Teamsters Local 492 (United Parcel Service)

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 31, 2006

346 N.L.R.B. 360 (N.L.R.B. 2006)

DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
346 NLRB No. 37
360
International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Local Union
492 (United Parcel Service, Inc.)1 and Monte
Hadley and Joe B. Fuller and John E. Hutchison
and David Hassey and Wesley Zane Rose and
Nina L. Loomis and Gary L. Danner and Cheryl
Smith. Cases 28–CB–4844, 28–CB–4870, 28–
CB–4871–1, 28–CB–4876, 28–CB–4878, 28–CB–
4878–2, 28–CB–4898, and 28–CB–4924
January 31, 2006
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN BATTISTA AND MEMBERS LIEBMAN
AND SCHAUMBER
Pursuant to charges filed by Monte Hadley, Joe B.
Fuller, John E. Hutchison, David Hassey, Wesley Zane
Rose, Nina L. Loomis, Gary L. Danner, and Cheryl
Smith against International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Local 492, the General Counsel of the National Labor
Relations Board issued an order consolidating cases,
consolidated complaint, and notice of hearing on October
27, 1998. The complaint alleges that the Respondent
violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act by (1) maintaining
and enforcing a collective-bargaining agreement with a
union-security clause; (2) failing to inform employees of
their rights under NLRB v. General Motors Corp., 373
U.S. 734 (1963),2 and Communications Workers v. Beck,
487 U.S. 735 (1988);3 (3) failing to provide Beck objec-
tors with information to which they were entitled; (4)
charging Beck objectors dues and fees for nonchargeable
expenditures; (5) failing to timely honor employees’ res-
ignations from the Union; (6) informing employees who
had resigned from the Union that they had to pay dues
for periods in which no union-security clause was in ef-
fect, as well as additional initiation fees, and that failure
to do so might lead to their termination; and (7) inform-
ing employees that it was processing internal union

1 The caption and name of the Respondent in this case have been
amended to reflect the disaffiliation of the Teamsters from the AFL–
CIO effective July 25, 2005.
2 Under Sec. 8(a)(3) and (b)(2) of the Act, an employer and a union
may enter into a collective-bargaining agreement containing a union-
security clause, i.e., a requirement that employees be union members as
a condition of employment. In General Motors, however, the Supreme
Court held that the only membership requirement that may be enforced
under a union-security clause is the payment of uniform dues and fees.
As the Court put it, “‘membership’ as a condition of employment is
whittled down to its financial core.” 373 U.S. at 742.
3 In Beck, the Supreme Court held that the only union dues and fees
a nonmember employee can be required to pay as a condition of em-
ployment are those for union expenditures related to collective bargain-
ing, contract administration, and grievance adjustment. If a nonmem-
ber objects to paying for other, nonrepresentational expenditures, the
union must reduce his or her dues and fees accordingly. 487 U.S. at
752–754.
charges against them for conduct that took place after
they resigned.
On April 9, 1999, the General Counsel, the Respon-
dent, and the Charging Parties submitted a Joint Motion
to Transfer and Continue Matter before the National La-
bor Relations Board and a Stipulation of Facts.4 The
parties therein waived their right to a hearing and the
making of findings of fact and conclusions of law and the
issuance of a decision by an administrative law judge,
and submitted the case directly to the Board for findings
of fact, conclusions of law, and an order. The parties
agreed that the stipulation of facts, charges, complaints,
answers, and other exhibits attached to the stipulation
would constitute the entire record in the case and that no
oral testimony was necessary or desired.
On December 12, 2000, the Board issued an Order ap-
proving the stipulation of facts (as corrected), granting
the motion, and transferring the proceedings to the
Board. The General Counsel and the Charging Parties
filed briefs.
The National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
On the entire record, the Board makes the following
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. JURISDICTION
United Parcel Service, Inc. (UPS) is an Ohio corpora-
tion, with places of business in Albuquerque, Grants,
Clovis, and other places of business in New Mexico and
other States of the United States, where it is engaged in
small package distribution. During the 12-month period
preceding the execution of the stipulation, UPS, in the
course of its operations, derived gross revenues in excess
of $50,000 from its transportation of products, goods,
and materials in interstate commerce. At all material
times, UPS has been an employer engaged in commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the
Act.
The Respondent, International Brotherhood of Team-
sters, Local Union 492, and the Teamster United Parcel
Service National Negotiating Committee (NNC) are la-
bor organizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of
the Act.
II. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Facts
Local 492 and NNC are the exclusive collective-
bargaining representatives of UPS employees employed

4 On September 22, 2000, the General Counsel filed a motion to cor-
rect the stipulated record by substituting certain documents for exhibits
that were inadvertently included or incorrectly identified in the original
stipulation. The Board granted the unopposed motion.
TEAMSTERS LOCAL 492 (UNITED PARCEL SERVICE) 361
within Local 492’s jurisdiction (the New Mexico unit).
The New Mexico unit is described in the parties’ collec-
tive-bargaining agreement, which was effective from
August 1, 1997, through July 31, 2002. The 1997
agreement succeeded an earlier agreement, which was
effective from August 1, 1993, through July 31, 1997.
By July 31, 1997, Local 492, NNC, and UPS had not
reached a successor agreement. About August 1, em-
ployees of UPS went on strike. About August 20, a new
agreement was reached, and the striking employees be-
gan to return to work. The new agreement was ratified
about January 26, 1998, and was signed about February
6, 1998. Local 492, NNC, and UPS agreed to make the
new agreement effective retroactive to the expiration date
of the 1993–1997 agreement.
Both agreements contain the following union-security
provision, which the Union has maintained and enforced
at all material times:
All present employees who are members of the Local
Union on the effective date of this Subsection or on the
date of execution of this agreement, whichever is later,
shall remain members of the Local Union in good
standing as a condition of employment. . . . All present
employees who are not members of the Local Union
and all employees who are hired hereafter, shall be-
come and remain members in good standing of the Lo-
cal Union as a condition of employment on and after
the thirty-first (31st) day following the beginning of
their employment or on and after the (31st) day follow-
ing the effective date of this subsection, or the date of
this Agreement, whichever is later. An employee who
has failed to acquire, or thereafter to maintain member-
ship in the Union, as herein provided, shall be termi-
nated seventy-two (72) hours after the Employer has
received written notice from an authorized representa-
tive of the Local Union certifying that membership has
been, and is continuing to be offered to such employees
on the same basis as all other members, and further,
that the employee has had notice and opportunity to
make all dues or initiation fee payments. This provi-
sion shall be made and becomes effective as of such
time as it may be made and become effective under the
provision of the National Labor Relations Act, but not
retroactively.
At all material times, the Charging Parties were em-
ployees of UPS in New Mexico. At the beginning of the
strike, all of the Charging Parties were members of Local
492 and had paid initiation fees. At that time, Local 492
had never informed them that they could be “financial
core” members or that such members could file Beck
objections and pay reduced dues and fees.
On various dates after the commencement of the strike,
all of the Charging Parties except Smith resigned their
membership in Local 492; several of them, including
Smith, crossed the picket line and worked during the
strike. Thus,
• Hadley mailed his resignation letter to Local 492
on August 13. He attempted to work after he re-
signed, and during the strike, but did not do so
because no work was available.
• Fuller also mailed his resignation letter to Local
492 on August 13. In the letter, he objected to
the Union’s collection of dues and fees for non-
representational purposes. Fuller began working
for UPS at approximately 3 p.m. on August 14
and continued to work throughout the strike.
• Hutchison returned to work on August 7 and
continued to work throughout the strike. He
mailed his resignation letter to Local 492 on Au-
gust 11.5
• Hassey mailed his resignation letter to the Union
on August 12. He returned to work at about 9
a.m. on August 13 and continued to work
throughout the strike.
• Rose resigned his union membership in a letter
dated August 14. On August 18, he crossed the
picket line and went to work.
• Loomis mailed her resignation letter to the Union
on August 18. About that same day, she went
into a UPS facility in Albuquerque but did not
work. She returned to work at the end of the
strike.
• Danner mailed his resignation letter to the Union
on August 13 and faxed another resignation letter
to the Union on August 15. He did not work for
UPS during the strike.
• Smith remained a member of the Union but
worked throughout the strike. She resigned her
employment at UPS in November 1997.
In letters dated August 22, 1997, Local 492’s secre-
tary-treasurer and agent, Robert Younger, acknowledged
receiving the resignation letters of Hadley, Fuller,
Hutchison, Hassey, Rose, Loomis, and Danner. Younger
advised the employees that the Union considered their
resignations to be effective as of August 22.
In about September, Hadley filed a Beck objection
with the Union and requested a fee reduction. In late
October or early November, Danner orally advised

5 On August 6, Hutchison asked representatives of UPS whether he
had to resign from the Union in order to work during the strike. On the
basis of information he received, he did not resign before returning to
work.
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD362
Younger of his Beck objection and requested a fee reduc-
tion. He also asked the Union what the amount of the
reduced fees would be and how to obtain the reduction.
On November 14, Local 492, by Younger, sent letters
to Hadley, Fuller, Hutchison, Hassey, Rose, Loomis, and
Danner. The letters stated in part, “Please be advised
that the strike is over and under Article 3 Section 2 of
UPS/Teamsters Labor Agreement you must tender dues
and initiation fees as uniformly required. Failure to do
so may result in your termination.” The letters also
stated, “If you wish not to be a member of Teamsters
Local 492 and wish to fall under the Supreme Court de-
cision in CWA v. Beck, which is called ‘financial core,’
please let me know. I should tell you that under financial
core you pay approximately two (2) dollars less than
regular dues.”
On December 3, Fuller, Hutchison, Hassey, and Rose
sent a letter to the Union stating that they did not want to
be union members but were willing to pay a representa-
tion fee pursuant to the union-security agreement. The
letter continued:
Please reply with the pro rata share of the union’s cost
of collective bargaining, contract administration and
grievance adjustment as is our right under [Beck]. Pur-
suant to [citations omitted], we request that you provide
us with our procedural rights, including: reduction of
our fees to an amount that includes only lawfully
chargeable costs; notice of the calculation of that
amount, verified by an independent certified public ac-
countant; and notice of the procedure that you have
adopted to hold our fees in an interest-bearing escrow
account and give us an opportunity to challenge your
calculation and have it reviewed by an impartial deci-
sion maker.
On January 9, 1998, Younger informed Hadley, Fuller,
Hutchison, Hassey, Rose, and Danner by letter that, pur-
suant to their Beck objections, their dues would be re-
duced by 20 percent. Younger also advised the employ-
ees that they had to pay the union initiation fee, as well
as dues for September, October, November, and Decem-
ber 1997 and January 1998.
On January 26, Fuller, Hutchison, Hassey, and Rose
informed the Union that they were willing to pay repre-
sentation fees, agency fees, or shop fees, but protested
having to pay initiation fees. They also reiterated their
December 3 request for notification of their procedural
rights.
The Union has failed to provide Hadley, Fuller,
Hutchison, Hassey, Rose, and Danner with independ-
ently verified information about the major categories of
its expenditures and those of other union bodies which
receive a portion of the dues or agency fees. It has also
failed to advise them whether the expenditures are
chargeable or nonchargeable to Beck objectors and of
their right to challenge the Union’s calculation of the fee
reduction.
Since about October 1998, the Union has used a re-
vised membership application form for new employees
in the New Mexico unit. The revised form addresses
employees’ General Motors and Beck rights. The Union
also published notices discussing employees’ General
Motors and Beck rights in the November/December 1998
and January/February 1999 issues of the Rocky Mountain
Teamster, the official bimonthly journal of Joint Council
of Teamsters No. 3. Prior to the change in the applica-
tion form in approximately October 1998, Local 492
failed to notify New Mexico unit employees of their
General Motors right to resign and be only financial core
members and that, if they do so, they may request a fee
reduction under Beck.
Between December 22, 1997, and February 3, 1998,
the Union informed Hadley, Fuller, Hutchison, Hassey,
Rose, Loomis, and Smith by letter that internal union
charges were filed against them on September 6 for al-
legedly crossing the picket line during the strike. The
letters stated that the Union’s executive board would
hold hearings at which the charges would be considered.
The Union had not previously notified unit employees of
their General Motors rights. Local 492 has not advised
the Charging Parties of the outcome of the hearings, if
any, and has not imposed any fines on them.
B. Contentions of the Parties
The General Counsel and the Charging Parties contend
that the Union violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act by
failing to advise employees in the New Mexico unit of
their Beck and General Motors rights; requiring them to
pay new initiation fees after they had resigned; requiring
them to pay dues for periods during which no union-
security clause was in effect; and processing internal
union charges against them after they had resigned. The
General Counsel also contends that the Union violated
Section 8(b)(1)(A) by failing to timely honor the Charg-
ing Parties’ resignations and by failing to provide neces-
sary information to the Beck objectors. The General
Counsel and the Charging Parties further contend that,
because the Union failed to inform the Charging Parties
of their right to resign, it could not lawfully process in-
ternal union charges against them for crossing the picket
line and working during the strike even before they re-
signed.6

6 The complaint alleges that the Union violated Sec. 8(b)(1)(A) by
maintaining and enforcing the union-security clause. We interpret this
TEAMSTERS LOCAL 492 (UNITED PARCEL SERVICE) 363
C. Discussion
1. The Beck and General Motors notice allegations
In California Saw & Knife Works,7 the Board held that
if a union attempts to require unit employees to pay dues
and fees as a condition of employment, the duty of fair
representation requires the union first to notify the em-
ployees of their General Motors and Beck rights. 320
NLRB at 231. Specifically, the Board held that
when or before a union seeks to obligate an employee
to pay fees and dues under a union-security clause, the
union should inform the employee that he has the right
to be or remain a nonmember and that nonmembers
have the right (1) to object to paying for union activities
not germane to the union’s duties as bargaining agent
and to obtain a reduction in fees for such activities; (2)
to be given sufficient information to enable the em-
ployee to intelligently decide whether to object; and (3)
to be apprised of any internal union procedures for fil-
ing objections. If the employee chooses to object, he
must be apprised of the percentage of the reduction, the
basis for the calculation, and the right to challenge
these figures.8
In Paperworkers Local 1033 (Weyerhaeuser Paper),9
the Board held that full union members must also be in-
formed of their Beck and General Motors rights, if they
have not previously received such notice, in order to be
certain that they have voluntarily chosen union member-
ship.
Although the Union maintained and enforced the con-
tractual union-security provision, it failed until at least
late 1998 to inform employees in the New Mexico unit of
their General Motors and Beck rights. We therefore find,

allegation as meaning that the Union could not lawfully maintain and
enforce the union-security clause without informing unit employees of
their Beck and General Motors rights, not that the clause is facially
invalid. As the General Counsel acknowledges, the Supreme Court has
held that such clauses are not facially unlawful, even though they re-
quire employees to be union “members in good standing” and do not
explain employees’ General Motors and Beck rights. Marquez v.
Screen Actors Guild, 525 U.S. 33 (1998).
The complaint further alleges that the Union violated Sec. 8(b)(1)(A)
by charging Beck objectors dues and fees for nonrepresentational ex-
penditures. The Union denied this allegation in its answer to the com-
plaint. Although the General Counsel reiterates the allegation in his
brief, he provides no supporting facts or argument, and neither do the
Charging Parties. We find that this allegation has been effectively
abandoned, and we shall dismiss it.
7 320 NLRB 224, 231 (1995), enfd. sub nom. Machinists v. NLRB,
133 F.3d 1012 (7th Cir. 1998), cert. denied sub nom. Strang v. NLRB,
525 U.S. 813 (1998).
8 Id. at 233 (footnote omitted).
9 320 NLRB 349, 349–350 (1995), revd. on other grounds sub nom.
Buzenius v. NLRB, 124 F.3d 788 (6th Cir. 1997), vacated 525 U.S. 979
(1998).
consistent with California Saw and Weyerhaeuser, that
the Union violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) by failing to pro-
vide the requisite Beck and General Motors notices.
Fuller, Hadley, Danner, Hutchison, Hassey, and Rose
resigned from the Union and filed Beck objections. Ac-
cordingly, the Union was required to inform them of the
percentage by which their dues would be reduced, the
basis for the calculation, and their right to challenge the
Union’s computations. California Saw, 320 NLRB at
233. The Board has also held that the information pro-
vided to Beck objectors must be independently verified.
Id. at 240–242.
Here, the Union informed the Beck objectors that their
dues would be reduced by 20 percent. However, it failed
to provide them with independently verified informa-
tion—or any information—about the basis for its calcula-
tions. It also failed to inform them of their right to chal-
lenge the Union’s calculation of the fee reduction. In
failing to provide that information, the Union violated
Section 8(b)(1)(A).
2. The alleged failure to timely honor employees’
resignations from the Union
The Board has held that Section 7 affords employees
the right to resign from union membership at any time,
and that this right cannot lawfully be restricted by the
union. Machinists Local 1414 (Neufeld Porsche-Audi),
270 NLRB 1330, 1336 (1984), approved in Pattern Mak-
ers League v. NLRB, 473 U.S. 95 (1985). Accordingly,
when an employee resigns his union membership, the
union must promptly give effect to the resignation.
When an employee mails his resignation notice to the
union, the effective time and date of the resignation is
12:01 a.m. local time the day after it is mailed. Pattern
Makers (Michigan Model Mfrs. Assn.), 310 NLRB 929,
930 (1993).
Hutchison mailed his resignation letter to the Union on
August 11, 1997. Hassey mailed his resignation notice
on August 12; Hadley, Fuller, and Danner mailed theirs
on August 13; and Loomis mailed hers on August 18.
Their resignations therefore were effective on August 12,
13, 14, and 19, respectively. The record does not reveal
when Rose mailed his resignation letter. However, his
letter is dated August 14, and the Union’s letter recogniz-
ing his resignation states that it was received on August
15.
Nevertheless, the Union told the employees that it con-
sidered all of the above resignations to be effective on
August 22. By failing to honor and give effect to the
employees’ resignations in a timely manner, the Union
further violated Section 8(b)(1)(A). See, e.g., Oil Work-
ers Local 1-591 (Texaco Refining), 283 NLRB 5 (1987).
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD364
3. The Union’s attempts to obligate the Charging
Parties to pay dues for periods during which no
union-security provision was in effect
and to pay additional initiation fees
After the strike ended, the Union attempted to obligate
Hadley, Fuller, Hutchison, Hassey, Rose, Loomis, and
Danner, on pain of termination, to pay dues for periods
before the 1997 contract was executed in February 1998.
The Board has held that a union may not require employ-
ees to pay union dues and fees, as a condition of em-
ployment, for periods in which no contractual union-
security provision is in effect. Teamsters Local 25 (Tech
Weld Corp.), 220 NLRB 76, 77 (1975). Consistent with
this reasoning, the Board has held that a union-security
clause may not be applied retroactively, and therefore
that a union cannot demand dues as a condition of em-
ployment for periods before the execution of the agree-
ment. Id. Accordingly, the Union violated Section
8(b)(1)(A) by attempting to obligate the Charging Parties
to pay dues for periods during which there was no union-
security clause in effect, and by threatening them with
discharge if they failed to do so.10
As stated above, the Union notified the Charging Par-
ties (except for Smith) that they were required to pay
initiation fees after the strike ended. However, all of the
Charging Parties had paid initiation fees prior to the
strike. All of them except Smith resigned their union
memberships during a period of time in which there was
no extant union-security provision, and therefore they
had no duty to pay union dues for those periods. Except
for Loomis, none of the Charging Parties who resigned
from the Union left the employment of UPS. (Loomis
did not work for UPS from 1993 to 1995, but remained a
union member and was still a member when she returned
to work for UPS.) The Board has held that, when an
employee who has previously paid a union initiation fee
resigns his union membership but continues to meet his
responsibilities as a financial core member and maintains
his status as a bargaining unit employee, the imposition
of an additional initiation fee as a condition of employ-
ment unlawfully penalizes the employee for exercising
his Section 7 right to resign. Office Employees Local 2
(Washington Gas), 292 NLRB 117, 118–119 (1988),
enfd. 902 F.2d 1164 (4th Cir. 1990). The employees
here resigned, and, because there was no existing con-
tract containing a union-security clause during the rele-
vant period, they had no responsibilities as financial core

10 That the Union and UPS agreed to make the contract effective ret-
roactive to the expiration date of the 1993 agreement does not validate
the Union’s actions. See Tech Weld Corp., supra. In any event, the
union-security clause clearly states that it will not be effective retroac-
tively.
members during that period. The Union therefore vio-
lated Section 8(b)(1)(A) by requiring the Charging Par-
ties to pay additional initiation fees and by threatening
them that failure to pay might lead to their termination.
4. The processing of internal union charges
Because a union may not attempt to restrict employ-
ees’ exercise of their right to resign from union member-
ship, any attempt to impose internal union discipline on
an employee after he resigns from the union is an unlaw-
ful restriction on his right to resign. Pattern Makers
League, 473 U.S. at 100; Machinists Local 1414 (Neu-
feld Porsche-Audi), 270 NLRB at 1336. Thus, a union
may not attempt to discipline an employee for crossing a
picket line and working during a strike after he has re-
signed from the union. Id.
After resigning from the Union, Fuller, Hassey, and
Rose crossed the picket line and worked during the
strike. Hutchison crossed the picket line and went to
work before he resigned, and continued to work after
mailing his resignation letter. Hadley and Loomis also
resigned their union memberships, but did not work dur-
ing the strike, although Loomis did cross the picket line
the day she mailed her resignation letter. The Union
advised those employees that it was processing internal
union charges against them for crossing the picket line
during the strike.
To the extent that the internal charges were based on
the Charging Parties’ having crossed the picket line after
they resigned their union membership, the Union vio-
lated Section 8(b)(1)(A) by processing the charges and
informing the employees that it was doing so. Machin-
ists Local 1414 (Neufeld Porsche-Audi), 270 NLRB at
1336. It is immaterial that, so far as the record shows, no
discipline was actually imposed; the notification of the
charges itself has a restraining and coercive effect. Oil
Workers Local 6-578 (Gordy’s, Inc.), 238 NLRB 1227,
1231, 1232 (1978), enfd. 619 F.2d 708 (8th Cir. 1980).
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. United Parcel Service (UPS) is an employer en-
gaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2),
(6), and (7) of the Act.
2. The Union and NNC are labor organizations within
the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. The Union violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act:
• by failing to advise employees in the New Mex-
ico unit of their Beck and General Motors rights
while maintaining and enforcing a union-security
clause;
• by failing to provide Beck objectors with inde-
pendently verified information concerning its
major categories of expenditures and those of
TEAMSTERS LOCAL 492 (UNITED PARCEL SERVICE) 365
other union bodies that receive a portion of union
dues and agency fees, including whether the ex-
penditures are chargeable or nonchargeable and
their right to challenge the calculations;
• by failing to timely recognize and honor employ-
ees’ resignations from union membership;
• by attempting to obligate employees to pay union
dues, as a condition of employment, for periods
during which no union-security clause was in ef-
fect, and by informing them that failure to pay
the dues may result in termination;
• by charging employees additional initiation fees
because they resigned their membership in the
Union, and by informing them that failure to pay
the fees may result in termination;
• by processing internal union charges against em-
ployees for conduct occurring after they resigned
their union membership.
4. The Union did not otherwise violate the Act as al-
leged in the complaint.
REMEDY
Having found that the Union violated Section
8(b)(1)(A) of the Act, we shall order it to cease and de-
sist and to take certain affirmative action necessary to
effectuate the policies of the Act. Specifically, we shall
order the Union to recognize and honor the Charging
Parties’ resignations effective 12:01 a.m. on the day after
they were mailed or, in Rose’s case, on the date of re-
ceipt. We shall also order the Union to rescind its de-
mand that, as a condition of employment, the Charging
Parties pay dues for periods in which no union-security
provision was in effect and that they pay additional ini-
tiation fees.
To remedy the Union’s failure to inform unit employ-
ees of their General Motors and Beck rights, we shall
order the Union to provide the required notices to all unit
employees.11 The Union will have the opportunity to
show, in compliance proceedings, that it provided appro-
priate notices in October 1998 or thereafter.12 In addi-
tion, we shall order the Union to provide appropriate
notices to the Charging Parties who filed Beck objec-
tions.
We shall also order the Union to notify in writing
those employees whom it initially sought to obligate to
pay dues or fees under the union-security clause on or

11 The General Counsel does not argue that the initial Beck notices
must inform all employees of the percentage of dues/fees that will be
charged to objectors. Accordingly, we do not pass on that issue.
12 See, e.g., Rochester Mfg. Co., 323 NLRB 260, 263 (1997), affd.
mem. sub nom. Cecil v. NLRB, 194 F.3d 1311 (6th Cir. 1999), cert.
denied 529 U.S. 1066 (2000).
after June 5, 1997,13 of their right to elect nonmember
status and to file Beck objections with respect to one or
more of the accounting periods covered by the com-
plaint. With respect to any such employees who, with
reasonable promptness after receiving the notices, elect
nonmember status and file Beck objections for any one of
those periods, we shall order the Union, in the compli-
ance stage of the proceeding, to process their objections,
nunc pro tunc, as it otherwise would have done, in accor-
dance with the principles of California Saw. The Union
shall then be required to reimburse the objecting non-
members for the reduction, if any, in their dues and fees
for nonrepresentational activities that occurred during the
accounting period or periods covered by the complaint in
which they have objected. See, e.g., Paperworkers Local
987 (Sun Chemical Corp. of Michigan), 327 NLRB
1011, 1012 (1999).
To remedy its unlawful processing of internal union
charges against the Charging Parties for conduct occur-
ring after their resignations, we shall order the Union to
cancel, withdraw, and rescind the charges and any fines
or other disciplinary action it may have taken against
them. We shall also order the Union to expunge all re-
cords documenting the disciplinary proceedings against
the Charging Parties, notify them in writing that this has
been done, and reimburse them for any legal expenses
they may have incurred in defending against the discipli-
nary actions.14
The General Counsel and the Charging Parties also
contend that because the Union failed to inform the
Charging Parties of their right to resign, it was not enti-
tled to process charges against the employees even for
conduct that occurred before their resignations. They
note that, in Rochester Mfg. Co., 323 NLRB 260 (1997),
affd. mem. sub nom. Cecil v. NLRB, 194 F.3d 1311 (6th
Cir. 1999), cert. denied 529 U.S. 1066 (2000), the Board
ordered the union, which had failed to provide General
Motors and Beck notice to unit employees, to allow all
unit employees to resign and file Beck objections retroac-
tively for any accounting period covered by the com-
plaint. The Board reasoned that, had the employees
known of their right to resign and, if they resigned, to file
objections, they might have done so earlier. The remedy
devised was intended to restore those employees to the
status they would have elected had they received the re-
quired notices.
Analogizing to Rochester, the General Counsel and the
Charging Parties contend that, had the Charging Parties

13 June 5, 1997, is the date 6 months before the initial charge was
filed; see Sec. 10(b) of the Act.
14 See Pattern Makers (Michigan Model Mfrs. Assn.), 310 NLRB at
932.
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD366
been told that they could resign, Smith might have re-
signed, and Hutchison and Loomis might have done so
earlier, before they crossed the picket line. Thus, they
continue, the Charging Parties should have the right to
resign retroactively to the beginning of the 10(b) period
(which preceded the strike), and that those who do
should not be subject to union discipline if their retroac-
tive resignations predate their crossing the picket line.
There would be an affirmative obligation to rescind any
discipline that might be imposed. We find merit in the
General Counsel’s and the Charging Parties’ contentions.
Accordingly, we shall grant the requested remedy.15
Finally, any amounts to be reimbursed under our Order
will be with interest as prescribed in New Horizons for
the Retarded, 283 NLRB 1173 (1987).
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board orders that the
Respondent, International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Local Union 492, its officers, agents, and representatives,
shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Failing to inform employees whom it seeks to obli-
gate to pay dues and fees under a union-security clause
of their right under NLRB v. General Motors Corp., 373
U.S. 734 (1963), to be and remain nonmembers, and of
the rights of nonmembers under Communications Work-
ers v. Beck, 487 U.S. 735 (1988), to object to paying for
union activities not germane to the Union’s duties as
bargaining agent, and to obtain a reduction in dues and
fees for such activities.
(b) Failing to inform objecting nonmembers of the ba-
sis for its calculation of the percentage reduction in dues
and fees for union activities for objectors, and their right
to challenge the figures.
(c) Failing to recognize and give effect to employees’
resignations from union membership in a timely fashion.

15 Although Hutchison initially crossed the picket line before he re-
signed, he continued to work after resigning. Thus, any attempt to
discipline Hutchison for working after resigning was unlawful, even if
he does not opt to resign retroactively and avoid discipline altogether.
In Member Liebman’s view, a request for this remedy in a case
where it is contested might raise difficult issues. However, in the ab-
sence of opposition by the Union, Member Liebman agrees to grant the
requested remedy in this case. In so doing, she emphasizes that the
grant of this relief does not create any additional affirmative obligation
by a union, apart from its General Motors and Beck obligations, to give
notice to members of their right to resign.
The Charging Parties argue that employees should also be able to
retroactively revoke their dues checkoff authorization. We find no
merit in this contention, which we find is not properly before the Board.
The General Counsel makes no such argument, and there is no com-
plaint allegation, admission, or stipulation that any unit employee has
ever signed a dues-checkoff authorization.
(d) Demanding that employees pay union dues, as a
condition of employment, for periods of time in which no
valid union-security provision is in effect, and threaten-
ing them that failure to pay may result in termination.
(e) Demanding that employees who have paid initia-
tion fees and later have resigned from union membership
pay additional initiation fees as a condition of employ-
ment because they resigned, and threatening them that
failure to pay may result in termination.
(f) Processing internal union charges against employ-
ees for conduct occurring after they resigned their union
membership.
(g) 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) Give full effect to the resignations from union
membership of Monte Hadley, Joe B. Fuller, John E.
Hutchison, David Hassey, Nina L. Loomis, and Gary L.
Danner as of 12:01 a.m. the day following the mailing of
their resignations, and give full effect to the resignation
of Wesley Zane Rose the day his resignation was actu-
ally received.
(b) Rescind its demand that, as conditions of employ-
ment, Hadley, Fuller, Hutchison, Hassey, Rose, Loomis,
and Danner pay union dues for periods not covered by a
contractual union-security clause and that they pay addi-
tional union initiation fees because they resigned.
(c) Notify, in writing, all bargaining unit employees of
their right to be and remain nonmembers, and of the
rights of nonmembers to object to paying for union ac-
tivities not germane to the Union’s duties as bargaining
agent, and to obtain a reduction in dues and fees for such
activities. In addition, this notice must include sufficient
information to enable employees intelligently to decide
whether to object, as well as a description of any internal
union procedures for filing objections.
(d) For each accounting period since June 5, 1997,
provide Hadley, Fuller, Hutchison, Hassey, Rose, and
Danner with verified information setting forth the Un-
ion’s major categories of expenditures for the previous
accounting year, distinguishing between representational
and nonrepresentational functions, and the percentages of
each category and of its total expenditures that it consid-
ers chargeable and nonchargeable, and informing them of
their right to challenge the Union’s figures.
(e) Notify in writing those employees whom the Union
initially sought to obligate to pay dues or fees under the
union-security clause on or after June 5, 1997, of their
right to elect nonmember status and to file Beck objec-
TEAMSTERS LOCAL 492 (UNITED PARCEL SERVICE) 367
tions with respect to one or more of the accounting peri-
ods covered by the complaint.
(f) With respect to any employees who, with reason-
able promptness after receiving the notices prescribed in
paragraph 2(e), elect nonmember status and file Beck
objections, process their objections in the manner set
forth in the remedy section of this decision.
(g) Reimburse with interest any nonmember unit em-
ployees who file Beck objections with the Union for any
dues and fees exacted from them for nonrepresentational
activities, in the manner set forth in the remedy section.
(h) Preserve and, within 14 days of a request, or such
additional time as the Regional Director may allow for
good cause shown, provide at a reasonable place desig-
nated by the Board or its agents, all records, including an
electronic copy of such records if stored in electronic
form, necessary to verify the amounts of back dues and
fees to be paid to bargaining unit employees covered by
paragraph 2(g).
(i) Inform Loomis, Hutchinson, and Cheryl Smith of
their right to resign their union membership retroactively,
effective prior to the strike which commenced about Au-
gust 1, 1997, and thereby to avoid internal union disci-
pline for crossing the picket line during the strike.
(j) Cancel, withdraw, and rescind the internal union
charges against Hadley, Fuller, Hutchison, Hassey, and
Rose that are based on conduct occurring after they re-
signed their union membership, as well as the charges
against Loomis, Hutchinson, and Smith if they elect to
resign retroactively as provided in paragraph 2(i), and
any fines or other disciplinary action it may have taken
against them as a result of those charges.
(k) Remove all records documenting the Union’s proc-
essing of the internal union charges discussed in para-
graph 2(j), and notify the employees in writing that this
has been done.
(l) Reimburse Hadley, Fuller, Hutchison, Hassey, and
Rose, as well as Loomis, Hutchinson, and Smith if they
elect to resign retroactively as provided in paragraph 2(i),
for any legal expenses they may have incurred in defend-
ing against the internal union charges discussed in para-
graph 2(j).
(m) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at
its offices and meeting halls copies of the attached notice
marked “Appendix.”16 Copies of the notice, on forms
provided by the Regional Director for Region 28, after
being signed by the Respondent’s authorized representa-

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.”
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.
(n) Sign and return to the Regional Director sufficient
copies of the notice for posting by United Parcel Service,
if willing, at all places where notices to employees are
customarily posted.
(o) 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 AND 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 Federal labor law and has ordered us to post and
obey this notice.
FEDERAL LAW GIVES YOU THE RIGHT TO
Form, join, or assist a union
Choose representatives to bargain on your behalf
with your employer
Act together with other employees for your bene-
fit and protection
Choose not to engage in any of these protected
activities.
WE WILL NOT fail to inform employees whom we seek
to obligate to pay dues and fees under a union-security
clause of their right under NLRB v. General Motors
Corp., 373 U.S. 734 (1963), to be and remain nonmem-
bers, and of the rights of nonmembers under Communi-
cations Workers v. Beck, 487 U.S. 735 (1988), 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.
WE WILL NOT fail to inform objecting nonmembers of
the basis for our calculation of the percentage reduction
in dues and fees for union activities for objectors, and
their right to challenge our figures.
WE WILL NOT fail to recognize and give effect to em-
ployees’ resignations from union membership in a timely
fashion.
WE WILL NOT demand that employees pay union dues,
as a condition of employment, for periods of time in
which no valid union-security provision is in effect, and
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD368
threaten them that failure to pay may result in termina-
tion.
WE WILL NOT demand that employees who have paid
initiation fees and later have resigned from union mem-
bership pay additional initiation fees as a condition of
employment because they resigned, and threaten them
that failure to pay may result in termination.
WE WILL NOT process internal union charges against
employees for conduct occurring after they resigned their
union membership.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner restrain or
coerce you in the exercise of the rights listed above.
WE WILL give full effect to the resignations from union
membership of Monte Hadley, Joe B. Fuller, John E.
Hutchison, David Hassey, Nina L. Loomis, and Gary L.
Danner as of 12:01 a.m. the day following the mailing of
their resignations, and give full effect to the resignation
of Wesley Zane Rose on the day his resignation was ac-
tually received.
WE WILL rescind our demand that, as a condition of
employment, Hadley, Fuller, Hutchison, Hassey, Rose,
Loomis, and Danner pay union dues for periods not cov-
ered by a contractual union-security clause and that they
pay additional union initiation fees because they re-
signed.
WE WILL notify, in writing, all bargaining unit em-
ployees of their right to be and remain nonmembers, and
of the rights of nonmembers 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 activi-
ties. In addition, this notice will include sufficient in-
formation to enable employees intelligently to decide
whether to object, as well as a description of any internal
union procedures for filing objections.
WE WILL, for each accounting period since June 5,
1997, provide Hadley, Fuller, Hutchison, Hassey, Rose,
and Danner with verified information setting forth our
major categories of expenditures for the previous ac-
counting year, distinguishing between representational
and nonrepresentational functions, and the percentages of
each category and of its total expenditures that we con-
sider chargeable and nonchargeable, and informing them
of their right to challenge our figures.
WE WILL notify in writing those employees whom we
initially sought to obligate to pay dues or fees under the
union-security clause on or after June 5, 1997 of their
right to elect nonmember status and to file Beck objec-
tions with respect to one or more of the accounting peri-
ods covered by the complaint.
WE WILL, with respect to any employees who, with
reasonable promptness after receiving the notices pre-
scribed above, elect nonmember status and file Beck ob-
jections, process their objections in the manner set forth
in the Board’s decision.
WE WILL reimburse with interest any nonmember unit
employees who file Beck objections for any dues and
fees exacted from them for nonrepresentational activities,
in the manner set forth in the Board’s decision.
WE WILL inform Loomis, Hutchinson, and Cheryl
Smith of their right to resign their union membership
retroactively, effective prior to the strike which com-
menced about August 1, 1997, and thereby to avoid in-
ternal union discipline for crossing the picket line during
the strike.
WE WILL cancel, withdraw, and rescind the internal un-
ion charges against Hadley, Fuller, Hutchison, Hassey,
and Rose that are based on conduct occurring after they
resigned their union membership, as well as the charges
against Loomis, Hutchinson, and Smith if they elect to
resign retroactively as provided above, and any fines or
other disciplinary action we may have taken against them
as a result of those charges.
WE WILL remove all records documenting our process-
ing of the internal union charges discussed above, and
notify those employees in writing that this has been done.
WE WILL reimburse Hadley, Fuller, Hutchison, Hassey,
and Rose, as well as Loomis, Hutchinson, and Smith if
they elect to resign retroactively as provided above, for
any legal expenses they may have incurred in defending
against the internal union charges discussed above.
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMS-
TERS, LOCAL UNION 492