General Teamsters, Local Union No. 298

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 25, 1978

236 N.L.R.B. 428 (N.L.R.B. 1978)

DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
General Teamsters, Chauffeurs and Helpers Local
Union No. 298, a/w International Brotherhood of
Teamsters Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers
of America and Schumacher Electric Corporation.
Cases 25-CB-2844, 25-CB-2748, 25-CB 2664,
and 25-CB-2664-2
May 25, 1978
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS PENEt.I.O. MURPHY. AND TRUESDAI E
On January 10, 1978, Administrative Law Judge
William F. Jacobs issued the attached Decision in
this proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent filed excep-
tions and a supporting brief, the General Counsel
filed limited exceptions and a brief in support of the
Administrative Law Judge's Decision, and the
Charging Party filed cross-exceptions and a support-
ing brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au-
thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the record and the at-
tached Decision in light of the exceptions and briefs
and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings, and
conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge, to
modify his remedy,' and to adopt his recommended
Order, as modified herein.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Re-
lations Board adopts as its Order the recommended
Order of the Administrative Law Judge, as modified
below, and hereby orders that Respondent, General
Teamsters, Chauffeurs and Helpers Local Union No.
298 a/w International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America,
Michigan City, Indiana, its officers, agents, and rep-
resentatives, shall take the action set forth in the said
recommended Order, as so modified:
1. Insert the following as paragraph l(d):
"(d) In any like or related manner restraining or
coercing its employees in the exercise of their rights
guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act."
2. Delete from paragraph 2(a) the words "comput-
ed at the rate of 7 percent per annum."
3. Substitute the following for the first sentence of
paragraph 2(d):
"(d) Post at its offices and meetings halls, and at
the location of each bulletin board it maintains at the
Rensselaer, Indiana, premises of Schumacher Elec-
tric Corporation, copies of the attached notice
marked 'Appendix.' 17"
'The Administrative Law Judge inadvertently specified interest to be
paid at 7 percent: however, interest will be calculated according to the
"adjusted prime rate" used by the U.S. Internal Revenue Service for interest
on tax payments. as prescribed in Florida Steel Corporation, 231 NLRB 651
(1977).
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
WILLIAM F JACOBS. Administrative Law Judge: This case
was heard before me on February 23-25 and March 8-1 1,
1977, at Remington, Indiana. Complaints with appropriate
orders consolidating cases and notices of hearing issued on
July 28 and 30, and ' November 16, 1976,2 and January 19,
1977. 3 The consolidated complaints allege that Respondent
General Teamsters, Chauffeurs and Helpers Local Union
No. 298, a/w International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, here-
after called the Union, coerced and restrained employees
of Schumacher Electric Company, hereafter called the
Company, in violation of Section 8(b)(l)(A) of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Act, as amended. The Union filed
answers on August 9, 1976, December 13, 1976, and Febru-
ary 7, 1977, which in relevant part, denied the commission
of unfair labor practices.
All parties appeared at the hearing and were afforded
full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence and
argument.
Upon the entire record 4 in this case, from my observa-
tion of the witnesses, and after due consideration of the
briefs filed by the parties, I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. JURISDICTION AND LABOR ORGANIZATION
The complaint alleged, the Union admitted, and I find
that at all times material the Company was and is an em-
ployer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section
2(6) and (7) of the Act and the Union was and is a labor
organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
II. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
The issues concern whether the Union violated Section
8(b)(1)(A) negotiations toward reaching a new agreement
On this date an order consolidating (ases 25 C(B 2664 and 25 -(CB
2664 2 with Case 25 CA-7994 issued.
2On this date an order severing Case 25 CA 7994 from Cases 25 CB
2664, 25 CB-2664-2, and 25 C B-2748 issued.
Charges upon which these complaints issued were filed on the follow ing
dates: Cases 25 CA 7994 June i 1976, 25 (B 2664 June 16, 1976. 25-
('B 2664 2 July 9, 1976. 25 CB 2748 July 16. 1976, and 25-C B
2844 December 16 1976.
4 Errors in the transcript have been noted and corrected.
236 NLRB No. 49
428
GENERAL TEAMETSERS, LOCAL UNION NO. 298
but were unsuccessful. On May 21, 1976, therefore, the
Union called a strike which continued through August 13,
1976, attended by picketing at the Company's premises.
At different times during the course of the strike, a num-
ber of employees submitted resignations to the Union and
subsequently passed through the picket line and returned
to work. The names of these employees and the dates of
the receipt of their resignations and of their return to work
are as follows:
Date
Picket
Date Line
Name
Joseph Clark Parrish
Lois Dawson
Betty Jean Platt
Suk Hyang Platt
Mildred Sanders
Eileen Mauck
Evelyn Respecke
Margaret Warran
Annie L. Shipley
Elizabeth A. Beeching
Edna Leman
Alberta McCormick
Irene Allen
Bonnie Ricks
Alice Doyle
Fern North
Tammy Hesson
Alice Yost
Jennifer Hornbeck
E. Joan Streitmatter
Edith Streitmatter
Tom Engels
Shirley Nagel
Bessie Buckley
Mildred Stephenson
Larry Howard
Betty Bierma
Resigned Crossed
6/09/76
6/09/76
6/09/76
6/09/76
6/09/ 76
6/09/76
6/11/76
6/14 76
6/24/76
6/11/76
6/24/76
6/18/76
6/17/76
6/17/76
6/17/76
6/17/76
6/18/76
6/18/76
6/21/76
6/21/76
6/21/76
6/19/76
6/23/76
6/26/76
7/07/76
7/1 3/76
7/20/76
6/04/76
6/04/76
6/04/76
6/04/76
6/04/76
6/04/76
6/10/76
6/i0/76
6/10/76
6/10/76
6/15/76
6/1 5/76
6/15/76
6/15/76
6/15/76
6/15/76
6/16/76
6/16/76
6/16/76
6/16/76
6/16/76
6/17/76
6/21/76
6/23/76
6/30/76
6/09/76
6/13/76
The Union learned, prior to their doing so, that several
of the above-named individuals intended to resign and
cross the picket line and advised the members on the picket
line through their picket captains that they could bring
charges against those who crossed. Subsequentlb, on June
9, 1976, when the first six of these employees crossed the
picket line, charges were drawn up by the picket captain on
duty and signed by members who were on picket dut,. 5
'The empiovecs who crossed the picket litne on June 9 "ere:
loseph Clark Parrish Suk ls.ran Platt
I.ois Dawson MlWdred Sanders
Betts Platt Eileen Ntauck
The written charges were delivered later that day to the
union office in Michigan City. On June 146 the Union
notified the six employees of the charges and of the fact
that a hearing date would later be scheduled. On June 21
the charges were submitted to the executive board of the
Union and July 6 was set for the hearing date. The six
charged individuals were notified of the hearing date on
June 22. On July 6 and 12 the executive board met and
decided upon a $200 fine to be levied against each of the
six individuals who had crossed the picket line on June 9.
None of the charged individuals attended the hearing. By
letter dated July 15, the six charged individuals were ad-
vised of the decision of the executive board. Attached to
each letter was a copy of the minutes of the hearing con-
taining the reasoning on which the decision was reached,
namely that the Union maintained jurisdiction over the
charged individuals because their attempted resignations
were not validly in accordance with the requirements of the
International constitution.7 and their crossing of the picket
line therefore occurred prior to their resignations, while
they were still members.' In consideration of the merits of
the charge. the decision of the Board was that the charged
individuals had crossed the picket line on June 9 in viola-
tion of art. XIX, sec. 6. subpar. 9 of the International
constitution.
Following the crossing of the picket line on June 9 by the
original six employees, others subsequently followed suit.
Therefore, on Jul), 20, charges were filed by members of
the Union against 21 additional employees for crossing the
picket line.' The basis for the filing of the charges against
All dales refer to 197t unless itherwise indicated
Art, II. sec. 2. .ubhpali h
th) No nmember mal resign from his memibrship in the International
t nion or ain subordinate body hefore he has paid all dues, assess-
mrenlt, fines i nd oither obhligatrns owing it the International Union
and all its uboirdin;lte bodies. and nio resignation shall become effec-
tive until such pas.ment
Ihe t nlons, executise board interpreted and applied this provision in
suh .I Viai As to require potentlitll r[cslgnee It) have their dues paid in full as
of the IlirC the% alhnmil Itheir resignations in order for their resignations to
hI l iii InaLsmiuch ai the six indisiduals i ho submitted their resignaiions
in June 14 h.d nrll p:d Iheir June dues hb thila date, their resignations were
,onsldei ed ini ld iand Ihes wcre therefore still rconsidered members of the
l'ntol. ibhucol to !is jurisdiction as of June 9. the day they crossed the
pi keL hrine The I on did not, hrowever. aidvise the individuals who had
submlitied their ro lignattins either that their resignations were invalid or
that due, for Ihc cirlent Ilolinlh itust be pai
d
before resignations would he
a;ccepteld Ihe Inlern.ilona.il constltution provides in art X sec. 5(l):
ll members paiing due i, I. ocal UInioins must pas them on or hefore
the I;st hubllirss dai iof the current nilonth
Ihe I oca 1 constitutlion, tho ugh spccIfifc lls silent on the subject, Insorpo-
[.leI the .l ..ll is) I[ the Interltn.irtnal constitution by reference
At the (Conlpani. there had been a c;heckoff provision in the expired
co.itrticr I he dues checked off iii complhance with that provision were cus-
toi.erld; dediluted frll the seiond paisheck each month and remitted to
the t nison each mlninth diiring the week In which the 25th das of the month
fell
I he I ni on ti.. k the i'rs illurn thtn the situalion concerning the resignees
s15 s nalllous to thaii oh.f mrenmbers eekilg withdrawal cards, This argument
u.ts o-nsideted lnd telccted ini 11 ied! PtlpersorAer)s International finion.
L cal o. -725. 4 I1. ( 10 (Boise Southemrn Cmpnran r. 220 N I.RB 81 2 197 5
and 1s Ijectle hele hl, eain or i ti rd therein.
i lihese 21 eiriploees esle
I selkii R es scL
Mtarre,~!ie 'iS ,rrasi
Alice N'ost
Jennifer Hornbeck
( 'onrinued
429
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
these employees was the same as for the charges filed
against the first six. On September 3, these 21 employees
were advised of the charges filed against them and on Sep-
tember 23 were informed of the October I I hearing date
set for consideration of the charges. On October II at the
Executive Board meeting, testimony was taken from a
number of witnesses including picket captains, concerning
the dates the named individuals crossed the picket line.
None of the accused appeared at the hearing. The execu-
tive board decided at the October 11 hearing to fine six
additional individuals and at another meeting on Novem-
ber 18, this decision was finalized. On January 28, 1977,
the six additional individuals found guilty were advised
that they had been fined $200 each.'0
According to Kenneth Buhle, secretary-treasurer of the
Union, the basis for the fining of these six individuals was
the same as for the fining of the original six individuals
that crossed the picket line on June 9, namely, that at the
time of their resignations and their crossing of the picket
line, their June dues had not yet been received by the
Union. t Buhle testified that the remaining 15 employees
were not fined because either they were paid up at the time
of their resignation or there was insufficient evidence to
prove that they had not paid their dues at the time they
resigned and crossed the picket line. These individuals
were never advised that charges against them would not be
processed further.
As noted above, the International constitution, article X,
section 5(c), provides that members must pay dues before
the last business day of the current month and, custom-
arily, in accordance with the checkoff provision of the con-
tract, dues were deducted from employees' paychecks for
the second pay period of the month and remitted to the
Union by the 25th day of the same month. Dues for June
were therefore not due until June 25th, and for July not
until July 25. Inasmuch as each employee fined by the
Union, in the absence of checkoff, submitted his monthly
dues long before the 25th of that month, I find that each
fully complied with the requirements of the constitution in
that as of the resignation date each was fully paid up.' 2
Annie Shipley E. Joan Streitmatter
[Elizabeth Beeching Edith Streitnlatter
Alberta McC(ormick Bessie Buckles
Irene Allen Tom Engels
Bonnie Ricks Edna L eman
Alice Doyle Shirley Nagel
Fern North Mildred Stevenson
Tammy liesson LarrN Howard
Betty Bierma
t' lhe six additional employees were:
Evelyn Respecke Elizabeth Beeching
Bonnie Ricks Alberta H. McCormick
Fern North Alice Doyle
I Buhle testified that as of June 9 no dues had been received in check
fornl and he did not attempt thereafter to document when checks vere
received because he did not consider that fact to be relevant. Inasmuch as
the Union neglected to record the dates that dues were receiveJ. I find that
then were in fact received within I or 2 days of the dates they were mailed.
i? The dates on which dues were submitted bs fined employees are as
follows:
Joseph ( lark Parrish
Lois Dawson
Beti,, Platt
June 1I
June II
June II
Therefore. the resignations were effective and the Union's
attempt to fine these employees was clearly in error. Signif-
icantly, union members who neither resigned nor pulled
picket duty were permitted to fall into arrears in their dues
payment without the Union taking action against them.
Since the Union had historically and customarily only
required payment by the 25th of each month, and its const-
itution did not require payment until the end of the month,
its attempt to require employees who resigned their mem-
bership to pay their dues at an earlier date than those who
chose to remain members was clearly a discriminatory ap-
plication of the dues provision of its constitution, motivat-
ed by a desire to keep those individuals who were de-
termined to exercise their Section 7 rights from doing so
under threat of fine." The subsequent fining of those indi-
viduals who chose to resign their membership and thereaf-
ter refrain from participating in the strike was in violation
of Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act. N.L.R.B. v. Granite State
Joint Board, Textile Workers Union of America, Local 1029,
AFL-CIO [International Paper Box Machine Co.], 409 U.S.
213 (1972). Once having effectively resigned, the Union's
power over the resignees is at an end, and its attempt to
discipline them through the levying of fines is violative of
the Act. 14 Granite State Joint Board, supra.
Suk Hyang Platt June 4
Mildred Sanders June II
Eileen Mauck June 7
Evelyn Respecke June II
Elizabeth Beeching June 8
Alberta McCormick June 14
Bonnie Ricks June 14
Alice Doyle June 14
Fern North June 14
1 Cf. Hospital and Nursing Home Emplovees Union Local 113, AFL CIO
(,tounds Park Hospital), 228 NLRB 1500 (19771.
14 The levying of fines against the resignees based on the discriminatory
application of the dues and resignation provisions of the constitution makes
it unnecessary, at this time, to render a decision on the ultimate question of
whether it is a reasonable restraint on a member's freedom to resign to
require him to be fully current in his financial obligations to the Union at
the time his resignation is submitted, assuming said requirements are not
discriminatorily applied or motivated
Moreover, the record is replete with evidence that the Union had de-
termined not to process any resignations until after the strike. Therefore the
constitutional restriction that no member could resign until his dues were
paid up for the current month was not being tested. for the Union made it
clear that, whether or not members were paid up, their resignation would
not be considered for the duration of the strike. The procedure, prescribed
for effective resignation, i.e., payment of dues on resignation, being a futili-
I), compliance therewith is unnecessary, for the law does not require a futile
act. Local Union No 12.13, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of
4merica (Polk (Consiruction Co.. Inc). 231 NLRB 756 (1977).
Finally. the record indicates clearly that several individuals were fined
even though their current month's dues had been paid before they crossed
the picket line. This indicates that timely payment of dues had nothing to do
with whether resignations would be considered effective. that anyone who
attempted to resign and cross the picket line might be fined, and that the
Union permitted no certain effective means of resigning without fear of
possible fine. The procedure adopted by the Union when faced with the
resignations of its membership during the cnritical strike period was to rele-
gate to its executive board the duty of considering resignations already
received, while refusing for the duration of the strike to accept and process
further resignations. The executive board, by indiscriminately fining both
those who had submitted dues before crossing the picket line. (Suk Hyang
Platt. Eileen Mauck. Elizabeth Beeching, Bonnie Ricks. Alice Doyle. Alber-
ta McCormick, and Fern North) as well as those who submitted dues short-
ly thereafter, acted in such an invidious manner upon these resignations so
as to warrant the conclusion that the constitutional restriction requiring
current dues payment was not a consideration in their decisions, but that
430
GENERAL TEAMETSERS. I.OCAL UNION NO. 298
Inasmuch as the charges were solicited upon advice of
union officers and agents and processed through the union
executive board at a time when the employees charged
were no longer members of the Union, I find the filing and
the processing of the charges under the circumstances
herein to be likewise violative of the Act since the), were
discriminatorily motivated, clearly coercive. and tended to
restrain those charged in the exercise of their Section 7
rights.'
B. Picket Line Incidents
The strike began on May 21 and continued through Au-
gust 13. On May 21, Kenneth Buhle was asked by people
on the picket line what would happen if a union member
crossed the picket line. He advised them that the) could be
charged, found guilty, and fined. According to Buhle there
were at the time in excess of a hundred individuals who
were present, although he may have been addressing onlN
20 or 30 people standing around him. All of the stewards
were in the general vicinity at the time. Ruth Greshaw was
among those present.
Evelyn Respecke asked him what would happen if she
went to work for Schumacher in Chicago. Buhle replied
that he "did not think the Union would look too favorably
on it."
According to Evelyn Respecke, on May 21, the morning
the strike began, Joseph Caradonna and Kenneth Buhle,
president and secretary-treasurer of the Union. respective-
ly, were present on the picket line. Caradonna at this time
stated that anybody that crossed the picket line and went
back to work would be fined $500.16 1 credit Respecke's
testimony with regard to this matter 7 and find that the
the sole purpose of finding the resignations ineffective and fining these
employees was to thwart the attempts of these employees to exercise their
Sec. 7 rights. The applic.tion of the constitutional restriction under these
circumstances is therefore not controlling ( oast I allet 7 'ppographi. al
Union Local 650 (The Daili Breeze, Diiston {f C( ,pht Prc.I, In. 22"
NLRB 1048 (1975).
t The instituting of disciplinary proceedings against members hecause
they refuse to honor a picket line. like the fines themselses. is violatie of
Sec. 8(h) 1 (A) where, as here. the motivation is contrar, to the purposes of
the Act. International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Emplovees IRKO General,
Inc, F OR-TVI Diulsiwnj, 223 NLRB 959 (1976). Moreoer, Respondent's
argument that the bringing of charges is a protected right under the abor-
Management Reporting and Disclosure Act is not relevant to Ihe instant
facts where those charged are not members but former members and thus
no more subject to union discipline or charges than "the man In the street "
Granite State Joint Board. rupra Respondent's reliance on HiolkhirLders
Union Lnocal 05 l(Interstaic Book tfanufa/iurers. Ins i. 203 NL RB 732 (1971),
is misplaced in that the quotation cited in its brief refers to charges. the
purpose of which was to secure the lawful expulsion of a member rather
than the unlawful fining of a former member
oi This incident, though not alleged, was fulls litigated at the hearing aind
discussed in the briefs It is therefore subject to a finding herein .i, Gria-
Edrson Compan s N. I? R., 419 F. 2d 67 72 (CA 8, 1969)
' Joseph (Caradonna was not called as a witness because of serious ill-
ness An affidavit taken from Caradonna by a Board agent was offered in
lieu of testimon). The affidavit was rejected as hearsas I stand bh that
ruling. the nature of C(aradonna's illness was not discussed w Ith .ins parinu-
larits at the hearing and I am not at all convinced that his tesimrons could
not have been obtained either at a later date or bh means of depoilton A here
opportunity for full cross-examination could be afforded (Generall Couinsel iiand
the C(h:rging Part! Respecke's testimons was supported albeit Indirectls and
perhaps Inadvertentit hb Marie Barton who stated that pickets shouted it
Indisiduals crossing the picket line, "}lavse s., 1 ,it $5siO
threat of fine was made just as she stated. As of Mas 21.
however. those individuals being addressed bh Buhle and
Caradonna were full union members, subject to lawful in-
ternal union rules and concomitant obligatimons. As a mat-
ter of laws, the Union could, in fact, fine any of those mem-
bers addressed Buhle and (aradonna on May 21 and the
notification to them that such was the case, in the absence
of ans discussion concerning resignation, was not in viola-
tion of the statute. .L.R. B v. .4 /i.s-Chalmers .Vanul/acrur-
tng (o.. et al., 388 U.S. 175 (1967). particularly footnote
30: 1 .(oal Ctnion No. 1233, LUnied Brotlhrhood of Carpen-
ters and Joiners of Ameirica (Polk Construction Co., Inc.).
s.pra.
According to employee James Minick, he was told on
one occasion during the first 2 weeks of the strike hby picket
captain Nettie Beliles that anyone who resigned to cross
the picket line would be fined. I do not, however, credit
Minick with regard to his description of the alleged inci-
dent. He was vague as to dates, stated specifically that he
could not remember what was said, and testified to the
events only upon being furnished complete details through
the leading questions of the examining attorney. I find
Minick's testimony concerning this incident without evi-
dentiary value.
According to employee James Butler, in early June l,
while on the picket line, he asked picket captain Nettie
Beliles what would happen to the people who had resigned
from the Union and she replied that they would be brought
before the executive board of the Union and fined $500.
On this day. Bellies brought around a petition requesting
that charges be brought against those employees who had
crossed the picket line and asked Butler to sign the peti-
tion. As a steward, member of the bargaining committee
and picket captain. Beliles was clearly an agent of respon-
dent (Inlernatrional Longshoremen'.s and Warehousemen's
Union, (C10 er al. (Sunset Line and Tswine Companv), 79
NLRB 1487 (1948) and the Union is responsible for her
acts, where committed within the scope of general authori-
ty and employment. Teansters Local l115, International
Brotherhood of Teanmsters, Chauiffeurs, Warehousemen and
Helpers of .4merica. Independent IE. J. Lavino & (',npanovl
157 NL RB 1637 (1966): eatmnsters Local 860, International
Brotherhood of Teaimters, ( hauffeurs. Warehousemen and
Helpers olf America (Delta Lines. Inc.), 229 NLRB 993
(1977). Therefore, when Beliles stated that employees who
resigned from the Union would be brought before the exec-
utive board and fined $500. the Union thereby threatened
to impose court collectible fines on former members who
had tendered valid resignations for conduct following their
resignations, an act which has been found in violation of
I hope sou h.ixe goit Sici ( Ielrti, then must hase ohtained that p.iarliUlar
figure fr.im silnleone and I find,l in iaccirdance with Respecke ', tetimonns
that it was froi ( iaradolnna.i
hi (hariic Part .aicues ,.r at least iniplihs that C arad,,nna haid .a d ts o
adxlsc those prese t that tihes u.ll 1oit he sihlect !1i suth fine If hes!
effectels resiened flion the I nlion But aiismu h a. the iuhiblectf Icslin.a-
tioI i.sia nost kindel dissussi o at the lintle. I find that (a.r.adonTIL hid nT
i.hblg.ailOn i, inlrodtilc this riilier f l l ionlderatil.n
Belile c ull ii 1t1 rc.1il il hlis 1e Ihlf n.ll.lritiis1 is11it HuBllel I relit
Butler l tlel nii l. i iakenis testified lhat the ouinscrsatioIn o tsilred ii t1he fwCi
c.eek iT) .Julie sheCre.as his tes[itltlsl, 1h l it i ,, tie¢ ..ie tile sanle dis [i.il
the petiteit 5 il s t11 t uht d .i rlc I t ,iiurcd n lr hkels , JunelI 0
431
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Section 8(b)(1)(A). Local Lodge No. 1994, International As-
sociation of Machinists anti Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO
(O.K. Tool Company', Inc.), 215 NLRB 651 (1974). The sub-
sequent circulation of the petition by Beliles to bring
charges against those individuals who had chosen to exer-
cise their Section 7 rights by resigning from the Union and
who thereafter refused to participate in the strike was clear-
ly coercive not only against those former members who
had already resigned but also against those who might be
considering exercising those rights in the future. N.L.R.B.
v. Granite State Joint Board, supra.
About a week after his discussion with Beliles, about the
second week in June. while on the picket line, Butler asked
picket captain Glenn Irwin what would happen to the peo-
ple who had resigned from the Union and Irwin replied
that a member could send in a resignation but it would not
be valid until after the strike and that people who crossed
the picket line would be fined $500. Irwin testified that he
could recall a discussion with one or more individuals, al-
though he could not remember who they were, wherein he
had expressed his own personal opinion that, if a member
attempted to resign the resignation would not be valid until
it was accepted by the executive board. He advised the
individual that this was only his opinion and that he really
did not know. Later Irwin found out that he had been
mistaken in this belief. Irwin denied mentioning fines dur-
ing his conversation.
With regard to this incident I credit the testimony of
Butler as opposed to that of Irwin where there is conflict
between the two. Irwin, as picket captain and steward, was
acting as the agent of the Union and his statement that
resignees who crossed the picket line would be fined was
coercive and violative of Section 8(b)(1)(A). Local lodge
No. 1994, Machinists. supra. and Granite State Joint Board,
supra.
Similarly, Butler testified that in early June, while at the
picket line, he heard Buhle state that if anyone resigned he
could be fined and that it would be up to the Union's
executive board to set the amount of the fine. Buhle testi-
fied in a fairly similar fashion.2 ) According to Butler, Buhle
added that resignations would be held up until after the
strike. About the same time, Butler asked picket captain
Greshaw if members could resign and cross the picket line
and Greshaw replied that the Union was not accepting res-
ignations. 2 1 Greshaw was asked a similar question by Min-
ick and, according to Minick, he too was told that the
Union was not accepting resignations at that time.
For reasons stated above, I find the threat to fine resig-
nees for crossing the picket line, as made by Buhle, an
admitted union agent, violative of Section 8(b)( )(A). I also
find the statements of Buhle and Greshaw, that resigna-
tions would not be processed, indicative of the Union's
desire to interfere with the rights of its members to pursue
their Section 7 rights, and evidence that the Union intend-
ed to prevent their resignation regardless of whether their
:" Where Ihthlc's ICstillnon
.
is nlconsllent Iwith Butler's. the latter is
crediied.
1 Butler's testlrlron, is cledited Io the extent that (ireshlaw's testimllnl is
in Lonflhc with h lli of Bltler. (;resh'lJ's is rejected. I found (ireshiua to he
.1 lict]p:llt, eC.%Ivc Wit JlCs,
dues payments were current or in arrears, thus proving that
the Union's reliance on the restriction in its constitution
requiring current dues payment was pretextual in that it
had no bearing on the Union's considerations in determin-
ing to fine former members for crossing the picket line.
On June 9 the first six employees returned to work. That
evening, about 9 o'clock, several of them left the plant in
an automobile owned and driven by Plant Manager Joseph
Prietula. As they drove out the gate, picket captain Chris
Tanner 22 shouted at them, swearing and warning Prietula
that he "had better watch his house." At the time there
were 35 to 40 people at the gate along with Tanner, includ-
ing picket captain Ruth Greshaw and Glenn Irwin.
Tanner's threat, as picket captain, is imputable to the
Union and, inasmuch as it was uttered in the presence of
rank-and-file employees, is violative of Section 8(b)(1)(A).
For, where an authorized union representative such as a
picket captain participates or is present at the time midcon-
duct occurs, the Board will not hesitate to find that the
Union is responsible. Teamsters Local 860, supra; Team-
sters Local #115, supra. An express threat of physical vio-
lence, calculated to intimidate strikebreakers from continu-
ing to work is violative of Section 8(b)(l)(A). International
Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's Union, CIO (Sunset
Line and Twine Company), supra.
On or about June 9 employee Alice Doyle learned that
certain other employees had returned to work. Since she
too desired to return to work, she contacted Nettie Beliles
and asked her how she could go about resigning so she
could return to work. Beliles told Doyle not to resign be-
cause , if she did, the Union would fine her $500 and would
take her to court and she would go to jail. Beliles advised
Doyle to tell this to the other employees.
Doyle called Beliles a second time, 2 days later, and told
her that she understood that employees were returning to
work but Beliles once again told Doyle that she should stay
away, that she would be making the biggest mistake [to
cross the picket line and return to work], and to tell the
other employees not to resign because, if they did, they
would be fined $500. She added that the first six employees
that had crossed the picket line would be fined. Beliles then
told Doyle that the Union would take her to court, that
Buhle would have her fired, and that the Company would
not do anything to help her. She also told Doyle that she
would not have any rights for (within?) the Union (if she
resigned and returned to work through the picket line], and
that the Union would not support her once she resigned.2 3
For the reasons stated, based on cases cited above, I find
Beliles' threat that Doyle would be fined for resigning and
crossing the picket line violative of Section 8(b)(1)(A) of
the Act. Beliles' statement that Doyle would not have an)y
rights within the Union, that Buhle would have her fired
(or more likely, that he would do nothing for her, if she
were fired), and that the Union would not support her once
she resigned, amounts, at the very least, to a threat that, if
Doyle should resign, the Union would not represent her as
diligently as they would if she did not resign. I find this
threat violative. Highway and Local Motor Freight Employ-
- alailer was not called to testiif
B eliles denied h. ing any conxersations with D)o.le concerning resigna-
tions I credit [)osle.
432
GENERAL TEAMETSERS. LOCAL UNION NO. 298
ees Local Union No. 667, affiliated with the International
Brotherhood of Teamsters. Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and
Helpers of America (Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corporation),
228 NLRB 398 (1977).
On or about June II or 12, employees Jennifer Horn-
beck and Betty Burns engaged picket captain Ruth Gresh-
aw in conversation while they were situated across the
street from the plant. Hornbeck mentioned that she intend-
ed to resign and cross the picket line and asked Greshaw if
she would be fined if she resigned. Greshaw replied affir-
matively and mentioned the specific sum of $500. Horn-
beck then stated that she did not believe this to be true
since she had been told otherwise by employee Betty Platt.
According to Hornbeck, Greshaw thereupon made a piece
of paper available bearing the names of six employees. 24
She told Hornbeck that the six would be fined because the
way they had crossed the picket line had been illegal. She
told Hornbeck that Clark Parrish and Suk Hyang Platt,
among others, would be fined. Employee Betty Bierma was
present during this discussion and picket captain Nettie
Beliles was also nearby but not involved in the conversa-
tion. Bierma recalled that, when she and Hornbeck asked
Greshaw what would happen if they crossed the picket
line, Greshaw replied that there was a possibility that they
could get fined if they crossed the picket line. She then
elaborated by stating that. if they resigned but did not
cross the picket line, nothing would happen, but if after
resigning they did cross the picket line, they would prob-
ably or would possibly get fined. Bierma supported
Hornbeck's testimony by corroborating the fact that, dur-
ing this conversation, Greshaw showed Hornbeck and Bi-
erma a piece of paper from the union office in Michigan
City bearing the names of the six people who had initially
crossed the picket line and stating that charges had been
brought against them. Bierma could not, however, recall
any particular amount of money being mentioned on the
document.
Greshaw denied discussing resignations with ans of the
charged parties but admitted discussing with pickets what
she believed could happen to those employees who had
resigned and crossed the picket line. On these occasions,
according to Greshaw, she stated that hopefully these em-
ployees would be fined. Greshaw also acknowledged that
she showed to Bierma a copy of a letter which she had
received from Buhle announcing that charges had been
filed against the six employees who had crossed the picket
line of June 9.25
' Hornbeck testified thal the paper alluded to a $500 fine. I find that
Hornbeck was In error on this point hut thal her credihilits is nor therebc
generally affected
2 Respondent argues, in brief. that there are substantiall differenice he-
tween the statements that employees "could" be fined and statements that
they "would" be fined. emphasizing that the formner is not coercive I do not
agree, for, if a member effectivel) resigns membership and thereafter crosses
the picket line. that individual should not be threatened With po-ible conse-
quences any more than with definite repercussions In either cas ihe rtate-
ment is coercive in nature and a restraint on the individual who is lassfull)
pursuing or contemplating pursuing the rights guaranteed hb SeC 7 of the
Act Similarl.s I find. under the clrcumstiances present herein, tlir thi e lithical
"to bring chairges" as opposed to the threat "to fine" is a distinctioni 'ih ltl
a malerial difference since the tenden.s It ictr:lin is :ppairenlt it either
case
I find Greshaw's statement to Hornbeck and Bierma
that they would be fined if they resigned violative of the
Act for reasons enunciated above in my treatment of simi-
lar previous incidents. Similarly, I find her statement that
the six individuals who had previously resigned would be
fined, likewise in violation of the Act inasmuch as their
resignations, contrary to Greshaw's statement, were valid.
On the evening of June II employee Jennifer Hornbeck
and her husband left their car parked in a lot across the
street from the plant for about an hour. When they re-
turned they found that one of the tires on the car had its
valve stem pulled out and the tire flat. While Douglas
Hornbeck repaired the tire. Jennifer Hornbeck and Betty
Bierma noticed picket captain Glenn Irwin about half a
block away, so the) approached him and engaged him in a
conversation. Jennifer asked Irwin if he had flattened the
tire or knew who had. He replied negatively and stated that
anyone, kids or pickets, could have done it. Despite Irwin's
denial, the Hornbecks suspected that he had damaged the
tire. Jennifer Hornbeck told Irwin at this point that she had
resigned from the Union and was going to cross the picket
line. She and Bierma added that "it was something like this
[meaning the damaging of the tire] that makes a person
want to resign from the Union." Irwin told them not to
cross the picket line because, if she did, she would be fined
just as the others who had already crossed the picket line
were going to be fined. At this point Douglas Hornbeck.
who had bh this time finished working on the tire, came
over and asked Irwin if he had damaged the tire. Irwin
again replied that he had not, but that anybody there might
have flattened it. Then Irwin added that the damage to the
tire might only he the beginning of what could happen if
Hornbeck did cross the picket line. Irwin was then asked
what he meant and he replied, "Like broken window, and
stuff like that." Irwin told Jennifer Hornbeck that she had
a choice: that she could cross the picket line and get her
windows shot out or not cross it, in which case "everything
would he okay." He told her to call up Betty Platt and have
her ( Hornbeck's) name withdrawn from the resignation let-
ter which she had signed along with certain other employ-
ees.
Bierma then asked Irwin if the Union would continue to
process grievances for her and Hornbeck if they resigned.
He replied that he would, but he would not help them as
much as he would help a union member and that Horn-
beck and Bierma would have to pay $50 to get back in the
Union.
Irwin acknowledged having a conversation with Horn-
beck and Bierma wherein the former accused him and ior
the pickets of flattening her tire. He testified that she was
angry at the time and stated that she had already placed
her name on a resignation letter and intended to cross the
picket line. However, he ascribed to Bierma, rather than to
himself, the statement that the flattening of the tire was
only the beginning. When Jennifer Hornbeck asked Irwin
what would happen if she crossed the picket line. Irwin
stated that he would file charges against her. According to
Irwin. after some discussion Hornbeck calmed down and
2' Blerll denie a tiknA I this xthticllent and attributed It to Irlri. as had
tbornbeck
433
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
stated that she would have her name removed from the
resignation letter.27 With regard to processing grievances.
Irwin testified that the subject was not discussed but that
he did tell Hornbeck that, if she resigned but did not cross
the picket line, he would do everything he could to help
her, and by this he meant keeping the other employees
from calling her a "scab" and things of that nature. He
denied that his offer had anything to do with processing
grievances."
Irwin's threat of fine, like similar threats previously dis-
cussed, was violative of Section 8(a)(1)(A). His statement
that the damage to Hornbeck's tire might only be the be-
ginning of what could happen, and his example of "broken
windows, and stuff like that" in the context of these con-
versations, as well as his threat concerning the shooting out
of Hornbeck's windows if she crossed the picket line, are
all violative of Section 8(b)( )(A) inasmuch as these threats
would clearly tend, and in fact, did restrain, Hornbeck in
her right to choose not to honor the picket line.29 Local 918,
International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, 'Ware-
houscemen and Helpers of America (Tale-Lord Manufactut ing
Company, Inc.), 206 NLRB 382 (1973).
Irwin's statement to Bierma that he would not process
grievances for those who resigned with the same diligence
that he would for members is at complete variance with
that portion of the Act which guarantees that once a labor
organization enters into a collective-bargaining relation-
ship with an employer it is bound to represent the employ-
ees in the unit fairly and equally, regardless of their mem-
bership or nonmembership in the Union. The statement by
Irwin, a steward, that he would not represent Bierma and
Hornbeck as well as he would members once they resigned,
is a threat to breach that duty of equal representation and
is violative of Section 8(b)(1)(A) in that it was clearly a
coercive attempt to restrain Bierma and Hornbeck in their
rights to be free to resign their membership and to work as
former members. The threat to represent resignees in a less
effective manner than full members has been held viola-
tive. Highway and Local Motor Freight Employees Local
Union No. 667, supra. Where the objective behind the
threat of discriminatory representation is itself in conflict
with the ultimate purposes of the Act, as in the instant
case, the threat is all the more condemnable. International
Brotherhood of Teamsters, General Drivers, Chauffeurs and
Helpers Local Union No. 886 (Lee Way Motor Freight, Inc.),
229 NLRB 832 (1977).
On Saturday, June 12, employee Joseph Parrish drove to
work with a carload of employees and entered the compa-
ny property via its south gate."0 Employee Paul Dawson
drove in behind him with additional employees. When they
2 Hornbeck testified that she did, in fact, state that she soiuld hase her
name removed from the resignation letter but maintained that it was he-
cause of the threats that she decided to do so
2I find that the inclident occurred hasically as described bh Biernia and
the Hornhecks Where Irwin's testimony is at variance with theirs. I credit
Bierma and the iHornbecks.
24 Hornheck. subsequent to this discussion with Irwin. removed her narine
from the letter of resignation
(I Fhe description of this incident is based on the credited testimiony if
Joseph and Sharon Parrish, Betty Platt. Eileen Mauck. Paul Dawsin. and
the stipula ted testimoni of L ois Dawson.
arrived at the gate, there were two or three pickets present.
One of them, Hilda Agnew, had rocks in her hand as the
cars approached. As Parrish turned into the driveway, Ag-
new threw a rock which struck the side of Parrish's car and
put a 6- to 8-inch dent in its door. Parrish stopped his car,
leaned out, and shouted to Dawson to call the police. As
Dawson pulled away, Agnew threw a second rock at
Dawson's car which broke the rear window. Dawson con-
tinued down the street to call the police.
According to Joseph Parrish, picket captain Glenn Irwin
was standing 75 to 100 yards away, watching the incident
through binoculars. He did not come over to where the
incident occurred, but remained where he was.3i
Respondent takes the position that this incident is too
insubstantial and isolated to require a remedial order and
that in any event Respondent was not responsible for
Agnew's acts, the nearest picket captain being 100 yards
away and unaware of the incident. I find, however, that the
incident was neither insubstantial nor isolated, for, as not-
ed above, Irwin had, just the day before, warned employees
Hornbeck and Bierma that employees who crossed the
picket line could expect violence. Moreover, as discussed
infra, additional incidents of violence occurred following
the Agnew incident, and those occurred in the immediate
presence of picket captains who either participated directly
in the acts of violence or passively stood by while they were
being committed. The earlier threats of violence and the
later participation in other violent acts on the picket line
indicate Respondent's acquiesence in the violent activity of
its pickets and requires a finding that said activity is imput-
able to the Union and is violative of Section 8(b)(l)(A).
For, under the law, a union's responsibility for activity on
a picket line, such as the acts described herein, giving rise
to certain of the 8(b)(1)(A) allegations contained in the
complaint, is judged in accordance with the "ordinary law
of agency" and it is liable for the acts of an agent "within
the scope of the agent's general authority" even though the
Union has not specifically authorized or may have specifi-
cally forbidden the act in question. International
Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's Union, CIO, supra;
Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Helpers & Taxicab Drivers Local
Union 327, affiliated with International Brotherhood of
Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America
(Coca-Cola Bottling Works of Nashville), 184 NLRB 84
(1970). It has further been held that, in authorized strikes,
unions are normally responsible for the acts of authorized
pickets or even individuals not particularly so authorized
but who voluntarily act in concert with them. Teamsters
Local 695 and its Agents James Marketti, et al. (Wisconsin
Supply Corporation), 204 NLRB 866 (1973); Local 612, In-
ternational Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Ware-
housemen and Helpers of America (Deaton Truck Line, Inc.),
146 NLRB 498 (1964). Since threats and the employment
of force on a picket line may reasonably be expected to
occur, they fall within the scope of employment of pickets,
and the labor organization authorizing the picketing is re-
sponsible for those acts of the pickets which may be ad-
judged in violation of the Act. Teamsters, Local Union 327,
supra. Consequently, the violent acts perpetrated by Agnew
"l Irwin denied ans knowledge of the incident. I credit Parrish.
434
GENERAL TEAMETSERS, LOCAL UNION NO. 298
while serving on the Union's authorized picket line are at-
tributable to the Union and said acts are clearly in viola-
tion of Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act. Union de Empleados
de la Industria del Enlatado de Pescado v Ramas Anexas de
Puerto Rico and its agent. Domingo Rivera Rosado (National
Packing Company), 192 NLRB 700 (1971).
On the morning of June 14 Joseph Parrish approached
the front gate of the plant in his automobile. carrying sev-
eral employees to work.32 Once again he was followed by
Paul Dawson in his automobile carrying additional em-
ployees. When they arrived they observed 20 to 35 pickets
present, approximately 15 of whom were milling around in
the driveway in such a manner as to require the automobile
to slow down considerably. The pickets did not, with any
alacrity, move out of the way of the automobiles coming
through the gate, so that the automobiles carrying the em-
ployees were forced to creep slowly through the pickets in
order to gain entrance to the plant. Picket captain Greshaw
and Tanner were present. As the automobiles passed
through the pickets, the pickets banged and pushed against
the car and its windows and driver Joseph Parrish observed
Chris Tanner kick the door of his car and damage it.
Dawson's car also was slowed considerably in entering
plant grounds and was pounded, pushed, rocked, and also
kicked and dented by Chris Tanner. Greshaw, who was
standing nearby observing the situation, merely shrugged
when asked by Dawson to do something. It took the cars
about 3 minutes to get through the picket line and onto the
plant grounds. more than three times the length of time
required ordinarily.
Respondent would have allegations concerning this inci-
dent dismissed as insignificant. I do not find it so. Rather.
I find the activity of the pickets and picket captains on this
picket line, for reasons stated previously, directly attribut-
able to the Union, and clearly violative of the Act. Team-
sters, Local Union 327, supra; International Longshoremen's
and Warehousemen's Union (Sunset Line and Twine Compa-
nr), supra.
Shortly after the incidents of June 12 and 14 a temporary
restraining order was granted to the Company and on June
23 a permanent injunction issued based on a stipulation
reached by the parties governing future conduct of the
Union and its agents during the strike.
Some weeks after the first six employees crossed the
picket line, employee Betty Bierma engaged picket captain
Beliles in conversation and asked her what would happen
to those six employees. Beliles replied that they would
probably be fined. Bierma then asked if they would be
fined even if they followed proper procedures by paying
their dues and having everything in order and Beliles re-
plied affirmatively.3 3 As found above, and for reasons stat-
ed, the Union thereby violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the
Act.
On or about June 15, the Union held a meeting in Rens-
1" The description of this incident is hased on the credited testinmons of
Joseph and Sharon Parrish. Betir Plait. Eileen Mauck, Paul Daiv.on. ind
the stipulated testimony of Lois Dawson (ireshav's testimnion. where at
variance with that of General C(ounsel's ,ltnesses. is rejecled
" Beliles testified that she had heard from other pickets Ihat emplosees
who resigned and crossed the picket line could he fired hut could not recall
telling this to Bierma or ansone else I credit Bierma.
selaer at which business agent Harold Schutte presided. At
this meeting employee James Butler asked Schutte what
would happen to the people who had resigned from the
Ulnion and crossed the picket line. Schutte replied that he
would not say what would happen to them but that they
would not like what would happen to them and they would
be brought before the executive board. According to the
testimony of James Minick. when Schutte was asked, dur-
ing this meeting. if it was legall b permissible to resign and
then cross the picket line, he replied that people who re-
signed and crossed the picket line could be fined and that
it was up to the executive board to determine the amount
of the fines. He added that the Union was not accepting
resignations until after the strike. Once again, for reasons
enumerated above, the Union on this occasion, as well as
previous ones, violated Section 8(b)(l)(A) by stating,
through its admitted agent Harold Schutte that employees
who had validly resigned membership in the Union could
be fined for crossing the picket line thereafter.
In summary. I find that Respondent Union violated Sec-
tion 8(b) I )(A) of the National Labor Relations Act, by the
following conduct:
I(a) On or about June 9. 1976, bringing charges and
thereafter processing said charges against the following
employees for violating the Union's constitution by cross-
ing its picket line though said employees had previously
effectively resigned their membership in Respondent's
union:
Joseph Clark Parrish
Betty Platt
Eileen Mauck
Lois Dawson
Suk Hyang Platt
Mildred Sanders
(b) On or about Jul, 12, 1976, finding said employees
guilty of said charges and fining them $200 each. based
upon the June 9. 1976. charges.
2(a) On or about July 20, 1976.4 bringing charges
against and thereafter processing said charges against the
following employees for violating the Union's constitution
bh crossing its picket line though said employees had previ-
ouslv effectively resigned their membership in Respon-
dent's union:
Fern North
Betty Bierma
Jennifer Hornbeck
Elizabeth Beeching
Edith Streitmatter
Alberta McCormick
Alice Do le
Edna Leman
Shirley Nagel
Bessie Buckley
Mildred Stephenson
Tamara Hesson
Alice Yost
Joan Streitmatter
Annie Shipley
Margaret Warran
Evelyn Respecke
Bonnie Ricks
Thomas Engels
Irene Allen
L arry Howard
(b) On or about November 18, 1976. finding the fol-
lowing employees guilt? of said charges and fining them
$200 each based upon the July 20, 1976, charges:
Evelyn Respecke
Bonnie Ricks
Fern North
Elizabeth Beeching
Alberta H. McCormick
Alice Doyle
C(h.arge mallo d t o .rchLred itisllduis on September .1 1'76
435
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
3(a) On or about the following dates, by Respondent
Union's officers and agents, listed opposite said dates,
while at or near the site of the picketing, threatening to fine
employees of the employer who resign and thereafter cross
Respondent's Union's picket line:
Nettie Beliles
Glenn Irwin
Kenneth Buhle
Ruth Greshaw
Harold Schutte
June 9 (2 occasions)
June 11
Mid-June
Early June
June II
Early June
June II
June 15
(b) On or about June 9, 1976, by Chris Tanner's threat
directed at Plant Manager Joseph Prietula, in the presence
of rank-and-file employees that he "had better watch his
house."
(c) On or about June 11, 1976, by Glenn Irwin's threat
to harm the property of and to cause unspecified reprisals
against Jennifer Hornbeck and other employees who re-
fused or failed to observe Respondent's picket line.
(d) On or about June 11, 1976, by Glenn Irwin's and
Nette Beliles' threats that the Union would not process the
grievances of nonmembers as diligently as those of mem-
bers or represent nonmembers as well as they would mem-
bers.
(e) On or about June 12, 1976, by Hulga Agnew's dam-
aging the automobiles of employees attempting to pass
through Respondent Union's picket line.
(f) On or about June 14, 1976, by pickets blocking the
ingress of employees as they passed through Respondent
Union's picket line into the facility and by Chris Tanner's
damaging the automobiles of employees attempting to en-
ter plant grounds.
Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and the entire
record in the case, I make the following:
CON(I it SIONS OF LAW
1. Schumacher Electric Corporation is an employer
within the meaning of Section 2(2) of the Act and is en-
gaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and
(7) of the Act.
2. Respondent Union is, and has been at all times mate-
rial herein, a labor organization within the meaning of Sec-
tion 2(5) of the Act.
3. By bringing and processing charges against the fol-
lowing for crossing the Union's picket line after they effec-
tively resigned their membership, Respondent Union re-
strained and coerced said employees in the exercise of
rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act and en-
gaged in unfair labor practices violative of Section
8(b)( I)(A) of the Act:
Joseph Clark Parrish
Betty Platt
Eileen Mauck
Lois Dawson
Suk Hyang Platt
Edna Leman
Shirley Nagel
Bessie Buckley
Larry Howard
Tamara Hesson
Mildred Sanders
Fern North
Betty Bierma
Jennifer Hornbeck
Elizabeth Beeching
Edith Streitmatter
Alberta McCormick
Alice Doyle
Alice Yost
Joan Streitmatter
Annie Shipley
Margaret Warran
Evelyn Respecke
Bonnie Ricks
Thomas Engels
Irene Allen
Mildred Stephenson
4. By bringing to trial and thereafter levying fines on
the following, based upon charges filed against them for
crossing the Union's picket line after they had effectively
resigned their membership, Respondent Union re-
strained and coerced said employees in the exercise of
rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act and en-
gaged in unfair labor practices violative of Section
8(b)(l)(A) of the Act:
Joseph Clark Parrish
Betty Platt
Eileen Mauck
Lois Dawson
Suk Hyang Platt
Mildred Sanders
Evelyn Respecke
Bonnie Ricks
Fern North
Elizabeth Beeching
Alberta H. McCormick
Alice Doyle
5. By threatening to fine employees of Schumacher
Electric Corporation who resign their membership in Re-
spondent Union and thereafter cross Respondent Union's
picket line, Respondent Union restrained and coerced said
employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed them by
Section 7 of the Act and engaged in unfair labor practices
violative of Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act.
6. By threatening Joseph Prietula, a member of manage-
ment, in the presence of rank-and-file employees with
damage to his property for crossing Respondent Union's
picket line, Respondent Union restrained and coerced said
employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed them by
Section 7 of the Act and engaged in unfair labor practices
within the meaning of Section 8(b)(l)(A) of the Act.
7. By threatening Jennifer Hornbeck, Betty Bierma, and
other employees and their families with property damage
and other unspecified reprisals for crossing Respondent
Union's picket line, Respondent Union restrained and
coerced said employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed
them by Section 7 of the Act and engaged in unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 8(b)(l)(A) of the
Act.
8. By threatening Alice Doyle, Jennifer Hornbeck, and
Betty Bierma that their grievances and the grievances of
other nonmembers would not be processed as diligently as
those of members and that nonmembers would not be rep-
resented as well as members, Respondent Union restrained
and coerced said employees in the exercise of rights guar-
anteed them by Section 7 of the Act and engaged in unfair
labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(b)( 1 )(A) of
the Act.
9. By damaging the automobiles of employees attempt-
ing to pass through Respondent Union's picket line, Re-
spondent Union restrained and coerced employees in the
exercise of rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act and
engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of
436
GENFRAL TEAMETSERS, IOCAI. UNION NO. 298
Section 8(b)(l)(A) of the Act.
10. By blocking the ingress of employees attempting to
enter the plant grounds through Respondent Union's pick-
et line Respondent Union restrained and coerced employ-
ees in the exercise of rights guaranteed them by Section 7
of the Act and engaged in unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 8(bh(l)(A) of the Act.
11. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the
Act.
THF REMEDY
Having found that Respondent Union has engaged in
certain unfair labor practices, I shall recommend that it be
required to cease and desist therefrom. In order to effectu-
ate the purposes of the Act, I shall also recommend that
Respondent Union be required to rescind the unlawful
fines, and to refund any money paid to it as a result of the
fines, with interest computed at 7 percent per annum,"3 to
expunge from its records all references to charges unlaw-
fully filed and processed and to the unlawfully levied fines.
to notify employees of the employer that all of its members
are free to resign from Respondent Union without fear of
fine or other unlawful coercion based upon said resigna-
tions, to notify each and every employee herein found to
be a discriminatee that all intraunion charges filed against
them relating to the crossing of the picket lines of the Re-
spondent Union at the Employer's facility have been dis-
missed, to notify each of said discriminatees that Respon-
dent Union will strive to protect the rights of all employees
in the collective-bargaining unit represented by it at the
Employer's facility equally and without regard to their
membership in the Union or their support of or opposition
to Respondent Union, and to post an appropriate notice.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and con-
clusions of law, and the entire record herein, and pursuant
to Section 10(c) of the Act, I hereby issue the following
recommended:
ORDER 36
Respondent General Teamsters, Chauffeurs and Helpers
Local Union No. 298, a/w International Brotherhood of
Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of
America, its officers, agents, and representatives. shall:
I. Cease and desist from:
(a) Restraining or coercing employees in the exercise of
rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act. by bringing
and processing charges against:
Joseph Clark Parrish Edna Leman
" Interest to he computed In the manner prescribed i F it II
( ,npal,. 90 NLRB 289 (1950, an.d fIhirda SrI(l ( orp, ralrin 211 NI RB
651 (1977). Also see. generall,. liii Plumbing a hl& H wmrin (,, 118 Nl RB "16
( 1962).
31 In the event no exceptions are filed as prosided h, Sec. 10246 of the
Rules and Regulations of the National I.abhor Relations Board, the findiiirs.
conclusions. and recommended Order herein shall. as pr., ided III Sr
102.48 of the Rules and Regulatimn,. he adopted br lhe Board and hem rile
its findings, conclusions, and Order. ;lid a;ll o hjectlion, thereto hA1l hbc
deemed waived for all purposes
Bett' Platt
Eileen Mauck
Lois Dawson
Suk tlyang Platt
Mildred Sanders
Fern North
Bettm Bierma
Jennifer Hornbeck
Elizabeth Beeching
Edith Streitmatter
Alberta McCormick
Alice Doyle
Shirley Nagel
Bessie Buckley
Larry Howard
Tamara Hesson
Alice Yost
Joan Streitmatter
Annie Shipley
Margaret Warran
Evelyn Respecke
Bonnie Ricks
Thomas Engels
Irene Allen
Mildred Stephenson
for crossing the Union's picket line after they effectively
resigned their membership in said union.
(b) Restraining and coercing employees in the exer-
cise of rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act by
bringing to trial and thereafter levying fines against:
Joseph Clark Parrish
Betty Platt
Eileen Matuck
Lois Dawson
Suk Hyang Platt
Mildred Sanders
Evelyn Respecke
Bonnie Ricks
Fern North
Elizabeth Beeching
Alberta H. McCormick
Alice Doyle
based upon charges filed against them for crossing the
Union's picket line after they had effectively resigned their
membership in said union.
(cl Restraining and coercing employees in the exercise
of rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act by:
i. Threatening to fine employees who resign their mem-
bership in Respondent Union and thereafter cross Respon-
dent Union's picket line.
ii. Threatening Joseph Prietula while in the presence of
rank-and-file employees with damage to his property for
crossing Respondent Union's picket line.
iii. Threatening Jennifer Hornbeck, Betty Bierma. and
other employees and their families with property damage
and other unspecified reprisals for crossing Respondent
Union's picket line.
iv. Threatening Alice Doyle. Jennifer Hornbeck and
Betty Bierma that their grievances and the grievances of
other nonmembers will not be processed as diligently as
those of members of Respondent Union and that they will
not be represented by Respondent Union as well as mem-
bers.
v. Damaging the automobiles of employees attempting
to pass through Respondent Union's picket line.
vi. Blocking the ingress of employees attempting to en-
ter the plant grounds through Respondent Union's picket
line.
2. Take the following affirmative action designed and
found necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Rescind the fines le ied against:
Joseph Clark Parrish
Bettys Plait
Eileen Maiuck
L.ois DaIson
Suk Hyang Platt
Mildred Sanders
Ev elyn Respecke
Bonnie Ricks
Fern North
Elizabeth Beeching
Alherta H. McCormick
Alice l)oyle
437
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
which fines are based upon charges filed against them for
crossing the Union's picket line after they had effectively
resigned their membership in Respondent Union, and re-
fund to them any money they may have paid as a result of
said fine, with interest computed at the rate of 7-percent
per annum in accordance with the Section herein entitled
"The Remied."
(b) Expunge from Respondent Union's records all refer-
ences to charges unlawfully filed and processed against the
following employees as well as all references to fines un-
lawfully levied against them.
Joseph Clark Parrish
Betty Platt
Eileen Mauck
Lois Dl)a son
Suk ttyang Platt
Mildred Sanders
Fern North
Betty Bierma
Jennifer Hlornbeck
Elizabeth Beeching
Edith Streitmatter
Alberta McCormick
Alice Doyle
Edna Leman
Shirley Nagel
Bessie Buckley
Larry Howard
Tamara Hesson
Alice Yost
Joan Streitmatter
Annie Shipley
Margaret Warran
Evelyn Respecke
Bonnie Ricks
Thomas Engels
Irene Allen
Mildred Stephenson
(c) Notify the employees of the employer that:
i. All of Respondent Union's members are free to re-
sign their membership without fear of fine or other un-
lawful coercion based upon said resignation.
ii. Each and every employee herein found to be a dis-
criminatee has had all intraunion charges filed against
them relating to the crossing of the picket lines of the
Respondent Union at the Employer's facility dismissed.
iii. Respondent Union will strive to protect equally
the rights of all employees in the collective-bargaining
unit represented by it at the Employer's facility without
regard to their membership in the Union or their support
of or their opposition to Respondent Union.
(d) Post at its offices and meeting halls copies of the
attached notice marked "Appendix." 37 Copies of said
notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for
Region 25, after being duly signed by its representative,
shall be posted by Respondent immediately upon receipt
thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days
thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places
where notices to members are customarily posted. Rea-
sonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to insure
that said notices are not altered. defaced, or covered by
any other material.
(e) Promptly, upon receipt of copies of the aforesaid
notice from the Regional Director for Region 25, return
to said Regional Director such number of said copies of
said notices as he may request for posting by Schumach-
er Electric Corporation at its premises in Rensselaer, In-
diana, said Employer being willing, at all places where
said Emp toyer posts notices to its employees.
' In the event thilt this Order is enforced by a Judgment of a I tlted
Stales ( ourt of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted bh Order
of the Natlonal I.sabor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursuantlr t a
Judgment of the tlnited States Court of Appeals I nforcing anl Order of the
Nationail Iahor Relations Board."
(f) Notify the Regional Director, in writing, within 20
days from the date of this Order, what steps it has taken
to comply herewith.
APPENDIX
Nol ICE To MEMBERS
Posrl D BY ORDER OF [HE-
NATIONAL L.ABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
After a hearing in which both sides had the opportunity
to present evidence, the National Labor Relations Board
has found that we violated the National Labor Relations
Act and orders us to post this notice and abide by its
terms.
WE WILL NOT bring
charges against:
Joseph Clark Parrish
Betty Platt
Eileen Mauck
Lois Dawson
Suk Hyang Platt
Mildred Sanders
Fern North
Betty Bierma
Jennifer Hornbeck
Elizabeth Beeching
Edith Streitmatter
Alberta McCormick
Alice Doyle
Mildred SI
charges and process said
Edna Leman
Shirley Nagel
Bessie Buckley
Larry Howard
Tamara Hesson
Alice Yost
Joan Streitmatter
Annie Shipley
Margaret Warran
Evelyn Respecke
Bonnie Ricks
Thomas Engels
Irene Allen
tephenson
for crossing the Union's picket line after they have
effectively resigned their membership in this union.
WE WILL. NO bring to trial and levy fines against:
Joseph Clark Parrish
Betty Platt
Eileen Mauck
Lois Dawson
Suk Hyang Platt
Mildred Sanders
Evelyn Respecke
Bonnie Ricks
Fern North
Elizabeth Beeching
Alberta H. McCormick
Alice Doyle
based upon charges filed against them for crossing the
Union's picket line after they have effectively resigned
their membership.
WE WiL.L NOT threaten to fine employees who resign
their membership in this Union and thereafter cross
our picket line.
WE WILL. NOT threaten Joseph Prietula. while in the
presence of rank-and-file employees, with damage to
his property for crossing our picket line.
WE WILL NOT threaten Jennifer Hornbeck, Betty Bi-
erma, and/or other employees and/or their families
with property damage and other reprisals for crossing
our picket lines.
WE WILL NOT threaten Alice Doyle. Jennifer Horn-
beck, or Betty Bierma that their grievances and the
grievances of other nonmembers will not be processed
438
GENERAL TEAMETSERS, LOCAL UINION NO. 298
as diligently as those of members of this Union or that
they will not be represented as effectively as members
of this Union.
WE WILL NOT damage the automobiles of employees
attempting to enter the plant grounds through our
picket line.
WE WILL NOT block the ingress of employees at-
tempting to enter the plant grounds through our picket
line.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner restrain
or coerce employees in the exercise of the rights guar-
anteed them in Section 7 of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act.
WE WILL rescind all fines levied against:
Joseph Clark Parrish
Betty Platt
Eileen Mauck
Lois Dawson
Suk Hyang Platt
Mildred Sanders
Evelyn Respecks
Bonnie Ricks
Fern North
Elizabeth Beeching
Alberta H. McCormick
Alice Doyle
which fines were based upon charges filed against
them for crossing our picket line after they effectively
resigned their membership in this Union.
WE WILL refund to the above-named individuals any
money they may have paid as a result of said fines.
with interest.
WE WILL expunge from records all references to
charges unlawfully filed and processed against the fol-
lowing employees as well as all references to fines un-
lawfully levied against them:
Joseph Clark Parrish Edna Leman
Betty Platt Shirley Nagel
Eileen Mauck Bessie Buckle)
Lois Dawson Larry Howard
Suk Hyang Platt Tamara Hesson
Mildred Sanders Alice Yost
FKern North Joan Streitmatter
Betty Bierma Annie Shipley
Jennifer Hornbeck Margaret Warran
Elizabeth Beeching Evelyn Respecke
Edith Streitimatter Bonnie Ricks
Alberta McCormick Thomas Engels
Alice D)otle Irene Allen
Mildred Stephenson
WE Awi.. forthwith notif), in writing, all employ-
ees that members of this Union are free to resign
their membership without fear of fine or other un-
lawful coercion based upon said resignations.
Wi- WltL forthwith notify each and every employ-
ee listed immediately above that all intraunion
charges filed against them relating to the crossing of
our picket line at Schumacher Electric Corporation
have been dismissed.
WiE wii.t. strive equally to protect the rights of all
employees in the collective-bargaining unit repre-
sented by us at Schumacher Electric Corporation
without regard to their membership in this Union or
their support of or opposition to this Union.
GNLERAL TEAMSIERS. CHAUFFEURS AND HELPERS
L(X'AL UNION No 298, a/w INTERNATIONAL
BROIHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEIRS,
sARFHOLCSEMEN AND HELPERS OF AMERICA
439