Teamsters Local 166 (Dyncorp Support Services)

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 26, 2001

333 N.L.R.B. 1145 (N.L.R.B. 2001)

TEAMSTERS LOCAL 166 1145
International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Local 166,
AFL–CIO and Nadine Penrod and Robert Pen-
rod and John P. Burnham and Clement Wierz-
bicki and Dyncorp Support Services Operations,
Fort Irwin Division, Party to the Contract.
Cases 31–CB–8333, 31–CB–8683, and 31–CB–
8938
April 26, 2001
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS LIEBMAN, HURTGEN, AND
WALSH
On March 23, 1999, the National Labor Relations
Board issued its Decision and Order in the above-
captioned case.1 The Board found that the Respondent,
Teamsters Local 166, unlawfully failed to inform Charg-
ing Party John Burnham that, as a nonmember of the
Union, he had the right under Communications Workers
v. Beck2 to object to having his union dues and fees spent
for nonrepresentational activities and that, if he objected,
he would be charged only for representational activities.
The Board also found that the Respondent unlawfully
failed to inform Charging Parties Robert Penrod, Nadine
Penrod, and Clement Wierzbicki in a timely fashion that
as Beck objectors they would not be charged for nonrep-
resentational activities, the percentage by which their
dues and fees would be reduced, the basis of the calcula-
tion, and that they would have an opportunity to chal-
lenge the Respondent’s determination. Finally, the
Board found that, even after the Respondent provided
certain information to the other Charging Parties, it
unlawfully failed to provide some of that information to
Nadine Penrod. The Board found that by this conduct,
the Respondent violated its duty of fair representation
and Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act.
The Board found, however, that the Respondent did
not act unlawfully by failing to inform Burnham, who
was not a Beck objector, of the percentage of union funds
that were spent on nonrepresentational activities during
the previous year, and thus, the percentage by which
dues and fees would be reduced for objectors. The
Board also found that the information belatedly given
Wierzbicki and Robert Penrod was adequate. Thus, the
Board found that the Respondent had provided copies of
an auditor’s worksheet, which showed the Respondent’s
major categories of expenditures and the percentages of
each category and of total spending which the Respon-
dent attributed to representational and nonrepresenta-
tional activities. The Respondent also provided copies of
the auditor’s opinion letter and a letter describing the
provisions under which the objectors could challenge the
Respondent’s calculations and stating that any chal-
lenged amounts would be placed in escrow pending reso-
lution of the challenge. The Board rejected arguments
that certain items referred to in the auditor’s worksheet
were excessively vague and imprecise. It also found that
the Respondent was not required to furnish certain
schedules and a “breakdown” referred to in the auditor’s
worksheet, to identify its affiliates that received the sums
referred to as “per capita,” or to provide a breakdown of
those entities’ expenditures.

1 327 NLRB 950.
2 487 U.S. 735 (1988).
The Charging Parties petitioned for review in the D.C.
Circuit. On February 22, 2000, the court of appeals
granted the petition for review.3 The court held, contrary
to the Board, that the Respondent was required to inform
new employees and “financial core” payors such as
Burnham of the percentage reduction in dues and fees for
Beck objectors.4 The court also held that the notice to
objectors was inadequate. It noted that although the Re-
spondent identified its general categories of spending, its
disclosure did not include a separate list of union activi-
ties, the schedules and “breakdown” mentioned in the
auditor’s report, or an opportunity to obtain a detailed
explanation of how the Respondent calculated its ex-
pense allocations.5 The court also held that the Respon-
dent was required to inform the Charging Parties of the
identities of its affiliates and how the affiliates used the
funds paid to them.6 The court remanded the case to the
Board for proceedings consistent with its opinion.
On May 17, 2000, the Board advised the parties that it
had accepted the court’s remand and that the parties
might file statements of position with respect to the is-
sues raised by the remand. The Charging Parties and the
Respondent filed statements of position.
The National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
Having accepted the court’s remand, we also accept its
opinion as the law of the case. We therefore find, in ad-
dition to the violations previously found, that the Re-
spondent violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) by failing to pro-
vide the Penrods and Wierzbicki with adequate informa-
tion concerning its expenditures and those of its affiliates
with which it shared money from dues and fees, and by
failing to inform Burnham in a timely fashion of the per-
centage reduction in dues and fees for Beck objectors.
Having found that the Respondent violated Section
8(b)(1)(A) of the Act, we shall order it to cease and de-
3 Penrod v. NLRB, 203 F.3d 41.
4 Id. at 47–48.
5 Id. at 45–46.
6 Id. at 46–47.
333 NLRB No. 141
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 1146
sist and to take certain affirmative action necessary to
effectuate the policies of the Act. Specifically, we shall
order the Respondent to furnish the information required
under the court’s opinion, to the extent that that informa-
tion has not already been provided.
With regard to the general disclosures to the objectors,
we note that, although the court found the information
provided by the Respondent to be inadequate, it did not
specify what information was required. The court did,
however, fault the Respondent for failing to provide the
schedules and “breakdown” referred to in the auditor’s
report.7 It also described with apparent approval the dis-
closure furnished by the union in Gilpin v. American
Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees.8
Thus, in addition to the type of information provided by
the Respondent, the union in Gilpin furnished a list of its
functional activities (such as publishing a union newslet-
ter and adjusting grievances), stating the percentage of
expenditures for each activity it considered to be charge-
able or nonchargeable. The union also offered to pro-
vide, for a fee of $1.50, a copy of an arbitrator’s ruling
purportedly supporting the union’s allocation of ex-
penses.9 The D.C. Circuit agreed with the Seventh Cir-
cuit that the disclosure in Gilpin “gave objectors a basis
for objecting to the union’s calculation of reduced
dues.”10 Thus, although the court did not specify the
information the Respondent was required to disclose, it
did indicate that disclosure such as the union provided in
Gilpin would be sufficient.
In view of the foregoing, we find it appropriate to or-
der the Respondent to furnish the Penrods and Wierz-
bicki copies of the schedules and “breakdown” referred
to in the auditor’s report, as well as a list of its major
activities and the percentages of each activity that it con-
siders to be chargeable and nonchargeable. We shall also
order the Respondent to provide the objectors a detailed
explanation of how it calculated its allocation of expendi-
tures.11
With regard to information concerning payments to the
Respondent’s affiliates, the court indicated that the Re-
spondent was required to inform the objectors about
which affiliates received funds from dues and fees and
how the affiliates used the funds.12 Accordingly, we
shall order the Respondent to identify the affiliates with
which it shared income from dues and fees, the amounts

7 Id. at 46.
8 875 F.2d 1310 (7th Cir. 1989), cited at 203 F.3d at 46.
9 875 F.2d at 1316.
10 203 F.3d at 46.
11 There is no evidence that any arbitrator’s ruling, such as that in
Gilpin, exists in this case.
12 203 F.3d at 46–47.
of income shared, and the activities of the affiliates and
the percentages of each activity of each affiliate that it
considers chargeable and nonchargeable. As with the
general disclosures, we shall order the Respondent to
provide a detailed explanation of how the affiliates’ ex-
pense allocations were calculated.
We shall also, consistent with the court’s opinion, or-
der the Respondent to provide Burnham with the per-
centage reduction in dues and fees for objecting non-
members. We note, however, that although the Respon-
dent failed to furnish Burnham that information in a
timely fashion, it ultimately informed him of the percent-
age his dues would be reduced at the same time and in
the same manner as it informed Robert Penrod and
Wierzbicki. There is no allegation that the substance of
that disclosure was inadequate. Our order, therefore
should not be construed as requiring the Respondent to
provide the same information to Burnham a second time.
The Charging Parties contend that the Board should
order the Respondent to notify all employees in the bar-
gaining unit of their right not to be union members13 and
of their Beck rights, and also to tell them how much their
fees would have been reduced for each year since 1992
had they filed Beck objections. The Charging Parties
also argue that all employees must be given an opportu-
nity to resign and receive retroactive refunds of dues and
fees back to 1992.14 The Respondent contends that af-
firmative relief should be limited to the Charging Parties.
We agree with the Respondent that unit-wide remedies
are unwarranted. As the Board found in its earlier deci-
sion, there is no allegation, and no evidence, that the Re-
spondent failed to inform anyone besides the Charging
Parties of their General Motors or Beck rights.15 Simi-
larly, there is no allegation, and no evidence, that the
Respondent failed to furnish employees with any re-
quired information since 1992. We therefore have no
basis on which to require additional disclosures for any
year after 1992. We note, in addition, that there is no
suggestion in the court’s opinion that it faulted the Board
for failing to order such remedies in our original deci-
sion.
AMENDED ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board orders that the
Respondent, International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
13 See NLRB v. General Motors Corp., 373 U.S. 734 (1963).
14 See Rochester Mfg. Co., 323 NLRB 260, 262–263 (1997), affd.
sub nom. Cecil v. NLRB, 194 F.3d 1311 (6th Cir. 1999), cert. denied
529 U.S. 1066 (2000).
15 327 NLRB at 955. In this regard, Rochester Mfg. Co., supra, and
certain other decisions relied on by the Charging Parties are distin-
guishable from this case.
TEAMSTERS LOCAL 166 (DYNCORP SUPPORT SERVICES) 1147
Local 166, AFL–CIO, its officers, agents, and represen-
tatives, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Failing to inform nonmember unit employees,
when it first seeks to obligate them to pay dues and fees
under a union-security clause, of the rights of nonmem-
bers under Communications Workers v. Beck, 487 U.S.
735 (1988), to object to paying for union activities not
germane to the Respondent’s duties as bargaining agent
and to obtain a reduction in dues and fees for such activi-
ties, and of the percentage reduction in dues and fees for
objectors.
(b) Failing to inform objecting nonmembers from
whom it seeks to collect dues and fees of the percentage
reduction in dues and fees for union activities for objec-
tors, the basis for the calculation, and their right to chal-
lenge the figures.
(c) Charging nonmember unit employees for nonrepre-
sentational activities after they have filed Beck objec-
tions.
(d) 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) Notify John P. Burnham, in writing, of his right to
be and remain a nonmember and of the rights of non-
members under Communications Workers v. Beck to ob-
ject to paying for union activities not germane to the Re-
spondent’s duties as bargaining agent, and to obtain a
reduction in dues and fees for such activities. In addi-
tion, this notice must include sufficient information to
enable Burnham intelligently to decide whether to object,
including the percentage reduction in dues and fees for
union activities for objectors, as well as a description of
any internal union procedures for filing objections.
(b) Notify Robert Penrod, Nadine Penrod, and Clement
Wierzbicki, in writing, of their rights as objectors under
Communications Workers v. Beck not to be charged for
nonrepresentational activities.
(c) Provide Nadine Penrod with its 1991 statement of
expenses.
(d) Provide the Penrods and Wierzbicki with the fol-
lowing for 1991: the schedules and “breakdown” referred
to in the statement of expenses; a list of its major activi-
ties, the percentage of each activity which the Respon-
dent considers chargeable and nonchargeable, and a de-
tailed explanation of how it calculated its allocation of
expenditures; the names of any of its affiliates with
which it shared income from dues and fees, the amounts
of income shared, the activities of each of the affiliates
and the percentage of each activity of each affiliate that it
considers chargeable and nonchargeable, and a detailed
explanation of how the affiliates’ expense allocations
were calculated.
(e) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at
its union hall offices copies of the attached notice
marked “Appendix.”16 Copies of the notice, on forms
provided by the Regional Director for Region 31, after
being signed by the Respondent’s authorized representa-
tive, shall be posted by the Respondent and maintained
for 60 consecutive days in conspicuous places including
all places where notices to employees and members are
customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by
the Respondent to ensure that the notices are not altered,
defaced, or covered by any other material.
(f) Within 21 days after service by the Region, file
with the Regional Director a sworn certification of a re-
sponsible official on a form provided by the Region at-
testing to the steps that the Respondent has taken to
comply.
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
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 vio-
lated the National Labor Relations Act and has ordered us to
post and abide by this notice.

Section 7 of the Act gives employees these rights.
To organize
To form, join, or assist any union
To bargain collectively through representatives
of their own choice
To act together for other mutual aid or protection
To choose not to engage in any of these protected
concerted activities.

WE WILL NOT fail to inform nonmember unit em-
ployees, when we first seek to obligate them to pay dues
and fees under a union-security clause, of the rights of
nonmembers under Communications Workers v. Beck,
487 U.S. 735 (1988), to object to paying for union activi-
ties not germane to our duties as bargaining agent and to
obtain a reduction in dues and fees for such activities,
and of the percentage reduction in dues and fees for ob-
jectors.

16 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 Judg-
ment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the
National Labor Relations Board.”
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 1148
WE WILL NOT fail to inform objecting nonmembers
from whom we seek to collect dues and fees of the per-
centage reduction in dues and fees for union activities for
objectors, the basis for the calculation, and their right to
challenge the figures.
WE WILL NOT charge nonmember unit employees
for nonrepresentational activities after they have filed
Beck objections.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner restrain
or coerce you in the exercise of the rights guaranteed you
by Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL notify John P. Burnham, in writing, of his
right to be and remain a nonmember and of the rights of
nonmembers under Communications Workers v. Beck to
object to paying for union activities not germane to our
duties as bargaining agent, and to obtain a reduction in
dues and fees for such activities. In addition, this notice
will include sufficient information to enable Burnham
intelligently to decide whether to object, including the
percentage reduction in dues and fees for union activities
for objectors, as well as a description of any internal un-
ion procedures for filing objections.
WE WILL notify Robert Penrod, Nadine Penrod, and
Clement Wierzbicki, in writing, of their rights as objec-
tors under Communications Workers v. Beck not to be
charged for nonrepresentational activities.
WE WILL provide Nadine Penrod with our 1991
statement of expenses.
WE WILL provide the Penrods and Wierzbicki with
the following for 1991: the schedules and “breakdown”
referred to in our statement of expenses; a list of our ma-
jor activities, the percentage of each activity which we
consider chargeable and nonchargeable, and a detailed
explanation of how we calculated our allocation of ex-
penditures; the names of any of our affiliates with which
we shared income from dues and fees, the amounts of
income shared, the activities of each of the affiliates and
the percentage of each activity of each affiliate that we
consider chargeable and nonchargeable, and a detailed
explanation of how the affiliates’ expense allocations
were calculated.
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF
TEAM-STERS, LOCAL 166, AFL–CIO