Paperworkers, Local No. 725

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 26, 1975

220 N.L.R.B. 812 (N.L.R.B. 1975)

812 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
United Paperworkers International Union, Local No.
725, AFL-CIO (Boise Southern Company) and
Robert E. Paul
United Paperworkers International Union, Local No.
1226, AFL-CIO (Boise Southern Company) and
Robert E. Paul. Cases 15-CB-1587 and
15-CB-1588
September 26, 1975
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS FANNING, JENKINS, AND PENELLO
Upon a charge duly filed in Case 15-CB-1587 by
Robert E. Paul, an individual, herein called Paul or
the Charging Party, against United Paperworkers In-
ternational Union, Local No. 725, AFL-CIO, herein
called Local 725; and upon a charge filed in Case
15-CB-1588 by the Charging Party against United
Paperworkers International Union, Local No. 1226,
AFL-CIO, herein called Local 1226, the General
Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board, by
its Regional Director for Region 15, issued and duly
served on the parties an order consolidating cases,
consolidated complaint and notice of hearing dated
January 22, 1975.
The complaint alleged in substance that Respon-
dents, Local 725 and Local 1226, violated Section
8(b)(1)(A) of the Act by the levy of a fine on the
Charging Party for his having worked at Boise
Southern Company, after the time of his alleged res-
ignation and withdrawal of membership from Re-
spondents, but during the time of a strike undertaken
by Respondents against Boise Southern Company.
Respondents' answer admitted certain factual allega-
tions of the complaint but denied the commission of
any unfair labor practices.
Thereafter, on April 23, 1975, all parties to this
proceeding entered into a stipulation of facts and of
the record and, on May 2, 1975, filed a motion to
transfer this proceeding to the Board. The parties
agreed that the stipulation of facts, with its appendix-
es and exhibits, constituted the entire record in the
case and that no oral testimony was necessary or de-
sired by any of the parties. They waived a hearing
before an Administrative Law Judge, the making of
findings of facts and conclusions of law by an Ad-
ministrative Law Judge, and the issuance of an Ad-
ministrative Law Judge's Decision, and submitted
the proceedings for findings of fact and conclusions
of law and an order directly to the Board. On May 6,
1975, the Board approved the stipulation and or-
dered the proceedings transferred to the Board.
Thereafter, the General Counsel and Respondents
filed briefs.
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 entire record herein
and the briefs and makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER
Boise Southern Company, a corporation duly au-
thorized to do business in the State of Louisiana, is
now and has been, at all times material herein, en-
gaged in wood processing and paper manufacturing
at its DeRidder, Louisiana, facility, the only location
involved here.
During the past 12 months, which period is repre-
sentative of all times material herein, Boise Southern
Company, in the course and conduct of its business
operations as described above, received goods and
materials valued in excess of $50,000 directly from
points outside the State of Louisiana, and shipped
wood and paper products valued in excess of $50,000
directly to points outside the State of Louisiana.
The complaint alleges , Respondents' answer ad-
mits, and we find that Boise Southern Company is,
and at all times material has been, an employer en-
gaged in commerce within the meaning of Section
2(6) and (7) of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
The complaint alleges, Respondents' answer ad-
mits, and we find that Respondents are, and at all
times material have been, labor organizations within
the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The Stipulated Facts
Boise Southern Company and Respondents were
parties to a collective-bargaining agreement covering
certain employees at Boise Southern's DeRidder,
Louisiana, facility. The agreement expired on July
15, 1974.1 Respondents thereafter engaged in an eco-
nomic strike and picketing at this facility from on or
about July 25 until on or about October 28. Respon-
dents conducted a strike vote about 10 days before
the commencement of the strike and the United Pa-
perworkers International Union, herein called the In-
1 All dates are 1974 unless otherwise noted.
220 NLRB No. 126
PAPERWORKERS , LOCAL NO. 725
ternational , sanctioned the strike. The Charging Par-
ty was an employee of Boise Southern and a member
of Respondent Local 725 at the commencement of
the strike; participated in the strike vote; and there-
after participated in the strike by walking picket and
receiving strike benefits prior to October 7.
Thereafter, on October 7, the Charging Party re-
turned to his employment with Boise Southern. On
October 9, Charging Party forwarded a letter by reg-
istered mail to the president of Local 725 stating that
he was resigning from Local 725. The letter was re-
ceived by Local 725 on October 10.
Meanwhile, on October 8, a Local 725 member
hand delivered a letter of charges against the Charg-
ing Party to Local 725's recording secretary. On No-
vember 5, Local 725's recording secretary forwarded
a letter to the Charging Party informing him that he
had been accused of activities detrimental to the wel-
fare of the International , Local 725, and Local 1226.
He was also informed that a trial on the accusations
would be held on November 12. On November 8, the
Charging Party forwarded a letter to Local 725's re-
cording secretary informing him that he had resigned
from Local 725 on October 10.
Thereafter, on November 12, a trial was conducted
by Local 725's trial board to consider the charges
lodged against the Charging Party. The Charging
Party was not in attendance at the trial. Local 725's
trial board found the Charging Party guilty of the
charges and lodged and levied a fine of $500 a day
for each day the Charging Party worked at Boise
Southern during the time of the strike.
On November 22, Local 725's recording secretary
forwarded a letter to the Charging Party informing
him of the results of the trial and the decision of the
trial board.
After the termination of the strike on October 28, a
new collective-bargaining agreement was executed
between Boise Southern and Local 725 and Local
1226 covering certain employees including the
Charging Party. Thereafter, dues payable to Local
725 were withheld from the Charging Party's wages
by Boise Southern for the months of November 1974
and January 1975. The Charging Party ceased his
employment with Boise Southern in late January
1975.
The parties are in agreement that Local 725 and
Local 1226 subscribed to the International's constitu-
tion.
B. Discussion and Conclusions
General Counsel contends that Respondents vio-
lated Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act by levying a fine
against Charging Party Paul for his postresignation
813
work at Boise Southern . Respondents contend that
the constitution of the International , to which both
Respondents subscribe, contains a procedure for val-
id resignation which Paul did not follow ; that his
resignation was therefore invalid ; and that therefore,
as he was still a member of Local 725 at the time he
was fined , and thereafter , the fine is valid . Respon-
dents further argue that , because there has been no
attempt to collect the fine , Paul has suffered no actu-
al harm , and thus has not been restrained or coerced
within the meaning of Section 8 (b)(1)(A).
For reasons we note below , we are in agreement
with the General Counsel that Respondents ' fining of
Paul for work done subsequent to the time of Re-
spondents' receipt of his resignation letter violated
Section •8(b)(1)(A) of the Act.
It is now well settled that where there is no provi-
sion in a union 's constitution or bylaws which limits
the circumstances in which a member may resign,
then the member is free to resign at Will .2 Although
Respondents claim that there is a provision in the
International 's constitution which sets out the meth-
od in which a member such as Paul may resign, we
find the provision on which they rely does not cover
the situation before us.
Respondents rely on article XI, section 7, of the
International's constitution which states that:
Any paid up member who is not under charges
may withdraw from membership upon leaving
employment within the jurisdiction of the Interna-
tional Union. A withdrawal card shall be issued
to such withdrawing member and he shall there-
upon lose all rights and privileges of member-
ship and shall be exempt from the payment of
further dues and assessments. A member may be
reinstated to membership, without payment of
an initiation fee or any break in his membership
standing upon presentation of his withdrawal
card to the local union in which he seeks mem-
bership. [Emphasis supplied.]
We note that this provision only deals with with-
drawal from the union when a member is leaving the
International's jurisdiction. As the International's
constitution makes no provision for voluntary resig-
nation, like that of Paul, of employees who are still
engaged in employment within the International's ju-
risdiction, we conclude that Paul was able to resign
at will; that his resignation letter effectively terminat-
ed his membership in Local 725; and, in the circum-
2 N L.R.B v Granite State Joint Board, Textile Workers Union of Ameri-
ca, Local 1029, AFL-CIO [International Paper Box Machine Co], 409 U.S
213 (19721, Booster Lodge No 405, International Association of Machinists
and Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO [Boeing Co] v. N.L R B., 412 U.S. 84
(1973)
814 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
stances of this case , that Respondents ' fining of him
violated the Act.'
Respondents contend that, since they have not at-
tempted to collect the fine levied on Paul , they have
committed no 8(b )( 1)(A) violation. In this regard,
they allege that the fine is not "court collectible" and
thus constituted no violation . The issue of the fine's
ultimate collectibility is irrelevant , however. As we
stated in Booster Lodge No. 405, International Associ-
ation of Machinists and Aerospace Workers , AFL-CIO
(The Boeing ,Company), 4 "[t]he levy of a fine is calcu-
lated to force an individual both to pay money and
to engage in particular conduct against his will. This
is true regardless of the ultimate collectibility of the
fine."
We also reject Respondents ' argument that Paul's
failure to exhaust his internal union remedies before
filing the charge warrants dismissal of the complaint.
Paul's failure to exhaust his internal union remedies
does not affect the validity of our finding that Re-
spondents violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) by fining him.5
Respondents also contend that Paul violated the
constitutional restriction on postresignation work ac-
tivity at Boise Southern during the time of the strike 6
We need not pass on the validity of this contention,
however, since it is clear , in any event, that Paul was
never given proper notice of this constitutional provi-
sion 7 so as to make its validity , or invalidity , an issue
here.'
Accordingly , we find that by fining Charging Party
Robert E. Paul for work performed at Boise South-
ern subsequent to their receipt of Paul 's resignation
3 Local 205, Lithographers and Photoengravers International Union, AFL-
CIO, (The General Gravure Service Co., Inc), 186 NLRB 454. in. 3 (1970)
and the case cited.
185 NLRB 380 at 381 (1970).
5 See Booster Lodge No 405, IAM v. N L R. B., 412 U.S. 84
6 Art. XiI, sec. I(b)(3), of the International 's constitution states: "Activi-
ties detrimental to the welfare of the International Union. Activities 'detri-
mental to the welfare of the International Union' shall include , but not be
limited to , crossing a picket line sanctioned by the International Union or
the local union in which the member holds (or in the case of a former
member, held) his membership "
7 In the letter from Respondent Local 725 notifying him he was being
charged , Paul was told simply that he was being accused of "activities detri-
mental to the welfare" of the international and Respondents , during the
course of the strike , but Paul was informed of no alleged constitutional
prohibition against his actions. When Paul was notified by Respondent Lo-
cal 725 that he had been adjudged guilty, he again was told, without further
elaboration , that he was guilty of "activities detrimental to the welfare" of
the International and Respondents . A constitutional provision is no substi-
tute for proper notice , which Paul was not provided here , and thus the
provision noted at in . 6, supra, is of no importance in this case.
8 Member Penello , while in agreement that Paul was not given proper
notice of the constitutional provision noted in in . 6 supra, cf. Local Lodge
No. 1994, International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers,
AFL-CIO (O.K. Tool Company, Inc), 215 NLRB No. 110 (1974) ( where the
employees there were informed by their union of their being charged under
a provision similar to the one in in . 6), would find , even if Paul had been
given proper notice of the provision , said provision , and any action taken
pursuant to it, in violation of Sec . 8(b)(1)(A). See Local Lodge No. 1994,
!AM (O.K Tool Company, Inc.), supra.
letter Respondents Local 725 and Local 1226 violat-
ed Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON
COMMERCE
The conduct of Respondents set forth above, oc-
curring in connection with the operations of the Em-
ployer as set forth in section I, has a close, intimate,
and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and com-
merce among the several States, and tends to lead to
labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce
and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondents have engaged in,
and are engaging in, certain unfair labor practices,
we shall order them to cease and desist therefrom. In
order to effectuate the purposes of the Act, we shall
also order Respondents to rescind the unlawful fine,
to refund any money paid to them as a result of the
fine, with interest computed at 6 percent per annum,
and to post the notice attached hereto.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within
the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. Respondents are labor organizations within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. By imposing a fine on Robert E. Paul who had
duly resigned from Respondent Local 725 for his
postresignation work during the strike at Boise
Southern Company, Respondents restrained and
coerced Robert E. Paul in the exercise of the rights
guaranteed him in Section 7 of the Act, and thereby
engaged in, and are engaging in , unfair labor practic-
es within the meaning of Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the
Act.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practice is an unfair
labor practice affecting commerce within the mean-
ing of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Re-
lations Board hereby orders that the Respondents,
United Paperworkers International Union, Local
No. 725, AFL-CIO, and United Paperworkers Inter-
national Union, Local No. 1226, AFL-CIO, their of-
ficers, agents, and representatives, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
PAPERWORKERS , LOCAL NO. 725
(a) Restraining or coercing employees who have
resigned from, and are no longer members of, Re-
spondents, in the exercise of the rights guaranteed
them in Section 7 of the Act, by imposing fines on
them because of their postresignation conduct in
working at Boise Southern Company during the
strike which began in July 1974.
(b) In any like or related manner restraining or
coercing employees in the exercise of the rights guar-
anteed in Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action designed
to effectuate the purposes of the Act:
(a) Rescind the fine levied against Robert E. Paul
because of his postresignation work for Boise South-
ern Company, during the strike which began in July
1974; refund to him any money he may have paid as
a result of such fine, plus interest computed at the
rate of 6 percent per annum; and expunge from their
records any reference to the fine levied against Rob-
ert E. Paul for his postresignation work.
(b) Post at their business'offices and meeting halls
copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix." 9
Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Re-
gional Director for Region 15, after being duly
signed by Respondents' authorized representatives,
shall be posted by Respondents immediately upon
receipt thereof, and be maintained by them for 60
consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places,
including all places where notices to members are
customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken
by Respondents to insure that said notices are not
altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(c) Mail to the Regional Director for Region 15
signed copies of said notices for posting by Boise
Southern Company, if the Company be willing, in
places where notices to employees are customarily
posted. Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the
Regional Director for Region 15, after being duly
signed by the Respondents' authorized representa-
tives, shall be returned forthwith to the Regional Di-
rector.
815
(d) Notify the Regional Director for Region 15, in
writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order,
what steps Respondents have taken to comply here-
with.
9In 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 Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursuant to a
Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the
National Labor Relations Board."
APPENDIX
NOTICE To MEMBERS
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT restrain or coerce employees who
have resigned from the Union and who, in
the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7
of the National Labor Relations Act, worked af-
ter their resignation at Boise Southern Company
during the strike which began in July 1974, by
imposing fines on them.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner
restrain or coerce employees in the exercise of
the rights guaranteed them in Section 7 of the
National Labor Relations Act.
WE WILL rescind the fine levied against Robert
E. Paul because he worked at Boise Southern
Company after his resignation from Local No.
725 during the strike which began in July 1974;
refund any money he may have paid as a result
of such fine, plus interest; and expunge from our
records any reference to the fine levied against
Robert E. Paul for his postresignation work.
UNITED PAPERWORKERS INTERNATIONAL
UNION , LOCAL No. 725, AFL-CIO