Sheet Metal Workers Local 14 (Linfoot Co)

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 12, 1985

275 N.L.R.B. 1091 (N.L.R.B. 1985)

SHEET METAL WORKERS LOCAL 14 (LINFOOT CO)
Sheet Metal Workers Local Union No. 14 and Sheet
Metal Workers International Association, AFL-
CIO and C. L. Linfoot Co. Case 18-CB-1420
12 July 1985
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN DOTSON AND MEMBERS
,HUNTER AND DENNIS
On 11 March 1985 Administrative Law Judge
Benjamin Schlesinger issued the attached decision.
Respondent Sheet Metal Workers Local Union No.
14 and Respondent Sheet Metal Workers Interna-
tional Association , AFL-CIO , filed exceptions and
supporting briefs. =
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.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. C. L. Linfoot Co.` is an employer engaged in
commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6),
and (7) of the Act.
2. Respondent Sheet Metal Workers Local
Union No. 14 and Respondent Sheet Metal Work-
ers International Association ' AFL-CIO are labor
organizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of
the Act. -
3. By maintaining restrictions on members"resig-
nations in their constitution and ritual, the Re-
spondents have coerced and restrained members
-from exercising the rights guaranteed by Section 7
of the Act in violation of Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the
Act. -
4. By imposing fines against Douglas Peterson,
James Bakke, James Olson, Kim 'Boger,, Ron
Haney, Martin Erickson, Moises Segovia, and Dar-
rell Holweger for returning to work for C. L. Lin-
foot°Co. during the strike that commenced on- 23
March 1984, after they resigned their membership
in Respondent Local, Respondent Local violated
Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act:
5. The foregoing unfair labor practices are unfair
labor practices affecting commerce within the
meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
' We adopt the judge's conclusion that the Respondents, under Ma-
chinists Local 1414 (Neufeld Porsche-Audi), 270 NLRB 1330 (1984), violat-
ed Sec 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act In so doing,' we disavow the judge's discus-
sion in which he suggests that employees may waive their Sec 7 right to
resign from union membership -
We have included a conclusions of law section which was omitted in-
advertently by the judge
Member Dennis adheres to the position she set forth in Neufeld
Porsche-Audi, supra at 1336 fn 22
ORDER
1091
The National Labor Relations Board adopts the
recommended Order of the administrative law
judge and orders that the Respondents, Sheet
Metal Workers Local Union No. 14, Grand Forks,
North Dakota , and Sheet Metal Workers Interna-
tional Association , AFL-CIO, Washington, D:C.,
their officers , agents , and representatives , shall take
the action set forth in the Order.
DECISION
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
BENJAMIN SCHLESINGER, Administrative Law Judge.
From June 1, 1981, through May 31, 1983, C. L. Linfoot
Co. (Lmfoot)' and Respondent Sheet Metal Workers
Union No. 14 (Local 14 or the Local)2 were signatories
to a 'collective-bargaining agreement which covered all
journeymen and apprentice sheet metal workers em-
ployed at and out of Linfoot's Grand Forks facility. Col-
lective bargaining to reach a new agreement was unsuc=
cessful; and on March 23, 1984,3 Local 14 commenced a
strike. On the same date, Linfoot employee Douglas Pe-
terson sent a certified letter to Local 14, resigning from
membership in the Local. On April 2, employees James
Bakke,' James Olson, Kim Boger, Ron Haney, Martin
Erickson, Moises Segovia, and Darrell Holweger also re-
signed.4
On March 27, Local 14 wrote-Peterson that it refused
to accept his resignation because Local 14 was presently
engaged in a strike with Linfoot and that: "[Y]ou will be
held responsible for your actions during the strike as per
the Constitution of the Sheet Metal Workers Internation-
al Association, including penalties and fines for accepting
employment in any capacity where a strike exists." Iden-
tical _letters' were sent by the Local to all the other em-
ployees on April.9. All the named employees did not
work for Linfoot from March 23 until April 9, when
they returned to work, despite the continuation of the
strike.' -.
' Linfoot, a Minnesota corporation with an office and place of business
in Grand Forks, North Dakota, is a sheet metal and roofing contractor
and installs and repairs roofs and heating and air conditioning equipment
During its fiscal year ending February 28, 1984, Linfoot purchased and
received products, goods, and materials valued in excess of 550,000 di-
rectly from points.-outside North Dakota and sold and shipped goods and
materials and provided services from its Grand Forks facility valued in
excess of $50,000 directly to points outside North Dakota I conclude
that Linfoot is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of
Sec 2(2), (6), and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U S C Sec
151 et seq
z Local 14 admits, and I conclude, that it is a labor organization-within
the meaning of Sec 2(5) of the Act
2 All dates hereinafter refer to the year 1984, unless otherwise stated
4 To the extent that the complaint in this proceeding spells Enckson's
and Holweger's names differently, the complaint is amended The parties'
stipulation of facts states that these employees resigned by letters, dated
April 3 The letters are all dated on April 2
5 Previously, on March 30, Linfoot had notified all its employees who
had been withholding their services that if they did not report for work
by April 6, they would be replaced by new hires
275 NLRB No. 153
1092 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
On April 10, Local 14 notified the named employees
that charges were being brought against them for violat-
ing article 17; section 1(g) of the constitution and -ritual
of the Sheet Metal Workers International Association
(International).6 That provision states that a member
may "be reprimanded, fined . . . suspended or expelled
[for] [a]ccepting employment in any shop or on any job
where a strike or lockout, as recognized under this Con-
stitution, exists." The provision of the constitution deal-
ing with resignations (art 16,-sec. 13) reads as follows:
Any member in good standing who has paid all
dues and financial obligations may sever his connec-
tions by written resignation mailed to the financial
secretary-treasurer of the local union with which he
is affiliated by certified or registered mail. Resigna-
tions shall be effective upon receipt of notification
in the -manner prescribed -herein. No resignation
shall be accepted if offered , in, anticipation of
charges being preferred against him, during the, pen-
dancy [sic] of any such charges or during a strike or
lockout,'On April 30, the Local held a . special
meeting. to elect a trial committee to hear., the
charges. On May 21, a, trial was conducted; and
about June or. July, the trial `committee fined each
of the eight employees the sum of $5000. Each em-
ployee filed an appeal and paid. $50 to the Local _in
order, to stay the enforcement of the fine. On
August 21, the International's president denied the
appeals. -
The unfair labor practice complaint herein8 alleges
that Respondents have restrained and coerced ,, and are
restraining and coercing , employees in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act and are thereby
engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of
Section -8(b)(1)(A) of the Act..
In Machinists Local 1994 (O.K. Tool Co.), 215 NLRB
651 (1974), the Board concluded that a union had violat-
ed Section 8(b(1)(A) by fining members who had submit-
ted written resignations to the union and thereafter
crossed the picket line . The Board found that the union's
constitutiot impermissibly ' - restricted postresignation
strikebreaking activities . But. the Board also stated, at
653: -
Whether the ' Lodge might lawfully- have placed
reasonable restrictions on the circumstances, in
which a member could, resign, and have enforced
those restrictions and strikebreaking sanctions
against full members who returned to work during
6 The International admits, and I conclude, that it is a labor organiza-
tion within the meaning of Sec 2(5) of the Act ,
7 It is uncontested that the employees' resignations were properly
-mailed Respondents stipulated that Peterson's letter was received by the
Local on March 26 and that the other letters were received on April 4
8 The relevant docket entries are as follows Linfoot filed- an unfair
labor practice charge on April 10 and amended it on May 18 The com-
plaint issued on June 25 On July 2, the parties submitted this proceeding
for decision by an administrative law judge based on a stipulation of
-facts, all parties agreeing that no oral testimony was necessary or desired
On July 10, I was designated by Chief Administrative Law Judge Melvin
J Welles to decide the underlying issues in this proceeding Since then,
the parties have stipulated to additional facts - '
a strike, is a question- which is not raised by the
facts of this proceeding. We hold only that a union
may not levy, or threaten to levy, court-collectible
fines against a former member for exercising his
Section 7 rights following lawful resignation from
the union.,
Three years later, the Board held in Machinists Local
1327 (Dalmo Victor), 231 NLRB 719 (1977), enf. denied
and remanded 608 F°2d 1219• (9th-' Cir:r 1979) (Dalmo
Victor I),9 that the following provision of the union's
constitution was a restriction on postresignation conduct
and that fines imposed pursuant to that provision violat-
ed Section 8(b)(1)(A), to wit. - ' .
Improper Conduct of a-Member. -. . . 'Accepting em-
ployment in any capacity in an establishment where
a strike or lockout exists as recognized under this
Constitution, without permission. Resignation shall
not relieve a member of his obligation to' refrain
from accepting employment at the establishment for
the duration of the strike or lockout within-14 days
preceding its commencement Where observance of
a primary picket line, is, required, resignation shall
not relieve a member of his obligation to observe
.the primary picket line for its duration if the resig-
nation occurs during the period that the picket line
is maintained or within 14 days-preceding its estab-
lishment. -
The union,-relying on the Ninth Circuit's denial of en-
forcement of the Board's decision, modified the, last sen-
tence ,of the above-quoted provision in order to place a
restriction on a member's resignation rather than on his
postresignation conduct, as follows:
Where observance of a primary picket - line is re-
quired, any resignation tendered during the period
that the picket line-is maintained, or within 14 days
preceding its establishment, shall not become' effec-
tive as -a resignation during the -period the picket
line is maintained,-nor shall it relieve a member of
his or her obligation to observe the primary picket
line for -its duration. ' - - ' -
In Machinists Local -1327 (Dalmo Victor), 263 NLRB 984
(1982), enf. denied 725 F.2d 1212•(9th Cir. 1984) (Dalmo
Victor II), a divided Board held that the modification
was also an unreasonable restriction-on employees'-Sec-
tion 7 right to resign their union membership and other-
wise to refrain from Section 7 activities. In so. holding,
Members Fanning " and, Zimmerman recognized, -263
NLRB at 985. that'there are conflicting interests which
underlie a member's. right to resign 'from membership in
a union and a union's desire to reject resignations:
The first is the right of an employee to refrain from
collective activity, a right .'specifically -codified in
Section 7 of the Act. The second is the ' legitimate
interest of, a certified representative in protecting
e See also Machinists 'Lodge 1871 (General Dynamics), 231 NLRB 727
(1977), enfd 575 F 2d 54 (2d Cir 1978) - z • .
SHEET METAL WORKERS LOCAL 14 (LINFOOT CO)
employees it represents who have joined together in
collective economic activity Reasonable rules gov-
erning the acquisition or retention of membership in
the union , or resignation therefrom , are necessary to
protect that interest These concerns are fundamen-
tal to the overall scheme of the Act and are recog-
nized in the proviso to Section 8(b)(1)(A).
They concluded that neither interest was absolute Al-
,-thou&[union might impose reasonable time restrictions
on the rights of its members to resign "to facilitate the
orderly management of its affairs, including times when a
strike may be imminent or is underway," id. and -to
ensure with some certainty that- solidarity among its
membership will be maintained, the union's broad restric-
tion against any resignations failed to protect sufficiently
the interest of individual employees and was an imper-
missible and unreasonable intrusion into an employee's
Section 7 right to resign Members Fanning and Zimmer-
man would, however, have found that a union could
impose a 30-day restriction on its members' right to
resign, and the rationale expressed by dissenting Member
Jenkins, who found that the union's provision was valid,
would have-supported a finding, that a 30-day restriction
was valid. Member Hunter and former Chairman Van de
Water, concurring in the result of the Board, found in-
valid any restriction imposed on a member's right to
resign or otherwise refrain from Section 7 activities.
It is the latter; position, which the Board more recently
adopted in Machinists Local 1414 (Neufeld Porsche-Audi),
270 NLRB 1330 (1984), in which it overruled Dalmo
Victor II and its progeny and held that the respondent's
restriction on resignations in its new constitutional provi-
sion, "as well as any other restriction a union may
impose on resignations," is invalid. The Board's reasons
are set forth at length -,in Neufeld Porsche-Audi, and
whether Respondents herein may choose to agree or not
is quite beside the point I am bound by Board law, and
it appears certain that, even under Dalmo Victor-I and II,
no less Neufeld Porsche-Audi,1 ° Respondents' unqualified
restriction on members"rights to resign from membership
violates employees' Section 7 rights and that Local 14's
refusal to accept the proffered resignations of the above-
named employees violates Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the
Act 11 Typographical Union (Register, Publishing), 270 -
NLRB 1386 (1984).
10 See also Pattern Makers (Rockford-Beloit), 265 NLRB 1332 (1982),
enfd 724 F 2d 57 (7th Cir 1983), cert granted 105 S Ct 79 (1984), News-
paper Guild Local 3 (New York News), 271 NLRB 1257 (1984), Bricklayers
Local 17 (California Tile), 271 NLRB 1571 (1984), Newspaper Guild Local
3 (New'York Times), 272 NLRB 338 (1984), Pattern Makers (Badger Pat-
tern Works), 273 NLRB. 113 (1984), Machinists Local 1224 (Motor Trucks),
273 NLRB 650 (1984), Sheet Metal Workers,.274 NLRB 41 (1985)
ii The International contends in its brief that it has the-right "to pro-
ceed internally against disloyal membeis who opt to become strikebreak-
ers by revoking or rescinding their membership under less than honorable
conditions" Thus, its constitution' provides more stringent qualifications
for readmission mto the International after expulsion than after voluntary
resignation The argument begs the question Only the constitution's re-
striation against resignation during a strike or lockout enables the Interna-
tional to act against the member If resignation were permitted, the Inter-
national would have no member to discipline In either event, under cur-
rent' Board law, the constitutional provision restrains the member from
exercising his Sec 7 right not to be a member
1093
It follows that Local 14's fines levied against the eight
employees, sustained by the 'International, also violate
Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act and must be rescinded.
Furthermore, in•Neufeld Porsche-Audi, supra, the Board
ordered the offending provision to be expunged. It did
not order the international union to do so12 solely be-
cause it was not a party to the proceeding Here, the
International is a party, and the presence of the provision
in the International's constitution barring resignations
during strikes or lockouts and subjecting members to
punishment constitutes, under the Board's holding, a sig-
nificant impairment of and restraint on members' statuto-
ry rights and requires expunction.
I reject Respondent's arguments that the Board's most
recent decisions are 'incorrect. Those arguments are more
properly addressed to the Board and to the courts I
must admit, however, that my conclusion is result-orient-
ed and is based on the Board's broad language prohibit-
ing provisions such as the one at, issue herein. As I noted
above, as an administrative law judge, I am bound to
follow Board precedent. Iowa Beef Packers, 144 NLRB
615, 616 (1963). However, I do not believe that it is my
duty to blindly do so if other Board decisions indicate a
rationale which is contrary to the result reached.
,It is well settled that Section 8(b)(1) of the-Act was
not intended to bar a union from establishing rules with
respect to its internal affairs and taking action thereon. In
NLRB v. Allis-Chalmers Mfg.. Co., 388 U.S. 175 (1967),
the Supreme Court held that a union may impose reason-
able court-collectible fines on full union members who
violate union rules barring strike-breaking activity. In
'Scofield v- NLRB, 394 U.S. 423 (1969), it held that a
union's imposition of fines. and suspension of members
who violate a union rule relating to production ceilings
does not violate Section 8(b)(1)(A). However, the right
of a union to maintain and enforce internal rules is clear-
ly qualified by the.principles set forth in Scofield, at 430:
§ 8(b)(1) leaves a union free to enforce a prop-
erly adopted rule which reflects a legitimate union
interest, impairs no policy Congress has embedded
in the labor laws, and is reasonably enforced against
union members who are free to leave the union and
escape the rule.
In applying these principles, the Supreme Court and the
Board have consistently held that a union' violates Sec-
tion .8(b)(1)(A) if it refuses to accept resignations when
no rules restricting such action are 'apparent and if it
thereafter attempts to impose sanctions on subsequent ac-
tivities of the employee. 13
However, the Supreme Court has also concluded that
a union constitution may be characterized as a contract
between labor organizations. See Plumbers & Pipefitters v.
Local 334, 452 U S..615, 619-620 (1981), and cases cited
therein. It also noted there, at 620, that "the prevailing
12 See also Bricklayers Local 17 (California Tile), supra at 1571 In 1
13 See , e g, NLRB v Textile • Workers Local 1029, 409 U S 213 (1972),
Machinists Lodge 405 v NLRB, 412 U S 84 (1973 ), Machinists, Local 1994
(O.K Tool Co ), supra, Allied Workers Local 80 (Capitol-Husting Co), 235
NLRB 1264 (1978)
1094 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
state law view is that a union constitution is a contract,"
citing Machinists v. , Gonzales, 356 U S 617, 618-619
(1958). When an employee joins a union, he agrees to
follow the rules established by the union's constitution.
The employee is then part of "[t]he collective bargaining
system as' encouraged by Congress and administered by
the NLRB [which] of necessity subordinates the interest
of an individual employee to the collective interests of
all employees in a bargaining unit." Vaca v. Sipes, 386
U S 171, 182 (1967) Therefore, the Court has held that
through the collective-bargaining process a union may
waive an employee's Section 7 right to strike, including
sympathy strikes and the right to refuse to cross picket
lines. Mastro Plastics v. NLRB, 350 U S.'270 (1956);
NLRB v. Rockaway News Supply Co, 345 U.S. 71 (1953).
More recently, in Gem City Ready Mix Co., 270 NLRB
1261 (1984), decided on June 25, 1984, only' 3 days
before Neufeld Porsche-Audi, the Board held that union
members; in a strike settlement agreement, may lawfully
waive employees' statutory rights to be reinstated with
their prestrike seniority. The Board stated that it was ir-
relevant that the employees did not know that they were
waiving a statutorily' guaranteed right. In Indianapolis
Power Co., 273 NLRB 1715 (1985), the Board held that
the right to engage in a sympathy strike may be waived,
even wheh the no-strike language iii an agreement did
not expressly mention sympathy strikes.
The Board has not directly considered whether an em-
ployee may waive his right to resign from a union at
will, even when he knowingly and without coercion
agrees that he may not resign. I find it difficult'to recon-
cile the superiority of the waiver of the right to strike,
which, although derived from Section 7 of the' Act, is
permitted, and the waiver of the right to join-or not to
join a labor organization, protected by the same Section
7, which the Board has impliedly held' may not be
waived. It is true that the Board in Gem City expressed
the public policy of encouraging collective bargaining in
approving a settlement which accorded preferential se-
niority rights to economic striker replacements, to the
detriment of those who'were asserting their Section 7
rights by engaging in an economic strike. The strikers
had understood and had ratified such action. Here, those
who joined the union also understood that they were
giving up their right to resign and voluntarily agreed to
do so.
The foregoiiig discussion is particularly-relevant to the
facts in this proceeding. North Dakota is a "right-to-
work" State: N.D. Cert. Code Sections 34-01-14, 34-08-
02, 34-09-01 (1972). The eight employees were under no
compulsion to join the Local. Each did; agreeing to be
bound by the terms of the International constitution. 14
Each entered into a contract that he could not resign
during the term of the strike. That commitment was as
binding on each of them as on all other members of the
organization. Had "the situation been reversed and .had
14 The employees agreed to become members of the International "in
accordance with and subject to" the International's constitution 'and
ritual The ritual requires that members certify that they are familiar with
and willingly subscribe to all the provisions of the constitution Holweger
specifically agreed to "obey the provisions and requirements or' the
ritual, under which he agreed to be bound by the constitution
others desired to resign and return to work, rather than
the eight employees herein, the eight would have opted
for enforcement of the constitution just as forcefully as
Respondents now seek to enforce their part of the bar-
gain. - -
However, the issue of waiver has not been ruled on by
the Board; and I find that the Board's statements of the
law and its total ban on any resignation provision are
simply too strong to overcome. Furthermore, I would be
remiss if I did not note'-that the parameters) of the right-
of a member to resign are now pending review in Pattern
Makers (Rockford-Beloit), supra. Until the court's deci-
sion, this decision should issue so that there will be no
delay should the Board's holdings be sustained.
THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondents engaged in unfair
labor practices in violation of Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the
Act, I shall recommend that Respondents be ordered to
cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative
action necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act.
Specifically, I shall recommend that the Local be or-
dered to refund to each of the eight' employees-the sum
of $50 which each paid to the Local in order to effect
his appeal to the International as a result of the fine im-
posed on him, with interest thereon computed in the
manner prescribed in Florida Steel Corp.; 231 NLRB 651
(1977).15 In addition, I shall recommend that Respond-
ents cease and desist from maintaining their illegal re-
striction on resignations and that they be ordered to ex-
punge that provision from their governing documents.
Newspaper Guild Local 3 (New York News), 271 NLRB
1251 (1984), Engineers & Scientists Guild (Lockheed-Cali-
fornia), 268 NLRB 311 (1983). I shall also recommend
that Local 14 cease its refusal to accept and direct it to
accept the proffered resignations of the eight employees
named herein' and vacate, rescind, and expunge from
their records all charges issued against the above-named
employees for conduct occurring after the date of their
effective resignations See generally from the Local.
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and
upon consideration of the' record herein, including the
briefs filed by the General Counsel, Local, and Interna-
tional, I issue the following recommended"
ORDER
A. Respondent Sheet Metal Workers Local Union No.
14, Grand Forks, North Dakota, its officers, agents, and
representatives,' shall
1. Cease and desist from -
(a) Maintaining in its constitution and ritual article 16,
section 13 to the extent it provides: "No resignation shall
be accepted if offered, . . . during a strike or lockout."
(b) Restraining or coercing employees who have re-
signed from, and are no longer members of, Local 14 in
is See generally Isis Plumbing Co, 138 NLRB 716 (1962)
16 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
SHEET METAL WORKERS LOCAL- 14 (LINFOOT CO)
the exercise of the rights guaranteed them by Section 7
of the National Labor Relations Act by threatening to
institute and instituting internal union disciplinary pro-
ceedings which may result , among other things, in the
imposition of court -collectible fines against employees
who, after resigning from the Local, returned to work
for their employer, C. L. Linfoot Co, during the pend-
ency of a strike that began on March 23, 1984; by impos-
ing court-collectible, fines' upon such employees because
of-,their postresignation 'conduct'of working at C L. Lin-
foot Co ; by rejecting or refusing to acknowledge the ef-
fectiveness of its members' valid resignations from mem-
bership , and by enforcing ' or giving effect to any rule
which restricts the right of its members to resign from
membership during a strike or lockout.
(c) In any like or related manner restraining or coerc-
ing employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed
them by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to
effectuate the policies of the, Act. -
(a) Remove from its governing document the portion
of article 16, section 13 of the - constitution and ritual of
the Sheet Metal Workers International Association set
forth above.
(b) Rescind the fines levied ' against Douglas Peterson,
James Bakke, James Olson , Kim Boger , Ron Haney,
Martin Erickson , Moises Segovia ,, and Darrell Holweger
for conduct occurring after the dates of - their effective
resignations from the Local and refund to them any
moneys they may have paid as a result of such fines,
with interest as set forth in the remedy section of this de-
cision."
(3) Remove from its files any reference to the charges
against and trials, appeals, and fines of the above-named
employees relating to their conduct occurring after their
resignations and notify them in writing that it has done
so.
(d) Accept the valid resignations from membership of
the above-named employees as of the dates their resigna-
tions were received. -
(e) Post-at its business office and meeting halls copies
of the attached notice marked "Appendix A."17-Copies
of the notice, on forms provided by the Regional Direc-
tor for Region 18, after being signed by Local ,14's au=
thorized representative, shall be posted by Local 14 im-
mediately upon receipt and maintained for 60 consecu-
tive days in conspicuous places including all places
where notices to members are customarily posted Rea-
sonable steps shall be taken by Local 14 to ensure that
the notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any
other material.
(f) Sign and return to the Regional Director for
Region 18 sufficient copies of the notice - for posting by
C. L. Linfoot. Co., if willing, at all places where notices
to employees are customarily posted.
17 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 "
1095
(g) Notify the Regional Director in writing within 20
days from the date of this Order what steps Local 14 has
taken to comply.
B. Respondent Sheet Metal Workers International As-
sociation , AFL-CIO, its officers , agents, and representa-
tives, shall
1. Cease and desist from
,(a) Maintaining in its constitution ' and ritual article 16,
section 13 to the extent it provides : "No resignation shall
be accepted if offered . during a strike or lockout."
(b) Restraining or coercing employees who have re-
signed from , and are no longer members of, Sheet Metal
Workers Local Union No. 14 in the exercise of the rights
guaranteed them by Section 7 of the National Labor Re-
lations Act by denying the appeal from the imposition of
court -collectible fines against employees who, after re-
signing from the Local, returned to work for their em-
ployer, C. L. Linfoot Co., during the pendency of a
strike that began on March 23 , 1984; by rejecting or re-
fusing to acknowledge the effectiveness of Local 14's
members' valid resignations from membership; and by
enforcing or giving effect to any rule which restricts the
right of Local 14's members to resign , from membership.
(c) In any like or related manner restraining or coerc-
ing employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed
them by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to
effectuate the policies of the Act.
(a), Remove from its governing document the portion
of article 16, section 13 of the constitution and ritual of
the Sheet Metal Workers International Association set
forth above. _
.(b) Remove from its files any reference to the charges
against and trials, appeals, and fines of Douglas Peterson,
James Bakke, James Olson, Kim Boger, Ron Haney,
Martin Erickson , Moises Segovia , and Darrell Holweger
relating to their conduct occurring after their resigna-
tions and notify them in writing that it has done so.
(c) Post at its business office and meeting halls copies
of the attached notice marked "Appendix B "18 Copies
of the notice, on forms provided by the Regional Direc-
tor for Region 18, after being signed by the Internation-
al's authorized representative ,- shall be posted by the
International immediately upon receipt and maintained
for 60 consecutive days in conspicuous places including
all places where notices to members are customarily
posted . Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Interna-
tional to ensure that the notices are not altered , defaced,
or covered by any other material.
(d) Sign and return to the Regional Director sufficient
copies of the notice for posting by C. L. Linfoot Co., if
willing, at all places where notices to employees are cus-
tomarily posted.
(e) Notify the Regional Director in writing within 20
days from the date of this Order what steps the Interna-
tional has taken to comply.
18 See fn 17, above
1096 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
APPENDIX A
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES AND MEMBERS
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT maintain in our constitution and ritual
article 16, section 13 to the extent'it provides: "No resig-
nation shall be-accepted if offered . . during a strike or
lockout."
WE WILL NOT restrain or coerce employees who have
resigned from, and are no longer members of, Local 14
in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them by. Section
7 of the National Labor Relations Act by threatening to
institute and instituting internal union disciplinary pro-
ceedings which may result, among other things, in the
imposition of court-collectible. fines against employees
who, after resigning from the Local, returned to work
for their employer, C. L Linfoot. Co., during the pend-
ency of a strike that began on March 23, 1984; by impos-
ing court-collectible fines upon such employees because
of their postresignation conduct of working at C. L. Lin-
foot Co.; by rejecting or refusing to acknowledge the ef-
fectiveness of our members' valid resignations from
membership; and by enforcing or giving effect to any
rule which restricts the right of our members to resign-
from membership during a strike or lockout.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner restrain or
coerce employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed
them by Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL remove from our governing document the
portion of article 16, section 13 of the constitution and
ritual of the Sheet Metal Workers International Associa-
tion set forth above. -
WE WILL rescind the fines levied against Douglas Pe-
terson,- James Bakke, James • Olson, Kim Boger, Ron
Haney, Martin Erickson, Moises Segovia, and Darrell
Holweger for conduct occurring after the dates of their
effective resignations from the Local and refund to them
any moneys they may have paid as a result of such fines,
with interest.
WE WILL remove from our files any reference to the
charges against and trials, appeals, and fines of the
above-named employees relating to their conduct occur-
ring after their resignations and notify them in writing
that we have done so
WE WILL accept the valid resignations from member-
ship of the above-named employees as of the dates their
resignations were received.
SHEET METAL WORKERS LOCAL UNION
No. 14
APPENDIX B
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES AND MEMBERS
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT maintain in our constitution-and ritual
article 16, section 13 to the extent it provides: "No resig-
nation shall be accepted if offered . . . during a strike or
lockout."
WE WILL NOT restrain or coerce employees who have
resigned from, and are no longer members of, Sheet
Metal Workers Local Union No. 14 in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the National
Labor Relations Act by denying the appeal from the im-'
position of court-collectible fines against employees who,
after- resigning from the Local, returned to work for
their employer, C L. Linfoot Co, during the pendency
of a strike that began on March 23, 1984; by rejecting or
refusing to acknowledge the effectiveness of Local 14's
members' valid resignations from membership, - and by
enforcing or giving effect to any rule which restricts the
right of Local 14's members to resign from membership.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner restrain or
coerce employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed
them by Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL remove from our governing document the
portion of article 16, section 13 of the constitution and
ritual of the Sheet Metal Workers International Associa-
- tion set forth above.
WE WILL remove from our files any reference to the
charges against and trials, appeals, and fines of Douglas
Peterson, James Bakke, James Olson, Kim Boger, Ron
Haney, Martin Erickson, Moises Segovia, and Darrell
Holweger relating to their conduct occurring after their
resignations and notify them in writing that we have'
done so.
SHEET METAL WORKERS INTERNATIONAL
ASSOCIATION , AFL-CIO