Green Bay Drop Forge Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 23, 1951

95 N.L.R.B. 399 (N.L.R.B. 1951)

GREED; BAY DROP FORGE CO. 399
4. By attempting to deprive Thomas Wood, Jess Perry, and Carl Sullivan of
their seniority and by preventing them from working for the period between
October 30 and November 8, 1950, the Respondents did restrain and coerce and
are restraining and coercing said employees in the exercise of the rights guar-
anteed them in Section 7 of the Act, and thereby the Respondents are engaging
in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (b) (1) (A) of the Act
5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
[Recommended Order omitted from publication in this volume.]
GREEN BAY DROP FORGE Co. and WALTER LASECKI
LOCAL #186, or, FARM EQUIPMENT AND UNITEI) ELECTRICAL RADIO
AND MACHINE WORKERS OF AMERICA and WALTER LASECKI. Cases
Nos. 13-CA-545 and 13-CB-96. July 23, 1951
Decision and Order
On April 13, 1951, Trial Examiner C. W. Whittemore issued his
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the
Respondents had not engaged in the unfair labor practices alleged in
the complaint and recommending that the complaint be dismissed in
its entirety, as set forth in the copy of the Intermediate Report at-
tached hereto. Thereafter, the General Counsel filed exceptions to the
Intermediate Report and a supporting brief. The Respondent Union
filed a reply brief.'
The Board 2 has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made
at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The
rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Inter-
mediate Report, the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record in
the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommenda-
tions of the Trial Examiner only insofar as they are consistent with
our decision.
We find, contrary to the Trial Examiner, that Lasecki's discharge for
failing to maintain his membership in good standing in the Respond-
ent Union pursuant to the Respondent's union-shop contract was viola-
tive of the Act. Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act authorizes, under speci-
fied circumstances, the execution of collective bargaining agreements
which "require as a condition of employment membership therein on or
after the thirtieth day following the beginning of such employment or
1 As the record, exceptions, and briefs adequately present the issues and positions of the
parties, the Respondent Union's request for oral argument is denied.
2 Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the National Labor Relations Act, the
Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three -member panel
[ Members Houston , Murdock, and Styles].
95 NLRB No. 58.
400 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the effective date of such agreement, whichever is the later." As the
union-shop clause, which is quoted in the Intermediate Report, does
not accord to all employees subject to its coverage the statutory 30-day
period allowed for becoming a member, the agreement is not one
sanctioned by the Act and therefore cannot serve as a defense to the
discrimination practiced against Lasecki a
Accordingly; .we find that the Respondent-Company,r,by-discharging
Lasecki for failing to maintain his membership in ^ gaol,-standing in
the Respondent Union, discriminated against him within the meaning
of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act and thereby interfered with, restrained,
and coerced employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in
Section 7, in violation of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act. As Lasecki's
discharge was concededly effected at the instance and request of the
Respondent Union, we also find that the Union thereby caused the
Respondent Company to discriminate against Lasecki in violation of
Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act and thus violated Section 8 (b) (2) of the
Act. By this conduct, we further find that the Respondent Union
restrained-and coerced employees in the exercise of, the rights guaran-
teed in Section 7 and thereby violated Section 8 (b) (1) (A) of the
Act.4
The Effect of the Unfair Labor Practices upon Commerce
The activities of the Respondents, set forth above, occurring in con-
nection with the operations of the Respondent Company, described in
section I of the Intermediate Report, have a close, intimate, and sub-
stantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among. the several
States and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing
commerce and the free flow of commerce.
The Remedy
Having found that the Respondents engaged in unfair labor prac-
tices, we shall order them to cease and desist 'from this -and like and
related conduct and to take certain affirmative action designed to
effectuate the policies of the Act.
We shall order the Respondent Company to offer Lasecki immediate
and full reinstatement to his former or a substantially equivalent posi-
8 The Respondents have put in issue the validity of the union-security provision of their
1949-1950 contract , by interposing it as a defense to the allegation of the complaint that
Lasecki was discriminatorily discharged . Therefore , notwithstanding the General Counsel's
apparent concession that the union -security clause was valid, it is incumbent upon the
Board to examine that clause in order to determine whether or not it constitutes a valid
defense to Lasecki's discharge.
4 In view of our disposition of the case , we find it unnecessary to. consider the conten-
tions raised by the General Counsel.
GREEN BAY DROP FORGE CO. 401
tion,s without prejudice to his seniority or other rights and privileges.
We shall also order the Respondent Union to notify the Respondent
Company in writing that it has withdrawn objection to Lasecki' s rein-
statement without prejudice to his seniority or other rights and'
privileges.
As we have found that both the Respondent Company and.the.Re-
spondent Union are responsible for the discrimination suffered`-^by
Lasecki, we shall order them jointly and severally to make Lasecki
whole for any loss of pay he may have suffered by reason of the
discrimination against him, by payment to him of a sum of money
equal to the amount that he normally would have earned as wages
from March 24, 1950, the date of his discharge, to April 13, 1951, the
date of the Intermediate Report, and from the date of this Decision
and Order to the date of the offer of reinstatement, less his net earnings
during such periods," to be computed in the manner provided below.
However, the Union may terminate its liability for further accrual of
back pay by giving the Company the notice of withdrawal of objection
to Lasecki's reinstatement as provided above. The Union shall not be
liable for any back pay accruing 5 days after such notice.'
Consistent with recently established policy,s we shall order that the
loss of pay be computed on the basis of each separate calendar quarter
or portion thereof during the period from the Respondents' discrim-
inatory action to the date of a proper offer of reinstatement.9 The
quarterly periods, hereinafter called "quarters," shall begin with the
first day of January, April, July, and October. Loss of pay shall be
determined by deducting from a sum equal to that which Lasecki
would normally have earned for each quarter or portion thereof, his
net earnings ,10 if any, in other employment during that period. Earn;
ings in one particular quarter shall have no effect upon the back-pay
liability for any other quarter.
We shall also order the Company to make available to the Board,
upon request, payroll and other records to facilitate the checking of
the amount of back pay due.-
6 The Chase National Bank of the City of New York, an Juan, Puerto Rico, Branch,
65 NLRB 827.
0In accordance with the Board's usual practice , the period from the date of the Inter-
mediate Report to the date of the Decision and Order herein is excluded in computing the
amount of back pay awarded to Lasecki because the Trial Examiner recommended that the
complaint be dismissed.
4 Pinkerton 's National Detective Agency, Inc., 90 NLRB 205.
O F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289.
° However, as provided above, the Union may limit its liability for the amount of back
pay by proper written notification to the Company that it has no objection to Lasecki's
reinstatement.
x° Crossett Lumber Company , 8 NLRB 440 ; Republic Steel Corporation v. N. L. R. B.,
811 U. S. 7.
11 F. W. Woolworth Company, supra.
402. DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Order
Upon the entire record in the case, and pursuant to Section 10, (c)
of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board hereby orders that :
I. The Respondent, Green Bay Drop Forge Co., Green Bay, Wis-
consin, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Encouraging membership in Local #186, of Farm Equipment
and United Electrical Radio and Machine Workers of America, or.
in any other labor organization of its employees, by discharging any
of. its' employees, or by .discriminating against them in any other
manner in regard to their hire or tenure of employment or any term
or condition of their employment, except to the extent permitted by
Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
(b) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining,
or coercing its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in
Section 7 of the Act, except to the extent that such rights may be
affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organiza-
tion as a condition of employment, as authorized by Section 8 (a) (3)
of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Offer Walter Lasecki immediate and full reinstatement to his
former or a. substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to
his seniority or other rights and privileges.
(b) Upon request, make available to the Board or its agents for
examination and copying, all payroll records, social security payment
records, time cards, personnel records and reports, and all other
records necessary to analyze the amounts of back pay due under the
terms of this Order.
(c) Post at its plant in Green Bay, Wisconsin, copies of the notice
attached hereto as Appendix A 12 Copies of such notice, to be fur-
nished by the Regional Director for the Thirteenth Region, shall,
after being duly signed by the Respondent Company's representative,
be posted by the Respondent Company immediately upon receipt
thereof and maintained by it for sixty .(60) consecutive days there-
after in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to em-
ployees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by
the Respondent Company to insure that said notices are not altered,
defaced, or covered by any other material.
12 In the event this Order is enforced by decree of a United States Court of. Appeals,
there shall be inserted before the words "A Decision and Order " the words "A Decree of
the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing."
GREEN BAY DROP FORGE CO. 403
(d) Notify the Regional Director for the Thirteenth Region in
writing, within ten (10 ) days from the date of this Order, as to what
steps the Respondent Company has taken to comply herewith.
II. The Respondent , Local $1186 , of Farm Equipment and United
Electrical Radio and Machine Workers of America, its officers, repre-
sentatives , agents, successors , and assigns, shall :
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Causing or attempting to cause the Respondent, Green Bay
Drop Forge Co., its officers, agents , successors , or assigns , to discharge
or otherwise discriminate against its employees in violation of Sec-
tion 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
(b) In any like or related manner restraining or coercing employees
of the Respondent , Green Bay Drop Forge ' Co., its successors or as-
signs, in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act,
except to the extent that such rights may be affected by an agreement
requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of em-
ployment , as authorized by Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Notify the Respondent, Green Bay Drop Forge Co., that it has
no objection to the reinstatement of Walter Lasecki without prejudice
to his seniority or other rights and privileges.
(b) Post at its offices and meeting halls at Green Bay , Wisconsin,
copies of the notice attached hereto as Appendix B.13 Copies of said
notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for the Thirteenth
Region, shall , after being duly signed by an official representative of
the Respondent Union, be posted by it immediately upon receipt
thereof and maintained by it for a period of at least sixty ( 60) con-
secutive days thereafter in conspicuous places, including all places
where notices to members are customarily posted. Reasonable steps
shall be taken by the Respondent Union to insure that said notices are
not altered , defaced, or covered by any other material.
(c) Mail to the Regional Director for the Thirteenth Region, signed
copies of the notice attached hereto as Appendix B, for posting, the
Respondent Company willing, at the Respondent Company's plant in
Green Bay, Wisconsin, in places where notices to employees are cus-
tomarily posted.
(d) Notify the Regional Director for the Thirteenth Region in
writing, within ten (10) days from the date of this Order, as to what
steps the Respondent Union has taken to comply herewith.
III. The Respondents, Green Bay Drop Forge Co., and Local #186,
of Farm Equipment and United Electrical Radio and Machine-Work-
'a See footnote 12.
961974-52-vol. 95-27
404 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ers of America, their officers, representatives , agents, successors, and
assigns, shall jointly and severally make whole Walter Lasecki for
any loss of pay he may have suffered by reason of the discrimination
against him , in the manner prescribed in "The Remedy" section of our
decision.
Appendix A
NOTICE TO ALL E MPLOYEES
Pursuant to a Decision and Order of the National Labor Relations
Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Re-
lations Act, as amended, we hereby notify our employees that :
WE WILL NOT encourage membership in LOCAL #186, OF FARM
EQUIPMENT AND UNITED ELECTRICAL RADIO AND MACHINE WORK-
ERS or AMERICA, or in any other labor organization of our em-
ployees, by discharging any of our employees or by discriminating
against them in any other manner in regard to their hire or tenure
of employment or any term or condition of employment, except
to the extent permitted by Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act:
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, re-
strain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of the rights guaran-
teed in Section 7 of the Act, except to the extent that such rights
may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor
organization as a condition of employment, as authorized by Sec-
tion 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
WE WILL offer Walter Lasecki immediate and full reinstate-
ment to his former or a substantially equivalent position, without
prejudice to his seniority or other rights and privileges previously
enjoyed and we will make him whole for any loss of pay suffered
as a result of the discrimination against him.
All our employees are free to become, to remain, or to refrain from
becoming or remaining, members of the above-named union or may
other labor organization, except to the extent that this right may be
affected by an agreement authorized by Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
GREEN BAY DROP FORGE CO.,
Employer.
Dated -------------------- By --------------------------------
(Representative ) ( Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof, and
must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
GREEN BAY DROP FORGE co. 405
Appendix B
NOTICE TO ALL MEMBERS OF LOCAL #186, OF FARM EQUIPMENT AND
UNITED ELECTRICAL RADIO AND MACHINE WORKERS, OF AMERICA, AND,
To ALL EMPLOYEES OF GREEN BAY DROP FORGE CO.
Pursuant to a Decision and Order of the National Labor Relations'
Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, we hereby notify you that :
WE WILL NOT' cause or attempt to cause GREEN BAY DROP FORGE
Co., its officers, agents, successors, or assigns, to discharge or other-
wise discriminate against its employees in regard to their hire or
tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment to
encourage membership in our labor organization in violation of
Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner restrain or coerce
employees of GREEN BAY DROP FoRGE Co., its successors or assigns,
in the exercise of the .rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act,
except to the extent that such rights may be affected by an agree-
ment requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition
of employment, as authorized by Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
WE WILL make Walter Lasecki whole for any loss of pay he may
have suffered because of the discrimination against him.
LOCAL #186, OF FARM EQUIPMENT AND
UNITED ELECTRICAL RADIO AND MACHINE
«TORKERS OF, AMERICA;
Labor Organization.
Dated ----- By -----------------------------------
(Representative ) ( Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof,
and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
Intermediate Report
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Charges having been duly filed by Albert S. Vanden Heuvel on behalf of
Walter Lasecki, an individual, in Case No. 13-CA-545, against Green Bay Drop
Forge Co., herein called the Respondent Employer, and in Case No. 13-CB-96
against Local #186, of Farm Equipment and United Electrical Radio and Ma-
chine Workers of America, herein called the Respondent Union, the General
Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board, herein respectively called Gen-
eral Counsel and the Board, by the Regional Director for the Thirteenth
Region (Chicago, Illinois), issued on November • 21, 1950, an order consoli-
dating said two cases, and on the same day'a consolidated complaint alleging
406 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
that the Respondent Employer and Respondent Union had engaged in and were
engaging in unfair labor practices, said practices of the former being within
the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) and (3), and of the latter within the mean-
ing of Section 8 (b) (1) (A) and (2), and that said practices of each Respond-
ent affected commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, 61 Stat. 136, herein called the
Act. Copies of the charges were duly served upon the Respondents, and copies
of the consolidated complaint, order consolidating the cases, and notice of hearing
were duly served upon the Respondents and Walter Lasecki.
With respect to the unfair labor practices, the consolidated complaint alleges,
in substance, that the Respondent Union caused the Respondent Employer
discriminatorily to discharge employee Walter Lasecki in March 1950 because
be had refused to pay exactions to the Respondent Union and because his
membership in it had been terminated for reasons other than failure to pay
dues.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held on February 13, 1951, at Green Bay,
Wisconsin, before the undersigned duly designated Trial Examiner. The Gen-
eral Counsel, the Respondents, and Lasecki were represented by counsel. All
participated in the hearing and were afforded opportunity to be heard, to
examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing upon
the issues . At the close of the hearing ruling was reserved upon motions
by the Respondents to dismiss the complaint ; said motions are disposed of by the
findings, conclusions, and recommendations appearing below. Counsel for the
Respondents and for the General Counsel argued orally, on the record, before
the Trial Examiner. Briefs have been received from counsel for the Respond-
ent Union and General Counsel.
Following the hearing, the Trial Examiner issued an order ; dated March 6,
1951, denying a motion dated February 20, 1951, by General Counsel for issu-
ance of a "Rule to Show Cause" why the record should not be reopened
to receive in evidence certain documents. In said order it was further ruled that
the documents in question should be made a part of the record in this case, but
as rejected exhibits.
Upon the entire record in the case, and from his observation of the witnesses,
the Trial Examiner makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT EMPLOYER
The Respondent Employer is a Wisconsin corporation having its principal
office and place of business in Green Bay, Wisconsin, where it is engaged in
the manufacture, sale, and distribution of drop forge products. During 1949
it purchased raw materials, consisting of steel bars, fabricated metal sheets,
and forgings, valued at more than $500,000, of which more than 50 percent
was received at its plant from points outside the State of Wisconsin. During
the same period it sold products valued at more than $500,000, more than 50
percent of which was shipped to points outside the State of Wisconsin.
The Respondent Employer concedes that it is engaged in commerce within
the meaning of the Act.
U. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Local #186, of Farm Equipment and United Electrical Radio and Machine
Workers of America, is a labor organization admitting to membership employees
of the Respondent Employer.
GREEN BAY DROP FORGE CO.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Background events
407
Since 1944 or 1945 collective bargaining agreements have been in existence
between the two Respondents. The contract for the period from July 1948 to
July 1949 contained a union-shop provision, the validity of which is conceded
by General Counsel. In May 1949, the Employer notified the Union that it
wished to negotiate modification of the contract. Negotiations were begun.
Before completion, however, Board elections were sought by rival unions. Con-
sent elections were held June 10 and won by the Respondent Union., Immedi-
ately following the elections the Employer and the Union orally agreed to extend
the existing contract until a new agreement was reached. Numerous negotiating
conferences were thereafter held and a new written contract was entered into
on December 12, 1949, with expiration date of July 2, 1951-the anniversary
date of previous contract. The new agreement also included a union-shop
provision, the validity of which General Counsel does not dispute'
The record does not reveal how long employee Walter Lasecki had been a
member of the Union, but in October 1949 he stopped paying his dues. He paid
none from then on and, upon request of the Union, was discharged on March 24,
1950. Lasecki was one of three employees who, the Union informed the Em-
ployer by letter of March 23, were "in arrears with their dues as itemized"
and whose discharges were requested "under the Maintenance of Membership
clause of the existing agreement." The clause thus invoked reads as follows :
All regular employees shall, as a condition of employment, be members
of the Union in good standing.
The above requirement shall not serve to bar from employment with the
Company any person whom the Union declines to accept into membership
and/or maintain in good standing upon the payment of the fees and dues
which, under the Union's International Constitution are properly and equally
applicable to all membership applicants and/or members.
When the Union so requests in writing, the Company shall discharge any
employee who is subject to the Union membership requirements here es-
tablished and who fails to comply therewith.
Credible testimony' establishes and -the Trial Examiner finds that in Decem-
ber 1949 Lasecki was informed by a union official of his delinquency in payment
of dues and reinstatement fee. And Lasecki himself, as a witness , admitted that
in December or January he was called to the Employer's personnel office and
informed of his delinquency. Shortly after this meeting, also according to his
testimony, he was warned by a union official that if he did not pay his back
dues, fines, and reinstatement fee, the Union would "turn it in to the personnel
office," a plain warning that his job was in jeopardy.
On March 19 Lasecki was given a written notice, signed by the Union 's financial
secretary, containing the following text:
' Case No. 13-RC-739. Although the record is not entirely clear, it appears that sepa-
rate elections were held for various units , because of certain craft unions seeking to
represent the employees, and that the Respondent Union won all of them.
2 Shortly after the execution of this contract, the Union petitioned for another "union
shop" election. Although the Union was informed by a Board agent that none was neces-
sary, the election was nevertheless held in March 1950 , and the union shop authorized
again. General Counsel's position as to this election was succinctly stated, although
hardly informative : "I am not saying it was needless or wasn't needless."
'.Testimony of Chief Steward Cauwenberg.
408 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
According to- the Constitution and By-laws of Local #186 it becomes my
duty as Financial Secretary to inform you that you are in arrears with your
dues to Local #186. By Motion of the Membership at its last Regular Meet-
ing March 3, 1950, these dues must be paid in full by March 21st 1950 or the
Union will be forced to ask the Company for your dismissal- under the
Maintenance of Membership Clause of the existing Agreement.
On March 24 Lasecki was called to the office. Both employer and union officials
were present. Lasecki was asked if he would pay. According to his own testi-
mony he told them he would pay the dues but would not pay the reinstatement
fee.4 The preponderance of credible evidence, however, establishes that Lasecki
did not in fact offer to pay his back dues, or any part of them, seek extension of
time, or in any way seek to delay the penalty for delinquency which the contract
provided for.
He was thereupon discharged, and given a letter by the Employer stating,
among other things, that the action was taken upon demand of the Union in
accordance with the contract.
There is dispute in the testimony as to whether Lasecki had ever actually
tendered his back dues to the Union, or any part of them since September, 1949.
Having observed Lesecki as witness, and in view of the inherent probabilities,
the Trial Examiner is unable to find that the employee at any time since Septem-
her 1949, actually offered to pay dues. It is reasonable to believe that had
Lasecki, at any time, offered any part of his debt to the Union before request
for his discharge was made, his'money would have been accepted on account.
The preponderance of evidence establishes that Lasecki, in effect, at all times
refused to pay his back dues because the Union also insisted upon a reinstate-
ment fee of $5 and, in December but not in March when his discharge was de-
manded, a monthly fine.
B. The position of the parties and conclusions
General Counsel asserts that no valid contract, written or otherwise, existed
between July 2 and December 12, 1949, and that the discharge of Lasecki was
therefore illegal. The Respondents oppose this claim, insisting that the 1948-
1949 contract was orally extended in all respects, including the union-shop pro-
vision. The Trial Examiner is convinced that the facts support the contention
of the Respondents. Affirmative testimony establishes that both parties to that
written agreement. orally agreed to extend it in its entirety, and that it would
remain in effect until a new written agreement was signed. In practice the
extension was observed by both parties. In short, the Trial Examiner concludes
and finds that the, 1948-1949 contract, which General Counsel concedes was a
valid contract, was validly extended until December 12, 1949, when a new written
contract was executed, and that consequently the union-shop provision was like-
wise extended.
General Counsel furthermore claims that the Union improperly, in view of
certain amendments to the Union's bylaws early in March 1950, demanded
Lasecki's discharge. In substance, General Counsel contends that Lasecki was
not formally suspended, and that the reinstatement fee provision could not be
validly invoked until suspension had been made. It appears unnecessary to the
Trial Examiner to determine whether or not the Union followed, in precise
detail, provisions of its bylaws. Since there is no persuasive evidence that the
4 No fine was imposed or solicited on this occasion, as in January. Early in March the
Union by constitutional amendment, eliminated fines for dues delinquencies, retaining
only the provision for a reinstatement fee.
GREEN BAY DROP FORGE CO. 409
union procedures, technically observed or not, were other than uniformly applied,
the sole question appears to be-validity of the union-shop contract having been
established-whether or not the contract provisions were carried out.
As noted above, the contract in effect it the time of the discharge provided
that: (1) Employees must be members of the Union in good standing; (2) pay-
ment of fees and clues must be equally applicable to all members; and (3) em-
ployees would be subject to discharge, upon.written request of the Union, who
failed to comply with union membership "requirements here established." "Here"
clearly refers to the contract, and not to the Union's bylaws.
It appears to the Trial Examiner that the contractual provisions were in all
practical measure observed. Lasecki and the Employer well knew that he
had paid no dues since September'1949, and that he clearly was not in "good
standing." There is no credible evidence that "fees and dues" were being
imposed upon Lasecki in any other fashion than upon all members or that the
Respondent Employer had reason to suspect such discrimination. The Union
requested Lasecki's dismissal in writing.
The sole remaining question is whether or not the "reinstatement fee" of $5
could validly be demanded of Lasecki. General Counsel claims that such a fee
was found by the Board to be violative of the Act in Pen and Pencil Workers
Union, Local 19593, AFL, 91 NLRB 853. The Trial Examiner does not consider
the facts found in that case to be as here revealed. There the Board found that
"fines" were imposed, and that such fines could not be "included within the
terms `periodic dues' or `initiation fees.' " Under the circumstances of this
case, the Trial Examiner is of the opinion and finds that the "reinstatement
fee" demanded by the Union was actually and in effect a part of dues and initia-
tion fees requirements not prohibited by the Act nor, as yet to the Trial Ex-
aminer's knowledge, by Board interpretation of the Act. Provisions of the
Union's constitution and bylaws, quoted in the record, make it clear that the
reinstatement fee is required where good standing, because of dues delinquency,
has been lost, in the same manner as an initiation fee is demanded upon joining
the Union. Nor can it here be found that the reinstatement fee was exorbitant.
The initiation fee for the Union was $13, the reinstatement fee $5.
In summary, the Trial Examiner concludes and finds that the preponderance
of evidence fails to support allegations of the complaint that: (1) The Re-
spondent Employer discharged Lasecki in violation of Section 8 (a) (1) and
(3), and (2) the Respondent Union caused Lasecki's discharge because "he
refused to pay exactions" or because his membership in the Union had been
terminated "on some other ground" than failure to tender periodic dues and
.initiation fees uniformly required. -
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record in
the case, the Trial Examiner makes the following :
CO\CLIISIONS OF LAW
1. Green Bay Drop Forge Co. is engaged in commerce within the meaning
of Section 2 (6) of the Act.
2. Local #186, of Farm Equipment and United Electrical Radio and Machine
Workers of America, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2
(5) of the Act.
3. The Respondent Employer has not engaged in unfair labor practices within
the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) and (3) of the Act.
4. The Respondent Union has not engaged in unfair labor practices within
the meaning of Section 8 (b) (1) (A) and (2) of the Act.
410 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Recommendations
Upon the basis of the foregoing, findings of fact and conclusions of law, and
upon the entire record in the case, the Trial Examiner recommends that the
complaint be dismissed in its entirety.
HOWELL CHEVROLET COMPANY and INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF
MACHINISTS , DISTRICT LODGE No. 727
HOWELL CHEVROLET COMPANY and INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF
MACHINISTS , DISTRICT LODGE No. ' 727 , PETITIONER . Cases Nos.
21-CA-794 and 21-RC-1146. July 23, 1951
Decision and Order
On December 19, 1950, Trial Examiner Howard Myers issued his
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceedings, finding that
the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair
labor practices and recommending that they cease and desist there-
from and take certain affirmative action as set forth in the copy of the
Intermediate Report attached hereto; and finding further that the
Respondent had interfered with an election conducted by the Board
among the Respondent's employees and recommending that the elec-
tion be set aside. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the
Intermediate Report and a supporting brief, and the General Counsel
filed a brief in support of the Intermediate Report.
The Board 1 has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner and
finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby
affirmed. The Board has considered the Intermediate Report, the
exceptions and briefs, and the entire record in these cases, and hereby
adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial
Examiner, with the exceptions, modifications, and additions set forth
below : 2
The Respondent is engaged in the sale and distribution, at Glendale,
California, of new Chevrolet motor vehicles, parts, and accessories,
under a dealer's agreement with Chevrolet Motor Division-General
1 Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the National Labor Relations Act, the
Board has delegated its powers in connection with these cases to a three -member panel
[ Members Houston , Murdock , and Styles].
2 The Respondent 's request for oral argument is hereby denied as the record , the excep-
tions , and the briefs , in our opinion , adequately present the issues and the positions of
the parties.
The Respondent , in its exceptions and brief, alleges that the Trial Examiner was biased
and prejudiced against it . We have carefully considered the entire record herein, and
although , as noted hereinafter , we do not agree with all the Trial Examiner ' s conclusions,
we find that the allegations of bias and prejudice are without merit.
95 NLRB No. 62.