunderstanding concerning
our letter of July 1, 1970, Local 399 hereby requests the
discharge of Robert L Galka, because of his failure to
tender Union dues as required by the Contract Article
III, Union Security
May we have your reply to this renewed request by
October 2, 1970
On September 29, 1970, the Company by letter declined
to comply with the Union's discharge request for reasons
set forth in its earlier reply to the Union
At some time after July 1970, having heard that matters
pertaining to him had been discussed at a union meeting,
Galka arranged to meet with Maddox On this occasion,
Galka told Maddox that he had heard that statements had
been attributed to him at the union meeting which he had
not made Galka reiterated to Maddox that he had nothing
against joining the Union, and refuted Maddox's assertion
that he had automatically reverted to his union member-
ship Galka also told Maddox that he had heard that he
(Maddox) had stated at the meeting that he had given
payroll and other cards to Nalefskin, who in turn, had
given them to Group Steward Chuck Beams, and that
Sec 4 B A members not employed under the jurisdiction of the
Local Union, for at least a month can be shown as on honorary
withdrawal without actual issuance of the card unless the L U Bylaws
provide otherwise Officers of the L U are not entitled to withdrawal
status without forfeiture of their office
1052 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Galka had refused to sign them Galka told Maddox that
this was not true Galka told Maddox that he also heard,
contrary to the fact, that the Union had agreed to let him
pay back just half the back dues, that such an offer had in
fact not been made to him, and that he would not have
paid just half of the asserted amount in any event Maddox
told Galka that this had been a union meeting at which
"they had a right to air their differences in different cases,
and this is just what they did " Maddox followed this with
the statement that Galka's job was at stake and that he
would hate to see him lose it
About a week later, Galka encountered Beams on the job
and asked him if he ever remembered giving him any cards
to sign Beams replied that he had not, that "this was all
sort of news to him," and that he considered Galka an
active union member
On December 3, 1970, Robert Fitzgerald, attorney for
Local 399, wrote the following letter to Galka
Please be advised that I am attorney for Local Union
399, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers
My client informs me that you are delinquent with your
dues to their organization from February, 1969 to the
present date They inform me further that you have
been a member of the International Brotherhood of
Electrical Workers continuously from March 1960
Unless you tender an amount of money equal to the
dues owed or make mutually satisfactory arrangements
for the payment thereof by December 11, 1970, I will
be forced to take appropriate action on their behalf
Upon receiving this letter, Galka called Fritz at his
home, mentioned the letter, and asked for advice as to
what he should do Fritz told Galka that he would get in
touch with the company attorney in Chicago early Monday
and, after talking with him, that he would be back in touch
with Galka The following Monday, Galka talked with
Fritz and a Mr Furlong, company attorney at the time it
was decided in order to protect Galka's job that he should
pay the Union the amount requested and also sign a
payroll deduction card, but stating on the back thereof
"paid under protest " When Galka told Furlong and Fritz
that he did not have the $140 in time to meet the deadline
set by Fitzgerald, Fritz arranged for an employee loan for
Galka for this purpose A loan was then made to Galka by
the Company on December 8, 1970, in the amount of $142
On December 10, Galka called Maddox, and requested
that he come on down, that he had a check for him in the
amount of the dues Maddox met Galka at his desk where
Galka gave him a check for $141 45, writing on the back
the words, "paid under protest " At this time Galka also
signed a payroll deduction card Maddox gave Galka a
receipt for his check, stating thereon, "dues from February
1969 through December 1970 "
Analysis and Conclusions
As stated at the outset, the issue presented is whether,
under a maintenance of membership contract, an employ-
ee who leaves the bargaining unit to take a supervisory
position with the employer, and subsequently returns to his
former job in the bargaining unit is compelled to resume
his dues obligation to the Union The General Counsel and
the Company contend that in April 1968, Galka severed his
relationship with the bargaining unit and the Respondent,
and that upon returning to the bargaining unit from a
supervisory position in February 1969, he stood in the
same shoes as a new employee and, thus, had an option of
joining or not joining the Union The General Counsel and
the Company assert that, having decided not to join, Galka
was not covered by the maintenance of membership
contract, was, therefore, not subject to discharge for failure
to pay dues, and that Respondent's action taken to collect
dues not owing and to cause Galka's discharge is violative
of Section 8(b)(1)(A) and (2) of the Act
The Respondent takes the position that, under the
Union's constitution, Galka was automatically placed on
honorary withdrawal status when he left the bargaining
unit, and that when he returned to his job within the unit
he became obligated to begin paying dues again The
Respondent also asserts that Galka retained his employee
status while in management, and therefore, under the
maintenance of membership provision of the contract,
Galka was obligated to resume his dues obligation Thus,
the Respondent's argument is premised upon the assertion
that, during his period with management, Galka (a)
retained his union membership and (b) continued in the
employment of the Company
Treating first the argument that Galka retained his
membership in the Union during his stint with manage-
ment, the Respondent asserts that Galka was automatically
placed on honorary withdrawal status and relies upon
Article XXVI, Sec 3 and 4 of the Union's constitution,
which in pertinent part provides as follows
Sec 3 Any member not desiring to maintain his
standing, who retires from the trade or is unemployed,
or in such other cases as may be decided by the L U,
may be issued an honorary withdrawal card provided
dues are paid for the previous month or the current
month if the application is made after the fifteenth of
such month
Upon returning to the trade, or again becoming
employed, and having complied with this Article, he
shall deposit his withdrawal card in the L U that issued
it and continue membership by paying the current
month dues No new initiation fee is necessary, except
that any (A) member shall pay the $2 fee as required in
Article X
Sec 4 "B A" members not employed under the
jurisdiction of the Local Union, for at least a month
can be shown as on honorary withdrawal without
actual issuance of the card, unless the L U Bylaws
provide otherwise Officers of the L U are not entitled
to withdrawal status without forfeiture of their office
Contrary to the Respondent's position, it would appear
that section 3, above, is not applicable to Galka, for Galka
registered no such intention or desire to maintain his
standing in the Union and, in fact, apprised the Union's
chief steward in April 1968, that he considered himself out
of the Union and wished his dues stopped Thus, as Galka
did not apply for an honorary withdrawal card, and was
never issued one, the remainder of Section 3 of the
constitution requiring a deposit of such card and a
resumption of membership and dues payment is not
applicable
LOCAL UNION 399, IBEW 1053
As to section 4, thereof, holding that "B A " members
can be shown as on honorary withdrawal without the
issuance of a card, this provision, while perhaps open to
contrary construction, appears to be permissive rather than
automatic in application In this regard, it would appear
that the Respondent has the obligation to come forward
with evidence to show that Galka was in fact "shown as on
honorary withdrawal" on the Union's records This, the
Respondent failed to do I find the Respondent's argument
in this regard to be without meet
Even were this not the case, over and above these
factors, the Board has made it quite clear that an
employee's obligations under a maintenance of member-
ship or union security provision are determined by the
collective bargaining contract and not by the Union's
constitution In Newspaper Guild of Buffalo et al,4 involving
the discharge of an employee under a union security
provision for failure to pay dues, the Board held that an
employee's union rights and obligations must be distin-
guished from his employment rights and found that an
employee's failure to resign from the Union in a manner
prescribed by the Union's constitution did not affect the
right to retain his job with the employer under the union
security contract 5
Turning, then, to the Respondent's argument that Galka,
throughout, retained his employment status with the
Company, while it is true that under the contract for
seniority purposes Galka was credited with his earlier
employment within the unit, the fact is that, upon
assuming the supervisory position with management,
Galka severed his employee relationship within the
bargaining unit under the contract At that point, he
removed himself from the status of an employee to that of
a supervisor within management While, in the strict sense
of the word, it could be argued that Galka continued in the
employ of the Company, certainly he did so not as an
employee
Moreover, the Board on several occasions has held that
employees who leave their employment under a collective
bargaining contract do not have an obligation to automati-
cally resume the payment of dues under a union security
clause upon their return to work, and that their union
membership obligations are considered severed by their
termination of employment In Idarado Mining Co,6 the
Board was confronted with a very similar situation where
an employee had joined the union under a maintenance of
membership provision, later left the company for about a
year, and then was reemployed The Board held
The obligation under the contract to remain a member
in good standing of the contracting union rested on
employees When Miller severed his employment
relationship with the respondent, his obligation to
remain a member in good standing of the Mine
Production Workers ended at the same time The
obligation was not merely suspended, ready to be
imposed at any time in the future that Miller might be
again employed by the Respondent On his reemploy-
ment by the respondent, in a new position and as a new
employee, approximately a year after he had voluntari-
ly resigned from the respondent's employ, Miller's
status was like that of any other new employee, he was
required to remain a member in good standing of the
Mine Production Workers only if he voluntarily
rejoined that organization after his reemployment
The distinguishing features of Idarado is that, there, the
employee left the company and returned to a different job,
whereas, here, Galka became part of management and
returned to the same job However, the Board in Idarado
emphasized the fact, present here, that there was no
indication that the employment termination was other than
bona fide or for the purpose of evading his obligation to
maintain his union membership
In the Yellow Cab case, supra, involving an employee and
union member who left the company's employ and was
subsequently rehired in the same job, analogizing to the
Idarado case, it was held that the obligation to remain a
union member as a condition of employment "was not
merely suspended" but ended when the employee termi-
nated his job, and that " the right of the employee to
return and continue to work for his employer is to be
determined as though he never worked for such an
employer on a previous occasion "
While giving rise to a different issue, the Board held in
Kaiser Steel Corp,7 that employees who have left the
contract unit to take supervisory positions with their
employer and were seeking to return to their old jobs
within the unit "must be viewed as applicants for rank-
and-file employment who were entitled to the protection of
the Act "
Applying the above principles to the facts of this case, I
find that when Galka left the bargaining unit in March
1968, to take a supervisory position with the Company, he
did so with a bona fide intention of not returning, that his
obligation to retain his membership in the Union under the
collective bargaining agreement ceased as of that time, and
that, upon his return to his job within the bargaining unit
in February 1969, he was in the position of a new
employee, with no obligation under the contract to resume
the payment of union dues Accordingly, I find that, on
September 24, 1970, in requesting the Company to
discharge Robert Galka because of his failure to tender
union dues for which he was not obligated, the Respondent
violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) and (2) of the Act
The complaint herein also alleges as violative of Section
8(b)(1)(A) of the Act the alleged threat of Attorney Robert
Fitzgerald contained in his letter of December 3, 1970, to
Galka in which Fitzgerald, identifying himself as attorney
for the Union, stated, "Unless you tender an amount of
money equal to the dues owed or make mutually
satisfactory arrangements for the payment thereof by
December 11, 1970, I will be forced to take appropriate
action on their behalf " At the close of the hearing, counsel
for Respondent renewed his motion to strike this allega-
tion, on the ground that the reference therein to "appropri-
ate action" was a reference to legal action to collect the
debt owing the Union and not a threat to discharge
4 118 NLRB 1471 at 1473 6 77 NLRB 392
5 See Local 899 UAW 137 NLRB 901 Local 338 Boilermakers 166 7 125 NLRB 1039
NLRB 874 and Yellow Cab Co 148 NLRB 620
1054 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
While the language used by Attorney Fitzgerald is,
perhaps, open to a different interpretation, when following,
as it did, two earlier union requests of the employer to
discharge, the fact remains that this was the first written
communique directed to Galka, that it made specific
reference to his asserted union membership and dues
delinquency, and that, as the Union had theretofore been
unsuccessful in its attempt by itself to cause the Employer
to discharge, Galka understandably could have taken this,
as in fact he did, as a follow-up threat to seek his discharge
if he did not pay Had Attorney Fitzgerald, sophisticated
as he is with union matters under union security contracts,
really intended the reference to apply to legal action he
could easily have been more specific in choosing his
language
The Respondent's Motion to Strike, ruling upon which I
had reserved, is hereby denied I find that the Respondent,
by its agent, Robert E Fitzgerald, Jr, unlawfully threat-
ened Robert Galka with causing his discharge on Decem-
ber 3, 1970, if he failed to pay union dues for which he was
not obligated, and that such constitutes a violation of
Section 8(b)(I)(A) of the Act
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and upon
the entire record in this case, I make the following
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1 The Respondent, Local Union 399, International
Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, is a labor
organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act
2 Illinois Bell Telephone Company is an employer
engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6)
and (7) of the Act
3 By attempting to cause Illinois Bell Telephone
Company to discharge Robert L Galka because he failed
to pay union dues for which he was not obligated, the
Respondent has engaged in, and is engaging in, unfair
labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(b)(1)(A)
and (2) of the Act
4 By threatening employees with causing their dis-
charge if they failed to pay union dues for which they are
not obligated, the Respondent has engaged in, and is
engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of
Section 8 (b)(1)(A) of the Act
5 By restraining and coercing employees of Illinois
Bell Telephone Company in the exercise of the rights
guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act, the Respondent has
engaged in, and is engaging in, unfair labor practices
within the meaning of Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act
6 The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the
Act
IV THE EFFECT UPON COMMERCE OF THE UNFAIR
LABOR PRACTICES
The activities of the Respondent set forth in section III,
above, occurring in connection with the operation of
Illinois Bell Telephone Company, as set forth 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 burdening and obstructing
commerce and the free flow of commerce
V THE REMEDY
It having been found that the Respondent has engaged in
certain unfair labor practices, it is recommended that it
cease and desist therefrom and that it take certain
affirmative action which is necessary to effectuate the
policies of the Act
It having been found that the Respondent, through its
unlawful conduct herein, caused Robert Galka to pay
union dues for which he was not obligated and did not owe
in the amount of $141 45, it is recommended that the
Respondent be made to reimburse Galka the sum of
$14145, with interest at 6 percent in accordance with
Board policy set forth in Isis Plumbing & Heating Co, 138
NLRB 716
In view of the circumstances under which Galka signed a
payroll deduction card on December 10, 1970, including
the threat to cause his discharge if he did not pay back
dues and the fact that such was executed in order to
protect his job, it is recommended that the Respondent
cease giving effect to the checkoff card and causing Illinois
Bell Telephone Company to make dues deductions from
Galka's pay unless, and until, such time as Galka should, if
he desires to, choose to reexecute it It is further
recommended that the Respondent be made to reimburse
Galka for all dues collected pursuant to the checkoff
authorization with interest, as above
Upon the foregoing facts, conclusions of law, and the
entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, I
hereby issue the following recommended 8
ORDER
Respondent, Local Union 399, International Brother-
hood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, its officers, agents,
and representatives shall
1 Cease and desist from
(a) Attempting to cause Illinois Bell Telephone Company
to discharge Robert Galka because he failed to pay union
dues for which he was not obligated
(b) Threatening employees with causing their discharge if
they did not pay union dues for which they were not
obligated
(c) Restraining and coercing employees of Illinois Bell
Telephone Company in the exercise of the rights guaran-
teed by Section 7 of the Act
(d) In any like or related manner, restraining or coercing
employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7
of the Act
2 Take the following affirmative action which is
necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act
(a) Reimburse Robert Galka for all union dues collected
since December 10, 1970, with interest, as set forth above
in the section entitled "The Remedy "
8 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec 102 46 of the 102 48 of the Rules and Regulations be adopted by the Board and become
Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board the findings its findings conclusions and Order and all objections thereto shall be
conclusions and recommended Order herein shall as provided in Sec deemed waived for all purposes
LOCAL UNION 399, IBEW 1055
(b) Advise Illinois Bell Telephone Company that no
further dues deduction will be made from the pay of
Robert Galka unless, and until, a new payroll deduction
card is executed by him
(c) Post in conspicuous places at its office and umon hall
in Decatur, Illinois, including all places where notices to its
members are customarily posted, copies of the notice
attached hereto marked "Appendix "9 Copies of the
notice, on forms provided by the Officer-In-Charge for
Subregion 38, shall, after being duly signed by authorized
representative of the Respondent, be posted by it, as
aforesaid, immediately upon receipt thereof and main-
tained for at least 60 consecutive days thereafter Reason-
able steps shall be taken by the Respondent to ensure that
said notices are not altered, defaced or covered by any
other material
(d) Promptly, upon receipt of copies of said notice from
the Officer-In-Charge, return to him signed copies for
posting by Illinois Bell Telephone Company, it being
willing, at the Company's Decatur, Illinois, facility
(e) Notify the Officer-In-Charge for Subregion 38, in
writing, within 20 days from the date of receipt of this
Decision, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply
herewith 10
9 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 read Posted Pursuant
to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of
the National Labor Relations Board
10 In the event that this recommended Order is adopted by the Board
after exceptions have been filed this provision shall be modified to read
Notify the Officer In Charge for Subregion 38 in writing within 20 days
from the date of this Order what steps the Respondent has taken to comply
herewith
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO MEMBERS
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT attempt to cause Illinois Bell Tele-
phone Company to discharge employees because they
failed to pay union dues for which they are not
obligated
WE WILL NOT threaten employees with causing their
discharge for failing to pay union dues for which they
are not obligated
WE WILL NOT restrain or coerce employees of Illinois
Bell Telephone Company in the exercise of their rights
guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner restrain
or coerce employees in the exercise of their Section 7
rights
WE WILL reimburse Robert Galka for all dues
unlawfully collected since December 10, 1970, with
interest thereon at 6 percent per annum
WE WILL advise Illinois Bell Telephone Company
that no further dues deductions will be made from the
pay of Robert Galka until, and unless, said employee
executes a new payroll deduction card
Dated By
LocAL UNION 399,
INTERNATIONAL
BROTHERHOOD OF
ELECTRICAL WORKERS,
AFL-CIO
(Labor Organization)
(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 concern-
ing this notice or compliance with its provisions may be
directed to the Board's Office, Savings Center Tower 10th
Floor, 411 Hamilton Blvd, Peoria, Illinois 61602, Tele-
phone 309-673-9061 ext 282