United States Postal Service

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 31, 1986

279 N.L.R.B. 40 (N.L.R.B. 1986)

40 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
United States Postal Service and Thomas M. FINDINGS OF FACT
Dalton. Case 19-CA-17268
31 March 1986
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN DOTSON AND MEMBERS
JOHANSEN AND STEPHENS
On a charge filed 5 February 1985 by Thomas
M. Dalton (the Charging Party), the General
Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board, by
the Regional Director for Region 19, issued a com-
plaint and notice of hearing on 18 March 1985
against United States Postal Service (the Respond-
ent). The complaint alleges that the Respondent
violated Section 8(a)(1) and (2) of the National
Labor Relations Act by refusing to honor Charg-
ing Party Dalton's revocation of his union member-
ship dues assignment from the American Postal
Workers Union, AFL-CIO. The Respondent filed
an answer to the complaint denying the commis-
sion of any unfair labor practice.
On 30 May 1985 the General Counsel, the
Charging Party, and the Respondent filed a motion
to transfer case to the Board and stipulation of
facts in which they agreed to certain facts relevant
to the issues in this proceeding. They also agreed
to waive a hearing before an administrative law
judge and the issuance of an administrative law
judge's decision. Subsequent to the filing of the
motion , the Respondent filed an amended answer
to the complaint and the General Counsel filed a
motion in support of stipulation of facts. On 30
August 1985 the American Postal Workers Union,
AFL-CIO, and the National Association of Letter
Carriers, AFL-CIO (the Intervenors), filed a
motion to intervene. On 3 September 1985 the
Board approved the stipulation and transferred the
proceeding to the Board. On 15 October 1985 the
Intervenors filed a request for clarification of the
issues , and on 18 October 1985 the Intervenors
filed an emergency motion to postpone pending
clarification. On 21 October 1985 the General
Counsel filed a response to the motion to intervene.
On 22 October 1985 the Board granted the interve-
nors' motion to intervene. Thereafter, the General
Counsel, the Respondent, and the Intervenors filed
briefs with the Board.
The National Labor Relations Board has delegat-
ed its authority in this proceeding to a three-
member panel.
On the entire record, the Board makes the fol-
lowing
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER
The Respondent provides postal services for the
United States of America and operates various fa-
cilities throughout the United States, including the
Seattle, Washington facility involved in this pro-
ceeding. The Board has jurisdiction over the Re-
spondent by virtue of the provisions of Chapter 12,
Section 1209, of the Postal Reorganization Act, 39
U.S.C. § 101 (the PRA).
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION
American Postal Workers Union, AFL-CIO
(APWU) is a labor organization within the mean-
ing of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE
The Respondent and APWU are parties to a col-
lective-bargaining agreement effective by its terms
from about 21 July and 24 December 1984 to 20
July 1987. This agreement provides that, in con-
formity with Section 1205 of the PRA, the Re-
spondent "shall deduct and remit to the appropri-
ate Union the regular and periodic Union dues
from the pay of employees who are members of
such Union," provided that the Respondent has re-
ceived a written assignment from the employees in
the following form:
AUTHORIZATION FOR DEDUCTION
OF UNION DUES
UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE
DATE
I hereby assign to (Union)
from any salary
or wages earned or to be earned by me as
your employee (in my present or any future
employment by you) such regular and periodic
membership dues as the Union may certify as
due and owing from me, as may be established
from time to time by said Union. I authorize
and direct you to deduct such amounts from
my pay and to remit same to said Union at
such times and in such manner as may be
agreed upon between you and the Union at
any time while this authorization is in effect.
This assignment, authorization and direction
shall be irrevocable for a period of one (1)
year from the date of delivery hereof to you,
and I agree and direct that this assignment, au-
thorization and direction shall be automatically
renewed, and shall be irrevocable for succes-
sive periods of one (1) year, unless written
notice is given by me to you and the Union
279 NLRB No. 8
POSTAL SERVICE 41
not more than twenty (20) days and not less
than ten (10) days prior to the expiration of
each period of one ( 1) year.
This assignment is freely made pursuant to the
provisions of the Postal Reorganization Act
and is not contingent upon the existence of
any agreement between you and my Union.
In October 1982 Charging Party Dalton signed
an authorization , identical to the foregoing , for the
assignment of union membership dues and deliv-
ered it to the Respondent.
By letter dated 25 January 1985, Dalton validly
resigned his membership in the APWU. Dalton
stated in this letter that while he was aware that he
had signed an authorization for deduction of union
dues which contained a provision that the assign-
ment was irrevocable for a period of 1 year, unless
written notice is given within a particular 10-day
period , he was informing the Respondent that the
assignment was to be revoked effective immediate-
ly. About 28 January 1985, Dalton requested that
the Respondent revoke the authorization for the as-
signment of union membership dues . Thereafter, by
letter dated 29 January 1985, the Respondent ad-
vised Dalton that his revocation request would not
be honored.
IV. CONTENTIONS OF THE PARTIES
The General Counsel contends that the Respond-
ent was obligated to honor Dalton 's revocation re-
quest because his authorization was executed in
consideration of and as quid pro quo for union
membership ; that Dalton 's valid resignation from
union membership revoked the authorization as a
matter of law; and that by continuing to withhold
dues thereafter the Respondent violated Section
8(a)(1) and (2) of the Act.
The Respondent contends that the terms of the
dues authorization executed by Dalton and the pro-
visions of the governing bargaining agreement pro-
vide that the authorization is irrevocable except for
certain identifiable "open" annual periods ; that the
PRA expressly authorized the irrevocability of
dues authorizations in this manner; that Dalton's at-
tempted revocation outside the designated open
period was untimely; and that the Board , therefore,
lacks authority to compel the Respondent to disre-
gard the mandates of the bargaining agreement and
the PRA regarding irrevocability.
The Intervenors contend that the Respondent's
refusal to process Dalton 's revocation was in
accord with the PRA; that the PRA specifically
authorizes the checkoff system operated by the Re-
spondent and the APWU; that the language of the
authorization in this case does not state that pay-
ment of dues is in consideration for union member-
ship ; and that the Act affirmatively permits em-
ployers and unions to agree to checkoff provisions,
as here, that are irrevocable for up to 1 year.
V. DISCUSSION
In Machinists Local 2045 (Eagle Signal), 268
NLRB 635, 637 ( 1984), the Board reiterated the
well-settled rule of law applicable to the issues
raised in this proceeding:
It is established Board law that a dues-
checkoff authorization , or wage assignment as
it is called in this case , is a contract between
an employee and his employer and that a res-
ignation of union membership ordinarily does
not revoke a checkoff authorization . However,
a resignation will, by operation of law , revoke
a checkoff authorization , even absent a revoca-
tion request , where the authorization itself
makes payment of dues a quid pro quo for
union membership . This is so whether or not
the resignation is made during the period for
revocation set forth in the authorization itself.
[Footnotes omitted.]
Accordingly , the threshold issue in this case is
whether the terms of the written assignment exe-
cuted by employee Dalton "makes payment of dues
a quid pro quo for union membership ." Eagle
Signal at 637. If dues payment is a quid pro quo for
union membership , a resignation from membership
revokes the dues-checkoff authorization "whether
or not the resignation is made during the period for
revocation set forth in the authorization itself."
Eagle Signal, supra.
The assignment executed by Dalton specifically
authorizes and directs the Respondent to assign to
the Union:
From any salary or wages earned or to be
earned by me as your employee (in my present
or any future employment by you) such regular
and periodic membership dues as the Union may
certify as due and owing from me, as may be es-
tablished from time to time by said Union.
[Emphasis added.]
As contended by the General Counsel , the forego-
ing assignment is in pertinent respects virtually in-
distinguishable in character from the assignment at
issue in Eagle Signal, which authorized the deduc-
tion of dues from "regular monthly Union dues
. . . in accordance with regular membership dues,"
and from that in Steelworkers Local 7450 (Asarco,
Inc.), 246 NLRB 878 (1979), which directed a de-
duction of dues "as my membership dues" in the
union . In both Eagle Signal and Asarco, Inc., the
Board concluded that the authorizations at issue
42 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
clearly conveyed that the payment of dues was a
quid pro quo for union membership and not for
other financial obligations, such as "financial core"
payments in lieu of membership.' In these circum-
stances, and noting the similarity of the authoriza-
tion at issue in this case to those executed in Eagle
Signal and Asarco, we find that the authorization
executed by Dalton clearly provides for the pay-
ment of dues as a quid pro quo for union member-
ship. Therefore, when Dalton validly resigned his
union membership, the financial obligation underly-
ing the execution of the authorization, i.e., the
agreement to have membership dues assigned to the
Union, ceased to exist for purposes of dues check-
off.
The Respondent and the Intervenors contend
that irrespective of the application of Eagle Signal
and Asarco, Inc., Section 1205 of the PRA man-
dates a different result concerning dues-checkoff
authorizations in the Postal Service. We find no
merit in this contention.
Section 1205 of the PRA authorizes the negotia-
tion and voluntary execution of dues-checkoff au-
thorizations that may be irrevocable for a maxi-
mum period of 1 year.2 Section 1205 provides as
follows:
(a) When a labor organization holds exclu-
sive recognition, or when an organization of
personnel not subject to collective-bargaining
agreements has consultation rights under sec-
tion 1004 of this title, the Postal Service shall
deduct the regular and periodic dues of the or-
ganization from the pay of all members of the
organization in the unit of recognition if the
Post Office Department or the Postal Service
has received from each employee, on whose
account such deductions are made, a written
assignment which shall be irrevocable for a
period of not more than one year.
(b) Any agreement in effect immediately
prior to the date of enactment of the Postal
Reorganization Act between the Post Office
department and any organization of postal em-
ployees which provides for deduction by the
Department of the regular and periodic dues
of the organization from the pay of its mem-
bers, shall continue in full force and effect and
the obligation for such deductions shall be as-
sumed by the Postal Service. No such deduc-
i Cf American Nurses' Assn , 250 NLRB 1324, 1331 (1980), in which
the applicable contractual provisions provided for the payment of an
amount equivalent to fees and dues either to the union as a member, to
the union as a nonmember , or to a nonreligious tax exempt charitable in-
stitution See also Frito Lay, Inc, 243 NLRB 137 (1979), in which the
deduction of fees and dues set forth in the authorization rested on an
agency shop "financial core" obligation
2 The PRA does not provide for any form of union security
tion shall be made from the pay of any em-
ployee except on his written assignment,
which shall be irrevocable for a period of not
more than one year.
Although the PRA establishes a dues-checkoff
system in the Postal Service pursuant to an em-
ployee's voluntary written assignment, the PRA
does not mandate that checkoff authorizations are
irrevocable per se for 1 year irrespective of the
nature of the contractual obligation undertaken by
the employee executing the authorization.3 Thus,
the provisions of the PRA are not inconsistent with
well-established Board principles recognizing that a
dues-checkoff authorization that by its terms makes
payment of dues a quid pro quo for union member-
ship is revocable by operation of law upon effec-
tive resignation from union membership. Stated
otherwise, Section 1205 of the PRA in no way
alters or is inconsistent with the notion under the
Act that, in determining the obligations of the par-
ties pursuant to the voluntary execution of a dues-
checkoff authorization, it is appropriate to focus
upon the nature of the obligation actually incurred
in the checkoff authorization.4 Under this inquiry,
it is clear that, because of the nature of the obliga-
tion incurred, the authorization executed by Charg-
ing Party Dalton is revocable upon Dalton's valid
resignation from union membership. In so finding,
we emphasize that we are not holding that under
the Act and the PRA all dues-checkoff authoriza-
tions are "revocable at will" upon effective resigna-
tion from union membership. We hold only that
those dues-checkoff authorizations linking payment
of dues to union membership, as here, are revocable
when that link, i.e., union membership, ceases to
exist by virtue of an effective resignation from
membership. 5
Accordingly, we find that Charging Party Dal-
ton's dues-checkoff authorization was revoked by
operation of law when he resigned his union mem-
bership, and that, as alleged, the Respondent violat-
a The revocability provisions of the PRA essentially are in line with
the revocability provisions of Sec 302(c)(4) of the Act which privilege
voluntary dues-checkoff assignments and render them lawful as permissi-
ble payments to employee representatives
4 We note that neither the Respondent nor the Intervenors refer to any
specific legislative history supporting their contention that the PRA man-
dates irrevocability for 1 year notwithstanding the nature of the obliga-
tion actually incurred in the authorization itself Indeed , as we noted in
Postal Service, 248 NLRB 5, 7 (1980), "[a] thorough examination of the
numerous Committee reports and floor debates on the PRA discloses no
indication that Congress was particularly concerned with the details of
checkoff revocation (except for the establishment of the maximum of a I-
year revocation period) " (Emphasis added) As we noted further in that
case, Sec 1205(b) "permits changes in the revocation period within the
limits of the I-year period " 248 NLRB at 7
5 Member Johansen notes that the same result is reached if we con-
strue the authorization to continue but that , as the amount of dues owed
is zero, zero is the amount to be deducted and remitted
POSTAL SERVICE
ed Section 8(a)(1) and (2) by refusing to honor
Dalton's revocation.6
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. United States Postal Service is subject to the
jurisdiction of the National Labor Relations Board
by virtue of 39 U.S.C. § 1209.
2. American Postal Workers Union, AFL-CIO is
a labor organization within the meaning of Section
2(5) of the Act.
3. By refusing to honor the revocation of dues-
checkoff assignments by employees having effec-
tively resigned from union membership, when the
employees' dues-checkoff assignments were in con-
sideration of union membership, the Respondent
violated Section 8(a)(1) and (2) of the Act.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practice is an unfair
labor practice affecting commerce within the mean-
ing of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged
in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within
the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) and (2) of the Act,
we shall order that it cease and desist therefrom
and take certain affirmative action necessary to ef-
fectuate the purposes of the Act.
We shall order the Respondent to make employ-
ee Thomas M. Dalton whole for any monetary loss
he may have suffered by reason of the Respond-
ent's unlawful refusal to honor his revocation of
dues-checkoff assignment after he had effectively
resigned his union membership, with interest in ac-
cordance with the formula prescribed in F. W.
Woolworth Co., 90 NLRB 289 (1950); and Florida
Steel Corp., 231 NLRB 651 (1977).
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board orders that
the Respondent, United States Postal Service, Seat-
tle, Washington, its officers, agents, successors and
assigns, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Refusing to honor the revocation of dues-
checkoff assignment by employees having effec-
tively resigned from union membership, when the
employees' dues-checkoff assignments were in con-
sideration of union membership.
6 The Intervenors' request for clanfication of the issues and their emer-
gency motion to postpone pending clarification are denied
43
(b) In any like or related manner interfering
with, restraining, or coercing employees in the ex-
ercise of the rights guaranteed them by Section 7
of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action neces-
sary to effectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Reimburse or refund to Thomas M. Dalton
the dues unlawfully collected from him, with inter-
est, for the period following his valid resignation
from membership and revocation of dues-checkoff
assignment as set forth in the remedy section.
(b) Post at its facility in Seattle, Washington,
copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix."T
Copies of the notice, on forms provided by the Re-
gional Director for Region 19, after being signed
by the Respondent's authorized representative,
shall be posted by the Respondent immediately
upon receipt and maintained for 60 consecutive
days in conspicuous places including all places
where notices to employees 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.
(c) Notify the Regional Director in writing
within 20 days from the date of this Order what
steps the Respondent has taken to comply.
7 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 Nation-
al Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of
the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National
Labor Relations Board."
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 violated the National Labor Relations Act
and has ordered us to post and abide by this notice.
WE WILL NOT refuse to honor the revocation of
dues-checkoff assignment by employees having ef-
fectively resigned from union membership, when
the employees' dues-checkoff assignment was in
consideration of union membership.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner
interfere with, restrain, or coerce you in the exer-
cise of the rights guaranteed you by Section 7 of
the Act.
44 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
WE WILL reimburse or refund to Thomas M. ignation from membership and revocation of dues-
Dalton the dues unlawfully collected from him, checkoff assignment.
with interest, for the period following his valid res-
UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE