Machinists District Lodge 720

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 26, 1979

243 N.L.R.B. 697 (N.L.R.B. 1979)

MACHINISTS DISRI' I IOD)i(;F 720
International Association of Machinists and Aerospace
Workers, Aeronautical Industrial District Ldge
720 (McDonnell Douglas Corporation) and Georgia
C. Durrance and Ralph Crandall. Cases 31 ('B
2868 and 31 CB 2917
July 26, 1979
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN FANNING ANI) MFMB RS Ptl-I.tl ()
AND TRI.tSDAI.I
On April 18, 1979. Administrative Law Judge Mar-
tin S. Bennett issued the attached Decision in this
proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent filed exceptions
and a supporting brief, and the Charging Parties filed
an answering brief. The Charging Parties also filed
cross-exceptions and a brief in support of their cross-
exceptions.
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, cross-ex-
ceptions, and briefs and has decided to affirm the rul-
ings, 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 Rela-
tions Board adopts as its Order the recommended Or-
der of the Administrative Law Judge and hereby or-
ders that the Respondent. International Association
of Machinists and Aerospace Workers. Aeronautical
Industrial District Lodge 720, Torrance. California.
its officers, agents, and representatives, shall take the
action set forth in the said recommended Order.
In affirming the Administrative Law Judge's Decision, we find it unnec-
essary to relI upon. and thus do not adopt. his comments concerning Lxwal
No. 171, Association of Western Pulp and Paper Workers (Roise (Cascade Cor
poration), 165 NLRB 971 (1967.
2 In their cross-exceptions. the Charging Parties request that the Adminis-
trative Law Judge's recommended remedy and Order he modified to give
them the alternative. under art. V, sec l(f). of the goserning collective-
bargaining agreement, of paying nothing to Respondent in satisfaction t
their financial obligations to the Union during the months ot their unem-
ployment. We find no merit in this contention The Administrative t.as
Judge correctly tailored the remedy and Order to his finding that Respon-
dent. under its constitution, unlawfully permitted union members, hut not
nonmembers, to meet their unimon-securit obligations h paying Respondent
50 cents per month while unenplohed Neither alleged In the complaint nor
litigated at the hearing was an) contention that Respondent siolated Sec
8(bX IXA) bh applying art V. sec l(f) of the contract to union members but
not nonmembers.
DEC(ISION
SIAIIMINtlI t) ril (S1
MARII'. S. BI.' 111. Administratixe I.as Judge: Il his
matter w as heard in Los Angeles. ('alifornia. on August 3.
1978.1 'he consolidated complaint. issued Ma,, 26. iand
based upon charges filed bh Georgia ('. I)urrancc. an md-
vidual in Case 31 CB 2868 on March 22. \lay 12. and
Mlay 2. and b Ralph Crandall. an indiiidual, in Case 31
('B 2917 on Nlay 3 alleges iolations of Section 8(b I ( A)
A.' the National Labhor Relations Act. as amennded, h Re-
spondent International Association of Machinists and
Aerospace W'orkers. Aeronautical Industrial D)istrict Lodige
720. Briefs have been submitted by the parties and bh Na-
tional Right to Work Legal Defense :tounidation. Inc
Upon the entire record in the case, and rom m% obsern a-
lion of the itnesses, I make the following:
IlN)lN(iS 1 FAt I
1. JRISI)lt i )iN l i 1l'),II S
Douglas Aircraft ('ompan. ;l component it' Mcl)onnlell
D)ouglas Corporation. herein called the Emploc er. is a
Maryland corporation with an office and place of business
at Los Angeles. California. where it is engaged in the manu-
facture and sale of militar 5 and commercial aircraift. It an-
nually sells and ships goods and provides services :alued in
excess of $50,000 directly to customers located outside the
State of. California. I find that the operations of the m-
ployer affect commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6)
and (7) of the Act.
11. ti ABOR OR(iANIZAIION INsV(I, ID)
Respondent [inion. International Association of Machin-
ists and Aerospace Workers. Aeronautical Industrial Dis-
trict Lodge 720. is a labor organization within the meaning
of Section 25) of the Act.
111. ItH: NI'AIR LABOR PRA(II( 1:S
A. The Issue
Whether Respondent Union by refusing to grant unem-
ployment stamp benefits, which reduce the cost of ermplo-
ees' dues obligation, to two nonmember dues equivalent fee
payers thereby discriminated between union members and
nonunion employees of the Employer in a manner affecting
tenure of employ ment in violation of Section 8Xlb) 1)1A) of
the Act.
B. The Facts
The relevant facts are neither complicated nor generall['
in dispute. A collective-bargaining agreement in effect at all
t nles, ortherise st.ited. all dates ccurred I 197
243 NLRB No. 128
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
times material herein between the Employer and Respon-
dent Union contains a union-shop provision providing in
pertinent part in article v union security. section I con-
ditions of employment, that:
(a) An employee in the Bargaining Unit on the ef-
fective date of this Agreement who is a member of the
U;nion shall be required as a condition of continued
employment to continue membership in the Union for
the duration of this Agreement to the extent of tender-
ing the membership dues uniformly required as a con-
dition of retaining membership in the Union.
(b) An employee in the Bargaining Unit who is not
a member of the Union on the effective date of this
Agreement shall be required, as a condition of contin-
ued employment, to become a member of the Union
within ten (10) calendar days after the thirtieth (30th)
calendar day following the efective date of this Agree-
ment, and shall remain a member of the Union to the
extent of tendering an initiation/reinslatement fee
where required and the membership dues normally re-
quired as a condition of acquiring or retaining mem-
bership in the Union for the duration of this Agree-
ment.
*
0() An employee who shall tender an original initi-
ation fee (if not already a member) or reinstatement
fees if required and the periodic dues uniformly re-
quired as a condition of acquiring or retaining mem-
bership shall be deemed to be a member of the Union
for purposes of this Article.
(k) Membership in the Union. hen used in this
Agreement, is satisfied by the tender, either through a
cheek-off authorization or directlv to the Union, of uni-
formly required initiation or reinstatement fees and
monthly dues. The signing by an employee of the Applica-
tionfor Membership card is not a mandatory condition of
emplqvment with the Company.
Thus, pursuant to current law, the parties' union-shop
provision, while requiring all employees to become "mem-
bers" of the Union, defines "membership" for purposes of
continued employment solely in terms of paying the equiv-
alence of uniform union dues and fees required of all em-
ployees. Under the agreement. if an employee's dues and
fees, or their equivalence, become delinquent by not being
paid for over 2 months, the employee is subject to a rein-
statement fee, or the equivalence of a reinstatement fee,
equal to 3 months' dues. Evidence shows that in 1977 dues
equaled $15.70 per month and in the beginning of 1978
were raised to $17.20 per month. Pursuant to the parties'
agreement, before an employee is terminated for failure to
pay dues and fees or their equivalence, the Union is to
notify the Employer of the delinquency in writing, the Em-
ployer next notifies the employee of his delinquency, and
the employee in turn has 48 hours to tender the dues or
reinstatement fee before actual termination.
The constitution of Respondent Union contains the fol-
lowing provisions on page 127 thereof:
ARTICLE G
Unemployment Stamps
Purpose
SEt'. 1. Unemployment stamps are issued tor the
purpose of aiding members to maintain their good
standing.
Eligihilit 3
SEC. 2. Unemployment stamps shall not be issued
to members who are on vacation or engaged in any
business or profession outside of the trade. Unemploy-
ment stamps shall be issued to members pursuant to
the provisions of Sec. 3 of this Art., at a minimum
charge of fifty cents per month: twenty-five cents to be
transmitted to the G.L. [Grand Lodge]. the remainder
to be retained by the L.L. [Local Lodge].
Conditions of Issue
SEC. 3. Members who are unemployed for the ma-
jor portion of any month (the major portion of the
month shall depend on the major portion of the regular
working days in any month), and therefrom suffer a
total or proportionate loss of earnings. due to separa-
tion from employment, layoff or furlough, sickness or
disability, are entitled to unemployment stamps for
that month and are thereby excused from the payment
of regular dues, upon complying with the following
conditions relating thereto:
They shall register their names and addresses in the
out-of-work book or communicate with the F.S. [Fi-
nancial Secretary], S.T. [Secretary-Treasurer], or busi-
ness representative of the L.L. stating they are unem-
ployed or sick or disabled, any time within a two-
month period. The matter of reporting is entirely the
member's responsibility.
Commencing April 1, 1974. a member's monthly
dues or special levies must be paid within the 2
months' limit provided for in Sec. 14. Art. I.
The F.S. or S.T. shall place the unemployment
stamp in the square of the month next following that of
the month in which the last dues stamp was placed.
Members who have received unemployment stamps
shall, immediately upon securing employment, report
to the F.S., S.T.. or business representative.
Violations
SEC. 4. Members who violate any of the provisions
of this Art., or who obtain unemployment stamps by
false pretenses, or misrepresentation of the facts, shall
be guilty of misconduct and subject to charges, trial
and penalty therefor as hereafter provided in Art. 1. of
this Constitution.
This provision allows members of the Union to obtain
monthly unemployment stamps, fbr 50 cents each. which
698
r
MA(CHINISTS DISTRICT I.ODG(i 720
can be used in lieu of regular dues in months where the
employee is off the active pay roll fr the major part of the
month because of layoff. sickness. or disability.
Georgia I)urrance. herein called Durrance. has been em-
ployed by the Employer since February 1966. She was a
member of Respondent Union from that point until Febru-
ary 21. 1975. when she resigned during a strike. She was
fined $2,075 by Respondent Uinion fir strikehreaking ac-
tivities. although the fine was later withdrawn. Since her
resignation from Respondent in 1975. Durrance has been a
dues and tees equivalence payer.
On October 3, 1977, Durrance commenced an occupa-
tional disability leave because of nerve damage and re-
mained on leave until May i. 1978. During that leave pe-
riod, she did not work and, not being on active
employment, did not have deductions made b the Em-
ployer pursuant to checkoff authorization. In the latter halt
of December 1977, Durrance received from Respondent
Union a notice entitled "Courtesy Notice of Arrearage":
the intent of this is to advise an employee of the status and
possibility of lapse of his or her "membership," which could
subject him or her to the reinstatement requirements?
Shortly after receiving the notice. Durrance went to the
financial office of the Union in Torrance. California. where
she spoke with a clerk named C. Curtis.' Durrance. as she
testified, informed Curtis that she had received the above
notice, that she was on sick leave and desired to pay 50
cents per month for sick leave dues in November and De-
cember 1977. Curtis, when informed that Durrance was not
a union member, refused to accept the tendered dollar on
the ground that unemployment stamps were "only for
members." In so refusing, Curtis turned to another clerical
for corroboration and the latter replied, "Yes, only union
members have the 50 cents. Nonunion members pay the
full amount." Durrance stated she wanted to check into
this, and Curtis mentioned that the clerical staffs Christmas
vacation was imminent and that Durrance should pay her
dues prior to the end of December so as to avoid a rein-
statement fee.
Shortly thereafter. Durrance and her husband. Richard
Durrance, had occasion to speak about Durrance's dues to
Dave Brooks. a union chairman.' Brooks stated his belief
that "all employees should pay the same amount." Richard
Durrance subsequently gave Brooks two checks dated De-
cember 20. 1977, in the sum of $15.70 each to cover his
wife's November and December dues. Brooks said he
would go to the union hall and pay Durrance's dues. He
said if he could get them to accept the $1 he would, and if
not. he would get them the two checks. Brooks did the
latter and received a receipt for $31.40 which he gave to
2 Ted Neima, Jr.. Respondent Union's secretary-treasurer. and an admil-
ted agent of Respondent who was in charge of maintaining membership
records and accounting for and processing finances of the District Lodge.
testified that such notices of arrearage are uniformly sent to both delinquent
members and nonmembers.
Secretary-Treasurer Neima testified that one of the employees on his
clerical staff who processed dues and other tenders of fees was named C
Curtis. Neima also testified. albeit in a less than clear manner. that he in-
structed Curtis to tell Durrance she was not qualified for the unemployment
stamps. I therefore find that C. Curtis is an agent of the Respondent nion
acting on its behalf
' A union chairman is a position similar to union seward
Richard Durrance. telling him he was unable to see any one
who could explain wh l)urrance could not get the unem-
ployment stamps.
On about FebruarN 27, Durrance acain recei . ed a notice
of arrearage, this time in regard to her January and F:ebru-
arv 1978 dues and. in response. sent a letter to Union Secre-
tary-Treasurer Ted Neima. herein called Neima. adising
that she as disabled t'r an indefinite period, had not
worked in January or February and was. therefore. eligible
under a recent bulletin the Lodge had posted' for the "un-
employment dues." She enclosed a check tr $1 to cover
January and FebruarN 1978 at the prescribed rate.
On March 13. Durrance sent another letter to Neinma
stating she had discovered she was not obligated to pas any
dues while not actively emplo'ed and therefore. was re-
questing Respondent Union to return her payments foir No-
vember ($15.70). December ($15.70). January (50 cents),
and February (50 cents), these totaline $32.40.
B3 letter dated March 23. Neima responded that "Non-
members are not entitled to the privileges specified under
the IAM Constitution. Iherefore your request Ior unem-
ployment stamps is denied and your check number 2073
dated February 27. 1978, in the amount of $ 00) is returned
herewith," Durrance's November and December pa? ments
were not returned, and Durrance paid no further dues dur-
ing the period she was on disability. Durrance returned to
work on May 1. commenced pasment of full dues, and, as
of the date of the hearing. no adverse action had been taken
against her by Respondent for any dues delinquent while
she was disabled.
T he Bulletin read as follows;
TO At.l. MEMBERS OF IAM DISIRI(CT LODG(i 720
This notice s to nflrm sou of ai special benefit for members who are
unemployed due to lasff. sickness. disahilits or termination 'hi hbene-
fit shall not be granted Io members sho are on acation or engaged in
any business or profession outside the trade
Members who are unemploed the nu/r numhtr .,/ iAilng da., in ..
month 50'q plus I I re eligible ,r pay unemploymeni dues at the rate ot
50c in lieu of regular dues ft;r that month Io qualif\ for this benefit. In
addition to the ahboe a member must
(a) Register his name and address n the out of work xbook or commu-
nicate with the Secretar-Treasurer of the District Iodge stating he is
unemplosed. sick or dlsabled
(h) The application for "unemployment stamp" benefit must be
made any time within a two month period which includes the nionth fIor
which he is applying. Failure to appls and make payment within this
period will void the eligibility of the member to appls lor this benefit
The member will therefore lapse and be subject to a reinstatement ee
All monthly dues and fees must be paid through thie month immediatelN
prior to the month for which application is made
(cl The matter of reporting is entirely the member's responsihlht As
it is the policy of the Secretary-Treasurer's office to extend this benefit
to all eligible members. we strongly urge you to make application and
payment in a timely manner.
If you have any questions concerning your eligibilits or require an
assistance in making application. please call the Financial Office mme-
diately Our courteous staff will be read) to offer any help sou mas
need.
International Assciatiln of Machinists and Aerospace Workers-Doi-
trict Lodge 720
: Ted Neima Jr
Ted Neima Jr
SecretarN -Treasurer
699
I)(tlISIONS ()F NA1(t)NA I. LAB()R RELATIONS BOARD
Ralph ('randall. herein called ('randall. commenced his
employment with the lEmplover in 1966. lie was also a
member of' Respondent Unl1ion until ebruary 21. 1975.
when he withdrew during the afiorementioned strike. Since
that time, he has been anll equivalence fee paver. On Febru-
ary 16. 1978. Crandall went on personal leave ofl absence
for medical illness. In April he received a "('ourtess Notice
of Arrearage." as had [)urrance. (Crandall testified that in
response he called the financial office of' Respondent Union
and spoke with a clerical who was later identified by Neima
as C. Curtis. Crandall testified without contradiction that
he requested the "50 cents deduction." but after telling the
clerical that he was not a union member, she responded
that "You're not eligible ifor this 50 cents. You have to pay
the seventeen twenty." That evening, by letter dated April
23. Crandall sent Respondent UJnion a check for $1 to cover
2 months' dues while he was on sick leave. Neima. in a
letter dated May I, returned ('randall's check, stating that
he was not "qualified" for the unemployment stamp "privi-
lege." Since that time. Crandall has not returned to work.
has paid no other dues. and has not suffered additional
adverse action against him by Respondent.
('. ,4nal.sis and ('otnl'/.csionl,
The General ('ounsel contends that by refusing to grant
Durrance and Crandall's applications for unemployment
stamps, and by requiring them to pay the full equivalency
of regular monthly dues while they were on medical disabil-
ity leave, Respondent Union has impermissibly discrimi-
nated between union and nonunion members in a manner
affecting their tenure of employment. Respondent answers
that issuance of the unemployment stamp is a privilege of
union membership that is permitted by the Act. It argues.
also alternatively, that the Union correctly denied issuance
of the unemployment stamps to Durrance and Crandall. as
they failed to meet all the eligibility requirements for the
stamps--specifically, that they failed to agree to subject
themselves to internal union discipline as provided in article
L of Respondent's constitution should they attempt to de-
fraud the Union in obtaining the stamps. For the reasons
set out below. I agree with the General Counsel that Re-
spondent Union has violated Section 8(b)( I )(A) of the Act
by its refusal to issue unemployment stamps to I)urrance
and Crandall.
Secretary-Treasurer Neima of Respondent testified that
Durrance and Crandall were denied issuance of the unem-
ployment stamps for two reasons: (I} because unemploy-
ment stamps are a privilege granted to a union member to
help him maintain his good standing in the Union so as to
be eligible to participate in union activities such as attend-
ing union meetings, voting, and running r and holding
union office: and (2) because Durrance and ('randall after
resigning from the Union had not agreed to subject them-
selves to union disciplinary proceedings normally appli-
cable to union members. The record further reveals that
when Durrance and ('randall sought issuance of the unem-
ployment stamps, they were independently told that they
were not eligible because they were not union members.
Thus, it is clear that Respondent Union conditioned issu-
ance of its unemployment stamps at least in part upon
union membership. In so doing. Respondent impermissible
violated Section 8(h)( Il)(A) by discriminating between
union and nonunion employees of the Employer in a man-
ner affecting tenure of emplo inent.6
Respondent Utnion has advanced the position that this
use of the unemployment stamps is a legitimate means to
insure the eligibility of' its members for active participation
in union activities and therefore the issuance of the stamp
is a privilege of membership permitted under the Act: cur-
rent Board doctrine suggests otherwise. In Hospital and
Vursing lomen Lniplo'c'v ,lntion Lo al 13. A.l (/()
(Mounds Park Ilospvital. 228 NLRB 15() ( 1977), a union
contract granted members up to 90 days in which to pay
delinquent tees and dues while nonmember agency fee pay-
ers were restricted to a 10()-day grace period. 'I he Board, in
affirming the Administrative l.a Judge's recommended
Order, found that this was an impermissible discrimination
in tenure of employment, as "[t he statute was designed to
assure employees tree choice of whether to assume [thel
obligations and reap [thel benefits of' union membership]."
Again. in Prestige Bedding ('ompalv, Inc., 212 NLRB 690
(1974). where a union provided medical insurance to its
members but not to nonmembers the Board found a viola-
tion of Section 8(b)( 1)(A), as "the Union by participating in
an insurance plan which was available only for members.
thereby restrained unit employees in their right to reJrain
/rom he(oting a unaioni mematler." [Emphasis added. Based
on these cases I find that where, as here, a union provides
benefits, such as unemployment stamps. only to members
and not to nonmembers of a bargaining unit, and "[t]he
only apparent purpose and effect of such discrimination is
to encourage union membership,"' the Union is in violation
of Section 8(bh( 1 )(A) of the Act.
To the extent that L.ocal No. 171. A ssociation of Western
Pulp and Paper YorAlerv (Boise ('aseadle (Corporation), 165
NlRB 971 (1967). relied on by Respondent, is inconsistent
with this conclusion and premises a different result, I find
that it should not he relied on. as the above-described cases
seem lo more accu ratelv reflect current Board doctrine.
Respondent, howexer, argues that it did not deny the
unemployment stamps to [)urrance and Crandall simply
because they were not union members but principally be-
cause they did not agree to subject themselves to the inter-
nal union disciplinary provisions found in article L of Re-
spondent Union's constitution. Pointing to section 4 of the
unemployment stamp article, it argues that submission to
I While Respondent Union suggests the unemplo) ment stamps do not a-
f'ct tenure of employment. as they are not dues but are rather a privilege or
benefit of membership, this is merely a semaniic distinction Although Re-
spondent', Secretar -I reasurer Neima later stated it was an error in charac-
teritation. Neima himself at one point in the hearing described the stamps as
"dues." This description is repeated in the Respondent's circulars to employ-
ees. The practical effect of the unemployment stamps is to reduce the dues
requirement oi eligible members to 50 cents per month in order to help them
maintain gotd financial standing in the Union. As go.xd financial standing is
a requisite for continued employment under the collective-bargaining agree-
ment. the 50-cent stamp has a clear effect on the tenure of employment. This
is true despite the fact that Respondent has not yet requested the dismissal of
t)urrance and ('randall tr their failure to pay full dues during their unem-
ployment. Neima testified that. in the past, employees had been discharged
for an arrearage in dues.
/7 Iji, and va ur ng in, Emiv uin I. ,oalt 1.. A FI.-('tO
(,w% ii Par, Holspital. mipr,
700
MACtHINISIS I)ISTRI( I.()OD)(E 720
internal union disciplinary proceedings is a stated eligibility
requirement for the unemployment stamps. Secretary-Trea-
surer Neima testified that union membership did not auto-
matically qualif a member for unemplon ment stamps. that
all employees had to meet all eligihility requirements. and
that union members in the past had been disqualified from
receiving the stamps for failure to meet a ariet, of eligibil-
ity requirements.
Examination of the unemployment stamp article. how-
ever, suggests that the internal disciplinary section is not an
eligibility requirement. The eligibility requirements are
clearly delineated in. and appear to he limited to. section 3
of the article entitled "Conditions of Issue," which sets
forth both the absence requirements and the proper method
for applying for the stamps. The disciplinary provisions are.
on the other hand, found in section 4 of the article entitled
"Violations" which, as the General Counsel points out. ap-
pears to be an enforcement provision that becomes opera-
tive only when the stamps have been fraudulently obtained.
I therefore find that submittal to internal union disciplinary
proceedings is not an eligibility requirement for issuance of
the stamps. While Respondent would not he able to use
section 4 against nonmembers to enforce the Conditions of
Issue, it nonetheless could punish a nonmember employee.
who had fraudulently obtained the stamps, b using the
enforcement rights of the union-security provision in the
collective-bargaining agreement, for the defrauding non-
member would not have validly fulfilled his dues and fees
equivalency obligation.
Assuming arguendo that submittal to the internal disci-
plinary provisions is a proper eligibility requirement for is-
suance of the stamps. I would still find that Respondent has
violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act, as it failed to inform
Durrance or Crandall that this was a requirement of issu-
ance. As discussed above. I have found that the unemploy-
ment stamps clearly affect tenure of employment through
their effect on maintenance of membership for purposes of
employment. It is settled law that a union has a fiduciary
duty toward represented employees to provide them notice
of provisions relating to their membership obligations. This
principle was originally laid down by the Board in the lead
case of Philadelphia Sheraton Corporation 136 NL RB 888.
896 (1962). wherein the Board declared:
In our view. when a union requires a new employee
to perfect membership under a lawful union-security
agreement, it has a duty to notify the employee, at
some point, as to what his "membership" obligations
are. To permit a union to lawfully request the dis-
charge of an employee for failure to meet his dues-
paying obligations. when the provisions relating to
such obligations are not disclosed to the employee.
would be grossly inequitable and contrary to the spirit
of the Act.
While Philadelphia Sheraton involved an atempt b a
union to discharge an employee for failure to meet his dues
obligation, and while Respondent has not sought the dis-
charge of either charging party in this case. I do not find
this diifference to be crucial. In enforcing the Board's Phila-
delphia Sheraton order vuh no. N. L.R. B. v. Hotel, Motel
andtl (lh L 'plv, -ce.s' nion. l.ocal .56. 4 -I. (10. 320 .2d
254, 258 (3rd ( (ir. 1963). the court of appeals explained the
basis for the Board's rule ats fallosas:
Ihe comprehensive authorits vested in Ihe union. as
the exclusi e agent of the emploees. leads inevitablx
to employee dependence on the labor organization.
Ihere necessarilI arises out of this dependence a fidu-
ci.ar' dilt that the union deal fatirls with employees.
At the minimum, this duty requires that the union in-
form the employee of his obligations in order that the
employee may take whatever action is necessar'y to
protect his job tenure.
This rationale supports the existence of' al atfirmativte dut
to disclose provisions relating to membership obligations
apart from any demand for discharge.
The Board has applied this doctrine both to the failure to
inform the employees of their union membership obligation
entirely and to the failure to inform the emploees of the
specifics of the obligation. As the unemplo ment stalimps
atffect tenure of employment. and eligibility requirements
are a specific thereof. Respondent tinion was under ilan oh-
ligation to inform Durrance and Crandall of the disciplin-
ary provision's applicability to the conditions of issue. No
e'idence was presented that Respondent intormed the
Charging Parties that the principal reason fttor their ineligi-
bility was the failure to submit themselves to section 4 of
the stamp article. Indeed. Respondent. despite oral and
written communications with both employees, noticeabhl\
failed to provide them with such information.' I therefore
find that even if the disciplinary provision of section 4 can
be considered a prerequisite for the unemploNment stamps.
Respondent failed in its duty to so inform the Charging
Parties. and therefore its failure to issue the unemplox ment
stamps A ould still he violative of Section 8( )(1). ).
Ulpon the hblsis of' the foregoing findings of fact and
upon the entire record in the case. I make the following:
r While hth einplosees ma ha;se known of' the existence oI setilon 4 l
the unemploimeni stamp article and article I. of the union cnstltullon.
there is no esidence the5 knew section 4 was an ehgibilits requirement for
issuance o. the stamps. In an) esent. the Board and courts hase repeatedl
held tha a union's fiduciar dul to notif' employees ot' their membership
obligations will not he satisfied b, the fact the employees may hase indepen-
dent knowledge of the existence of those obligalions. Internatiional 4sX-I
ariun of Bridge. Srucrtural & Reinforced Iron Workers Union, Local .378'.
f4 'L CIO (Judson Steel C(orporation 192 Nl.RB 1069 (1971), and cases
cited therein: Produce, Reftrigerated & Processed x ods & Induiriol i,4orker,
1,c/ Vo 6,. Iniernational Brotherhtnd of Teamirter. (hauffi.uri Ware-
housemrrn & HelperT of America Rualphr Groern (ormlponin 209 NI.RB 117.
124 ( 1974); and John J R-he & (Co. Inc. 231 NLRR 1082 ( 1977)
' For the same reason. I reject Respondent's claim that (randall did not
properly .ippli for the stamps e.en if he is otherwise entitled to themi While
Crandall's letter sending SI t the Respondent did not relcr expliititls t he
unemploment stamps. hut rather spoke about being disabled trr a 2-month
periodl. neither the bulletin to members announcing the stamps. nor the c-
tual language of the unemplo)ment stamp article states thait peclfic reler-
ence to the stamps is required upon application Both the bulletin and the
article merels state that members must "register their names and aiddres.ses
in the out-ol-work book or communicate with [Respondentil sintsng thee are
unemplosed or sick or disabled. anytime within a two-month period " Craln
dall's letter met these requirements. and there is no claim hb Respondent
Ihai II did not know w hat prosision ('randall %as relerrin Ito
701
DE(ISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARI)
C(()N(I l'SI()NS () LAV
I. Douglas Aircraft Company, a component of McDon-
nell Douglas C(orporation. is an employer engaged in con-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. Respondent, International Association of Machinists
and Aerospace Workers. Aeronautical Industrial Lodge 720
is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5)
of the Act.
3. By maintaining a practice whereby members of Re-
spondent working for Douglas Aircraft Company are per-
mitted to purchase unemloyment stamps which greatly re-
duce the cost of dues during periods when unemployed or
disabled. whereas employees who are not members of Re-
spondent are not entitled to said stamps and must pay their
full dues obligations when unemployed or disabled. Re-
spondent has restrained and coerced employees in the exer-
cise of the rights guaranteed them in Section 7 and thereby
has engaged in an unfair labor practice within the meaning
of Section 8(b)( I )(A) of the Act.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practice is an unfair labor
practice within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the
Act.
Tlin R tM l)Y
Having found that International Association of Machin-
ists and Aerospace Workers, Aeronautical Industrial Lodge
720 has engaged in an unfair labor practice by discriminat-
ing in the administration of the unemployment stamp pro-
vision found in its constitution. I shall recommend that it be
ordered to cease and desist therefrom'0 and take certain
affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the
Act.
Respondent will be required to make whole employee
Durrance for any monetary loss she has suffered by reason
of Respondent's unfair labor practice and reimburse Dur-
rance for each month of unemployment in which she paid
an amount equivalent to regular monthly dues, amount
with interest as prescribed in Florida Steel Corporation, 231
NLRB 651 (1977). Employees who are adversely affected
by discriminatory provisions are entitled to all rights and
privileges which would have accrued to them but for the
discrimination. Thus, but for the discriminatory administra-
tion of the unemployment stamp provision, both the tender
of 50 cents per month by Durrance and Crandall for peri-
ods of their unemployment would have been accepted.
Durrance shall, therefore, have her financial obligation to
Respondent Union fulfilled during months of unemploy-
ment as defined in the stamp provision upon tender to Re-
spondent Union of fees at the rate of 50 cents per month for
each month of unemployment. Crandall shall similarly
have his financial obligation to Respondent Union fulfilled
upon the tender of 50 cents for each month he was unem-
ployed, as defined in the stamp provision. in accord with a
nondiscriminatory application of that provision.
10 Nothing in the recommended Order is to he construed as requiring Re-
spondent to revoke or rescind the unemployment stamp benefit to union
members under Respondent's cnstitution.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact. conclusions of law,
and upon the entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of
the Act, I hereby issue the following recommended:
ORDER"
The Respondent, International Association of Machinists
and Aerospace Workers. Aeronautical Industrial District
Lodge 720, its officers, agents, and representatives, shall:
I. ('ease and desist from:
(a) Discriminating against any employee of Douglas Air-
craft Company a component of McDonnell Douglas ('or-
poration b requiring membership hb employees in Re-
spondent Union in order to be eligible to receive
unemployment stamps which reduce the amount of dues
required to be paid to Respondent Union during months of
unemployment or disability. Nothing contained herein shall
be construed as requiring Respondent Union to revoke, re-
scind or cancel unemployment stamp benefits currently
granted to its members.
(b) In any other like or related manner restraining or
coercing employees in the exercise of their rights under Sec-
tion 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which is deemed
necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Make Georgia Durrance whole for any monetary loss
she may have suffered by reason of the discrimination
against her, and allow Georgia Durrance and Ralph Cran-
dall to fulfill their dues obligations to Respondent in the
manner set forth above in the section entitled "The Rem-
edy."
(b) Post at its business office and meeting halls, and at all
places where notices to its members and other employees in
the bargaining unit are customarily posted. copies of' the
attached notice marked "Appendix." 2 Copies of said no-
tice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Re-
gion 31. after having been duly signed by Respondent
Union's representative, shall be posted by it immediately
upon receipt thereof, and maintained for 60 consecutive
days thereafter in conspicuous places, including all places
where notices to members are customarily posted. Respon-
dent Union shall take reasonable steps to insure that said
notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other
material.
(c) Furnish to the Regional Director for Region 31 cop-
ies of the aforementioned notice for posting by Douglas
Aircraft Company, a component of McDonnell Douglas
Corporation, the latter willing, in places where notices to
employees are customarily posted.
H In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec 102.46 of the
Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the findings,
conclusions, and recommended Order herein shall, as provided in Sec. 102.48
of the Rules and Regulations, be adopted b) the Board and become its
findings, conclusions, and Order, and all objections thereto shall be deemed
waived for all purposes.
12 In the event that 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 National Lahor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursuant to a Judg-
ment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board"
702
MAClINISI'S )ISTRICT I.O[)DG 720
(d) Notitl the Regional Director if'r Region 31, in vrit-
ing. ithin 20 das from the date of this Order, what steps
Respondent has taken to complh herewilh.
APPENDIX
No il( 1 l( M lNIHBiRS
Po)siFI) BY ()Rl)R ( Ii
NAIl()NAl LABOR R A lA()NS BOARI)
An Agency of' the United States Go\ernment
After a hearing in which all sides had the opportunit to
present evidence and arguments. it has heen found that we
violated the National Labor Relations Act. We hae heen
ordered to post this notice and we intend to carr, out the
Order ol' the Board.
Wi: it Nol discriminate against any emplo)ee of
Douglas Aircrat Company. a component of McDon-
nell Douglas Corporation, or any other employer with
whom we re under contract. by requiring membership
in our union as a condition for eligibility to) receie
unemployment stamps, as provided in our constitution.
Wi: nit so I in any like or related manner restrain
or coerce emplosees in the exercise of' rights guaran-
teed them in Section 7 of the Act, except to the extent
that such rights ma) be aflected by an agreelent re-
quiring membership in a labor organization as a condi-
tion of' employlment, as authorized in Section 8(a)(3)
and as administered in a la tful nondiscrlminator\
manner.
Wl illi make hole (;eorgia l)urrance l'r anls
monetars loss she has suffered b reason ot' our dis-
crinlination against her aId t s itl allo ( ieoria
Durrance and Ralph ('randall, or an, other cosered
employee to fulfill their dues obligations %%hile dis-
abled b their tender and our receipt of dues obliga-
tions in accordance with the provisions o the uneln-
plo! nent stamlp article in our constitution.
INII:RNAIIONAI AssO( IAIION ()I MV( IIINiSIS NI)
AtR()SIPA(' I W()RKiRS, ARi)NNI I( Al INI)t s-
IRIAI DISIRI( I i)(Ici 720