Sheet Metal Workers International Assn., Local 170

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 3, 1976

225 N.L.R.B. 1178 (N.L.R.B. 1976)

1178 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Sheet Metal Workers' International Association, Lo-
cal Union No. 170, AFL-CIO and Able Sheet Met-
al Products , Inc. Case 21-CB-5352
September 3, 1976
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MURPHY AND MEMBERS FANNING
AND JENKINS
On May 7, 1976, Administrative Law Judge Wil-
liam J. Pannier III issued the attached Decision in
this proceeding. Thereafter, the Respondent filed ex-
ceptions and a supporting brief, and the General
Counsel filed an answering 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 au-
thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the record and the at-
tached Decision in light of the exceptions and briefs
and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings,' and
conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge and to
adopt his recommended Order.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Re-
lations Board adopts as its Order the recommended
Order of the Administrative Law Judge and hereby
orders that the Respondent, Sheet Metal Workers'
International Association, Local Union No. 170,
AFL-CIO, Los Angeles, California, its officers,
agents, and representatives, shall take the action set
forth in the said recommended Order.
i The Respondent has excepted to certain credibility findings made by the
Administrative Law Judge It is the Board's established policy not to over-
rule an Administrative Law Judge's resolutions with respect to credibility
unless the clear preponderance of all of the relevant evidence convinces us
that the resolutions are incorrect Standard Dry Wall Products, Inc, 91
NLRB 544 (1950), enfd 188 F 2d 362 (C A 3, 1951) We have carefully
examined the record and find no basis for reversing his findings
We do not adopt the Administrative Law Judge's finding that the provi-
sion in art 16, sec 13, of Respondent's constitution and ritual, that resigna-
tions tendered during a strike will not be accepted, is invalid as overly
restrictive We find it unnecessary to consider the validity of the provision
regarding resignations during a strike since it is an integral part of the
provision which restricts resignations to employees who have left the trade
Thus, contrary to the Administrative Law Judge's finding, the provision
would not permit employees to resign at all if they continue to work at the
trade We find that this entire provision is invalid because it limits too
severely the rights of employees to resign from the Union and that the
clause relating to resignations during a strike does not retain any indepen-
dent vitality We therefore agree with the Administrative Law Judge's find-
ing that the 12 employees herein were free to resign at will
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
WILLIAM J. PANNIER III, Administrative Law Judge: This
matter was heard by me in Los Angeles, California, on
March 26, 1976. On November 7, 1975, the Regional Di-
rector for Region 21 of the National Labor Relations
Board issued a complaint and notice of hearing, based
upon an unfair labor practice charge filed on July 3, 1975,
and alleging violations of Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Nation-
al Labor Relations Act, as amended, 29 U.S.C. §151, et
seq, herein called the Act
All parties have been afforded full opportunity to ap-
pear, to introduce evidence, to examine and cross- examine
witnesses, and to argue orally and file briefs. Based upon
the entire record,' upon the oral argument presented on
behalf of the General Counsel and the brief submitted on
behalf of the Respondent, and upon my observation of the
demeanor of the witnesses, I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. JURISDICTION
At all times material herein, Able Sheet Metal Products,
Inc, herein called Able, has been a corporation engaged in
the manufacture and sale of sheet metal products, with a
facility located at 614 North Ford Boulevard, Los Angeles,
California. In the normal course and conduct of those op-
erations, Able annually purchases and receives goods and
products valued in excess of $50,000 directly from sup-
pliers located outside the State of California.
Therefore, I find, consistent with a stipulation of the par-
ties, that all all times material Able has been an employer
engaged in commerce and in a business affecting com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the
Act
11. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
At all times material herein , Sheet Metal Workers' Inter-
national Association , Local Union No. 170, AFL-CIO,
herein called Respondent , has been a labor organization
within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
111. 1HE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
The sole issue in this matter is whether 12 named em-
ployees 2 effectively resigned their membership in Respon-
dent before returning to work on December 9, 1974,3 and,
1 The unopposed motion to correct transcript, filed by counsel for the
General Counsel on April 27, 1976, is hereby granted While the transcript
also contains various errors of transcription other than those listed in this
motion, the record adequately reflects the material facts and issues and,
consequently, I see no need to make additional corrections sua sponte
2 Bernelious Blaylock, Cipriano Esquivel, Jesus Siemental Fernandez, Ra-
fael B Hernandez, Gilbert C Lauria, Jess M Lauria, Jr, Danny Lopez, Jr,
Manual Lozano, Jr, Lloyd Lusk, Jose Mendoza, David Pedraza, and James
Wright
3 Unless otherwise stated, all dates occurred in 1974
225 NLRB No. 173
SHEET METAL WORKERS' INTERNATIONAL ASSN., LOCAL 170 1179
therefore, whether Respondent violated Section 8(b)(1)(A)
of the Act by imposing fines against those employees for
having returned to work during the course of a labor dis-
pute between Able and Respondent.
Following expiration of their most recent collective-bar-
gaining agreement, on October 31, Respondent and Able
continued negotiations for a successive agreement, but
when, by December 6, six negotiating sessions had failed to
produce agreement, Business Representative William F.
Martin led the 12 unit employees in a concerted refusal to
perform work on the morning of December 9. Many of the
employees, however, expressed dissatisfaction with losing
income by striking and, consequently, when Martin left
temporarily at 10 a.m., they congregated to discuss the situ-
ation. Able's consultant, Kenneth R. White, approached
them and, ascertaining their unhappiness with striking,
said that Able's final offer was still on the table if they
wanted to return to work. White testified that he had also
told the employees that if they wanted to return, they
should first notify Respondent and resign in order to avoid
the possibility of being fined for working behind a picket
line. Stewards Danny Lopez, Jr., and Lloyd Lusk, however,
testified that White had said that the employees would
have to resign from the Union as a prerequisite to return-
ing to work Whichever version is correct, it is clear that
Lusk and Lopez conveyed the latter message to the other
employees, all of whom then signed a petition prepared by
Lusk and bearing the legend (as written): "We the under
signs regin FRom the union Local 170 as of 12/9/75 1015
AM".
Lusk then called Respondent, speaking with Business
Manager and Secretary Treasurer Richard Scott 4 Lusk de-
scribed the initial portion of this conversation as follows:
Well, I told him we was resigning from the union as
of now and he said you can't do that. I said, "We have
already done it," and he said, "Well, if you do it, you
will get into some trouble-we havejust done got into
some trouble We are already resigned at this mo-
ment "
Lusk testified that Scott had then mentioned Respondent's
constitution and had warned that the employees would be
fined for returning to work, to which Lusk responded:
"Well, if we done broke it, we broke it, because we have
done resigned at that moment, 10:15 a.m. that morning"
Scott denied that Lusk had mentioned anything about re-
signing during their conversation and, instead, testified
that "As near as I can recall, the initial response from Mr.
Lusk was that the employees-the members of the Able
Sheet Metal had voted the Union out of the shop, and they
were no longer a Union shop-that they were going back
to work." Scott testified that he had then informed Lusk
that only by following the procedures set down under the
Act could Respondent be voted out of the shop and that he
would not accept Lusk's ". . . statement over the phone
that the employees had voted the Union out of the shop
and it was now a non-union shop." On cross-examination,
however, Scott conceded that when Lusk had stated that
4In a pretrial affidavit , Lusk stated that it had been Tony Wolfe with
whom he had spoken that morning
the employees intended to return to work, he had replied
that this would be a violation of Respondent's constitution
which could lead to charges being proffered against those
who returned. Further, Scott acknowledged that he did not
recall if Lusk had specifically stated the manner in which
the employees had voted Respondent out of the shop and
conceded that Lusk "may very well have" said that the
employees had signed a petition to achieve this goal, al-
though he denied that Lusk had read the petition to him.
Scott also agreed that the conversation had concluded with
Lusk asserting that the employees intended to return to
work.
Upon concluding the conversation with Scott, Lusk re-
turned to the other employees and all of them then
punched in, at approximately noon, and returned to work.
The petition was transmitted to White, and at no point did
any of the employees again speak with any official of Re-
spondent or submit a resignation in writing to Respondent.
The sole provision in Respondent's constitution and ritual
concerning resignation appears in article 16, section 13,
which reads:
Any member in good standing may sever his connec-
tions with the Local Union by written resignation pro-
vided he has paid all dues and financial obligations, he
does not continue to work at any branch of the trade,
and his resignation is accepted by the local union. No
resignation shall be accepted if offered in anticipation
of charges being preferred against him, during the
pendency of any such charges or during a strike or
lockout.
Following internal procedures, not challenged by the Gen-
eral Counsel as to propriety, Respondent charged the 12
discrimmatees with accepting employment in a shop or job
where a strike or lockout exists and with engaging in con-
duct detrimental to Respondent's best interests; conduct in
which Respondent's constitution and ritual prohibits mem-
bers and officers from engaging.5 None of the alleged dis-
criminatees appeared at the March trial of the matter, and
in May they were notified that they had been found guilty
as charged and were fined $350 each.
Analysis
Section 7 of the Act protects the right of employees to
refrain from concerted activity, such as engaging in a
strike. However, if an employee chooses to exercise that
right while remaining a member of a labor organization,
Section 7 does not protect him from being fined for his
refusal to engage in a strike N.L R B. v. Allis-Chalmers
Mfg. Co., 388 U.S 175 (1967). To be relieved of the possi-
bility of a fine for refusing to engage in a strike, an employ-
ee must first resign from membership. See Local 205, Li-
thographers and Photoengravers International Union, AFL-
CIO (The General Gravure Service Co.), 186 NLRB 454, 455
(1970). "Where a member lawfully resigns from a union
5 Each of the 12 employees signed official application forms to become a
member of Respondent, and those forms provide, inter aha , that the appli-
cant willingly subscribes to all provisions of the constituion and ritual and
agrees to "remain loyal and true to the principles and policies and to be
governed by" the provisions therein
1180 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
and thereafter engages in conduct which the union rule
proscribes , the union commits an unfair labor practice
where it seeks enforcement of fines for that conduct."
N L.R.B. v. Granite State Joint Board, Textile Workers
Union of America, Local 1029, AFL-CIO [International Pa-
per Box Machine Co.], 409 U.S. 213, 217 (1972). According-
ly, the focal point for inquiry in the instant case is the
adequacy of the steps taken by the employees to resign
from membership in Respondent.
Respondent argues , principally , that no resignation can
be found in this case because none of the alleged discrimi-
natees submitted a written resignation as required by arti-
cle 16, section 13, of the constitution and ritual. Yet, by its
very terms, that provision is confined to resignations by
members who "do not continue to work at any branch of
the trade" thereafter. Here, of course, the 12 employees
immediately resumed working for Able following their res-
ignations. Thus, article 16, section 13, is not applicable to
them since they continued working at the trade in which
they had engaged prior to commencement of the strike. As
this is the only provision in the constitution and ritual gov-
erning resignation , there is no restriction upon voluntary
resignation by employees who continue to work in the
trade. See United Paperworkers International Union, Local
No. 725, AFL-CIO (Boise Southern Company), 220 NLRB
812 (1975), and case cited in fn. 3. This being the fact, the
12 employees were free to resign at will.
Moreover, article 16, section 13, imposes the require-
ment that a resignation , to be effective , must be accepted
by the local union and then stated that resignations ten-
dered , inter aha, during a strike will not be accepted Con-
sequently, by its terms, the provision forecloses, absolutely,
the right of a member to freely terminate his membership
where , as here, a strike is in progress . Such a rule may not
be used to bar resignation since it too narrowly restricts the
right of a member to be free to leave the union. See Local
1384, United Automobile, Aerospace, Agricultural Implement
Workers, UAW (Ex-Cell-O Corporation), 219 NLRB 729,
fn. 4 (1975). Therefore, it is clear that even a written resig-
nation, complying with article 16, would not have been
accepted due to the strike-a fact reinforced by Scott's
statement to Lusk, during their telephone conversation, to
the effect that only a Board election, resulting in an ad-
verse vote for Respondent, could be used to relieve the
employees of their membership. Therefore, as this re-
striction , alone, renders the provision , in effect , a denial of
the right to resign, it is tantamount to no restriction at all
on the right of voluntary resignation and may not be in-
voked to bar a valid oral resignation. International Union,
United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement
Workers, UAW, and its Local No. 647 (General Electric
Company), 197 NLRB 608, 609 (1972); International Union,
United Automobile, Aerospace, Agricultural Implement
Workers ofAmerica, Local 469 (Master Lock Company), 221
NLRB 748 (1975).
This, then, poses the issue of whether Lusk's comments
to Scott , during their telephone coversation of December 9,
were adequate to constitute resignation . The fact that a
resignation is tendered orally does not, of itself, render it
invalid . See, e.g., Communications Workers of America,
AFL-CIO Local 1127 (New York Telephone Company), 208
NLRB 258, 262-263 (1974); May Department Stores, Inc.,
Kaufmann Division, 133 NLRB 1096, 1109-10 (1961); cf.
Local 1384 (Ex-Cell-O) (where despite a requirement of
written resignation , an oral resignation was held sufficient
where the union accepted it). To be effective, however,
such oral communications must be sufficiently clear and
unequivocal to show intent to resign. Local 340, Interna-
tional Brotherhood of Operative Potters, AFL-CIO, (Ma-
comb Pottery Company), 175 NLRB 756, 760, fn. 14 (1969);
Marlin Rockwell Corporation, 114 NLRB 553, 562 (1955).
Though Lusk displayed some confusion concerning the
identity of the official of Respondent with whom he had
spoken on December 9 and with the substance of what that
official had said to him, it is Lusk's words that are signifi-
cant and his testimony concerning what he had said during
that conversation was consistent . He appeared to clearly
recall his own comments . By contrast , though Scott denied
that Lusk had used the word "resignation," his recollection
of what Lusk had said, particularly with respect to Lusk's
description of how the employees had voted Respondent
out of the shop was admittedly not certain. Thus, Scott
acknowledged that Lusk "may very well have" mentioned
the petition which, aside from the signatures , contained the
legend embodying a declaration of resignation .6 Indeed,
while Scott denied that Lusk had read the petition during
their conversation, there is no way in which he could have
ascertained if Lusk had been speaking extemporaneously
or had been reading from something . It is most unlikely
that Lusk would have gone to the trouble of preparing the
legend on the petition, but then have failed to communi-
cate its message to Scott. Moreover, though he did not read
each of the names on the petition to Scott , the latter 's reci-
tation of the portion of the conversation which he did re-
call ("the employees-the members of Able Sheet Metal")
appears to have left no doubt in Scott's mind that Lusk's
message embraced all 12 employees. At least, Scott never
expressed any doubt covering the breadth of the class re-
ferred to by Lusk during the conversation.? Accordingly, I
credit Lusk and find that Respondent did have actual no-
tice that all 12 employees were resigning from membership.
Further, I find that Respondent received that notice prior
to the time that the 12 employees resumed work on Decem-
6 Relying on the misspelling and punctuation in the legend on the peti-
tion, Respondent argues that it cannot be effective as a resignation because
it is unintelligible However , the intent of the wording is clear , and the
testimony concerning the employees ' dissatisfaction with striking is unrefut-
ed Moreover , Respondent produced no evidence that any of the employees,
most of whom spoke only Spanish and had to have the petition read to
them , did not understand what they were signing or had not intended to
resign from Respondent In these circumstances , I find Respondent's argu-
ment is without merit
7 Though Respondent argues that , under California law, the General
Counsel has failed to satisfy the burden of establishing that Lusk was acting
as an agent for the other employees in communicating the resignations to
Scott , the fact is that the Board is not bound to observe state law in this
respect Moreover , it is clear that the other employees agreed to resign their
membership in Respondent and signed the petition in an effort to achieve
that objective Since the petition was being circulated by Lusk , it is obvious
that they were relying on him to take whatever steps were necessary to
communicate the fact of their resignations to Respondent It would be mere
sophistry to conclude in these circumstances that because none of the other
employees specifically testified that they had told Lusk to make a telephone
call to Respondent, therefore the evidence fails to establish that they author-
ized communication of their resignations by Lusk
SHEET METAL WORKERS ' INTERNATIONAL ASSN, LOCAL 170 1181
ber 9 and that Lusk's comments, in the circumstances,
were sufficient to terminate all 12 employees' membership
in Respondent. This being the case, the fines imposed by
Respondent for work occurring after the resignations vio-
lated Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act.
Respondent, however, argues that Able's "material mis-
conduct and misrepresenation in this matter," based upon
White's statements to the employees concerning resigna-
tion, mandate dismissal of the complaint both, in essence,
because Able was responsible for suggesting the conduct
that ultimately led to issuance of the complaint and be-
cause Able's true purpose was to procure evidence to sup-
port a claim that it doubted that Respondent continued to
represent a majority of its employees. The latter argument
is of no significance in this matter, since there is no refusal-
to-bargain allegation pending before me in this case, nor
do I have any jurisdiction over any petition for election
which Able may have filed. Of course, the fact that Able
may harbor ulterior motives does not deprive the employ-
ees of the validity of their resignations from membership.
This then leaves for consideration Respondent's conten-
tion that the dismissal is warranted because Able, the
Charging Party, initiated or implanted the suggestion
which led to the resignations which, in turn, led to the
issuance of complaint regarding the reception accorded the
resignations by Respondent. It is, of course, accurate that
the Board may consider misconduct by a charging party
"as material to its own decision to entertain and proceed
upon the charge." N.L.R.B. v. Indiana & Michigan Electric
Company, et al, 318 U S. 9, 18 (1943). Indeed, the Board
has dismissed complaints because its "process has not been
invoked to secure a remedy for violations of the Act, but
for the sole purpose of getting the Board to assist the [un-
ion] in its scheme. . .." Vaughn Bowen, et al, 93 NLRB
1147, 1153-54 (1951). However, this "doctrine is properly
confined to acts affecting the processes of the Board itself
. . ." N.L R.B. v. Plumbers Union of Nassau County, Lo-
cal 457, [Bomat Plumbing & Heating Co.], 299 F 2d 497,
501 (C.A. 2, 1962). Here, assuming that Able did condition
return to work upon resignation from membership in Re-
spondent, there has been no showing that it did so with the
intent of deliberately causing Respondent to commit an
unfair labor practice when it learned of those resignations.
More significantly, there is no evidence that the employees
were participants in any such scheme and they, of course,
are the victims of Respondent's unlawful conduct 8 If Re-
spondent had sincerely believed that Able had committed
an unfair labor practice, it could have filed a charge con-
cerning the matter; a course of conduct which, so far as the
record discloses, Respondent chose not to pursue. In any
event, Respondent may not seek freedom to "restrain or
coerce employees in the exercise of their statutory rights
merely because the Company may also have engaged in
misconduct." Communications Workers of America, AFL-
CIO (Ohio Consolidated Telephone Company), 120 NLRB
684, 687 (1958), enfd. 266 F.2d 823 (C A 6, 1959), affd. as
modified 362 U.S. 479 (1960). "Dubious character, evil or
unlawful motives, or bad faith of the informer cannot de-
prive the Board of its jurisdiction to conduct the inquiry."
Indiana & Michigan Electric Company, supra. As was stated
in General Warehousemen & Employees Union, Local 636,
Teamsters, (Roy Stone Transfer Corporation), 100 NLRB
856, 866 (1952)-
A "plague on both your houses" attitude may give
color to our literature, but in law it is a reversion to the
anarchy and private war which it is the purpose of a
sound legal system to abolish. The judge who, Pilate-
wise, washes his hands of a dispute because he disap-
proves the tactics of a participant, merely sends the
disputants back to the town square for trial by com-
bat, where others may be hurt, and does no service to
the public peace.
I find that by fining the 12 above-named employees for
conduct arising from their return to work on December 9,
after having resigned their membership, Respondent vio-
lated Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON
COMMERCE
The conduct of Respondent set forth above, occurring in
connection with the operations of Able set forth in section
I, above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to
trade, traffic, and commerce among the several states, and
tends to lead, and has led, to labor disputes burdening and
obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1 Able Sheet Metal Products, Inc., is an employer with-
in the meaning of Section 2(2) of the Act, engaged in com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the
Act.
2 Sheet Metal Workers' International Association, Lo-
cal Union No. 170, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization with-
in the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. By imposing fines on Bernelious Blaylock, Cipriano
Esquivel, Jesus Siemental Fernandez, Rafael B . Hernan-
dez, Gilbert C. Lauria, Jess M. Lauria, Jr, Danny Lopez,
Jr, Manual Lozano, Jr., Lloyd Lusk, Jose Mendoza, David
Pedraza, and James Wright, who had duly resigned their
membership, for postresignation work during the strike at
Able Sheet Metal Products, Inc, Sheet Metal Workers' In-
ternational Association, Local Union No. 170, AFL-CIO,
restrained and coerced these 12 employees in the exercise
of the rights guaranteed them in Section 7 of the Act, and
thereby engaged in, and is engaging in, unfair labor prac-
tices within the meaning of Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act.
4 The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
THE REMEDY
8 Nor has there been any showing that Respondent rejected the resigna-
tions or imposed the fines because of a belief that the employees had partici-
pated in such a scheme Pacific American Shipowners Association, 98 NLRB
582, 592 (1952)
Having found that Respondent has engaged in, and is
engaging in, certain unfair labor practices, I shall recom-
mend that it be ordered to cease and desist therefrom and
1182 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
that it take certain affirmative action to effectuate the poli-
cies of the Act With respect to the latter, I shall recom-
mend that Respondent rescind the unlawful fines and re-
fund any money paid to it as a result of those fines, with
interest computed at 6 percent per annum
Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law,
and upon the entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c)
of the Act, I hereby issue the following recommended.
Products, Inc., 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
21, after being duly signed by Respondent's authorized
representative, shall be returned forthwith to the Regional
Director.
(d) Notify the Regional Director for Region 21, in writ-
ing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps
Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
ORDERS
The Respondent, Sheet Metal Workers' International
Association, Local Union No. 170, AFL-CIO, Los Ange-
les, California, its officers, agents, and representatives
shall:
1 Cease and desist from:
(a) Restraining or coercing employees who have re-
signed from, and are no longer members of, Respondent,
in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them in Section 7 of
the Act, by imposing fines on them because of their post-
resignation conduct in working at Able Sheet Metal Prod-
ucts, Inc., during the strike which began on December 9,
1974
(b) In any like or related manner restraining or coercing
employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Sec-
tion 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to ef-
fectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Rescind the fines levied against Bernelious Blaylock,
Cipriano Esquivel, Jesus Siemental Fernandez, Rafael B.
Hernandez, Gilbert C. Lauria, Jess M Launa, Jr., Danny
Lopez, Jr., Manual Lozano, Jr., Lloyd Lusk, Jose Mendo-
za, David Pedraza, and James Wright because of their
postresignation work for Able Sheet Metal Products, Inc.,
during the strike which began on December 9, 1974, re-
fund to them any money they may have paid as a result of
such fines, plus interest computed at the rate of 6 percent
per annum; and expunge from its records any reference to
the fines levied against them for their postresignation work
(b) Post at its business offices and meeting halls copies
of the attached notice marked "Appendix." 10 Copies of
said notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director
for Region 21, after being duly signed by Respondent's
authorized representative, shall be posted by Respondent
immediately after receipt thereof, and be maintained for 60
consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, includ-
ing 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.
(c) Mail to the Regional Director for Region 21 signed
copies of said notices for posting by Able Sheet Metal
e In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec 102 46 of the
Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the findings,
conclusions, and recommended Order herein shall, as provided, in Sec
102 48 of the Rules and Regulations. be adopted by the Board and become
its findings, conclusions, and Order, and all objections thereto shall be
deemed waived for all purposes
10 In the event 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 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 La-
bor Relations Act, worked after their resignation at
Able Sheet Metal Products, Inc., during the strike
which began on December 9, 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 guar-
anteed them in Section 7 of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act.
WE WILL rescind the fines levied against Bernelious
Blaylock, Cipriano Esquivel, Jesus Siemental Fernan-
dez, Rafael B. Hernandez, Gilbert C Lauria, Jess M.
Lauria, Jr., Danny Lopez, Jr., Manual Lozano, Jr.,
Lloyd Lusk, Jose Mendoza, David Pedraza, and
James Wright because they worked at Able Sheet
Metal Products, Inc., after their resignation from Lo-
cal No. 170 during the strike begun on December 9,
1974; refund any money they may have paid as a re-
sult of such fine, plus interest, and expunge from our
records any references to the fines levied against them
for their postresignation work
SHEET METAL WORKERS' INTERNATIONAL
ASSOCIATION, LOCAL UNION No. 170 , AFL-CIO