Machinists Local 2045 (Eagle Signal)

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 26, 1984

268 N.L.R.B. 635 (N.L.R.B. 1984)

MACHINISTS LOCAL 2045 (EAGLE SIGNAL)
Local Lodge 2045, District 102, International Asso-
ciation of Machinists and Aerospace Workers,
AFL-CIO (Eagle Signal Industrial Controls)
and Patricia A. Penry, Barbara L. Spurrier,
Barbara Hanson, Sharon L. Richards, Carole J.
Goodin, and Sharon Moore. Cases 33-CB-
1786-1, 33-CB-1786-2, 33-CB-1786-3, 33-
CB-1786-4, 3-CB-1786-5, and 33-CB-1786-6
26 Janaury 1984
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN DOTSON AND MEMBERS
ZIMMERMAN AND HUNTER
Upon unfair labor practice charges filed on 3
March 1982 by Patricia A. Penry in Case 33-CB-
1786-1, on 4 March 1982 by Barbara L. Spurrier in
Case 33-CB-1786-2 and by Barbara Hanson in
Case 33-CB-1786-3, on 8 March 1982 by Sharon
L. Richards in Case 33-CB-1786-4 and by Carole
J. Goodin in Case 33-CB-1786-5, and on 23 March
1982 by Sharon Moore in Case 33-CB-1786-6, the
General Counsel of the National Labor Relations
Board, by the Regional Director for Region 33,
issued, on 23 April 1982, an order consolidating
cases and consolidated complaint against Local
Lodge 2045, District 102, International Association
of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO
(herein called the Respondent or the Union), alleg-
ing that the Respondent engaged in and was engag-
ing in unfair labor practices affecting commerce
within the meaning of Section 8(b)(1)(A) and (2)
and Section 2(6) and (7) of the National Labor Re-
lations Act. Copies of the complaint and notice of
hearing were served on the Respondent, the
Charging Parties, and Eagle Signal Industrial Con-
trols (herein called Eagle Signal or the Employer).
Thereafter, the Respondent timely filed an answer
denying the commission of any unfair labor prac-
tices.
On 8 November 1982 the parties jointly moved
the Board to transfer the instant proceeding to the
Board without the benefit of a hearing before an
administrative law judge, and submitted therewith
a proposed record consisting of the formal papers
and the parties' stipulation of facts with attached
exhibits. On 28 January 1983 the Associate Execu-
tive Secretary of the Board issued an order grant-
ing the motion, approving the stipulation, and
transferring the proceeding to the Board. Thereaf-
ter, the General Counsel and Respondent filed
briefs. On the entire record in the case, the Board
makes the following findings.
I. JURISDICTION
The complaint alleges, the parties stipulated, and
we find the following:
268 NLRB No. 81
Eagle Signal is a wholly owned subsidiary of
Gulf & Western Manufacturing Company, a Dela-
ware corporation, with an office and facility locat-
ed in Davenport, Iowa. Eagle Signal is engaged in
the business of manufacturing industrial timers,
counters, and computerized equipment. During the
past 12 months, which period is representative of
all material times herein, in the course and conduct
of its business operations, Eagle Signal purchased
and caused to be transferred and delivered to its
Davenport, Iowa facility goods and materials
valued in excess of $50,000 which were transported
directly to its Davenport, Iowa facility from States
other than the State of Iowa. Eagle Signal is, and
has been at all times material herein, an employer
engaged in commerce within the meaning of Sec-
tion 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
II. LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The complaint alleges, the parties stipulated, and
we find that Local Lodge 2045, District 102, Inter-
national Association of Machinists and Aerospace
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.
IIl. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The Issues
1. Whether the Respondent violated Section
8(b)(l)(A) of the Act by refusing to acknowledge
the effectiveness of the Charging Parties' resigna-
tions from the Respondent when its constitution
contains no restraints on resignations from member-
ship.
2. Whether on the facts of this case the payment
of membership dues is a quid pro quo for member-
ship in the Respondent, and, if so, whether the Re-
spondent violated Section 8(b)(l)(A) and (2) of the
Act by causing the Employer to continue to with-
hold the Charging Parties' membership dues pursu-
ant to their respective checkoff authorizations after
the Charging Parties had effectively resigned their
union membership.
B. The Stipulated Facts
Eagle Signal and the Respondent are parties to a
collective-bargaining agreement extending from 15
August 1980 through 14 August 1983. This agree-
ment, in accordance with Iowa statutes, expressly
provides that employees are not required to
become members of the Respondent or to pay dues
to it as a condition of employment. This agreement
also expressly provides that those who choose to
become and are members of the Respondent may
authorize the Employer to make monetary deduc-
635
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
tions from their paychecks on a monthly basis in
amounts equal to the periodic union dues estab-
lished by the Respondent by executing the follow-
ing authorization form provided by the Employer:
WAGE ASSIGNMENT
Name of Employee -------
(Please Print)
Clock No. -- Social Security No. ---
Date ---------
I hereby authorize and direct Eagle Signal
Division to deduct from my pay beginning
with the current month initiation or reinstate-
ment fees and my regular monthly Union dues
as certified to the Company by the Financial
Secretary of the Union in accordance with
regular membership dues in the International
Association of Machinists and Aerospace
Workers.
I submit this authorization and assignment
with the understanding that it is effective this
date and irrevocable, except for the last five
(5) calendar days of each contract year or the
termination date (if any) of the collective bar-
gaining agreement between Eagle Signal and
District No. 102, International Association of
Machinists and Aerospace Workers. This au-
thorization and assignment shall continue in
full force and effect for yearly periods beyond
the irrevocable period set forth above, and
each subsequent yearly period shall be similar-
ly irrevocable unless revoked by me within the
last five (5) calendar days of each contract
year.
Such revocation shall be effected by written
notice and sent by Registered Mail, Return
Receipt Requested, to the Employer and the
Union within such five (5) calendar-day
period.
The Respondent's constitution contains no re-
striction on resignations from membership.
The Charging Parties have at all times material
been employed by Eagle Signal at its Davenport,
Iowa plant and have been members of the bargain-
ing unit of all production and maintenance employ-
ees which is represented by the Respondent. Each
of the six Charging Parties, on becoming a member
of the Respondent, executed a copy of the above-
described wage assignment.
On or about 17 November 19811 the Respondent
and Eagle Signal, pursuant to collective-bargaining
negotiations, modified the collective-bargaining
agreement. These modifications provided, inter
alia, for extension of the contract's expiration date
I All dates herein are in 1981 unless otherwise indicated.
from 14 August 1983 until 14 September 1984.
Midterm contract modifications were subsequently
ratified by a majority of the Respondent's members
employed by Eagle Signal on or about 20 Novem-
ber.
On or about 20 November the Respondent, by
members of its executive committee, told the six
Charging Parties, in response to their inquiry, that
they would not be permitted to resign their respec-
tive memberships in the Respondent at that time.
Thereafter, on or about 21 November, employee
Hanson, by certified letters to the Respondent and
the Employer, attempted to resign her membership
in the Respondent and revoke her authorization for
Eagle Signal to deduct union dues from her future
paychecks.2 On or about 22 November employee
Penry, while at the plant, signed a petition ad-
dressed to the Respondent which indicated her
desire to resign her union membership. On or about
23 November employees Spurrier, Richards,
Goodin, and Moore each hand delivered separate
resignation and revocation of dues-checkoff author-
ization letters at the plant to union steward Ruth
Clayborn3 and to the Employer.
On or about 23 November agents of the Re-
spondent met with Eagle Signal's management offi-
cials to advise them that the requests of the Charg-
ing Parties to revoke their respective checkoff au-
thorizations were opposed by the Respondent as
untimely under the contract's above-described
wage assignment provision. Subsequently, on 25
November, the Employer hand delivered memo-
randa to the Charging Parties to inform each of
them that their requests to cancel their checkoff
authorizations were untimely and would only be
timely, as a result of the extension of the expiration
date of the collective-bargaining agreement, if re-
ceived on 10, 11, 12, 13, or 14 September 1982,
1983, or 1984. Thereafter, during the period from
November 1981 through August 1982, the Employ-
er continued, on a monthly basis, to deduct from
the wages of each of the Charging Parties, and to
remit to the Respondent, dues in the amount estab-
lished by the Respondent. During this same period,
the Respondent refused to accept the requests for
resignation from membership submitted by each of
the Charging Parties.
C. Contentions of the Parties
The General Counsel contends that, because the
Respondent's constitution contains no restrictions
on resignation from membership, members can
2 These letters were received by the Respondent and Eagle Signal on
23 and 24 November, respectively.
s The parties stipulated that Clayborn is an agent of the Respondent
within the meaning of Sec. 2(13) of the Act.
636
MACHINISTS LOCAL 2045 (EAGLE SIGNAL)
resign at will and that the Respondent's refusal to
give effect to the Charging Parties' resignations
therefore violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act.
The General Counsel further contends that the
payment of dues, as stated in the wage assignment
signed by the Charging Parties, is a quid pro quo
for membership in the Respondent; that according-
ly, by operation of law, when the Charging Parties
resigned their membership in the Respondent, their
checkoff authorizations were revoked; and that, by
causing the Employer to withhold monthly dues
from the Charging Parties' wages after said resig-
nations, the Respondent violated Section 8(b)(l)(A)
and (2) of the Act.
Other than a bald assertion that it did not act un-
lawfully, the Respondent makes no effort to defend
its refusal to give effect to the Charging Parties'
resignations from union membership. However, the
Respondent contends that it did not violate the Act
by refusing to recognize the Charging Parties' res-
ignations from union membership as valid revoca-
tions of their checkoff authorizations. Specifically,
the Respondent argues that the above-described
wage assignment authorizes an assignment of
wages which is separate and apart from, and not in
consideration for, union membership; that the wage
assignment which each of the Charging Parties vol-
untarily signed is a contract entitled to full force
and effect unless revoked in accordance with the
provisions set forth therein; and that, since none of
the Charging Parties complied with the revocation
provisions of the wage assignment, they have not
effectively revoked their checkoff authorizations.
The Respondent further contends that to hold oth-
erwise would jeopardize the Union's ability to per-
form its statutory obligation to fairly represent all
employees in the bargaining unit.
D. Discussions of Law and Conclusions
The law is well settled that, where a union's con-
stitution or bylaws contain no restraints on a mem-
ber's right to resign from union membership,4 a
member may resign at will. 5 It is also well settled
that, where there is no established method for res-
ignation, a member may communicate to the union
his intent to resign in any reasonable way so long
as the intent to resign is clearly conveyed.6 The
facts in this case establish that neither the Respond-
ent's constitution nor bylaws contain any restraints
on a member's right to resign. Further, each of the
4 For the reasons set forth in Member Hunter's concurring opinion in
Machinists Local 1327 (Dalmo Victor), 263 NLRB 984 (1982), Chairman
Dotson and Member Hunter would find the resignations here to be valid
irrespective of any restrictions contained in the Union's constitution or
bylaws.
s NLRB v. Textile Workers Local 1029, 409 U.S. 213 (1972).
6 Operative Potters Local 340 (Macomb Pottery), 175 NLRB 756, 760 fn.
14 (1969).
Charging Parties communicated to the Respondent,
in writing, that she no longer wished to be a
member of the Union. We therefore find that each
of the Charging Parties clearly conveyed to the
Respondent, by reasonable means, her intent to
resign from union membership. Accordingly, we
find that the Respondent's refusal to give effect to
the Charging Parties' resignations constitutes re-
straint and coercion of the Charging Parties' exer-
cise of their Section 7 rights in violation of Section
8(b)(1)(A) of the Act.
The question remaining is whether the Charging
Parties also effectively revoked their checkoff au-
thorizations. Between 21 and 23 November each of
the Charging Parties had effectively resigned her
membership in the Respondent. All but employee
Penry had at the same time also indicated to the
Respondent and the Employer their wish to revoke
the authorizations which each had executed on be-
coming a member of the Respondent. Nevertheless,
the Respondent refused to give effect to these rev-
ocation requests, and encouraged the Employer to
do likewise, on the grounds that they were not
timely under the provision of the wage assignment
which restricts revocation to a period of the last 5
calendar days prior to the contract anniversary
date of 15 September. The Employer agreed with
the Respondent and continued to deduct dues from
the pay of the Charging Parties. 7
It is established Board law that a dues-checkoff
authorization, or wage assignment as it is called in
this case, is a contract between an employee and
his employer8 and that a resignation of union mem-
bership ordinarily does not revoke a checkoff au-
thorization. 9 However, a resignation will, by oper-
ation of law, revoke a checkoff authorization, even
absent a revocation request, where the authoriza-
tion itself makes payment of dues a quid pro quo
for union membership.1 0 This is so whether or not
the resignation is made during the period for revo-
cation set forth in the authorization itself.
In this case, the parties' collective-bargaining
agreement, consistent with the right-to-work laws
of Iowa where the Employer is located, has no
provisions requiring membership in the Respondent
or the payment of dues to it as a condition of em-
ployment.
7 Although Penry did not expressly request revocation of her checkoff
authorization, it is clear that had she done so her request would not have
been honored. In any event, the Respondent does not contend that Penry
should be treated differently from the other Charging Parties.
a Cameron Iron Works, 235 NLRB 287 (1978).
A9 merican Nurses' Association, 250 NLRB 1324 fn. I and 1331 (1980);
Carpenters San Diego County District Council (Campbell Industries), 243
NLRB 147, 148-149 (1979).
'o Steelworkers Local 7450 (Asarco Inc.), 246 NLRB 878, 881-882
(1979); and Campbell Industries, supra.
637
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The wage assignment signed by the Charging
Parties specifically authorizes and directs the Em-
ployer:
. . . to deduct from my pay beginning with
the current month initiation or reinstatement
fees and my regular monthly Union dues as cer-
tified to the Company by the Financial Secre-
tary of the Union in accordance with regular
membership dues in the International Associa-
tion of Machinists and Aerospace Workers.
[Emphasis added.]
The General Counsel contends that this language
made payment of dues the quid pro quo for union
membership. The Respondent, on the other hand,
contends that the language of the wage assignment
is not subject to any such interpretation and argues
that the authorization extends to the payment of
dues or its equivalent. We find nothing in the wage
assignment, either express or implied, to indicate
that it authorizes deduction of a service fee in lieu
of membership dues. Rather, we find the wage as-
signment signed by the Charging Parties similar to
the one in Asarco, supra, which was found by the
Board to be an authorization limited to the pay-
ment of dues in consideration for union member-
ship." Thus, the wage assignment here directs a
deduction of dues "in accordance with regular
membership dues" in the Respondent. The dues-
checkoff authorization in Asarco directed a deduc-
tion of dues "as my membership dues" in the
union. We find the difference in language between
these authorizations to be of little consequence-
both clearly convey that the payment of dues is a
quid pro quo for membership rights. The absence
in this case of any provision in either the collec-
tive-bargaining agreement or the wage assignment
itself for financial-core membership erases any
doubt that the authorization was for anything other
than the payment of dues in consideration for
union membership.
Accordingly, we find the Charging Parties' wage
assignments were revoked, by operation of law,
when they effectively resigned their membership in
the Respondent, 12 and that the Respondent, by
11 The dues-checkoff authorization language in Asarco provided, in
pertinent part:
Pursuant to this authorization and assignment, please deduct from
my pay each month while I am in employment within the collective-
bargaining unit in the Company, monthly dues, assessments and (if
owing by me) an initiation fee each as designated by the Internation-
al Secretary-Treasurer of the Union, as my membership dues in said
Union. [Id. at 882, emphasis added.]
12 This is so regardless of whether the Charging Parties also requested
revocation of their checkoff authorizations. Thus, the failure of employee
Penry to submit such a request is of no consequence.
causing the Employer to continue to check off
their membership dues, restrained and coerced
them in the exercise of their Section 7 rights in vio-
lation of Section 8(bX1)(A) and (2) of the Act.13
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Eagle Signal Industrial Controls is an employ-
er engaged in commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. The Respondent Local Lodge 2045, District
102, International Association of Machinists and
Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO, is a labor organi-
zation within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the
Act.
3. By refusing to give effect to the valid resigna-
tions from membership of employees, the Respond-
ent has engaged in unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act.
4. By attempting to cause, and by causing, the
Employer to withhold the dues of employees who
had effectively resigned from the Respondent
where the employees' dues-checkoff authorization
was in consideration for union membership, the Re-
spondent violated Section 8(b)(lXA) and (2) of the
Act.
5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect
commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and
(7) of the Act.
THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged
in unfair labor practices, we shall order it to cease
and desist therefrom, and to take certain affirma-
tive action to effectuate the policies of the Act.
We shall order the Respondent to make employ-
ees Penry, Spurrier, Hanson, Richards, Goodin,
and Moore whole for any monetary loss they may
have suffered by reason of the Respondent's unlaw-
ful conduct in causing the Employer to withhold
their dues after they had effectively resigned from
the Respondent's membership, with interest in ac-
cordance with the formula prescribed in Isis
Plumbing Co., 138 NLRB 716 (1962), and Florida
Steel Corp., 231 NLRB 651 (1977).
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board orders that
the Respondent, Local Lodge 2045, District 102,
International Association of Machinists and Aero-
space Workers, AFL-CIO, East Moline, Illinois, its
officers, agents, and respresentatives, shall
Is We find no merit to the Respondent's assertion that, by permitting
revocation of the wage assignment by means, and at times, other than
those prescribed in the assignment, its ability to perform its statutory obli-
gation to fairly represent employees in the bargaining unit will be jeop-
ardized due to potential loss of financial support.
638
MACHINISTS LOCAL 2045 (EAGLE SIGNAL)
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Refusing to give effect to the valid resigna-
tions from membership of the employees of Eagle
Signal Industrial Controls or any other employer.
(b) Causing dues to be withheld from employees
who have effectively resigned their union member-
ship.
(c) In any like or related manner restraining or
coercing employees in the exercise of the rights
guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action designed
to effectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Reimburse or refund to Patricia A. Penry,
Barbara L. Spurrier, Barbara Hanson, Sharon L.
Richards, Carole J. Goodin, and Sharon Moore the
dues unlawfully collected from them for the period
following their valid resignations, as set forth in the
section herein entitled "The Remedy."
(b) Post at its offices and meeting halls in East
Moline, Illinois, copies of the attached notice
marked "Appendix."1 4 Copies of the notice, on
forms provided by the Regional Director for
Region 33, after being signed by the Respondent's
authorized representative, shall be posted by the
Respondent immediately upon receipt and main-
tained for 60 consecutive days in conspicuous
places including all places where notices to em-
ployees and members are customarily posted. Rea-
sonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to
ensure that the notices are not altered, defaced, or
covered by any other material.
(c) Deliver to the Regional Director signed
copies of the notice in sufficient number to be
"' If this Order is enforced by a Judgment of a United States Court of
Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by Order of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursuant to a Judgment
of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the Nation-
al Labor Relations Board."
posted by Eagle Signal Industrial Controls if it is
willing.
(d) Notify the Regional Director in writing
within 20 days from the date of this Order what
steps the Respondent has taken to comply.
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES AND MEMBERS
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
The National Labor Relations Board has found
that we violated the National Labor Relations Act,
and we have been ordered to post this notice.
WE WILL NOT refuse to give effect to the valid
resignations from membership of the employees of
Eagle Signal Industrial Controls or any other em-
ployer.
WE WILL NOT cause dues to be withheld from
employees who have effectively resigned their
union membership.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner re-
strain or coerce you in the exercise of the rights
guaranteed you by Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL reimburse or refund to Patricia A.
Penry, Barbara L. Spurrier, Barbara Hanson,
Sharon L. Richards, Carole J. Goodin, and Sharon
Moore the dues unlawfully collected from them for
the period following their valid resignations, plus
interest.
LOCAL LODGE 2045, DISTRICT 102,
INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF
MACHINISTS AND AEROSPACE WORK-
ERS, AFL-CIO
639