Molders Local 164 (Pacific Steel)

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 7, 1984

270 N.L.R.B. 1105 (N.L.R.B. 1984)

MOLDERS LOCAL 164 (PACIFIC STEEL)
International Molders and Allied Workers Union,
Local No. 164 and Pacific Steel Casting Com-
pany. Case 32-CB-777
7 June 1984
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN DOTSON AND MEMBERS
ZIMMERMAN AND HUNTER
On 8 March 1983 Administrative Law Judge
Leonard N. Cohen issued the attached decision.
The Respondent filed exceptions and a supporting
brief, and the General Counsel and the Charging
Party filed answering briefs.
The National Labor Relations Board has delegat-
ed its authority in this proceeding to a three-
member panel.
The Board has considered the decision and the
record in light of the exceptions and briefs and has
decided to affirm the judge's rulings, findings, and
conclusions and to adopt the recommended Order.
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board adopts the
recommended Order of the administrative law
judge and orders that the Respondent, International
Molders and Allied Workers Union, Local No.
164, Oakland, California, its officers, agents, and
representatives, shall take the action set forth in the
Order.
the Board for decision. On November 23, 1981, the
Board issued an Order denying the motion on the
grounds that the stipulation of fact was insufficient and
remanded the proceeding to the Regional Director for
Region 32 for appropriate action. On February 4, 1982,
the parties filed a motion with the Board requesting that
it clarify its previous Order of November 23, 1981, by in-
forming them what additional facts on what particular
issue would be needed to perfect a stipulated record ac-
ceptable to the Board. The parties further requested that
should the Board decline to clarify its position, it should,
nonetheless, amend its previous Order by remanding the
proceedings back to me. On May 24, 1982, the Board
issued an amended Order in which it stated that it did
not consider it appropriate to clarify its original Order
rejecting the parties stipulation of the fact. The Board
did, however, amend its earlier Order by now remanding
the matter to me. On June 30, 1982, I issued an Order
reconvening the hearing for the purpose of taking evi-
dence on certain subparagraphs of the amended com-
plaint which, in my judgment, may have been the area in
which the Board deemed the original stipulation of fact
as insufficient. In any event, the record was reopened
and a second day of hearing was conducted in San Fran-
cisco, California, on August 12, 1982.
All parties were given full opportunity to participate,
to introduce relevant evidence, to examine and cross-ex-
amine witnesses, to argue orally, and to file briefs. Briefs
which were filed by all parties have been carefully con-
sidered.
On the entire record of the case and from my observa-
tion of the witnesses and their demeanor, I make the fol-
lowing
DECISION FINDINGS OF FACTISI
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
LEONARD N. COHEN, Administrative Law Judge. On
December 10, 1981,1 the initial trial in the instant case
was heard before me in Oakland, California, pursuant to
a complaint and notice of hearing issued on July 17, and
a second amended complaint issued on November 20.
The amended complaint, which was further amended at
the hearing, was based on a charge filed on June 16 by
Pacific Steel Casting Company (Pacific Steel) and al-
leged, inter alia, that International Molders and Allied
Workers Union, Local No. 164 (Respondent or simply
the Union) in violation of Section 8(b)(1)(A) took repris-
als, including the making of threats and the imposition of
fines, against certain of its members who refused to
engage in an unprotected strike against Pacific Steel.
Prior to the close of the December 10 trial, I suggested
to the parties that since the entire record consisted of
documentary evidence and stipulations of fact they
should consider, as a method of avoiding unnecesary
costs and delay, submitting the matter directly to the
Board for decision. Thereafter, on February 6, 1981, the
parties filed under Section 102.50 of the Board's Rules
and Regulations a motion to transfer the proceedings to
I Unless otherwise stalted, all dates are in 1980.
270 NLRB No. 171
I. THE BUSINESS OF PACIFIC STEEL
Pacific Steel is a California corporation with its office
and principal place of business in Berkeley, California,
where it is engaged in the operation of a steel casting
foundry. During the past 12 months, Pacific Steel, in the
course and conduct of its business operations, sold and
shipped goods and services valued in excess of $50,000
directly to customers located outside the State of Califor-
nia. Accordingly, I find and conclude that at all times
material herein Pacific Steel is an employer engaged in
commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of
the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION
Respondent and Pacific Steel admit, and I find and
conclude, that Respondent is and has been at all times
material herein a labor organization within the meaning
of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Facts
The facts are not in dispute. Respondent and Pacific
Steel were parties to a collective-bargaining agreement
effective April 7, 1979, to March 14, 1982, covering Pa-
1105
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
cific Steel's approximately 270 production and mainte-
nance employees. This collective-bargaining agreement
sets forth detailed provisions regarding grievance-arbitra-
tion procedures, a no-strike clause, and union-security
clauses.
Section XIV, step 3, states:
(b) If no decision is reached by the parties in para-
graph (a) above during the time allowed the ag-
grieved party may appeal the grievance to an arbi-
trator within five (5) working days.
The arbitrator may be selected by agreement by the
parties or if the parties cannot agree on an arbitra-
tor then one shall be selected by alternatively strik-
ing names of five (5) arbitrators from lists furnished
from the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Serv-
ice. The decision of the arbitrator shall be final and
binding upon the parties to the arbitration. Provided
however, the arbitrator's decision shall be within
the scope and terms of the agreement and shall not
add to, subtract from, alter, or amend the scope and
the terms of this agreement. The fees of the arbitra-
tor and court reporter shall be shared equally by
the adverse parties to the arbitration. [Emphasis
added.]
Section XX dealing with strikes and lockouts states in its
entirety:
During the life of this agreement there shall be no
lock-outs on the part of the employer or strikes on
the part of the Union.
It shall not be deemed a violation of this Section if
employees do not report for work on account of a
picket line established by another union which has a
collective-bargaining agreement with the employer
covering employees who are employed in the same
premises provided such picket line has been institut-
ed in conformity with the laws of said union and
furthermore has been sanctioned by the internation-
al union and the Bay Cities Metals Trade Council
and furthermore does not contravene the Labor
Management Relations Act of 1947 as amended.
Section VI (c), (d), and (e) dealing with recognition and
hiring states:
(c) All members of the Union covered by this
Agreement on its effective date, or subsequently
hired, shall remain members in good standing of the
Union as a condition of continued employment.
(d) All other employees covered by this Agreement
on its effective date, or subsequently hired, shall, if
accepted by the Union, as a condition of employ-
ment, become members of the Union on the thirty-
first (31st) calendar day following the beginning of
their employment or the effective date of this
Agreement, whichever is the later, and remain
members of the Union in good standing as a condi-
tion of continued employment.
(e) In the application of paragraphs (c) and (d)
above, when the Employer is notified by the Union
in writing that an employee is delinquent in pay-
ment of Union dues, or has failed within the time
prescribed by the Union to make proper application
and pay the required initiation fee, the Employer
shall immediately terminate such employee. Such
employee shall not be reemployed by the Employer
until notified by the Union that the employee is a
member in good standing in the Union, or such em-
ployee presents work clearance from Union to Em-
ployer.
On October 10, 1979, James Young, a production em-
ployee, filed a grievance alleging that he was discharged
in violation of the collective-bargaining agreement. This
grievance was not resolved in the adjustment procedure
and on April 23, 1980, the matter was heard before Arbi-
trator Harvey Letter. On June 3, Arbitrator Letter issued
a written decision in which he found and concluded that,
since Young was absent from work due to illness, his
subsequent discharge for failing to report to work violat-
ed the terms of the collective-bargaining agreement. Fi-
nally, Arbitrator Letter ordered that Young be reinstated
with backpay.
During the week of June 9, Pacific Steel's attorney no-
tified Respondent and its attorney that it had information
that Young had committed perjury during the arbitration
hearing and that it was, therefore, going to file a petition
to vacate the arbitrator's award with the California Supe-
rior Court. Pacific Steel further notified Respondent that
it would not reinstate Young pending this appeal. Short-
ly after being informed of Pacific Steel's intentions, Re-
spondent Union in turn informed Pacific Steel that it was
going to strike over Pacific Steel's refusal to immediately
comply with the arbitration decision by reinstating
Young pending any decision of the Superior Court.
By letter dated June 16, counsel for Pacific Steel filed
the initial charge relating to this threatened work stop-
page.
On the morning of June 16, Respondent's business rep-
resentative Ignacio DeLaFuente came to Pacific Steel's
plant and held an impromptu meeting with those em-
ployees present. DeLaFuente informed the employees
that although an arbitrator had issued a decision in the
Young case and had ordered that Young be reinstated,
the Company, in violation of the collective-bargaining
agreement, was refusing to abide by the arbitrator's deci-
sion. DeLaFuente stated that he could see no other
course of action for the Union to take but to pull the
work force off the job. DeLaFuente then stated that he
was going to call for a strike and that anyone who re-
fused to go along with a strike vote would be considered
as engaging in union breaking. DeLaFuente added that
anyone who did not honor the strike would be fined and
their employment could be terminated. He then stated
that he would personally see to it that anyone who did
not strike would not only no longer work for Pacific
Steel, but would not work for any other foundry. At this
point, without any discussion being permitted, the mem-
bers who were present that morning voted to go out on
strike. Pursuant to this vote, the Union struck during the
morning June 16. Of the approximately 270 production
and maintenance employees, all but 27 honored the
1106
MOLDERS LOCAL 164 (PACIFIC STEEL)
strike. At midday on June 17, Pacific Steel announced
that it was temporarily suspending operations and indefi-
nitely closed the plant.
At this point the dispute moved nearly simultaneously
into two other forums. On June 17, Pacific Steel filed
with the United States District Court a petition for in-
junctive relief under Boys Markets v. Retail Clerks Local
770, 398 U.S. 235 (1970). District Court Judge Schnacke
denied the request for a temporary restraining order and
set the complaint for injunction, as well as Respondent's
cross-complaint seeking an injunction compelling Pacific
Steel to comply with the arbitration award pending any
action by a court to vacate that award, for a hearing on
June 27.
On June 18, Pacific Steel filed a petition to vacate the
arbitrator's award with the Superior Court for the State
of California. This matter likewise was set for argument
on June 27. On the afternoon of June 27, before Judge
Schnacke had an opportunity to rule on the matters
pending before his court, Superior Court Judge Dearman
informed the parties that he intended to sign an order va-
cating the arbitration award. Later that same day, Re-
spondent's counsel informed Judge Schnacke that in
view of Judge Dearman's actions, Respondent had no
basis for opposing the issuance of the sought for injunc-
tion. Accordingly, Judge Schnacke, without objection,
on June 27, issued an bench order granting the Boys Mar-
kets injunction. Pursuant to this order, the strike ended
and Pacific Steel resumed operations.
In the meantime on June 19, Respondent filed an
unfair labor charge in Case 32-CA-2823 alleging that
Pacific Steel had violated Section 8(a)(5) by failing to
abide by the collective-bargaining agreement's provisions
regarding compliance with the final and binding nature
of the arbitrator's decision. This charge was still pending
during the courts' actions during the latter days of June.
Against this background, Respondent's business repre-
sentative DeLaFuente, on July 3, sent letters to the 27
employee-members who had failed to participate in the
strike. The letters informed each of the individuals that
Respondent had preferred internal charges against them
for their failure to honor the strike and notified them
that the date of July 14 had been scheduled for their
trial.
On July 14, the 27 charged members appeared before
Respondent's trial committee to respond to the charges.
No disposition of any of the charges was made during this
meeting.
By letter dated July 21, the Regional Director for
Region 32 dismissed the 8(a)(5) charges filed by Re-
spondent in Case 32-CA-2823. 2 In so doing, Regional
Director Scott stated:
The investigation disclosed that the employer re-
fused to comply with an arbitrator's award requir-
ing the reinstatement of employee James Young on
June 16, 1980, because it believed the award was
a As noted earlier, on July 17, the Regional Director issued the initial
complaint in this matter charging that Respondent Union, in violation of
Section 8(bXlIXA) of the Act, threatened employees with both loss of
employment and fines because they refused to participate in an unlawful
strike.
obtained on the basis of fraudulent testimony. The
investigation further disclosed that the employer pe-
titioned the California Superior Court to vacate the
award and that the Court did vacate the award
after a hearing on June 27, 1980. There is no evi-
dence that the Employer repudiated its collective-
bargaining agreement with Local 164 or the con-
tractual grievance procedure. In the absence of any
evidence of repudiation of the collective-bargaining
agreement the employer's refusal to comply with
the arbitrator's award does not give rise to a viola-
tion of Section 8(aXS5). Malrite of Wisconsin, 198
NLRB 24. I am therefore refusing to issue a com-
plaint in this matter.3
On August 7, a hearing was held before Judge Dearman
with regard to his previous order vacating the arbitration
award. During this hearing, he granted Respondent's
motion to reconsider and heard argument of all counsel.
On August 8, Judge Dearman issued an order vacating
his previous order and granting Respondent's request for
confirmation of the arbitration award. Although this
order was signed on August 8, it was not served on any
of the parties until November 12. Immediately upon re-
ceipt of this order, Pacific Steel reinstated Young to his
former position.
On October 9, DeLaFuente sent letters to the 27
charged members informing them that Respondent's
membership had accepted the trial committee's recom-
mendations and had imposed S300 fines against each of
them for their failure to participate in the strike. The let-
ters stated that the fines must be paid on or before No-
vember 14, or "action will be taken towards suspension,
termination of your employment, or legal action."
On November 18, DeLaFuente sent another letter to
the 27 members indicating that to date, the Union had
not received payment of their fines. The letter further
notified each that he or she must appear before a trial
board in early December to defend his or her failure to
pay their fines.
On December 8, the 27 members appeared before the
trial board as requested. Sidney Ennis, one of those
charged, acted as the spokesman for the group. He in-
formed DeLaFuente and the other officials that the 27
considered the fines illegal and they would not pay the
fines until their legality had been established. DeLa-
Fuente responded that they were not there to discuss the
legality or illegality of the fines, that the only matter
under consideration was the members' failure to pay
their fines. DeLaFuente again repeated that if the mem-
bers refused to pay their fines they were subjecting
themselves to suspension from union membership and
termination from employment following such suspension.
When one of the other charged members, Frank Friana,
asked how the Union could get them terminated from
Pacific Steel, DeLaFuente answered by stating that there
was a clause between Respondent and Pacific Steel to
the effect that any member not in "good standing" with
3 The dismissal was appealed to the General Counsel and on August
II11, the appeal was denied for substantially the reasons set forth in the
Regional Director's dismissal letter.
1107
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the Local was subject to termination and that he would
have them terminated on the basis of that clause. During
the ensuing discussion DeLaFuente indicated to the 27
that he would recommend to the trial committee that
they each be suspended from membership and subse-
quently terminated from employment. The following
month each of the 27 was notified that he had been sus-
pended from the union membership for failing to pay the
aforementioned fine.
On January 28, 1981, Pacific Steel filed a new charge
in Case 32-CB-923 against Respondent alleging, inter
alia, that Respondent was attempting to force Pacific
Steel to discriminate against the nonstriking employees in
violation of Section 8(b)(2) of the Act. On January 29,
the Regional Director for Region 32 issued a new com-
plaint in Case 32-CB-923 in which he alleged that Re-
spondent, about January 15, 1981, informed members
that unless they paid their fines the Union would engage
in a strike, suspended said nonstriking members from
union membership because of their failure to pay the
fines, and demanded that Pacific Steel terminate those
employees under the union-security clause of the collec-
tive-bargaining agreement.
On February 2, Regional Director Scott filed in the
United States District Court a petition for injunctive
relief against Respondent pursuant to Section 10(j) of the
Act. That same day, United States District Court Judge
Stanley Weigel signed a temporary restraining Order in
which Respondent was ordered to cease and desist from
threatening any strike action against Pacific Steel and in-
stituting any internal disciplinary action against any
members of Respondent who refused to engage in strike
against Pacific Steel.
On February 5, a stipulation and order was signed by
counsel for Respondent and counsel for the Regional Di-
rector and subsequently approved by Judge Weigel in
which Respondent stipulated to an order enjoining it
from, inter alia, threatening any strike action against Pa-
cific Steel and seeking or threatening the discharge of
any employee of Pacific Steel for failing or refusing to
pay any fines pending the final disposition of the matters
in Cases 32-CB-777 and 32-CB-923.
On April 22, 1981, Pacific Steel filed yet another
charge, this one in Case 32-CB-983 alleging that Re-
spondent had violated Section 8(b)(1XA) of the Act by
seeking to enforce its fines against the 27 nonstriking em-
ployees by filing deficient law suits against them. On
April 28, the Regional Director for Region 32 issued a
complaint in that case. Finally, about September 25,
1981, the parties, with the approval of the Regional Di-
rector, settled informally the charges in Cases 32-CB-
923 and 32-CB-983 contingent, in part, on a final ruling
in the instant matter.
B. Conclusions
Despite the rather convoluted and winding path taken
procedurally to reach this decisional stage, as well as the
somewhat complex factual setting to this dispute, includ-
ing reference to collateral litigation, the issues presented
here are relatively straightforward and well settled.
On June 3, the arbitrator issued his decision in which
he ordered Pacific Steel to reinstate grievant Young.
Shortly thereafter, Pacific Steel informed Respondent
that it had evidence that Young had committed perjury
at the arbitration hearing and that it would not, there-
fore, comply with the arbitrator's decision unless and
until a court enforced that award. Respondent, rather
than waiting for the matter to be resolved in the courts,
struck solely to force Pacific Steel to reinstate Young
pending any such appeal by the Employer to the courts.
As recognized by all parties, the Board does not view
a single instance of noncompliance by an employer with
an arbitration award, in and of itself, as a repudiation of
the employer's statutory bargaining obligation. Malrite of
Wisconsin, 198 NLRB 241 (1972). A breach of contract is
not ipso facto an unfair labor practice. Papercraft Corp.,
212 NLRB 240 at fn. 3 (1974).
Respondent concedes that by agreeing to the no-strike
clause of the collective-bargaining agreement it waived
its right to take strike action against Pacific Steel prior to
the final resolution of the Young grievance by the arbi-
trator. However, it contends that under the legal stand-
ard of "coterminous application," most recently applied
in Pacemaker Yacht Co., 253 NLRB 828 (1980), the
Board is precluded from finding that the no-strike provi-
sion extended to strikes protesting matters not resolvable
by the grievance-arbitration procedures.
In this regard, Respondent argues that there is no evi-
dence that the parties in their bargaining history ever
discussed the question of what would happen if Pacific
Steel, despite the "final and binding" language of section
XIV of the collective-bargaining agreement, failed to
comply with the arbitrator's award, and that absent such
evidence there can be no clear and unmistakable waiver
of its rights to take economic action at that time. Re-
spondent argues that since neither party is precluded by
contract in seeking court action with regard to an arbi-
trator's decision, "concomitantly, the Union is not pre-
cluded from taking strike action to enforce an arbitrator's
award where the employer refused to comply."
Respondent's argument is based on an invalid assump-
tion, and, therefore, its reliance on the "coterminous ap-
plication" theory to avoid its liability is misplaced. Nei-
ther the Board nor the courts consider the arbitration
process as concluded with the mere issuance of the arbi-
trator's decision. In Malrite of Wisconsin, supra, the
Board, in concluding that the employer's noncompliance
with the arbitration award was not a matter for its con-
cern, stated:
If the Board's deference to arbitration is to be
meaningful, it must encompass the entire arbitration
process, including the enforcement of arbitral
awards. It appears that the desired objective of en-
couraging the voluntary settlement of labor disputes
through the arbitration process will best be served
by requiring that parties to a dispute, after electing
to resort to arbitration, proceed to the usual conclu-
sion of that process-judicial 'enforcement-rather
than permitting them to invoke the intervention of
the Board.
Similarly, the courts have also concluded that judicial
review, not the issuance of the arbitrator's decision, con-
1108
MOLDERS LOCAL 164 (PACIFIC STEEL)
stitutes the final set in the arbitration process. Anheuser-
Busch, Inc. v. Teamsters Local 133, 477 F.Supp. 742, 747
(E.D.Mo. 1979); Sea-land Service v. Longshoremen, 625
F.2d 38, 41-42 (5th Cir. 1980). In the latter case, the cir-
cuit court specifically rejected the union's claim that its
contractual obligation to refrain from striking ceased im-
mediately on the issuance of the arbitrator's decision, and
that, therefore, the Boys Markets injunction,4 previously
issued by the district court, automatically expired. In so
doing, the court held:
We hold that, absent express agreement to the con-
trary, cf. New York v. Local 244, Hotel, Nursing
Home & Allied Health Services Union, 410 F.Supp.
225, 230 (S.D.N.Y. 1976) (arbiter's decision by con-
tract had "effect of a judgment," entitling prevailing
party "to entry of judgment in a court of competent
jurisdiction"), a Boys Markets injunction may con-
tinue in force pending judicial enforcement of the
subsidiary arbitral award. Since the parties' contract
here does not expressly preclude normal judicial
"review," we reject ILA's contention that the arbi-
ters' decision, by itself, deprived the district court
of subject matter jurisdiction to continue its anti-
strike injunction.
Here, the no-strike clause, like that in Sea-land Service,
supra, contains no express agreement extending to the ar-
bitrator's decision the effect of a judgment entitling the
prevailing party to entry of a judgment in a court of
competent jurisdiction. Further, no extrinsic evidence
was offered to show that the parties intended to preclude
the no-strike clause's application during the period in
which judicial review was sought. In these circum-
stances, Respondent must live up to its promise not to
strike during the life of the collective-bargaining agree-
ment. Accordingly, Respondent's June 16 strike action
was in violation of the collective-bargaining agreement
and was, therefore, unprotected.5
In view of the finding that the strike was unprotected,
I need not reach the Charging Party's alternative argu-
ment that Respondent's failure to give notice to either
the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service, or the
California State Conciliation Service, as required by Sec-
tion 8(d) of the Act, rendered the strike unlawful."
Having resolved against Respondent the threshold
question regarding status of the underlying strike, I now
turn to the various subparagraphs of the complaint in
which Respondent is alleged to have violated Section
8(b)(IXA) of the Act. These allegations basically fall into
two categories: (1) threatening loss of employment with
4 Boys Markets v. Retail Clerks, supra.
I The main case relied on by Respondent, Pacemaker Yacht Co., supra,
is clearly distinguishable on its facts. There, the employees, despite a
broad no-strike agreement, struck to protest the failure of the health and
welfare fund to pay the benefits required by the insurance program. In
declining to find that the no-strike provision constituted a waiver of the
employees' right to strike over the fund's inaction, the Board noted that
there was no indication that the parties intended that article to cover a
situation in which the employees sought to put pressure on the employer
and the union to remedy a problem created by a third party. Here, no
unforeseen third party exists.
6 But see United Marine Division Local 333 (General Marine Transporta-
tion), 228 NLRB 1107, 1109 (1977), for a general discussion of this issue.
Pacific Steel and "blackballing" within the industry to
those members who would not participate in the unpro-
tected strike or pay fines, and (2) threatening members
with fines and, in fact, bringing intraunion charges
against those members, conducting of trials on said
charges, and the levying of fines against those members
because of their failure to engage in the unprotected
strike.
The illegality of the threats in category i, above, are
clear and are in no way dependent upon the conclusion
that the underlying strike was unprotected. Respondent's
counsel does not, on brief, contest that such threats as
those made orally and in writing to the 27 nonstriking
members by business agent DeLaFuente interfered with
those members' employment opportunities and, as such,
were violative of Section 8(bXIXA) of the Act. The Act
prohibits a union from causing or attempting to cause an
employer to discharge an employee for his failure to pay
assessments or fines other than periodic dues or normal
initiation fees. It follows that these threats, including spe-
cifically the threat that loss of membership and, there-
fore, the loss of "good standing" with the Union which
would in turn render the employee ineligible for work,
were coercive and each such threat constituted an inde-
pendent violation of Section 8(b)(IXA). ?
The category 2 conduct involves Respondent's internal
discipline of its members and its lawfulness, therefore,
turns on a consideration of the legitimacy of Respond-
ent's interests. As the Board stated in Operating Engineers
Local 39 (San Jose Hospital), 240 NLRB 1122 at 1123
(1979):
Thus, the principle that a union may impose in-
ternal discipline on its members without running
afoul of Section 8(bXIXA) is not without exception.
In applying this section of the Act, the Board and
the courts, both prior to and after Scofield, have
recognized that the proviso of Section 8(bXI)(A) af-
fords no immunity to a union when it imposes disci-
plinary action, even though enforced internally, that
"invades or frustrates an overriding policy of the
labor laws." In this regard, the internal enforcement
of a union rule has been found to violate Section
8(b)(IXA) where discipline is imposed against union
members for filing or encouraging others to file
charges with the Board, or for refusing to cross an
unlawful picket line, or for the purpose of coercing
members to participate in conduct violative of the
Act. In addition, the use of discipline or threat of dis-
cipline to compel union members into acting in contra-
vention of a collectively bargained-for agreement has
been recognized as falling beyond the scope of permis-
sible internal union discipline under the proviso to
Section 8(bXIXA). [Emphasis added.]
Here, as we have seen, Respondent's purpose in pursu-
ing its discipline against the 27 members was clear and
straightforward-to retaliate against those members who
refused to join Respondent in its unprotected strike in
Carpenters Local 2605 (DeRose Industries), 256 NLRB 584, 586
(1981).
1109
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
violation of the collective-bargaining agreement. This
conduct impairs national labor policies and is, therefore,
not protected by the proviso to Section 8(b)(X)(A) of the
Act. Accordingly, I conclude that Respondent has vio-
lated Section 8(b)(l)(A) as alleged.
IV. THE REMEDY
Having found that the Union has engaged in certain
unfair labor practices prohibited by Section 8(bXl)(A) of
the Act, I recommend that it be ordered to cease and
desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action de-
signed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Respondent Union is a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
2. Pacific Steel is an employer engaged in commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
3. Respondent restrained and coerced employees in the
exercise of the rights guaranteed them in Section 7 of the
Act in violation of Section 8(b)(IXA) of the Act by:
(a) Bringing intraunion charges against, and subse-
quently fining, those employees of Pacific Steel listed in
Appendix B hereto, because they refused to strike in vio-
lation of the collective-bargaining agreement.
(b) Threatening those employees of Pacific Steel listed
in Appendix B hereto with intraunion charges, fines, sus-
pensions of membership, loss of employment, and black-
balling because they refused to strike in violation of the
collective-bargaining agreement and/or pay the unlaw-
fully imposed fines.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and
on the entire record, I issue the following recommend-
ed s
ORDER
The Respondent, International Molders and Allied
Workers Union, Local No. 164, Oakland, California, its
officers, agents, and representatives, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Bringing intraunion charges against and subsequent-
ly fining those employees of Pacific Steel listed in Ap-
pendix B hereto because they refused to strike in viola-
tion of the collective-bargaining agreement.
(b) Threatening those employees of Pacific Steel listed
in Appendix B hereto with intraunion charges, fines, sus-
pensions of membership, loss of employment, and black-
balling because they refused to strike in violation of the
collective-bargaining agreement and/or pay the unlaw-
fully imposed fines.
(c) In any like or related manner restraining or coerc-
ing employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed
them in Section 7 of the Act.
a If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the Board's
Rules and Regulations, the findings, conclusions, and recommended
Order shall, as provided in Sec. 102.48 of the Rules, be adopted by the
Board and all objections to them shall be deemed waived for all pur-
poses.
2. Take the following affirmative action designed to ef-
fectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Rescind the fines imposed against those employees
of Pacific Steel listed in Appendix B hereto and expunge
from its records all reference to said fines.
(b) Post at its business office and meeting halls copies
of the attached notice marked "Appendix A."g Copies of
the notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director
for Region 32, after being duly signed by its authorized
representative, shall be posted by it immediately upon re-
ceipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive
days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all
places where notices to members are customarily posted.
Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to
ensure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or cov-
ered by any other materials.
(c) Furnish the Regional Director with signed copies
of the aforesaid notices for posting by Pacific Steel Cast-
ing Company, if that Company is willing to post them.
(d) Notify the Regional Director in writing within 20
days from the date of this Order what steps the Re-
spondent has taken to comply.
9 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."
APPENDIX A
NOTICE To MEMBERS
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
AN AGENCY OF THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT
WE WILL NOT bring intraunion charges against and
fine any employees of Pacific Steel Casting Company be-
cause they refused to strike in violation of the collective-
bargaining agreement.
WE WILL NOT threaten any employees of Pacific Steel
Casting Company with intraunion charges, fines, suspen-
sions of membership, loss of employment, and blackball-
ing because they refused to strike in violation of the col-
lective-bargaining agreement or pay unlawfully imposed
fines.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner restrain or
coerce employees of Pacific Steel Casting Company in
the exercise of the rights guaranteed them by Section 7
of the Act.
WE WILL rescind all fines imposed against any em-
ployee of Pacific Steel Casting Company and WE WILL
expunge from our records all references to those fines.
INTERNATIONAL MOLDERS AND ALLIED
WORKERS UNION, LOCAL No. 164
APPENDIX B
1. Alex Staritzin
2. Michael Boyd
3. Jim Craig
14. John Hatton
15. Jose Sausa
16. Jose Fereira
1110
MOLDERS LOCAL 164 (PACIFIC STEEL)
4. Tony Silveira
5. Nate Davis
6. Sid Ennis
7. Willie Carpenter
8. Doug Cossman
9. len Cossman
17. Angelo Martinez
18. John Hong
19. Frank Fahrina
20. Rudy Serrato
21. Al Teixeira
22. Tony Adado
10. Sal Lemus
11. Manuel Lema
12. David Von
Norman
13. Armindo
Fernandes
23. Tony Johnson
24. Manuel Sousa
25. Manuel Fereira
26. William Abreu
27. Keith Barnes
1111