Local 212, Teamsters

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 3, 1973

203 N.L.R.B. 443 (N.L.R.B. 1973)

LOCAL 416, SHEET METAL WORKERS 443
Local 212, International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs, Warehousemen, and Helpers of Ameri-
ca, Ind . and North Bros. Ford, Inc. Case 7-CB-2650
May 3, 1973
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS FANNING AND
JENKINS
On January 30, 1973, Administrative Law Judge
Jennie M. Sarrica issued the attached Decision in this
proceeding. Thereafter, the Charging Party filed ex-
ceptions and a supporting 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 brief
and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings, and
conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge and to
adopt her recommended Order.'
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Rela-
tions Board adopts as its Order the recommended
Order of the Administrative Law Judge and hereby
orders that Respondent, Local 212, International
Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehouse-
men, and Helpers of America, Ind., Westland, Michi-
gan, its officers, agents, and representatives, shall take
the action set forth in the said recommended order.
' In the absence of exceptions thereto, we adopt, pro forma, the Adminis-
trative Law Judge 's conclusions that Respondent Union has engaged in
conduct violative of Sec 8(b)(2) and Sec . 8(b)(I)(A) of the Act.
denying those allegations . All parties were present and par-
ticipated in the hearing.
Based on the entire record, including my observation of
witnesses and after due consideration of the brief filed by
the Charging Party only, I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT AND
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
I JURISDICTION
North Bros . Ford, Inc., the Charging Party, herein called
the Company, is a Michigan corporation engaged in the
retail sale and service of automobiles, trucks, campers, and
related products at its place of business in Westland, Michi-
gan. During the 12 months ending December 31, 1971, a
representative period, it had gross revenues in excess of
$500,000, and purchases in excess of $100,000 of which
goods valued in excess of $50,000 were transported and
delivered to its place of business directly from points locat-
ed outside the State of Michigan. I find that the Company
is, and has been at all times material herein, an employer
engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2),
(6), and (7) of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION
Respondent, Local 212, International Brotherhood of
Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of
America, Independent, herein called Respondent or the
Union, is a labor organization within the meaning of Sec-
tion 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The Issues
In substance, it is alleged in the complaint and denied in
the answer that, by its threats to apply and efforts to invoke
the union-security clause of the applicable collective-bar-
gaining agreement in order to compel payment by employee
Jack Hillman of a $300 union membership initiation fee
specifically excluded by that clause, Respondent restrained
and coerced employees in violation of Section 8(b)(1)(A)
and attempted to cause an employer to discriminate in a
manner forbidden by Section 8(a)(3), thereby violating Sec-
tion 8(b)(2) of the Act.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
JENNIE M. SARRICA , Administrative Law Judge: Upon due
notice, this proceeding under Section 10(b) of the National
Labor Relations Act, as amended (29 U.S.C. 151, et seq.),
hereinafter referred to as the Act, was tried before me at
Detroit, Michigan , on September 20, 1972 , pursuant to a
charge filed June 30 , 1972, a complaint issued August 1,
1972, presenting allegations that the Respondent, Local 212,
International Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs, Ware-
housemen and Helpers of America , Ind., committed unfair
labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (b)(1)(A)
and Section 8(b)(2) of the Act, and Respondent's answer
B. Relevant Contract Provisions
The Company and Respondent are parties to a collective-
bargaining agreement effective from May 1, 1971, through
April 30, 1974, which covers the position of salesmen in-
volved herein. This contract contains the following provi-
sions as article II, sections 3 and 5.
Union Security
Section 3. Employees covered by this Agreement at the
time it becomes effective and who are members of the
Union at that time, shall be required as a condition of
203 NLRB No. 81
444 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
continued employment to continue membership in the
Union for the duration of this Agreement. Employees
covered by this Agreement who are not members of the
Union at the time it becomes effective or employees
hired, rehired, reinstated or transferred into the bar-
gaining unit after the effective date of this Agreement,
shall be required as a condition of continued employ-
ment to become members of the Union at or within ten
(10) days after the thirtieth day following such effective
date or date of hire , reinstatement or transfer whichev-
er is later . However, the Employer shall not justify any
discrimination against an employee for non-member-
ship in a labor organization if he has reasonable
grounds for believing that such memberhsip was not
available to the employee on the same terms and condi-
tions generally applicable to the other employees, or if
he has reasonable grounds to believe that membership
was denied or terminated for reasons other than the
failure of the employee to tender the periodic dues, and
such tender of periodic dues, but specifically excluding
initiation fees, uniformly required as a condition of ac-
quiring or retaining membership in the Union shall
fully satisfy the condition precedent to employment or
continued employment hereunder . [Emphasis sup-
plied.]
Check Off
Section 5. The Company will deduct from the pay of
each employee covered by this Agreement all current
membership dues provided that at the time of such
deduction there is in the possession of the Company a
current written assignment (authorization) executed by
the employee in the form and according to the terms
of the authorization form attached as an addendum to
this Agreement and incorporated by reference herein.
The official checkoff authorization form appended to
the contract, by its specific language , is limited to "member-
ship dues only."
C. The Conduct Involved
It is admitted that at all times material herein Carl Van
Zant, president, Thomas P. White, secretary- treasurer, and
Eugene Salvatore , dealer representative (stewardl held the
positions in Respondent indicated , and acted on behalf of
and as agents for Respondent within the meaning of Section
2(13) of the Act.
Although there was considerable confusion with respect
to precise dates , a composite of the credible testimony to-
gether with documentary evidence indicates the sequence of
events presented herein . On May 1, 1972, Jack Hillman was
employed by the Company as a new car salesman . Shortly
thereafter, Hillman was advised by union steward Salvatore
that to become a member of Local 212 he would be required
to pay a $300 initiation fee and that "there were certain
times allotted to do that in." In three or four subsequent
conversations in May and early June 1972 Salvatore in-
formed Hillman that if the $300 was not paid Salvatore
would have to notify company president Jim North, and
Hillman would have to be fired from the organization. In
such conversations Hillman contended that he should not
have to pay the initiation fee as he had been a union mem-
ber at his former place of employment. Salvatore responded
that he would require the same from Hillman as he did of
other employees and if any alternative arrangement was to
be made Hillman would have to talk with respondent presi-
dent, Carl Van Zant. Hillman indicated he would take care
of it, and called Van Zant who, at Hillman's request, had
the records of Local 212 checked. Van Zant advised Hill-
man through Salvatore that there was no record of
Hillman's membership in Local 212 and he would have to
pay the $300 initiation feel
Around mid-June 1972, but before the 15th, Salvatore
told Jim North that Hillman had not paid his initiation fee
to which North replied "That's your problem, not mine."
On June 15, Salvatore gave North a letter bearing that date.
At this time Salvatore commented that Hillman had not
paid the $300 initiation fee and was not a member in good
standing; therefore he was handing the letter to North to
"take corrective action." Salvatore did not specify what
would constitute "corrective action." 2 Shortly thereafter
North called Hillman into the office and asked him what his
membership status with Respondent Union was. Hillman
replied he believed he was still a member and should not
have to pay the initiation fee. On June 22, 1972, Hillman
executed and gave to the Company's paymaster a dues
checkoff authorization for payroll deduction and payment
of dues to Respondent, using a form supplied by the Com-
pany. Soon thereafter Salvatore again approached North
and told him Hillman would have to pay the $300 initiation
fee or the Company "would have to let him go," to which
North replied "read the contract." In this, or another con-
versation around the same time, Salvatore advised North it
was his contention that since Hillman had not paid the $300
he had not become a "member in good standing" as re-
quired by the contract and, at least once in the presence of
Robert Barrett, company sales manager, Salvatore told
North that he would have to "depose" Hillman if Hillman
did not "come over with the money."
By a letter dated June 27, 1972, and a check to the Com-
pany for $15, respondent secretary-treasurer Thomas P.
White refunded the membership dues tendered by the Com-
pany pursuant to Hillman's June 22 checkoff authorization,
with the explanation that "The Local Union cannot accept
r It is stipulated that Automotive Salesmen 's Association , Independent,
was the previous collective-bargaining representative of auto salesmen of the
Company . It would appear that this union also previously represented
salesmen with similar employers in the area but may now be defunct and that
this is the union Hillman made reference to when he claimed to have paid
the $300 initiation fee and to have been an active organizing member. Docu-
mentary evidence and testimony designed to establish that Respondent is the
legal successor of this organization , a relationship denied by Respondent,
were rejected at the hearing as having little relevancy either as background
to establish the violation alleged or as bearing on anyemedy which may be
required in this proceeding. A continuing exception to rulings made on the
offer of proof and arguments advanced in this connection was granted. Those
rulings are hereby affirmed . However, a statement of these contentions does
make some of the testimony concerning Hillman 's asserted membership
more intelligible.
2 The letter reads : "This is a formal notice to inform you that Jack Hillman
is not a member in good standing with our Union, Local 212 Teamsters. We
trust that action will be taken forthwith to correct this violation."
LOCAL 212, TEAMSTERS 445
dues from Mr. Hillman due to the fact that he is not a
member in good standing of the local." North told Hillman
that the checked-off dues had been refunded by the Union
and that the Company was going to file a charge with the
National Labor Relations Board . The charges herein were
filed on June 30, 1972?
In numerous conversations during June and early July,
both Hillman and Salvatore related to Barrett their re-
spective contentions vis-a-vis the Union 's demands that
Hillman pay the $300 initiation fee. In some of these conver-
sations with Salvatore , Barrett asked him to be lenient about
the $300 and on two such occasions before July 5, Salvatore
informed Barrett that if North refused to require Hillman
to pay the $300, the salesmen intended to walk out. Barrett
reported the latter statements to North.
On July 5, North told Hillman that he was going to have
to make a decision on whether he intended to stay with the
Company; for, "if the Union pushed this thing to the end
we're going to have to fire you because you are not a mem-
ber in good standing per the Union. Now you've got to
become a member in good standing in order to satisfy the
terms of the contract." North testified that Barrett told him
of Salvatore 's statements regarding a walkout and that be-
cause of the pressures being brought upon him he changed
his position as indicated by this last-mentioned conversa-
tion even though he had by then filed the unfair labor
practice charges. On July 10, Hillman paid the $300 in cash
to Salvatore and obtained a dated receipt therefor.
Salvatore denied that there was any discussion of a walk-
out in his conversations with Barrett . Rather, he recalled,
Barrett sought from him more lenient application of the
contract because Barrett wanted easier hiring. Salvatore de-
nied discussing Hillman's employment status with Hillman
or demanding that Hillman be fired. He asserted that he
merely tried to apply and live up to the contract. Salvatore
also denied making any threats. He testified, however, that
he had "a lot of heated discussions" with North with respect
to the contract and "may have" said to North that unless
the Company withdrew the charges he would invoke the
contract provision permitting only one probationary em-
ployee at a time. Assertedly, around that time, the Company
had four or five such employees. Salvatore admittedly did
not recall the details of his June 15 conversation with North.
Nor was he able to testify readily as to what was actually
said in conversations with Hillman or Barrett . Salvatore
asserted he said the same thing to Hillman he had told all
the other employees , namely , that the $300 initiation fee was
a condition of becoming a union member; not that it was
a condition of employment. However, he indicated that as
the one directly involved in administering the contract for
Respondent it was his position that if a man has not paid
his $300 initiation fee he is not a member in good standing
with the Union as required by the contract and in such
circumstances Hillman 's dues checkoff authorization "had
no bearing ." 4 This statement of position , as well as
3 I find no merit in the contention of Respondent's counsel that proof of
the alleged violations must rest only on conduct which occurred before the
filing of the charges herein.
Testimony was elicited showing that the checkoff authorization form
used was not that provided for in the collective-bargaining agreement, that
Salvatore's actions outlined above, is consistent with Union
President Van Zant's statement of the Respondent's posi-
tion, which was that if an employee does not pay the $300
initiation fee he is not a member in good standing so far as
the Union is concerned and where the Union had a contract
requiring membership in good standing the Union would
ask the employer to follow the contract. Van Zant indicated
that the Union had never specifically requested that a man
be discharged.
In light of the foregoing, Salvatore's entire testimony, and
the candid plausibility of the testimony of other witnesses,
I do not credit the denials by Salvatore, which in the main
appear to be statements of his interpretation of the legal
effect of his statements and conduct rather than any attempt
at a factual report of what was said and what occurred.
D. Analysis and Findings
The parties to a collective-bargaining agreement may
contract for a union-security clause which is more restrictive
than that permitted by Section 8(a)(3) and (b)(2) of the
statute. In such event the parties may not lawfully exceed
the limitations of their contract provision. The Act pros-
cribes application of a union-security clause to affect an
employee's job tenure for nonmembership if such status is
due to reasons "other than his failure to tender the periodic
dues and the initiation fees uniformly required as a condi-
tion of acquiring or retaining membership." However, the
collective-bargaining agreement between the Respondent
and the Company specifically excludes initiation fees from
the conditions for acquiring or retaining union membership
enforceable under penalty of discharge. Thus, under their
agreement , the parties could not require as a condition of
employment that employees pay the initiation fee. In this
respect Respondent's position appears to be that when it
invoked the union-security clause Hillman had not become
a member in good standing as required by the contract
within the time limitation permitted.5 However, Respon-
dent could not, with impunity, seek to invoke the discharge
penalty for nonmembership if such nonmembership was
because of Hillman 's failure to pay the initiation fee.
The record establishes that each time Hillman was ap-
proached by the union steward the emphasis of the demand
was upon the requirement that he pay the $300. Indeed,
each approach by the Union made to company officials to
obtain their assistance or to state the Union's position vis-a-
vis Hillman 's side of the dispute, was in terms of the $300
initiation fee. Even Respondent president's reply to
Hillman's assertion that he was already a member and
should not be required to pay the $300 initiation fee again
was to the point that there was no record of his membership
in Local 212; therefore he would have to pay the $300. Thus,
the Company never sent a copy of it to the Union or specifically advised the
Union that a checkoff authorization in its favor had been executed by Hill-
man; and that the Union never advised the Company it lacked a record of
a dues deduction authorization by Hillman or questioned the form of such
authorization . As the tendered dues were rejected on other grounds, I find
it unnecessary to determine the significance of these circumstances.
5 This position is implied by statements of Respondent witnesses The
Respondent's representative neither filed a brief nor argued orally on the
record.
446 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
at the outset of his employment, the demand made upon
Hillman as preliminary and essential to his obtaining mem-
bership in Respondent Union was the payment of a $300
initiation fee, and he was told at that time by the union
steward that he had a certain time within which to make this
payment. As the time factor undoubtedly referred to the 40
days permitted by the contract union-security clause, there
can be no question but that the steward was purportedly
advising Hillman of his contract obligations rather than
merely inviting him to become a union member. I find the
portent conveyed by Salvatore in this initial conversation
was that Hillman was required to pay $300 initiation fee
within 40 days in order to retain his job. It is well established
that when a union requires a new employee to perfect mem-
bership under a lawful union-security agreement, it has a
duty to notify the employee as to what his obligations are. 6
Even accepting the steward's version of their first conversa-
tion, the advice given hardly fulfills the Union's fiduciary
obligation which I find the law to require, namely, to accu-
rately advise new employees of their obligations under the
contract union-security clause.7 On three or four occasions
thereafter in May and early June 1972, union steward Salva-
tore threatened Hillman, in effect, that if he did not pay the
initiation fee he would lose his job. A union may not lawful-
ly threaten to do what would be unlawful for it to do. 8
Accordingly, I find that by each of these conversations of
Salvatore with Hillman, Respondent Union violated Sec-
tion 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act.
Further, as an attempted unfair labor practice is as much
a violation of the Act as a successful one,9 and a union may
not lawfully enlist the assistance of an employer in forcing
an employee to do that which he could not be required to
do lawfully under the union-security clause,10 I find that
Salvatore's approach to Company President Jim North be-
fore June 15 concerning Hillman's failure to pay the initia-
tion fee, and his statement to North after June 22 that
Hillman would have to pay the $300 initiation fee or the
Company would have to let him go, as well as Salvatore's
comment on June 15 when he handed the letter to North
were unlawful attempts to cause the Company to violate
Section 8(a)(3) and, therefore, were violations of Section
8(b)(2) and (1)(A) of the Act. Additionally I find Salvatore's
threats made to Sales Manager Barrett on two occasions
between June 15 and July 5, to the effect that if North
refused to require Hillman to pay the $300 the salesmen
intended to walk out, further attempts by Respondent to
cause discrimination with respect to Hillman's terms and
conditions of employment and that Respondent thereby
violated Section 8(b)(2) and (1)(A).11 Finally, the fact that
6 See Philadelphia Sheraton Corporation, 136 NLRB 888, 896 , enfd. 320
F.2d 254 (C.A. 3). See Allied Maintenance Company, 196 NLRB 566.
7 Accord : International Union of Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers,
AFL-CIO, Frigidaire Local 801 [General Motors Corp.] v. N.L R B., 307 F.2d
679, 683 , (C.A.D.C.), enfg . 129 NLRB 1379 and 130 NLRB 1286, cert . denied
371 U.S 936 (1962).
8 See The Eclipse Lumber Co. Inc., 95 NLRB 464, 473.
9 See The North Electric Manufacturing Company, 84 NLRB 136, 155.
10 See International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, Iron Ship Builders, Black-
smiths, Forgers and Helpers, Local Lodge 338 (Eidal International Division
South - West Factories, Inc.), 166 NLRB 874.
11 Although the complaint does dot specifically allege threats of a walkout,
the matter was fully litigated . However, no finding is made upon evidence
Hillman had made no tender of regular dues and had not
sought membership without payment of the $300 initiation
fee 2 before the June 15 letter seeking to invoke the union-
security contract sanction against him was presented to the
Company is not dispositive of the issue with respect to that
letter. Although the letter itself makes no mention of the
initiation fee but is worded in terms of Hillman's lack of
membership in good standing, the simultaneous comments
by the union steward while handing the letter to the Compa-
ny made it clear that the reason for the letter was the non-
payment of the $300. In the circumstances, I find that a
tender of regular membership dues without the payment of
the initiation fee would have been futile. 13 Respondent's
subsequent actions verify this conclusion for Hillman's ten-
der of dues through his checkoff authorization was refund-
ed to the Company on the ground that Hillman was not a
member in good standing of Local 212.14 Thus, as stated by
Salvatore, without the $300 initiation fee Hillman's checkoff
authorization "had no bearing." Accordingly, I find that by
its letter of June 15, 1972, invoking the contract union-
security clause, Respondent violated Section 8(b)(2) and
(1)(A) of the Act. 15
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR
PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent, set forth in section III,
above, occurring in connection with the operations of the
Company set forth in section I, above, have a close, inti-
mate, and substantial relationship to trade, traffic, and com-
merce among the several States, and tend to lead to labor
disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free
flow of commerce.
V THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has violated Section
8(b)(1)(A) and 8(b)(2) of the Act, I shall recommend that it
cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative ac-
tion designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. The Gen-
eral Counsel amended the complaint at the hearing to
request that, as part of the remedy for the unfair labor
practices committed, Respondent be required to refund to
Hillman the $300 paid by him to Salvatore on July 10, 1972.
As this money was exacted under the Company's threat of
discharge brought about by Respondent's coercive threats
of retaliation made to the Company, I deem it necessary, in
relating to threats to strictly enforce the contract limitation on the number
of probationary employees, as I do not believe the matter was fully litigated.
1 do not view Hillman's statements to union representatives that he
believed he was a union member and his request that the union check its
records as inconsistent with this conclusion.
13 See International Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's Local 17, Interna-
tional Longshoremen's and Warehouse's Union (George Mower), 172 NLRB
2016, enfd. 431 F.2d 872 (C.A 9), Great Lakes District, Seafarers' Internation-
al Union of North America, AFL-CIO (Tomlinson Fleet Corp), 149 NLRB
1114, 1120, and cited cases.
14 Literally read, the complaint alleges the refund of tendered dues to be
an independent violation of Sec. 8(b)(1)(A). Although I view this fact as
relevant and part of the context of Respondent's unlawful conduct, I do not
find refusal of dues, in and of itself, unlawful restraint and coercion.
i5 See Local Union No 749 International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, Iron
Ship Builders, Blacksmiths Forgers & Helpers, AFL-CIO (California Blowpipe
& Steel Co.), 192 NLRB 502, enfd. 466 F.2d 343 (C.A.D.C., 1972), holding
that such violations are based on the real reason , not merely the stated reason
for Respondent's actions.
LOCAL 212, TEAMSTERS 447
order to effectuate the policies of the Act, and shall recom-
mend that the Board require, that Respondent refund to
Hillman the $300 paid by him together with interest at 6
percent per annum from July 10, 1972.16 I shall also recom-
mend that Respondent be required to withdraw its June 15,
1972, letter requesting the Company to take corrective ac-
tion with respect to Hillman's lack of membership in good
standing and that it notify Hillman of the withdrawal of
such request and assure him that it will not require him to
perform any act or pay any moneys as a condition of contin-
ued employment, except to pay periodic dues uniformly
required for membership in accordance with the existing
agreement.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon
the entire record in the case, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Company is engaged in commerce within the
meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. Respondent is a labor organization within the meaning
of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. By attempting to cause North Bros . Ford, Inc., to dis-
criminate against Jack Hillman in violation of Section
8(a)(3) of the Act, as found above , the Respondent Union
has engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of
Section 8(b)(2) of the Act.
4. By restraining and coercing employees in the exercise
of rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act, as found
above, the Respondent Union has engaged in unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 8 (b)(1)(A) of the
Act.
5. The aforesaid violations are unfair labor practices af-
fecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and
(7) of the Act.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of
law, and upon the entire record in the case , and pursuant
to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended , I hereby issue the following recommended:
ORDER17
Respondent , Local 212, International Brotherhood of
16 Counsel for the Charging Party urged that the remedy also require a
return tender of the $300 initiation fee be made to all employees hired by the
Company within the 10(b) period on the assumption that such sums were
exacted in a like manner . I do not find that this record supports such assump-
tion even though Salvatore testified he said the same to each new employee.
The General Counsel declined to join the Charging Party in this or the added
request that the Respondent and its agents individually be held jointly and
severally liable for any financial obligation under the remedy. Although the
arguments advanced in support of these requests may be meritorious in
another context , I do not find such an unusual remedy required on the basis
of the record evidence in this case However, as Respondent's steward has
indicated he has taken the same approach to other similarly situated employ-
ees, the cease-and -desist order will be made applicable to employees of the
Company.
17 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the
Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board , the findings,
conclusions , and recommended Order herein shall, as provided in Sec. 102.48
of the Rules and Regulations , be adopted by the Board and become its
findings, conclusions, and Order, and•all objections thereto shall be deemed
waived for all purposes.
Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen, and Helpers of
America, Ind., its officers, agents, and representatives,
shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Failing to fulfill its fiduciary duty to correctly inform
employees of their obligation under any existing and appli-
cable union-security clause.
(b) Restraining or coercing Jack Hillman or any of the
employees of North Bros. For, Inc., by threatening to in-
voke the union-security contract clause to affect job tenure
unless the employee paid the Union an initiation fee for
membership.
(c) Attempting to cause North Bros., Ford, Inc., to dis-
criminate against Jack Hillman or any of its employees in
violation of Section 8(a)(3).
(d) In any like or related manner restraining or coercing
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
organization as a condition of employment as authorized by
Section 8(a)(3) of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action designed to ef-
fectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Refund to Jack Hillman the moneys unlawfully ex-
acted from him, in the manner set forth in the section enti-
tled "The Remedy."
(b) Notify North Bros. Ford, Inc., in writing, with a copy
to Jack Hillman, that it withdraws its June 15, 1972, request
that the Company take corrective action because of Jack
Hillman's failure to become a union member in good stand-
ing.
(c) Notify Hillman, in writing, that it has rescinded its
request for his termination of employment and that it will
not require him to perform any act or pay any moneys as
a condition of continued employment except to pay peri-
odic dues uniformly required for membership in accordance
with the existing agreement requiring membership in good
standing in Respondent.
(d) Post at its offices and at its meeting place where
members who are employed by the Company meet copies
of the attached notice marked "Appendix." IB Copies of said
notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for
Region 7, shall, after having been duly signed by
Respondent's representative, be posted by Respondent im-
mediately upon receipt thereof and be maintained by Re-
spondent for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous
places, including all places where notices to members are
customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Re-
spondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced,
or covered by any other material.
(e) Forward signed copies of the "Appendix" to the said
Regional Director for posting by North Bros. Ford, Inc., at
its place of business in Detroit, Michigan, in places where
notices to employees are customarily posted, if the Compa-
ny is willing to do so.
(f) Notify the Regional Director for Region 7, in writing,
is In the event that the Board 's Order is enforced by a Judgment of a
United States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by
Order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursuant
to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of
the National Labor Relations Board "
448 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
within 20 days from receipt of this Decision, what steps have
been taken to comply herewith.
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES AND MEMBERS
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
TO ALL MEMBERS OF LOCAL 212, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF
TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS , WAREHOUSEMEN AND HELPERS OF AMERI.
CA, IND AND EMPLOYEES OF NORTH BROS . FORD, INC.
After a hearing at which all sides had an opportunity to
present evidence and state their positions, the National La-
bor Relations Board has found that we have violated the
National Labor Relations Act, and has ordered us to post
this notice:
WE WILL NOT attempt to cause North Bros. Ford, Inc.,
to discriminate against any employee, in regard to hire
or tenure of employment, or any term or condition of
employment, in violation of Section 8(a)(3) of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Act, as amended. This means
that we will not request application of the union-securi-
ty provision of the collective-bargaining agreement for
failure to tender the union membership initiation fee or
for any reason other than the failure of such employee
to tender the payment of periodic dues.
WE WILL NOT require Jack Hillman or any employee
covered by the agreement made in accordance with
Section 8(a)(3) of the Act to pay a $300 union member-
ship initiation fee, as a condition of continued employ-
ment.
WE WILL NOT restrain or coerce employees of North
Bros. Ford, Inc., in the exercise of any right guaranteed
under Section 7 of the Act, including the right to refrain
from engaging in any or all of the activities guaranteed
thereunder, except to the extent that such right may be
affected by an agreement requiring membership in a
labor organization as a condition of employment, as
authorized in Section 8(a)(3) of the Act.
WE WILL refund to Jack Hillman, the $300 initiation
fee paid by him with interest a 6 percent per annum
from July 10, 1972.
WE WILL notify North Bros. Ford, Inc., in writing,
that we withdraw our request of June 15, 1972, for the
application of the union-security clause of our contract
to Jack Hillman and will notify Jack Hillman, in writ-
ing, that we have withdrawn our request and will not
demand that he pay an initiation fee under the union-
security contract provision.
WE WILL correctly and fully advise new employees of
their obligations under the union-security provision of
our collective-bargaining agreement.
Dated By
Dated By
LOCAL 212, INTERNATIONAL
BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS,
CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN,
AND HELPERS OF AMERICA, IND
(Labor Organization)
(Representative) (Title)
NORTH BROS FORD, INC.
(Employer)
(Representative) (Title)
This is an official notice and must not be defaced by
anyone.
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days
from the date of posting and must not be altered, defaced,
or covered by any other material. Any questions concerning
this notice or compliance with its provisions may be direct-
ed to the Board's office, 500 Book Building, 1249 Washing-
ton Boulevard, Detroit, Michigan, Telephone
313-226-3200.