United Steelworkers of America, Local No. 4028

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 25, 1965

154 N.L.R.B. 692 (N.L.R.B. 1965)

692 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Upon these facts, we find insufficient basis for concluding that the
Employer's action in holding group meetings constituted an isolation
of a few from among the many at a locus of managerial authority
in order to create an aura of special treatment directed to individ-
uals, as distinguished from employees as a whole, so as to bring their
conduct within the prohibition of the General Shoe doctrine. There-
fore, contrary to the Regional Director, we hereby overrule this
objection.'
Accordingly, as the objections have been overruled, and as the six
challenges which have been overruled pursuant to the Regional
Director's Supplemental Decision, as modified herein, constitute a
number sufficient to affect the election results, we shall direct the
Regional Director to open and count such challenged ballots and to
proceed further in accord with the Rules and Regulations.
The case is hereby remanded to the Regional Director.
DIRECTION
[The Board directed that the Regional Director for Region 10
shall, within 10 days from the date of this Decision, open and count
the challenged ballots of David E. Mynatt, Delores Coram, Carol
Weaver, Lawrence L. Simpson, John H. Waggoner, and Raymond S.
Mayes, and serve upon the parties a revised tally of ballots. In the
event that the revised tally of ballots shows that the results are
determinative, the Regional Director shall issue the appropriate
certification. In the event that the revised tally of ballots shows
that no choice received a majority of valid votes cast, the Regional
Director shall conduct a runoff election in accordance with the
Board's Rules and Regulations.]
9 Assuming, without deciding, that the Employer 's attorney made the remarks attributed
to him concerning the plant cafeteria, we do not view such remarks as having sufficient
impact upon the employees ' freedom of choice to warrant setting aside the election.
United Steelworkers of America, Local No. 4028, AFL-CIO
(Pittsburgh-Des Moines Steel Company ) and Richard C. Price.
Case No. ?O-CB-1231. August 25,1965
DECISION AND ORDER
Upon charges duly filed by Richard C. Price, the General Counsel
of the National Labor Relations Board, by the Acting Regional
Director for Region 20, on November 5, 1964, issued a complaint
against the Respondent, United Steelworkers of America, Local No.
4028, AFL-CIO. Copies of the charge, the complaint, and notice
154 NLRB No. 54.
UNITED STEELWORKERS OF AMERICA, LOCAL NO. 4028 693
of hearing before a Trial Examiner were duly served upon the
Respondent and the Charging Party. In substance, the complaint
alleged that the Respondent violated Section 8(b) (1) (A) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, by fining the Charging
Party and suspending him from membership in the Respondent
because the Charging Party had filed petitions with the National
Labor Relations Board "pertaining to the Respondent's representa-
tion" of a unit of employees of the Pittsburgh-Des Moines Steel
Company.
The Respondent filed its answer on November 19, 1964, denying
the commission of any unfair labor practice. It admits the jurisdic-
tional allegations of the complaint, and that it took certain action,
including the suspension and fine of the Charging Party, but alleges
that such action was taken pursuant to the constitution of the United
Steelworkers of America, hereinafter referred to as the Steelworkers.
The Respondent further alleges as a defense that the Charging Party
had failed to exhaust his administrative remedies under its constitu-
tion. On December 18, 1964, the Respondent amended its answer and
alleged that on November 23, 1964, a committee of the Steelworkers
acting under the provisions of its constitution withdrew the fine im-
posed on the Charging Party.
On January 26, 1965, all parties to this proceeding entered into a
stipulation of facts, and on the same date moved jointly to transfer
this proceeding on stipulated record directly to the Board for find-
ings of fact, conclusions of law, and a Decision and Order. The
parties waived their rights to a hearing before a Trial Examiner and
to the issuance of a Trial Examiner's Decision. The parties further
agreed that the stipulation of facts and the exhibits attached thereto
constituted the entire record in the case, and that no oral testimony
is necessary or desired by the parties. By an order dated February 8,
1965, the Board approved the stipulation and ordered the proceed-
ing transferred to, and continued before, the Board for the purpose
of making findings of fact and conclusions of law and for the issu-
ance of a Decision and Order. The Board further directed that
briefs be submitted not later than February 24, 1965. Thereafter
the Respondent and the General Counsel filed briefs.
The Board has considered the briefs and the entire record in this
case, and based thereon makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. JURISDICTION
The Employer, Pittsburgh-Des Moines Steel Company , is a Penn-
sylvania corporation engaged in the manufacture and distribution of
694 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
fabricated steel products, with its principal office located at Pitts-
burgh, Pennsylvania, and facilities in various States, including the
plant involved herein, located at Santa Clara, California. The Em-
ployer, in the course and conduct of its business, annually purchases
and receives goods and materials directly from suppliers outside the
State of California valued in excess of $50,000 and annually sells
goods and materials directly to customers outside the State of Cali-
fornia valued in excess of $50,000.
The parties stipulated, and we find, that Pittsburgh-Des Moines
Steel Company, during all times material herein, has been, and is
now, an employer within the meaning of Section 2(2) of the Act,
that it is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6)
and (7) of the Act, and that it will effectuate the policies of the Act
to assert jurisdiction herein.
H. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The Respondent, United Steelworkers of America, Local No. 4028,
AFL-CIO, is now, and at all times material herein has been, a labor
organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
The Employer and,the Steelworkers, with which the Respondent
is affiliated, have been parties to a number of collective-bargaining
agreements covering employees at the Employer's Santa Clara, Cali-
fornia, plant. One such contract entered in+o by the Employer and
the Steelworkers on behalf of the Respondent was effective from
September- 1, 1962, to September 1, 1964, and contained a lawful
union-security clause.' -
The Charging Party, Richard C. Price, has been an employee of
the Employer since 1951, and a dues paying member of the Respond-
ent from 1951 until June 10, 1964.2 Price was at all relevant times
subject to the union-security provision of the 1962 contract between
the Employer and the Steelworkers. -
On April 15, 1964, Price filed a petition with the Regional
Director for Region 20 (Case No. 20-UD-60) seeking an election to
withdraw authority to enter into a union-shop agreement from the
Steelworkers. Thereafter, as Price actually had intended to Sila a
'The clause provided "All eligible employees who after September 1, 1962, became
members of the Union and all employees hired after that date , upon completion of their
probationary period ( thirty ( 30) days), as a condition of continued employment shall
pay initiation fees and Union dues until September 1, 1964. . . .
2 There was , however , a 2-year period not here material , during which Price served in
the Army. -
UNITED STEELWORKERS OF AMERICA, LOCAL NO. 4028 695
decertification petition, he submitted a request to withdraw the
petition in Case No. 20-UD-60. This request was approved by the
Regional Director on April 24, 1964, and on June 3, 1964, Price filed
with the Regional Director a petition (Case No. 20-RD-384) seeking
to decertify the Steelworkers as the bargaining representative of the
employees of the Employer.
On May 13, 1964, three employees of the Employer, who were also
members of the Respondent, filed charges with the Respondent
alleging that Price, by filing the petition in Case No. 20-UD-60, had
violated article XII, section 1(d), of the Steelworkers' International
constitution.'
Price appeared before the Respondent's trial committee on June 1,
1964, and was found guilty of violating the Steelworkers' constitu-
tion as charged. The trial committee recommended to the general
membership of the Respondent that Price be (1) suspended from
membership and precluded from attending meetings for 5 years; (2)
fined $500 plus costs of the hearing; and (3) suspended from mem-
bership completely pending payment of the fine. On June 3, 1964,
the findings and recommendations of the trial committee were
approved and accepted by the Respondent's membership. There-
after Price appealed the action taken against him to the Steel-
workers International executive board, which on November 23, 1964,
withdrew the fine, but left in full force and effect Price's suspension
from membership. Although under the Steelworkers' constitution
Price was entitled to appeal the decision of the executive board to
the regular International convention, he took no such action and the
time to file the appeal has expired.
The General Counsel, relying particularly on the Board's Decision
in Local 138, International Union of Operating £ngin6ers, AFL-
CIO (Charles S. Slcura), 148 NLRB 679, contends that, by taking
the above action against Price because he filed petitions with the
Board, the Respondent restrained and coerced him in the exercise of
the rights guaranteed by Section 7, in violation of Section
8(b) (1) (A) of the Act. In Skura; the Board held that a union
violated Section 8(b) (1) (A) by imposing a fine on an employee for
filing unfair labor practice charges with the Board against the union
BArticle XII , section 1 ( d), of the constitution provides:
Any member may be penalized for committing any one or more of the following
offenses: . . . ( d) advocating or attempting to bring about the withdrawal from
the International Union of any Local Union or any member or group of mem-
bers ; .
Article XII , section 2 , of the constitution provides:
Any member convicted of any one or more of the above offenses may be fined, sus-
pended, or expelled.
696 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
without first exhausting the available internal union remedies. The
Board there concluded that, in view of the overriding public interest
involved in preserving the right of an employee to file unfair labor
practice charges, the proviso to Section 8(b) (1) (A) which permits
a union "to prescribe its own rules with respect to the acquisition or
retention of membership" had no application in a situation where a
union attempted to regulate the exercise of this right by fining a
member because he had filed a charge. However, more recently, in
Tawas Tube Products, Inc., 151 NLRB 46, the Board took note of
the fundamental distinction between union disciplinary action aimed
at the filing of charges seeking redress for asserted infringement of
statutory rights, as in Skura, and union disciplinary action aimed at
defending itself from conduct which seeks to undermine its very
existence. In the latter circumstances present in the Tawas Tube
case , the Board considered a disciplinary expulsion which did not
affect job interests as permissible action which did not constitute in-
terference with the election process; it noted in that connection that
the decision in Skura represented an exception to the general princi-
ple that union disciplinary action is not covered by Section
8(b) (1) (A). Consequently, the Board considered in the Tawas
Tube case that the Skura holding was inapplicable and that an elec-
tion should not be set aside because the union expelled a member
during the election campaign for filing a petition seeking the decer-
tification of the union and actively supporting the decertification
cause.
We believe that the reasoning in Tawas Tube is equally applicable
in the instant case.4 Accordingly, we find that by the above conduct
the Respondent did not violate Section 8(b) (1) (A) of the Act.
'CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Pittsburgh-Des Moines Steel Company is engaged in commerce
within the meaning of the Act.
2. Respondent Union is a labor organization within the meaning
of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. The Respondent has not committed unfair labor practices
within the meaning of Section 8(b) (1) (A) of the Act.
[The Board dismissed the complaint.]
'Although the Respondent also imposed a fine on Price , this fine was, as noted, later
wtihdrawn by the International executive board following an appeal by Price from the
action of the Respondent . As Price was therefore never obligated to pay a fine, we see
no warrant for concluding that the initial levy of the fine ever became an operative
factor in this case.