Teamsters Local 13 (Mobile Concrete)

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 14, 1984

268 N.L.R.B. 930 (N.L.R.B. 1984)

DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Teamsters Construction Workers Local Union No.
13 (Mobile Pre-Mix Concrete) and Bernard E.
Piper. Case 27-CB-1501
14 February 1984
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN DOTSON AND MEMBERS
ZIMMERMAN AND HUNTER
Upon a charge filed by Bernard E. Piper on 25
August 1980, the General Counsel of the National
Labor Relations Board issued a complaint and
notice of hearing on 24 February 1981 against the
Union, Teamsters Construction Workers Local No.
13.
The complaint alleges that Respondent violated
Section 8(b)(1)(A) and (2) of the Act by suspending
Piper from membership in the Union for failure to
pay dues without notifying him of the precise
amount and months for which dues were owed, ex-
plaining to him the method of computation used,
apprising him that discharge would result from fail-
ure to pay, providing him with a reasonable oppor-
tunity to make payment, and by attempting to
cause the Employer to discharge him.
On 15 October 1982, the parties to this proceed-
ing entered into a stipulation of facts and of the
record. The parties agree that the stipulation of
facts with its exhibits attached thereto constitute
the entire record in this case and that no oral testi-
mony is necessary or desired by any of the parties.
They waive a hearing before, and the making of
findings of fact and conclusions of law by, a judge,
and submit the proceeding for findings of fact, con-
clusions of law, and an order directly to the Board.
On I February 1983, the Board approved the stipu-
lation and ordered the proceeding transferred to it.
The General Counsel and Respondent filed briefs.
The National Labor Relations Board had dele-
gated its authority in this proceeding to a three-
member panel.
The Board has considered the entire record
herein and the briefs and makes the following find-
ings of fact and conclusions of law.
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER
The parties stipulated, and we find, that the Em-
ployer, Mobile Pre-Mix Concrete, Inc., sells ready
mixed concrete and concrete aggregates valued in
excess of $50,000 directly to companies, each of
which purchases and receives goods and materials
valued in excess of $50,000 directly from outside
the State of Colorado, and that the Employer is an
employer engaged in commerce and operations af-
fecting commerce within the meaning of Section
2(6) and (7) of the Act.
268 NLRB No. 140
II1. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The parties stipulated, and we find, that Team-
sters Construction Workers Local Union No. 13 is,
and at all times material herein has been, a labor
organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of
the Act.
III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The Stipulated Facts
Bernard E. Piper was hired by Mobile Pre-Mix
Concrete, Inc., on 28 February 1979. He was im-
mediately informed by the employer that he would
have to join the Union after 30 days of employ-
ment and that he should tender the initiation fees to
the Union when approached by it. The pertinent
collective-bargaining agreement between Respond-
ent and the Employer contains a union-security
clause which provides that "good standing" union
membership is a condition of employment. Piper
was finally "approached" by Respondent a few
days before 6 May 1980.1 At that time he offered a
check to the Union's steward which was not ac-
cepted because the steward was not bonded.
During the same conversation they discussed
whether Piper was liable for all of the dues follow-
ing his date of hire. On 5 May Piper filled out an
application for membership in the Union and ten-
dered the Union's business agent a check dated 6
May for the initiation fee and 1 month's dues. Piper
was given a receipt for this payment and allegedly
was mailed a second receipt which credited dues
paid through April. Piper denies having received
the second receipt. Thereafter, he was mailed a
union membership card dated 6 May.
On 13 June Piper paid another month's dues by
check which contained the note "dues for June 80"
on its face. He was given a receipt which credited
dues paid through May. On 11 August Piper's wife
mailed to the Union a check for $36 with the note
"July & Aug. 1980" written on its face.
On 14 August Respondent notified Piper,
through letter, that he had been "automatically sus-
pended" for having been 2 months in arrears in the
payment of dues. Section 18(c) of the Respondent's
bylaws provide for the automatic suspension of
members for failure to pay dues after 2 months in
arrears. The letter invited Piper to rejoin the Union
by paying a reinitiation fee of $225 and I month's
dues of $18. It did not specify the months in ar-
rears, the method of computation, or the possible
consequences of failing to secure reinstatement of
membership. Subsequently, on 21 August, Re-
spondent requested the Employer to terminate
I Dates hereinafter refer to 1980.
930
TEAMSTERS LOCAL 13 (MOBILE PRE-MIX CONCRETE)
Piper for failure to tender periodic union dues.
After receiving the suspension letter, Piper was
personally advised of his right to appeal the matter
to the Local Union Executive Board. Piper submit-
ted letters appealing the Local Union's determina-
tion to the Union's General Executive Board in
Washington, D.C., the Local Executive Board and
the Local Joint Board.
After the filing of the charge in this proceeding,
Respondent, in a letter to the employer dated 26
August, rescinded its request for the dismissal of
Piper pending the outcome of the charges before
the Board. Piper then paid the reinitiation fee.
B. Discussion
In Teamsters Local 122 (August A. Bush & Co.),
203 NLRB 1041 (1973), the Board noted that a
union has a "fiduciary duty to treat [its members]
fairly" and held that "before a union may cause a
member's discharge from employment because of
dues arrearage . . . it must meet this 'minimum' ob-
ligation by giving reasonable notice of the delin-
quency, including a statement of the precise
amount and months for which dues were owed, as
well as an explanation of the method used in com-
puting such amount." See also Western Publishing
Co., 263 NLRB 1110 (1982). Later, in Distillery
Workers Local 38 (Schenley Distillers), 242 NLRB
370 (1979), the Board added that a union's fiduci-
ary duty included informing the members "when
such payments are to be made and that discharge
will result from failure to pay" (footnote omitted).
The Board further stated that a "clear and unambi-
guous" notice of the dues delinquencies must be
given to the member and that "[e]ven if a union
member is aware generally of the obligation under
a union-security provision, a union is still required
to give specific and advance notice of the arrear-
ages, and meet the minimum level of conduct re-
quired under its fiduciary duty ... ."
Applying the above principles to the case at
hand, we conclude that Respondent's notice of sus-
pension of 14 August 1980 did not constitute "ad-
vance" notice 2 of the alleged dues delinquency and
did not include information about the precise
months for which dues were owed, explanation of
the method used in computing3 such amount or
2 Respondent alleges that it sent Piper a postcard apprising him of his
dues delinquency. However, Piper denied receiving such postcard and
Respondent did not produce actual evidence of the mailing. Examining a
copy submitted in evidence of a sample of the preprinted postcard, we
note that it nevertheless fails to meet the requirements mentioned above.
3 We also note that Respondent's bylaws provide that "no applicant
shall become a member in the first ten days following the acceptance of
his written application." Accordingly, since Piper filed his membership
application on 5 May 1980 and received his membership card dated 6
May 1980, logically the first month he was required to pay dues was
May, rather than April as Respondent contends. Under this rationale,
Piper never achieved the "automatic suspended status." Respondent's
notice of the possible consequences of nonpayment.
Thus, it necessarily follows that Respondent
breached its fiduciary duty to treat Piper fairly by
not exercising the minimum level of conduct re-
quired.4
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Respondent -breached its fiduciary duty to treat
Piper fairly by not informing him of the precise
monthly dues held in arrears, the method of com-
putation of the amount alleged by owed, and by
failing to give him adequate advance notice of the
delinquent union dues and of the consequences of
membership suspension in a clear and unambiguous
fashion. Further, by threatening and attempting to
cause the Employer to discharge him, Respondent
has engaged in unfair labor practices affecting com-
merce within the meaning of Section 8(b)(1)(A)
and (2) of the Act.
REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has violated
Section 8(b)(1)(A) and (2) of the Act, we shall
order it to: cease and desist from such conduct and
take appropriate remedial action; advise the em-
ployer in writing that it rescinds any request or
demand that Piper be discharged or not be allowed
to work; advise Piper, in writing, that the actions
found illegal or unfair in this Decision are rescind-
ed; post at its business office copies of the attached
notice marked "Appendix"; refund Piper for the
reinitiation fee paid since said payment was insisted
on by Respondent as a condition for Piper's contin-
ued employment.
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board orders that
the Respondent, Teamsters Construction Workers
Local Union No. 13, its officers, agents, and repre-
sentatives, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Threatening discharge or attempting or caus-
ing Mobile Pre-Mix Concrete, Inc., to discharge or
to otherwise discriminate against Bernard E. Piper
for failure to tender periodic dues without ade-
quately advising him of his obligations.
mailing of a receipt in June 1980 crediting dues payment through May
1980 is insufficient notice particularly in light of the fact that Piper noted
on the face of his payment checks the months for which payment was
intended.
4 The complaint alleges that the suspension alone violated the Act. By
suspending Piper from membership Respondent did not, per se, commit
an unfair labor practice. Expulsion from membership in a labor organiza-
tion is a matter of internal union concern, and does not in and of itself
give rise to a violation of the Act. Teamsters Local 122, supra. Accord-
ingly, we shall dismiss this part of the complaint.
931
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
(b) In any like or related manner restraining or
coercing employees in the exercise of the rights
guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which
the Board finds will effectuate the policies of the
Act.
(a) Refund Bernard E. Piper the reinitiation fees
paid by him to Respondent.
(b) Notify the employer, Mobile Pre-Mix Con-
crete, Inc., in writing, and advise Bernard E. Piper,
in writing, that it rescinds any request or demand
that said employee be discharged or not allowed to
work and that it has no objection to his continued
employment with unimpaired rights and privileges.
(c) Post at its business office copies of the at-
tached notice marked "Appendix." 5 Copies of the
notice, on forms provided by the Regional Direc-
tor for Region 27, after being duly signed by the
Respondent's authorized representative, shall be
posted by the Respondent immediately upon re-
ceipt and maintained for 60 consecutive days in
conspicuous places including all places where no-
tices to mnembers are customarily posted. Reasona-
ble steps shall be taken by the Respondent to
ensure that the notices are not altered, defaced, or
covered by any other material.
Notify the Regional Director in writing within
20 days from the date of this Order what steps the
Respondent has taken to comply.
s 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."
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the allegation that
Respondent violated the Act by suspending Piper
from membership is dismissed.
APPENDIX
NOTICE To MEMBERS
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
The National Labor Relations Board has found
that we violated the National Labor Relations Act
and has ordered us to post and abide by this notice.
WE WILL NOT threaten, cause, or attempt to
cause Mobile Pre-Mix Concrete, Inc., to discharge
or to otherwise discriminate against Bernard E.
Piper, or any other employee for failure to tender
periodic dues without adequately advising him of
his obligations.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner re-
strain or coerce employees in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL reimburse Bernard E. Piper for the
reinitiation fees paid by him to us.
WE WILL notify Mobile Pre-Mix Concrete, Inc.,
in writing, and advise Bernard E. Piper, in writing,
that we rescind any request or demand that he be
discharged or not allowed to work and that we
have no objection to his continued employment
with unimpaired rights and privileges.
TEAMSTERS CONSTRUCTION WORK-
ERS LOCAL UNION NO. 13
932