Steelworkers, Local No. 7450

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 7, 1979

246 N.L.R.B. 878 (N.L.R.B. 1979)

D)E(ISIONS OF NATIONA. I.ABOR REIATIIONS BOARI)
United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO, Local
No. 7450 (Asarco Incorporated) and Howard Davis.
Case 14-CB-4290
December 7. 1979
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS PENE.LO, MURPHY. ANI) TRtUESI)AI.E
Upon a charge filed by Charging Party Howard
Davis, the General Counsel for the National I.abor
Relations Board, by the Regional Director for Region
14, issued a complaint on January 4, 1979, against
United Steelworkers of America, AFL CIO, Local
No. 7450, herein called Respondent or the Union.
Copies of the charge, complaint, and notice of hear-
ing before an administrative law judge were duly
served on Respondent and the Charging Party. In
substance, the complaint alleges that Respondent vio-
lated Section 8(b)( )(A) and (2) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended,' by attempting to cause,
and causing, the Employer to withhold union dues
from a paycheck after the employee had effectively
resigned from the Union.
The answer duly filed by Respondent admitted the
jurisdictional allegations of the complaint, as well as
some factual allegations. It denied, however, other
critical factual allegations and the commission of any
unfair labor practices. Respondent also raised two af-
firmative defenses: (1) that employee Davis never re-
voked his dues-checkoff authorization; and (2) that
the unfair labor practice charges were barred by Sec-
tion 10(b) of the Act.
Thereafter, on March 23, 1979, the Charging Party,
the General Counsel, and Respondent entered into a
stipulation in which they agreed that the formal
documents (G.C. Exhs. I(a) through (m) inclusive)2
and the "Stipulation of the Record," including Exhib-
IThese provisions are as follows:
Sec. 8(b) It shall be an unfair labor practice for a labor organization
or its agent
(I) to restrain or coerce (A) employees in the exercise of the rights
guaranteed in section 7: Provided. That this paragraph shall not impair
the right of a labor organization to prescribe its own rules with respect
to the acquisition or retention of membership therein; or (B) an em-
ployer in the selection of his representatives for the purpose of collective
bargaining or the adjustment of grievances;
(2) to cause or attempt to cause an employer to discriminate against
an employee in violation of subsection (aX3) or to discriminate against
an employee with respect to whom membership in such organization
has been denied or terminated on some ground other than his failure to
tender the periodic dues and the initiation fees uniformly required as a
condition of acquiring or retaining membership.
2These exhibits are the charge: affidavit of service of said charge:
amended charge; affidavit of service of said amended charge: the complaint
and notice of heanng and the affidavit of service of the complaint and notice
of hearing; Respondent's answer; original order rescheduling hearing; affida-
vit of service or original order rescheduling hearing; order rescheduling hear-
ing accompanied by certification; order postponing the hearing indefinitely:
and index and descnption of formal documents.
its A O, attached thereto, shall constitute the entire
record herein, and that no oral testimony is necessary
or desired by any of' the parties. Thus, the parties
expressly waived all intermediate proceedings before
an administrative law judge, and petitioned that this
case be transferred to the Board for the purpose of
making findings of ftact and conclusions of law, and
issuing an appropriate order, reserving to themselves
only the right to object to the materiality or relevancy
of the stipulated facts.
By order dated May 10, 1979, the Board approved
the stipulation. transferred the proceedings to itself.
and set a date for the filing of brieIs. Thereafter, the
General Counsel and Respondent filed briefs, which
have been duly considered by the Board.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au-
thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the entire record herein
as stipulated by the parties, as well as the briefs filed
by Respondent and the General Counsel, and makes
the following findings and conclusions:
FA('IS
1. THIE BUSINESS OF IE EMPI.OYER
Asarco Incorporated is a New Jersey corporation.
It maintains a principal office and place of business at
120 Broadway, New York, New York, while operat-
ing other plants in the State of Missouri, New Jersey,
Texas, Colorado, Tennessee, Washington, and Ari-
zona. Asarco is engaged in, and at all times material
herein has been engaged in, the refinishing of nonfer-
rous metals and related products. The plant located
at Glover. Missouri, is the only facility involved in
this proceeding. During the year ending December
31, 1978, which period is representative of its opera-
tions during all times material herein, Asarco, in the
course and conduct of its business operations, manu-
factured, sold, and distributed at its Glover, Missouri,
plant products valued in excess of $50,000, of which
products valued in excess of' $50,000 were shipped
from said plants to points located outside the State of
Missouri. Based on the above, the parties stipulated,
and we find, that Asarco is now, and at all times ma-
terial herein has been, an employer engaged in com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7)
of the Act.
11. IlE L.ABOR OR(GANIZA'IION INVOLVED
The parties stipulated, and we find, that Respon-
dent is now, and at all times material herein has been,
246 NLRB No. 139
878
a labor organization within the meaning of Section
2(5) of the Act.
II1. THE UNFAIR I.ABOR PRA('TICES
A. The Issues
1. Whether the charge filed by Charging Party
Howard Davis on December 7, 1978, is time-barred
by Section 10(b) of the Act, when only Respondent's
arbitration proceeding occurred within the 6-month
period preceding the filing of the charge?
2. Whether the arbitration proceeding of Septem-
ber 7, 1978, and subsequent award of September 22,
1978, complied with the standards of Spielherg Manu-
facturing Company, 112 NLRB 1080 (1955), and
therefore constitute a bar to the present proceeding?3
3. Whether Howard Davis' resignation from Re-
spondent's membership, in a maintenance-of-mem-
bership shop, has the effect of revoking a previously
executed dues-checkoff authorization card?
B. The Stipulated Facts
Charging Party Howard Davis is employed as a
maintenance mechanic4 at the Employer's refining
plant at Glover, Missouri. He is a member of the bar-
gaining unit of all production and maintenance em-
ployees who, pursuant to a Certification of Repre-
sentative issued by the Board on July 22, 1968, are
represented by Respondent.
The Employer and Respondent were parties to a
collective-bargaining agreement from April 1, 1971,
through August 31, 1973, which contained a mainte-
nance-of-membership clause. An employee who has
not joined Respondent's membership and has not ex-
ecuted a dues-checkoff authorization card has no ob-
ligation by pay monthly membership dues and/or
maintenance service fees.5 Subsequent collective-bar-
gaining agreements entered into between Respondent
and the Employer, effective August 31, 1973, to Au-
gust 31, 1976, and May 29, 1977, to March 31, 1980,
contained identical provisions regarding maintenance
The question concerning deferral is raised by the General Counsel. Re-
spondent has not urged the Board to defer to the arbitration decision of
September 22, 1978.
4Davis had held this position since September 1971.
The authorization card provides in pertinent part:
Pursuant to this authorization and assignment, please deduct from
my pay each month. while I am in employment or within the collective-
bargaining unit in the Company, monthly dues. assessments and (if
owing by me) an initiation fee each as designated by the International
Secretary-Treasurer of the Union, as my membership dues in said
Union.
The aforesaid membership dues shall be remitted promplly by you to
Walter J. Burke, or his successor, International Secretar,-Treasurer of
the United Steelworkers of America. or its successor.
STEELWORKERS I.OCAL NO. 7450
of membership and authorization for union member-
ship dues checkoff.6
On or about December 8, 1971. Howard Davis be-
came a member of Respondent and, contemporane-
ously, executed a dues-checkoff authorization card as
provided for in the collective-bargaining agreement
then in effect between Respondent and the Em-
ployer.?
Davis maintained his union membership until Au-
gust 1976, when he resigned from Respondent Union.
On August 26, 1976, Davis sent a letter of resignation
to both the Employer and the International Secre-
tary-Treasurer, United Steelworkers of America. The
letter stated as follows:
I am writing this to inform the Union that I am
withdrawing my membership from Local x 7450
at the American Smelting & Refining Compans
in Glover, Missouri. The date of my withdrawal
is August 31, 1976.
Sincerely.
/s/ Howard J. Davis
Respondent stipulated that it received the letter on
September 3, 1976. and that it treated the letter as an
effective resignation.
In the meantime, following the expiration of the
parties' collective-bargaining agreement on August
31, 1976, Respondent commenced an economic strike
which continued from September 1, 1976. until May
29, 1977.
When the strike concluded, the Employer resumed
operations and the work force, including Davis. re-
turned to work. In light of Davis' resignation from
Respondent's membership, the Employer thereafter
ceased deducting union membership dues from Da-
vis' paychecks. By letters dated September 1., 1977,
James English, assistant general counsel of the
United Steelworkers of America, informed Curtis
Bates, manager of the Employer, and Davis. that [a-
vis' attempt to revoke his checkoff was untimely and.
'Art. II. sec. 3. of the current collective-bargaining agreement provides:
All employees who, at the date of the signing of this Agreement. are
members of the Union shall, as a condition of employ ment. be required
to remain members for the duration of this Agreement: all employees
who become members of the Union during the life of this Agreement
shall be required to remain members as a condition if empl) menl for
the duration of this Agreement.
Art. II, sec. .of the collective-bargaining agreement provide a follows
It is agreed that an initiation fee (if owed). monthly dues (it owed)
and assessments (if owed) for each member of the Union in amounts as
authorized shall be deducted rom the pay of the employee upon wntten
authorization to the Company from each indi idual emplosee This au-
thorization shall be upon a form furnished bh the UIni,on and approved
by the Compan, and all such monies collected in this manner shall be
remitted by the Company to the International Secretar-Treasurer
UIniled Steelworkers of America. 1500 Commonealth Building. Pits-
burgh. Penns.lsania 15222
879
I):('ISI()NS 1: NAII()NAI. I.ABOR RKIlAIO'()NS 3()ARI)
accordingly, the checkoff was still in effect. There-
after, on October 3, 1977, Respondent, by its agent,
President Willis Alcorn and Vice President Henry
Mecey, filed a grievance asserting Davis' failure to
timely withdraw from his dues-deduction agreement,
and seeking the Employer's continued withholding of
dues from Davis' pay. The grievance, in pertinent
part, read:
We wrote you a letter concerning the dues de-
duction of Howard Davis one of your employees,
who in an untimely fashion, withdrew from the
dues deduction agreement. You in turn have
failed to deduct dues for the month of June, July,
August, September. We have not heard from you
on this matter, therefore ... we request that you
withhold [sic] back dues and continue to with
hold [sic] the Davis dues.
Despite subsequent correspondence between the Em-
ployer and Respondent on the issue of Davis' dues-
checkoff authorization, a satisfactory agreement was
not reached between the parties. On September 7,
1978, a hearing was held before an arbitrator, who
rendered an award on September 22, 1978, directing
the Employer to pay Respondent "for the dues in
question not withheld and remitted, by making dou-
ble monthly dues payments on behalf of Mr. Davis,
until the arrearage is made current .... " The arbitra-
tor further concluded that the Employer could with-
hold the sums from Davis' paychecks. Since Septem-
ber 22, 1978, the Employer has complied with the
arbitrator's award.
On December 7, 1978, Davis filed the original
charge and on December 27, 1978, filed an amended
charge in this proceeding alleging that Respondent
violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) and (b)(2) by attempting
to cause, and causing, the Employer to check off
regular union dues from his pay subsequent to this
resignation from Respondent's membership.
Discussion
As a threshold matter, Respondent argues that the
charge filed by Davis in this proceeding is barred by
Section 10(b), since the alleged violation occurred
more than 6 months before Davis filed his original
unfair labor practice charge on December 7. 1978.
According to Respondent. if any violation occurred,
it occurred on October 3. 1977, the date the Union
filed a grievance concerning the Employer's failure to
withhold the dues, or, at the latest, on February 21,
1978, when Respondent wrote the Employer to in-
voke arbitration of the matter.
On the other hand, the General Counsel contends
that the charge is not time-barred since both the arbi-
tration hearing on September 7, 1978, and the issu-
ance of the arbitration decision on September 22.
1978. occurred within the 6-month period. The Gen-
eral Counsel argues that these dates are critical, since
it was only after the issuance of the arbitration deci-
sion that Respondent was able to effectuate its coer-
cive purpose, by obtaining the [nmployer's compli-
ance with Respondent's demand that the ELmploer
deduct union dues from Davis' pa\icheck.
We agree with the General Counsel that the charge
herein is not barred by Section 10(h). This is so since
Respondent only obtained checkoff of D)avis' dues af-
ter the arbitrator's decision in its favor. The alleged
unlawful conduct was not effectuated until that time.
and thus the charge is not time-barred. 8
We also agree with the General Counsel that the
Board should not defer to the arbitrator's September
22, 1978, decision in which he found that under the
contract and Board law the Employer was required to
withhold Davis' union dues until Davis revoked his
dues-checkoff agreement in a timely fashion. The
General Counsel takes the position that deferral is not
,appropriate under Spielherg. since Howard I)avis was
not a party to the arbitration, and the decision, in an'
event, is repugnant to the Act. Respondent takes no
position on whether the Board should defer to the
arbitrator's decision.
Under Spielberg. the Board will defer to an arbitra-
tion decision when: (I) it appears to have been fair
and regular: (2) all parties have agreed to be bound:
and (3) the decision is not repugnant to the purposes
and policies of the Act. It is also necessary that the
arbitrator's decision resolve the unfair labor practice
issues presented.' In the instant case, only the Em-
ployer and the Union were parties to the arbitration.
tloward Davis was not a party, he was not a witness
or even present at the hearing, and he did not partici-
pate in the arbitration in any way. Nevertheless, the
arbitrator found not only that the the Employer was
required to withhold L)avis' dues pursuant to the
checkoff agreement, but also that Davis. and not the
Employer, was required to pay the Union for the
back dues.
Under these circumstances, we agree with the Gen-
eral C('ounsel that Howard Davis should have been a
party to the arbitration, or at least that he should
have been permitted to present evidence or argument
in his own behalf.:l The subject matter of the arbitra-
I ior this same result, see Vc .e Meicri Dntri, r ( ild o!, ( arpntr l nd
Jinerv 4 4merua, I l t a! 4 . Irner In ), 176 Nl RB 797 (1969) (halil
/euri, 7ean.stnirs and Itelper.s "(;'eral" loa[in A 21 t, (]ai ' .S l San td
(;raol ( mpanyl), 155 N LRB 273 19651
Raidheon ('clpare. 140 NRB 883 (1963). enlorcement denied on olihcr
grounds 326 F2d 471 (Ist (r 1964)
I0 this latter lactor dstinguishes this case trom Ih .,oial6/d PreI,, 199
N I.RB 1110 (1972). here the Board deterred to 1a arhillrat ln decision
similar to the one herein, since in 4sl.o. tlater d Preo. eenl though the empil(o-
ees ere not parties to the arbitration. he? were permitted to present ullk
their elidence and arguments.
880
SI I1.'()RKI RS. I()( A () 4l
tion directl' atlected him. and his interests could not
be adequatel\ represented bh either the nion ()or the
t mplo er.
Both the Employer and the I nion took posilions at
odds with )avis' interest, since the tinion \ as seek-
ing dues. and the ltmploer contended that if dues
were owing. Davis- not the Lmplo er was liable to
pay them. he arbitrator agreed with the :nlploer.
concluding that "it would he extremely doubtful that
Mr. I);avis would have a defense to the (omppan\'s
third parts claim for the dues against \r. I)a;l i
Accord illgl. xse find that the arbitralioll procccdiIlg
does not nlee the second criterion of,l .S'pichicrg ad l
we will not efer to the decision.
Finall. we are presented with the question of
whether )avis' resignation from Respondent tInion.
Whn the collective-hargaining agreement pro itdes
for maintenance of membership, had the effect of re-
voking )avis' checkoff authorization which lie igned
in 1971. Respondent argues that the resignation was
inetlective for two reasons: (I) l)a is' resignationl dli
not communicate an unambiguous intent to revoke
the checkoff, and (2) even if it did, the resignation did
not comply with the time and service requirements
contained in the checkoff authorization. In support of
its position. Respondent states that [)avis' intention
to revoke must be unambiguous since other ise the
logical inference is that, while Davis no longer wished
to be a full member of the Union. he intended to
support the Union financially. as a financial core
member.
The General Counsel on the other hand, argues
that the resignation relieved Davis of anN obligation
to pay dues. According to the General Counsel. ter-
mination of membership extinguished any obligation
to pay dues under either the collective-bargaining
agreement or the checkoff authorization. In this re-
gard the General Counsel emphasizes that there is no
provision in either the contract or the checkoff autho-
rization for a financial-core membership via payment
of a service fee in lieu of membership dues. Rather.
the payment of dues is the quid pro quo for member-
ship rights.
We have reviewed carefully the arguments of both
sides and the relevant precedents and have con-
cluded, under the facts presented here, that Davis'
resignation relieved him of any obligation to pay
dues. In so holding, we rely on two recent Board deci-
sions Frilo-lavY, Inc. I aInd ('amphell Inlrr ict., L'
" 243 N.iRH 17 (19791. Menmber Murph? discnnting
1? .Sn D.lg ( un Droilr ri ( itmn /l s/ ( arpen,-c. I iled Bril lrh,,,rd r,
(I'arpenlr and J neri , .lwrln. .4l. ( 10 ( aimpnp ll IiulricL. 243
NlRB 147 11979). NMember Murph dssenting.
Allhough Memhber Pencli did nl prlticipate in ( amprel,. he hhee
Ihat l ia it orreIl l decided and. lor Ihe reasons ated ni/ra, ilonludes lhl.l
is principles are iconlrolling hele lfI, cvcr. wilh regard II rir,* ,11,. In
whsth Member Pencillo A.- did rll p.lfrtllipale. he tillid. 1l he li c u -ll
slancs ,t thl case. tha.t It i ilnnecess.lrx It. pk.ic a1n rel.hantc therein
bolh of 'hIIcl II Oil c sIul'ii legal questions,. I1
(Camp/el/ Ielipvh. iilffio'ces truck til;l.s i n the
expiration of the collecti c-hirgeainiig grellenll.
I)uring the strike, and prior to the slning of a n.ie,
aIg-eClmenCt, some eInlo ecs resignlled At 1 Cl(l sCd 1the
picket line. None specificalll revokeil their dlues-
checkofft authorizations." Both the expired ;anld the
new collective-bargaining agreements conlta inc1
unioll-securit prox:isions clih required an em-
ploN!ee to Join the union h Ihis 31,t ',ta otl mph,!-
menit ()n these facts. the A\dllilistra;ti .C I ;l\ Ildc
cotncludedl that the mplo cs rcilgnatiions fronl tl
unilon iil lnot al'ec the enllpo, Xes' obligation to pa 5
ilues piursuanit to the checkofl authorization for the
period of the strike. Ihe \dlmillistrati e aw Judge
reasoned that the resignations ere ineffecti' e to re-
voke the checkoff because the resignations were nit
timeIl ithin the re ocation clause of the authoriza-
tion. ie further concluded that the resignations uere
ineffectixe as a matter of' law since resignation hb it-
selfl did not show that the emplo ees intendletl to
cease paying dues for all purposes: the emplosees
could resign from membership. but still wish to pa\
dues in order to support tile union financiallN. Alter-
nati els. the Administrative I.au Judge rejected the
argument that the checkoff ' as an integral part of the
union-security clause, and that, therefore, when the
union-securit clause ,,ias not in effect the checkoff'
was ineffective. He found that. under the Act, a
checkoff authorization is an "independent wage as-
signment" which is unaffected b the expiration of
the union-securitN clause.
The Board. however. reversed the Administrative
I.aw Judge, and tfound that the union violated Section
8(b)( I )(A) by virtue of its successful collection of dues
during the hiatus period bet,.een collective-hargain-
ing agreements. The Board examined the checkoff au-
thorization itself; and noted that "it is furnished 'in
consideration of the benefits received and to he re-
ceived by me as a result of m\ membership in the
Union. " Because of this "specific language." the
Board concluded that "an effective resignation from
the Local Union also revoked the checkoff authoriza-
tion by operation of law.'' 4
B'3 contrast the checkoff authorization in Frito-Lay
did not contain any language which showed that the
payment of dues was in consideration for member-
ship. Moreover. the expired collective-bargaining
agreement contained an agenc\-shop clause which re-
the alltlhorlizaiuln a; ep.arae trolm Ihc expired collelixe-hargaining
.igrcenicllei In pertinentll part. the tc it Ilhc .lilhorlin v., s.s, Ii,ns
NunS. IliI RI IIIRI, In co,nsider;llion oI the bhenetil rcclcd nd t hI
rccl.eicd h
.
I ,me i. re.ulil lI mr merclship in Ihe Ihc / n. i. Ihe
unldel rlgedi. ol m o-sn Iree ull n a. acord. hereh authi r i/e and
direclt i
1
l clrp;ain to1 dedlucl nl\ nrlthls rllermhrship dlles n sIPI
I nn tril m\ lirMp pi itf eich iliHli , I . curtilrrl minth
'4 ( i.nip/l.L pr
,Sl
I)8 LCISIONS 01 NA'IIONAI. ILABOR REIAIIONS BOARD
quired the payment of dues regardless of whether the
employee was a member of the union. Under these
circumstances, the Board concluded that resignation
from the union did not, as a matter of law, revoke the
checkoff. The Board also held in Frito-l.av that a re-
vocation, in order to be effective, had to be accom-
plished during the time periods set out in the checkoff
authorization itself, even during the hiatus between
contracts. Since the revocations were not timely and
the resignation was ineffective, the Board concluded
that the union's successful collection of dues during
the hiatus was lawful.
In the instant case, Davis effectively resigned from
the Union. He did not, however, comply with the re-
vocation provision of the checkoff' authorization.
Both the new and the old contracts contained a main-
tenance-of-mermbership provision, which requires em-
plovees who are members when the contract is signed
to remain members for the duration of the agreement.
The contract also provides from checkoff' of' each
member's dues, pursuant to an authorization. Since
Davis did not revoke his authorization in a timely
manner, the issue is whether his resignation, as a mat-
ter of law, revoked the authorization. Under ('amp-
bell and Frilo-lav, in order to answer this question
we look to the authorization itself. It provides, in rel-
evant part:
Pursuant to this authorization and assignment.
please deduct from my pay each month while I
am in employment within the collective-bargain-
ing unit in the Company, monthly dues, assess-
ments and (if owing by me) an initiation fee each
as designated by the International Secretary-
Treasurer of the Union, as my membership dues
in said Union. [G.C. Exh. A, emphasis supplied.]
Thus, the authorization states that the payment of
dues is in consideration for union membership. More-
over, there is no provision in either the authorization
or the collective-bargaining agreement fr financial-
core membership. Indeed, employees have no obliga-
tion either to join the Union or to pay dues, unless
they are union members when the contract is signed.
Under these facts, we conclude, as we did in Camp-
bell, that Davis' effective resignation from the Union
revoked his dues-checkoff authorization as a matter
of law. Accordingly, we find that Respondent's at-
tempt to cause, and is causing, the Employer to with-
hold Davis' dues for the period following his resigna-
tion, violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) and (2) of the Act.
CON(LUSIONS iOF LAW
1. Asarco Incorporated is an employer engaged in
commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7)
of the Act.
2. Respondent United Steelworkers of America,
AFI, ('10, Local No. 7450, is a labor organization
within the meaning of' Section 2(5) of' the Act.
3. By attempting to cause, and by causing, the Em-
ployer to withhold the dues of an employee who had
effectively resigned from Respondent where the em-
ployees' dues-checkoff authorization was in consider-
ation for union membership. Respondent violated
Section 8(b)( 1)(A) and (2) of the Act.
Tiiw Riaiin )y'
Having found that Respondent has engaged in un-
fair labor practices, we shall order it to cease and
desist therefrom, and to take certain affirmative ac-
tion to effectuate the policies of the Act.
We shall order Respondent to make I)avis' 5 whole
for any monetary loss Davis may have suffered by
reason of Respondent's unlawful conduct in causing
the Employer to withhold Davis' dues after Davis
had effectively resigned from Respondent's member-
ship, with interest in accord with the formula pre-
scribed in Fl'orida Sleel rporportion, 231 NLRB 651
(1977).'
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of' the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Rela-
tions Board hereby orders that the Respondent,
United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO, Local
No. 7450, Glover, Missouri, its officers, agents, and
representatives, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Causing dues to be withheld from employees
who have effectively resigned their union member-
ship.
(b) In any like or related manner restraining or co-
ercing employees in the exercise of the rights guaran-
teed them by Section 7 of' the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action designed
to effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Reimburse or refund to Howard Davis or an-
other appropriate party the dues unlawfully collected
from him for the period following his resignation, as
set out in the section herein entitled "The Remedy."
(b) Post at its offices and meeting halls in Glover,
Missouri, copies of the attached notice marked "Ap-
" We recognize that the arbitrator ordered Asarco. not Davis, to pay to
the Union the owed dues by making double the monthly payment until the
arrearage is current It also appears, however, that this money owed was
deducted rom Davis' paycheck and that therefore the Union must repay
l)avis. Thus, we iorder Respondent to repay Davis. unless the Employer can
show at the compliance stage that it paid D)avis' dues without deducting any
moneys from Davis' paycheck.
' See, generally, is Plumhing & Heating (o. 138 NLRB 716 (1962).
882
STEI.tWORKERS. IOCAI NO(). 7450)
pendix."l7 Copies of said notice, on forms provided
by the Regional Director for Region 14, after being
duly signed by Respondent's authorized representa-
tive, shall be posted by Respondent immediately
upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it fir 60
consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, in-
cluding all places where notices to employees and
members are customarily posted. Reasonable steps
shall be taken by Respondent to insure that said no-
tices are not altered, defaced. or covered by any other
material.
(c) Deliver to the Regional Director for Region 14
signed copies of said notice in sufficient number to be
posted by Asarco, Inc., if' it is willing.
(d) Notify the Regional Director for Region 14. in
writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order.
what steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
IT Is FRIltER ORDt-RI) that the remainder of the
complaint be, and it herebx is, dismissed.
MEMBER MURPHY, dissenting:
The majority here once again erroneously- finds
that resignation from a union is equivalent to revoca-
tion of a checkoff authorization and therefore finds
that the Union unlawfully caused the Employer to
withhold dues from employee Davis' pay. I disagree.
Davis resigned from the Union effective August 31,
1976, the last day of the then-current collective-bar-
gaining agreement, but did not take any specific ac-
tion to revoke his checkoff authorization either at that
time or, insofar as is shown by this record, at any
other.
The majority here finds, as it did in San Diego
County, District Council of Carpenters. United Brother-
hood of Carpenters and Joiners of A rnerica, A FL- CIO
(Campbell Industries), 243 NLRB 147 (1979), that an
employee's resignation from a union necessarily re-
vokes his or her dues-checkoff authorization where
the checkoff authorization contains language that the
payment of dues is in consideration for membership.
However, as I emphasized in my dissent in that case,
I In the event that this Order is enforced by a Judgment of a United
States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by Order of
the National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursuant to a Judg-
ment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board."
this should not be the law. as such language is merely
hortatory in that it recites the obvious quid pro quo of
all checkoff authorizations but possibly one. the
agency shop.
Accordingly. and for all reasons set forth in m~
opinion in Campbell. which I incorporate herein. I
dissent from the majority's finding" that the iUnion
violated Section 8(b)( I )(A) and (2) of the Act.
I agree lith the mal.rit. tr Ihe reasons ia ted h' hem. that the charge
herein is nol barred by Sec I(Xh) ol the ct and Ihat Ihe arhitrll.on pnrieed-
ng did not cmplh ith the standards estalhished mI .Spwlh1,rg tlmda,,II.ir lgi, i
(,oirpa.n. 112 NI RB 1(800 1955
Also. as thie case does not n,olve explicit res-,atlin o1 .a checkoff autho-
rilltion during a hiatus between collecte-hargalning agreerments, l,,ii,-li,
Irt. 243 N RR 137 (1979). n hich I dissenied. has r1 releance to Ihe
clrcumslance, at issule here
APPN 1I)I X
NOllt I To EMPIY I:-S NiND MI1tMBRS
PosTEDl BY O)RI)IR ()I IlF
NAII()NAI. LABO()R RIAII()ONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
After a hearing at which all parties had the opportu-
nity to present evidence, the National Labor Rela-
tions Board has found that we violated the National
Labor Relations Act and we have been ordered to
post this notice.
WE X1.. NO1 restrain or coerce employees
who exercise the rights guaranteed them in Sec-
tion 7 of the National Labor Relations Act in
effectively resigning their union membership and
returning to work by causing dues to he withheld
from such employees for the period after they
effectively resigned.
WE WIl.l. NOT in any like or related manner
restrain or coerce employees in the exercise of
the rights guaranteed them in Section 7 of the
Act.
WF WIlL reimburse, with interest, Howard
Davis for dues collected under the above-de-
scribed circumstances.
UNITED STEELWORKERS OF AMERICA AFL
CIO. LOCAL No. 7450
883