Printing Specialties & Paper Products' Un. No. 481

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 29, 1970

183 N.L.R.B. 1271 (N.L.R.B. 1970)

PRINTING SPECIALTIES & PAPER PRODUCTS' UN. NO. 481 :271
Printing Specialties and Paper Products ' Union No.
481, International Printing Pressmen and
Assistants' Union of North America , AFL-CIO
(Westvaco Corporation, H & D Container
Division) and Milton E. Amoss . Case 5-CB-894
June 29, 1970
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS MCCULLOCH
AND BROWN
On February 13, 1970, Trial Examiner Louis Lib-
bin issued his Decision in the above -entitled
proceeding finding that the Respondent had en-
gaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor
practices and recommending that it cease and de-
sist therefrom and take certain affirmative action,
as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Deci-
sion . The Trial Examiner also found that the
Respondent had not engaged in certain other unfair
labor practices , and recommended dismissal as to
them. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions
to the Trial Examiner's Decision and a supporting
brief, and the General Counsel filed cross-excep-
tions and a supporting brief.
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
powers in connection with this proceeding to a
three-member panel.
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial
Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no
prejudicial error was committed . The rulings are
hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the
Trial Examiner's -Decision , the exceptions, the
briefs, and the entire record in the case, and hereby
adopts the findings , conclusions , and recommenda-
tions ' of the Trial Examiner.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board adopts as its Order the Recom-
mended Order of the Trial Examiner and hereby
orders that Respondent , Printing Specialties and
Paper Products' Union No. 481 , International
Printing Pressmen and Assistants ' Union of North
America, AFL-CIO, its officers, agents, and
representatives , shall take the action set forth in the
Trial Examiner's Recommended Order.
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Louis LIBBIN , Trial Examiner : Upon charges filed
on March 25 , 1969 , by Milton E . Amoss, an in-
dividual , the General Counsel of the National
Labor Relations Board , by the Regional Director
for Region 5 (Baltimore , Maryland ), issued a com-
plaint , dated December 2, 1969, against Printing
Specialties and Paper Products ' Union No . 481, In-
ternational Printing Pressmen and Assistants' Union
of North America , AFL-CIO , herein called
Respondent or the Union or Local 481. With
respect to the unfair labor practices, the complaint
alleges, and Respondent 's duly filed answer denies,
that Respondent violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the
Act.
This case was tried before me in Baltimore,
Maryland , on January 12, 1970. All parties ap-
peared and were given full opportunity to par-
ticipate in said trial. Thereafter , the General Coun-
sel and counsel for Respondent filed briefs , which I
have fully considered . For the reasons hereinafter
indicated , I find that Respondent violated Section
8(b)(1)(A) only with respect to certain conduct.
Upon the entire record in the case,' and from my
observation of the demeanor of the witnesses while
testifying under oath , I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER
Westvaco Corporation (formerly known as West
Virginia Pulp and Paper Company), H & D Con-
tainer Division , herein called Westvaco, is a
Delaware corporation engaged at plants in several
States in the manufacturing of pulp paper, corru-
gated boxes, chemicals , and related products. Dur-
ing the 12-month period preceding the issuance of
the instant complaint , a representative period,
Westvaco purchased and received at its Baltimore,
Maryland, plant, the only plant involved in this
proceeding, from points and places outside the
State of Maryland , raw materials valued in excess
of $50,000.
Upon the above admitted facts , I find, as Respon-
dent 's answer further admits , that Westvaco is en-
gaged in commerce within the meaning of Section
2(6) and (7) of the Act.
H. THE RESPONDENT
The complaint alleges , the answer admits, and I
find that Respondent Union is a labor organization
within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
' See United Lodge No. 66, International Association of Machinists and
Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO (Smith-Lee Co., Inc.), 182 NLRB 849.
' I hereby note and correct the following obvious, inadvertent errors in
the typewritten transcript of the testimony: the word "on" is changed to
" in" on 1. 1, p .22, and the word "and" is changed to "on" on 1.7, p.86.
183 NLRB No. 125
1272 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
The sole issue in this case is whether, under the
circumstance hereinafter detailed, Respondent
Union violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act by
fining Charging Party Milton E. Amoss $75 and by
precluding him from holding office for 5 years
because of his conduct in soliciting fellow em-
ployees to sign collective-bargaining authorizations
resulting in the filing of a certification election peti-
tion by another union.
A. The Undisputed Facts
Milton E. Amoss was employed as a stationary
engineer at Westvaco for about 18 years. During all
that time he was a member of Respondent Union
which was the recognized collective-bargaining
representative and contracting party. The collec-
tive-bargaining agreement in effect from March 1,
1966, to February 28, 1969, covered "all those en-
gaged in direct factory production work at the Bal-
timore, Maryland, factory of the Company, except
those engaged in clerical and executive duties, and
truck drivers and helpers." Although not specifi-
cally mentioned, the parties agree that the contract
unit included maintenance and boilerroom em-
ployees. The agreement also contained union-
security and checkoff provisions.
For several years prior to the incidents which
gave rise to this proceeding, Amoss was a member
of Respondent's executive board and steward for
the maintenance department. For his services as
steward, Respondent reimbursed him in the amount
of his monthly dues deductions. In the latter part of
1968 Amoss became dissatisfied with Respondent's
representation and particularly as it affected the
maintenance department. This dissatisfaction was
brought to a head in November when a vote was
taken at a union meeting to accept the Company's
proposals for a new agreement despite Amoss' ob-
jections that the notice for the meeting had merely
stated that there would be a discussion on the
proposals and members had not been informed that
a vote would be taken. When he reported the
results of this meeting to the maintenance and
boilerroom employees, they wanted to know what
could be done about it. He advised that they could
get out of Respondent Union and get themselves
proper representation through another ; union
because this'was the 90-day period,prior to the ex-
piration of the contract when they were permitted
by law to select any union of their choice. Amoss
suggested that the Operating Engineers would be a
union which would ' be more familiar with their
problems , would more appropriately represent
them as engineers and, mechanics , and perhaps
could get them a higher wage . All the men agreed.
Amoss went to the local office of the Operating En-
gineers where he obtained a petition stating that
the undersigned employees of Westvaco's "En-
gineering Department " do "hereby authorize Local
99-99A, International Union of Operating En-
gineers to represent us as the collective bargaining
agent pertaining to wages, hours, and other condi-
tions of employment etc." He returned to the plant
and solicited the signatures of other maintenance
and boilerroom employees. All signed. He then
mailed the petition back to the Operating En-
gineers . On December 5, 1968, Local 99-99A, In-
ternational Union of Operating Engineers,
AFL-CIO, filed with the Board's Regional Office a
petition for certification election in a unit of "all
licensed and unlicensed engineering employees en-
gaged in the operation, maintenance and repair of
the heat and power facilities of the plant" at West-
vaco. The petition stated that there were eight em-
ployees in the requested unit, the total number
which had signed the above-described authorization
petition. When Respondent became aware of the
filing of the petition, it immediately contacted the
Operating Engineers. As a result, the business
manager of the Operating Engineers requested by
telegram permission to withdraw the petition on the
basis of the existence of a "no-raiding pact." On
December 10, 1968, the Regional Director granted
the request.
Meanwhile two members had filed charges
against Amoss with Respondent. The minutes of the
executive board meeting for December 15, 1968,
contain the following notation:
Discussion of Milton Amoss asking the main-
tenance men of Hinde and Dauch to withdraw
from Local # 481. Because of this action the
Executive Board voted to relieve Milton
Amoss of all duties and that he should be im-
peached from office as an Executive Board
member.
The charges were also read at a general member-
ship meeting held that same day. Respondent's pre-
sident then appointed a committee to investgate the
charges. By letter dated December 16, 1968, he ad-
vised Amoss that the "Executive Board has taken
action, effective December 16, 1968, to relieve you
of your duties as an Officer and Shop Steward
because of your actions and violations of the
Local's By-laws." After asking some of the em-
ployees in the maintenance department and boiler-
room why they had signed the petition, Edward
Jones, chairman of the investigating committee, re-
ported the findings to Respondent's president who
then-brought the ' matter before Respondent's ex-
ecutive board. The minutes of the executive board
meeting of January 19, 1969, contain the following
statements:
A Committee was sent to investigate Milton
Amoss and bring the findings to the Union at
the January meeting . The findings were as fol-
lows:
Milton Amoss was found guilty of conduct
unbecoming an Officer. The Board ap-
proved the recommendation of the Com-
mittee and it will be taken to the members
for approval. The charges were to be a
PRINTING SPECIALTIES & PAPER PRODUCTS' UN. NO. 481
$75.00 fine and suspended from any Office
as long as he remains a member of Local
#481.
At a regular membership meeting held that same
day, the charges against Amoss for "conduct un-
becoming a Union member " were read. The
charges were that "Milton Amoss asked Union
members in the Maintenance department to join
another Union ." The membership approved the
levying of a $75 fine against Amoss and further
voted that "Milton Amoss cannot hold office for a
period of 5 years."
By letter dated February 3 , 1969, Respondent's
president requested Amoss to "attend this coming
Union meeting Sunday , February 16, 1969 at 2
p.m. to answer charges brought against you by two
members of the Local." Amoss was warned that "If
you fail to appear , we will be forced to hold trile
[sic], and you will be sentenced in absentence
[sic]." At 1 : 15 p.m . on February 16, Amoss sent a
telegram to Respondent 's president at the address
in a public building where he knew that Respon-
dent customarily holds its 1-hour meeting at 2 p.m.
on Sunday , stating that he was unable to attend the
meeting "due to illness ." Respondent 's president
testified that he never received this telegram. At
the regular membership meeting of February 16, a
"secret ballot was used to determine the suspension
of Milton Amoss ." The vote was 35 to 2 for his
suspension . By letter dated February 25, 1969,
Respondent 's president informed Amoss that he
had been tried on the charges brought against him
"for violating Local # 481 Constitution By Laws,"
that a "committee of five members" had in-
vestigated the charges and recommended that he be
fined $75 and that he "not be able to hold office
for five years," and that this recommendation was
brought up and "approved by over 2/3 majority" at
"the monthly meeting of the Local ." The letter
concluded with a request that Amossmake arrange-
ments to pay the fine.2
Amoss continued to retain his union membership
and to have his $6 monthly dues and $1 monthly
strike assessments deducted . By letter dated May
15, 1969 , Amoss requested Respondent's president
"to take appropriate action to rescind the fine and
restore me to good standing in Local 481 " because
"the' proceedings leading to my trial and convic-
tion" were "contrary to my rights contained in the
`Bill of Rights' cited in the `Labor-Management Re-
porting and Disclosure Act of 1959."' The record
does not show that there was any reply to this
letter.
Amoss voluntarily left the employ of Westvaco in
July 1969 . As it was Respondent 's practice to
refund the strike assessments deducted for the
strike fund upon the member 's retirement or em-
' I deem it unnecessary to resolve the disputed testimony as to whether
Amass had ever been notified either in person or by mail, of the exact na-
ture of the charges on which he had been tried.
1273
ployment termination , Amoss wrote to Respon-
dent 's president of September 19, 1969, requesting
a refund from the strike fund. At the time Amoss
had about $ 12 to his credit in the strike fund. In a
reply letter dated October 8, 1969 , Respondent's
president advised that , as Amoss had failed to pay
his $75 fine , "we have confiscated any money due
you previously as a part payment of the $75.00 still
owing." Amoss has never paid the balance of the
fine.
By letter dated October 14, 1969, Amoss ap-
pealed the Local's action against him to the Inter-
national Union . In a reply letter dated October 21,
1969, the International Union's president advised
that if Amoss was "dissatisfied with the action of
the local union ," he "should have appealed to this
office , as provided in the International Constitution
and Laws," and that now he had " lost the right of
appeal due to the fact that the statute of limitations
has expired."
B. Contentions and Concluding Findings
The General Counsel contends in his brief that
the instant case is governed by the Board 's decision
in Blackhawk Tanning Co ., Inc., 3 where the Board'
held that a union violated Section 8 (b)(1)(A) of
theAct by fining an employee for circulating a peti-
tion among employees seeking to have the Board
decertify the union as their bargaining representa-
tive . He asserts that there is no basis for drawing a
distinction between the filing of a decertification
petition and the filing of a representation petition
for a rival union , as in the instant case , or for treat-
ing Amoss differently because he was a union of-
ficer.
In his opening statement at the instant hearing, as
well as in his brief, counsel for Respondent con-
tended that the instant case is distinguishable from
the Blackhawk case , supra, on the ground that the
charge on which Amoss was tried by Respondent
Union "was based solely on his violation of obliga-
tion as a Union officer and representative." Thus,
counsel argues that Amoss had voluntarily taken a
formal , written oath as a member of Respondent's
executive board , that he was a paid shop steward,
and that he had misused the prestige and authority
of his office by soliciting the employees to sign a
petition for another union . As proof that Respon-
dent's sole purpose was to penalize Amoss for con-
duct unbecoming a union officer , counsel points to
the fact that no disciplinary action was taken
against any of the rank-and-file employees who had
signed the petition.
Bearing in mind the Board's admonition in the
Blackhawk case, supra, that "the solution calls for
discrimination , the weighing of the public policy in
' International Molders ' and Allied Workers Union , Local No. 125,
AFL-CIO, 178 NLRB 208.
1274 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
each situation against the union 's right to regulate
its internal affairs," I find, for the following reasons,
that Respondent Union violated the Act only by
fining Milton E . Amoss $ 75, and not by debarring
him from holding office for 5 years.
I agree with the General Counsel that there is no
significant distinction between conduct directed
toward decertifying a union and conduct directed
toward severing a part of the established unit, such
as the engineering employees in the instant case;
the difference is only one of degree and not of kind.
Contrary to the assertion in the brief of counsel for
Respondent , union officers, who are unit employees
like Amoss , are just as entitled as ordinary member
employees to be free from being restrained and
coerced in the exercise of their statutory rights to
engage in conduct directed toward obtaining other
reresentation and to resort to the Board processes
for that purpose during the appropriate period.
Respondent 's disciplinary action in • fining Amoss
for engaging in such conduct is thus on an exact par
with the fine imposed in the Blackhawk case supra.
I therefore find , for the reasons explicated by the
Board in the Blackhawk case , supra , that the effect
of the imposition of the fine in the instant case is
not "defensive" but is to discourage other em-
ployee officers of Respondent from resorting to
such conduct and hence is "punitive ." Accordingly,
I find that by fining Amoss $ 75 for having engaged
in the above-described conduct , Respondent vio-
lated Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act.4
Respondent's additional disciplinary action in
debarring Amoss from holding union office for 5
years for engaging in the above -described conduct,
seems to me to present a situation which stands on
a different footing and calls for a different result. It
is Respondent 's position that Amoss ' conduct con-
stituted a breach of the obligation and trust im-
posed upon him as a union officer and an abuse of
the influence and prestige of his office, and that
therefore the disciplinary action was directed to
Amoss "as an officer , not as a member ." In view of
this position of Respondent, debarrment from hold-
ing union office would appear to be an appropriate
remedy or disciplinary action to safeguard the trust
and integrity demanded of a union officer. On the
other hand , a union officer seeking to obtain
representation by another union , as Amoss did in
the instant case, would hardly value holding any
union office in Respondent Union .5 Therefore, this
kind of disciplinary action , unlike the fine, would
not be an effective deterrent against union officers
engaging in the above -described conduct . For these
reasons, debarrment from holding union office in
the instant case may be equated with the disciplina-
I I find no ment in Respondent 's additional contention , urged at the in-
stant hearing and in its brief, that jurisdiction should not be asserted in the
instant case because Amoss had failed to exhaust his internal union
procedures by not filing a timely appeal with the International Local 138,
International Union of Operating Engineers , AFL-CIO (Charles S Skura),
148 NLRB 679, 684.
ry action of expulsion from union membership held
by the Board to be privileged in the Tawas Tuibe
case.6 In sum , the effect of debarment from hold-
ing union office is defensive and not punitive to
discourage union officers from engaging in similar
conduct to obtain representation by a different
union . I therefore find that Respondent did not vio-
late Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act by debarring
Amoss from holding union office for 5 years
because he engaged in the above -described con-
duct.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
UPON COMMERCE
The activities of Respondent set forth in section
III, above , occurring in connection with the opera-
tions of the Employer named in section 1, above,
have a close, intimate , and substantial relation to
trade, traffic, and commerce among the several
States and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening
and obstructing commerce and the free flow of
commerce.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. By imposing a fine against Milton E. Amoss
because he had solicited fellow employees to sign
collective -bargaining authorizations for a rival
union resulting in the timely filing of a certification
election petition with the Board , Respondent has
engaged and is engaging in unfair labor practices
within the meaning of Section 8 ( b)(1)(A) of the
Act.
2. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair
labor practices affecting commerce within the
meaning of Section 2 ( 6) and ( 7) of the Act.
3. Respondent has not engaged in unfair labor
practices violative of the Act by precluding Milton,
E. Amoss from holding union office for 5 years
because he engaged in the above-described con-
duct.
THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent Union had en-
gaged in certain unfair labor practices , I shall
recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and
take certain affirmative action which will effectuate
the policies of the Act.
To remedy the coercive effect of the fine as-
sessed against the Charging Party, I will recom-
mend that Respondent Union rescind the fine as-
sessed against Milton E. Amoss and refund to him
the amount which has been applied toward the pay-
This would seem to be borne out by Amoss ' letter of May 15 , 1969, in
which he requested Respondent 's president " to take appropriate action to
rescind the fine" but did not at the same time request action to rescind the
decision debarring him from holding union office for 5 years.
0 Tawas Tube Products , Inc., 151 NLRB 46.
PRINTING SPECIALTIES & PAPER PRODUCTS' UN. NO. 481
ment of the fine plus 6-percent interest. As the
charges against Amoss were read and discussed
during at least two regular membership meetings, I
will further recommend that the attached notice
marked "Appendix" be read at two successive
regular membership meetings immediately upon
receipt of said notice.
Upon the foregoing findings and conclusions and
the entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of
the Act, I hereby issue the following:
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Respondent , Printing Specialties and Paper
Products' Union No. 481, International Printing
Pressmen and Assistants' Union of North America,
AFL-CIO, its officers , agents, and representatives,
shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Assessing fines against its members, including
officers, for soliciting fellow employees to sign bar-
gaining authorizations for a rival union resulting in
the timely filing of a certification election petition
with the Board.
(b) In any like or related manner restraining or
coercing employees in the exercise of their rights
guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which is
necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Rescind the fine assessed against Milton E.
Amoss for soliciting fellow employees to sign bar-
gaining authorizations for a rival union resulting in
the timely filing of a certification election petition
with the Board.
(b) Refund to Milton E. Amoss the sum of
money which has been applied toward the payment
of his fine plus 6-percent interest.
(c) Read to the membership the contents of the
attached Appendix B at two successive regular
membership meetings immediately upon receipt of
said Appendix.
(d) Post at conspicuous places in Respondent's
business offices, meeting halls, and all places where
notices to members are customarily posted, includ-
ing Westvaco's bulletin boards if Respondent has
access to them, copies of the attached notice
marked "Appendix. "7 Copies of said notice, on
forms provided by the Regional Director for Region
5, after being duly signed by Respondent's
authorized representative, shall be posted by it im-
mediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained
by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in con-
spicuous places, including all places where notices
to members are customarily posted. Reasonable
steps shall be taken by Respondent to insure that
said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by
any other material.
(e) Sign and mail to the Regional Director for
Region 5, sufficient copies of said notice, to be
furnished by him for posting by Westvaco, if it is
willing , at places where it customarily posts notices
to its employees.
1275
(f) Notify the Regional Director for Region 5, in
writing , within 20 days from the receipt of this
Decision , what steps have been taken to comply
herewith.'
' In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Section 102.46 of
the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the
findings, conclusions , recommendations , and Recommended Order herein
shall, as provided in Section 102 48 of the Rules and Regulations, be
adopted by the Board and become its findings , conclusions, and order, and
all objections thereto shall be deemed waived for all purposes In the event
that the Board 's Order is enforced by a Judgment of a United States Court
of Appeals , the words in the notice reading "Posted by Order of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board " shall be changed to read " Posted Pursuant
to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of
the National Labor Relations Board."
9 In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board,
this provision shall be modified to read "Notify said Regional Director, in
writing , within 10 days from the date of this Order , what steps Respondent
has taken to comply herewith."
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES AND MEMBERS
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT assess a fine against any of-
ficers or members of our Union for soliciting
employees to sign bargaining authorizations or
petitions for a rival union or for attempting to
have a certification election petition for a rival
union filed with the National Labor Relations
Board.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner
restrain or coerce you in the exercise of your
rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL rescind the fine assessed against
Milton E. Amoss for soliciting fellow em-
ployees to sign bargaining authorizations for a
rival union which resulted in the filing of a cer-
tification election petition with the Board.
WE WILL refund to Milton E. Amoss the sum
of money which we have applied to the pay-
ment of his fine plus 6-percent interest.
PRINTING SPECIALTIES
AND PAPER PRODUCTS'
UNION No. 481,
INTERNATIONAL PRINTING
PRESSMEN AND
ASSISTANTS' UNION OF
NORTH AMERICA,
AFL-CIO
(Employer)
Dated By
(Representative ) (Title)
427-258 O-LT - 74 - 82 I
1276 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
This is an official notice and must not be defaced Any questions concerning this notice or com-
by anyone. pliance with its provisions may be directed to the
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecu- Board 's Office, Federal Building,
tive days from the date of posting and must not be Room 1019, Charles Center , Baltimore, Maryland
altered , defaced , or covered by any other material . 21202, Telephone 301-962-2822.