Communications Workers Local 1101 (New York Telephone)

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 10, 1986

281 N.L.R.B. 413 (N.L.R.B. 1986)

COMMUNICATIONS WORKERS LOCAL 1101 (NEW YORK TELEPHONE) 413
Communications Workers of America, Local 1101,
AFL-CIO (New York Telephone Company) and
Mark Patterson. Case 2-CB-10188
10 September 1986
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN DOTSON AND MEMBERS
BABSON AND STEPHENS
On 30 July 1985 Administrative Law Judge D.
Barry Morris issued the attached decision . The Re-
spondent and the General Counsel filed exceptions
and supporting briefs, and the Respondent filed a
reply brief.
The National Labor Relations Board has delegat-
ed its authority in this proceeding to a three-
member panel.
The Board has considered the decision and the
record - in light of the exceptions and briefs and has
decided to affirm the judge's rulings, findings, I and
conclusions only to the extent consistent with this
Decision and Order.
Policy Requiring Payroll Deductions
The complaint alleges that the Union maintains a
policy of providing the employees with dues-
checkoff authorization cards as the sole means of
satisfying their obligations to the Union . In dismiss-
ing this portion of the complaint , the judge specifi-
cally relied on Union Secretary Gregory Tubby's
testimony that at least 27 persons remitted their
fees directly to the Union . We disagree with the
judge for the reasons that follow.
The Union uses only one membership application
form . On the membership card an employee must
choose one of two boxes . The first box authorizes
payroll deduction of membership dues and an initi-
ation fee, as well as designating the Union as the
employee's bargaining representative ; the second
box authorizes payroll deduction of an agency fee.
Therefore, the Union's sole membership application
provides no alternative to checkoff payments.
Union Secretary Tubby sent the Board's Region-
al Office a letter stating that the Union's contract
1 The General Counsel has excepted to some of the judge's credibility
findings. The Board's established policy is not to overrule an administra-
tive law judge's credibility resolutions unless the clear preponderance of
all the relevant evidence convinces us that they are incorrect . Standard
Dry Wall Products, 91 NLRB 544 (1950), enfd . 188 F.2d 362 (3d Cir.
1951). We have carefully examined the record and find no basis for re-
versing the findings.
The judge based his conclusion that the Respondent required Mark
Patterson , the Charging Party , and three other employees to become
union members partially on his finding that Union Steward Cheryl Ste-
phens told them the telephone company had a closed shop . The record
does not support a finding that Stephens mentioned a closed shop. Ste-
phens, however, told the four employees they had to become union mem-
bers to retain their jobs . Such statements violated Sec . 8(bXlXA) of the
Act.
required Patterson to sign the checkoff card/-
membership form . At the trial, Tubby confirmed
advising the Board 's Regional Office that Patterson
was required to sign the card and further testified
that Patterson was not treated differently from any
other employee at the phone company . Tubby's
testimony amounts to an acknowledgement that all
employees are required to sign the checkoff card.
This evidence, combined with the fact that the
Union's only membership card requires checkoff at
the time of joining the Union, establishes a union
policy of providing employees with dues -checkoff
authorization cards as the sole means of satisfying
their obligations to the Union.
The Union produced numerous papers purport-
ing to document that union members pay dues in
cash . When counsel for the General Counsel ques-
tioned Tubby about the documents, however, it ap-
peared that none of the papers actually indicated
cash dues payers . Eventually, Tubby could only
testify that he personally knew at least 27 persons
who paid their dues in cash . Thus, despite its con-
trol of all the documents pertaining to membership
dues and agency fees, and their manner of pay-
ment, the Union only produced oral testimony
identifying 27 persons as cash dues payers.
Twenty-seven represents a small percentage of the
individuals the Union represents. Although 27 cash
dues payers may provide evidence of exceptions to
a policy requiring checkoff, it does not rebut the
General Counsel 's proof that the policy exists. Ac-
cordingly, we find the Union violated Section
8(b)(1)(A) of the Act by maintaining such a policy.
Union Fine
The complaint alleges that the Union unlawfully
imposed a fine of $591.50 on Patterson because he
crossed the picket line and worked during the
strike . The judge found Patterson manifested an
intent to become a union member and the Union
had the authority to discipline him. We disagree.
The judge found Patterson intended to become a
member because he checked the membership box
on the checkoff card , he read the checkoff card
before signing it, and Union Steward Stephens did
not tell Patterson which box to check . As previous-
ly noted , however, Stephens told Patterson that he
had to join the Union . Under these circumstances,
we cannot agree that because Stephens did not tell
Patterson which box to check , Patterson's checking
the membership box manifested an intent to
become a union member . Rather, we conclude that
Patterson, having been told he had to become a
union member to retain his job , did not voluntarily
become a union member by checking the checkoff
281 NLRB No. 64
414 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
card's membership box.2 Hunter Outdoor Products,
176 NLRB 449, 456 (1969). Consequently, the
Union violated Section 8 (bXl)(A) by imposing a
fine on him because he crossed the picket line and
worked during the strike.
AMENDED CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Delete Conclusion of Law 6.
2. Insert the following as Conclusions of Law 5
and 6 and renumber the judge 's Conclusion of Law
5:
"5. By maintaining the policy of providing em-
ployees with dues-checkoff authorizations as the
sole means of satisfying their obligations to remit
the appropriate fees, the Respondent engaged in an
unfair labor practice within the meaning of Section
8(bx1XA) of the Act.
"6. By imposing a court-collectible fine of
$591.50 on Mark Patterson because he crossed the
picket line and worked during the strike , the Re-
spondent engaged in an unfair labor practice within
the meaning of Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act."
REMEDY
Having found that the Union has engaged in
unfair labor practices, we find it necessary to order
the Union to cease and desist therefrom and to take
certain affirmative action necessary to effectuate
the policies of the Act.
The Union having unlawfully instructed employ-
ees Gooden, Woodridge, and Wong to excute the
payroll deduction card without affording an alter-
nate means for remitting the appropriate fees,3 we
shall order that the Union reimburse them for any
dues or fees withheld from their pay pursuant to
checkoff authorizations during the period before
the collective-bargaining agreement required
agency fee payments, with interest thereon to be
computed in the manner prescribed in Florida Steel
Corp., 231 NLRB 651 (1977). See General Instru-
ment Corp., 262 NLRB 1178 (1982), affd. 742 F.2d
1438 (2d Cir. 1983).
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board orders that
the Respondent, Communications Workers of
America, Local 1101, AFL-CIO, New York, New
York, its officers, agents, and representatives, shall
Y The judge also relied on the evidence that Patterson was on the
picket line for the first 2 days of the strike . The judge ignored , however,
the union witnesses ' testimony that on the first day of the strike Patterson
complained about his obligation to picket and refrain from work These
facts do not indicate an intent to become a union member Rather , Patter-
son was coerced into becoming a member and later picketed unwillingly
for 2 days because of his coerced membership
s The record indicates that no dues or fees were deducted from Patter-
son's salary
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Notifying employees that they are required to
become members of the Union.
(b) Presenting a card to employees entitled "Re-
quest for Payroll Deduction" or any similar dual-
purpose card which serves as both a union mem-
bership application and as a dues -checkoff authori-
zation, unless such employees are clearly and un-
equivocally offered an alternative means of paying
their required fees other than through checkoff.
(c) Maintaining the policy of providing employ-
ees with dues-checkoff authorizations as the sole
means of satisfying their obligations to remit the
appropriate fees.
(d) Imposing a court-collectible fine of $591.50
on Mark Patterson because he crossed the picket
line and worked during the strike.
(e) In any like or related manner restraining or
coercing employees in the exercise of the rights
guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action neces-
sary to effectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Reimburse employees Gooden, Woodridge,
and Wong for any dues or fees withheld from their
pay pursuant to checkoff authorizations during the
period before the collective-bargaining agreement
required agency fee payments, with interest as pro-
vided in the section entitled "Remedy."
(b) Rescind the fine imposed on Mark Patterson
and refund to him any amount he may have paid,
with interest as set forth in Florida Steel Corp., 231
NLRB 651 (1977).
(c) Remove from its files any reference to the
unlawful fine imposed on Mark Patterson and
notify him in writing that it has done so and that
the fine will not be used against him in any way.
(d) Preserve and, on request, make available to
the Board or its agents for examination and copy-
ing, all records necessary to analyze the amount of
monies due under the terms of this Order.
(e) Post at its office in New York City copies of
the attached notice marked "Appendix."4 Copies
of the notice, on forms provided by the Regional
Director for Region 2, after being signed by the
Respondent's authorized representative, shall be
posted by the Respondent immediately upon re-
ceipt and maintained for 60 consecutive days in
conspicuous places including all places where no-
tices to members are customarily posted. Reasona-
ble steps shall be taken by the Respondent to
4 If this Order is enforced by a judgment of a United States court of
appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by Order of the Nation-
al Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of
the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National
Labor Relations Board "
COMMUNICATIONS WORKERS LOCAL 1101 (NEW YORK TELEPHONE) 415
ensure that the notices are not altered , defaced, or
covered by any other material.
(f) Mail to the Regional Director signed copies
of the above-mentioned notice for posting by New
York Telephone Company, if it is willing, in places
where notices to employees are customarily posted.
(g) Notify the Regional Director in writing
within 20 days from the date of this Order what
steps the Respondent has taken to comply.
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
The National Labor Relations Board has found
that we violated the National Labor Relations Act
and has ordered us to post and abide by this notice.
WE WILL NOT notify employees of New York
Telephone Company that they are required to
become members of the Union.
WE WILL NOT present a card to employees enti-
tled "Request for Payroll Deduction" or any simi-
lar dual-purpose card which serves as both a union
membership application and as a dues -checkoff au-
thorization, unless such employees are clearly and
unequivocally offered an alternative means of
paying their required fees other than through
checkoff.
WE WILL NOT maintain the policy of providing
employees with dues-checkoff authorizations as the
sole means of satisfying their obligations to remit
the appropriate fees.
WE WILL NOT impose a court-collectible fine of
$591.50 on Mark Patterson because he crossed the
picket line and worked during the strike.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner re-
strain or coerce you in the exercise of the rights
guaranteed you by Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL reimburse employees Gooden, Woo-
dridge, and Wong for any dues or fees withheld
from their pay pursuant to checkoff authorizations
during the period before the collective-bargaining
agreement required agency fee payments, plus in-
terest.
WE WILL rescind the fine imposed on Mark Pat-
terson and refund to him any amount he may have
paid, with interest.
WE WILL remove from our files any reference to
the unlawful fine imposed on Mark Patterson and
notify him in writing that we have done so and
that the fine will not be used against him in any
way.
COMMUNICATIONS WORKERS OF
AMERICA, LOCAL 1101 , AFL-CIO
Valerie E. Brathwaite, Esq., for the General Counsel.
Carl Rachlin, Esq. (O'Donnell & Schwartz), of New York,
New York, for the Respondent.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
D. BARRY MORRIS, Administrative Law Judge. This
case was heard before me in New York City on various
dates between April and September 1984 . Upon a charge
filed on 10 November 1983 , a complaint was issued on
20 January 1984 and amended at the hearing on 20 Sep-
tember 1984, alleging that Communications Workers of
America, Local 1101 , AFL-CIO (the Respondent or the
Union) violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the National Labor
Relations Act (the Act). The Respondent filed an answer
denying the commission of the alleged unfair labor prac-
tices.
The parties were given full opportunity to participate,
produce evidence, examine and cross -examine witnesses,
argue orally, and file briefs. Briefs were filed by the
General Counsel and by the Respondent in December
1984.
On the entire record of the case , including my obser-
vation of the demeanor of the witnesses , I make the fol-
lowing
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. JURISDICTION
New York Telephone Company (the Company), a
New York corporation with an office and place of busi-
ness at 203 West 36th Street , New York, New York, is
engaged in the operation of a public utility providing
telephone communication services to other firms and the
general public . It annually derives gross revenues in
excess of $500,000 and purchases and receives at its New
York City facility goods valued in excess of $50,000 di-
rectly from points located outside the State of New
York. The Company is an employer engaged in com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of
the Act . In addition , the Respondent admits that it is a
labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of
the Act, and I so find.
II. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The Issues
The issues are:
1. Did the Respondent inform employees that they
were required to become members of the Union?
2. Did the Respondent inform employees that they
were required to sign union authorization cards which
provided for automatic dues checkoff?
416 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
3. Did the Respondent maintain a policy of providing
dues-checkoff authorization cards as the only means for
employees to remit dues?
4. Did the Respondent unlawfully impose a fine on an
employee for crossing the picket line?
B. The Facts
1. Union membership
Mark Patterson had been a summer employee at the
Company's Queens, New York office during several
summers prior to 1983. In June 19831 he began employ-
ment at the Company's facility located at 203 West 36th
Street, New York City. Cheryl Stephens was a shop
steward at the 36th Street facility during the summer of
1983. Stephens , who appeared to me to be a credible wit-
ness, testified that in June she approached the summer
hires, which included Patterson, Gooden, Woodridge,
and Wong, and told them that the "telephone company
had a closed shop," that if they wanted to "stay em-
ployed at the company" they would have to sign Gener-
al Counsel's Exhibit 2, the "Request for Payroll Deduc-
tion," and that "every employee at the phone company
had to sign that card ." Stephens handed cards to each of
the four employees.
Prior to signing the card , Patterson told Stephens that
in his prior employment as a summer employee at the
Company, he was not required to sign a card . He asked
Stephens to check if it was necessary that he sign. After
checking with a union representative , Stephens told Pat-
terson that the "summer hires did in fact have to be
members of the union."
Stephens credibly testified that she saw Patterson read
the card. Patterson testified that when the card was pre-
sented to him the fee of "$5.00" and the Local No.
"1101" were already filled out in the membership portion
of the card . Stephens credibly testified that she did not
tell Patterson which boxy to check. However, she also
did not tell Patterson or the other three summer hires
that they had the option to check either of the two
boxes . Stephens testified that she submitted the cards to
the Union's chief steward.
Several weeks after Stephens had given the initial card
to Patterson he approached Stephens and told her that
"he was concerned because dues weren 't being deducted
from his salary." The two discussed the upcoming strike
and Stephens told Patterson that she would call the
union office to find out what happened with his initial
authorization card. On doing so, Stephens was told that
the initial card may have been misplaced and that she
should have Patterson sign another one. Stephens testi-
fied that she then gave Patterson an additional card
which he kept "a couple of days" and then returned the
signed card to her in which the top box was checked off.
She testified that he did not ask any questions concerning
checking the second box.
' All dates refer to 1983 unless otherwise specified.
2 The Request for Payroll Deduction contains two boxes. Checking
the top box indicates the employee 's application to become a union
member Checking the second box authorizes deduction of "an amount
equal to the regular periodic dues paid by members in the CWA "
Patterson contradicted Stephens ' testimony . He testi-
fied that he signed only one card and that he never told
Stephens that his dues were not being deducted . He testi-
fied that the first time that he was approached by Ste-
phens was on 18 July when she said that the "Telephone
Company had an agreement with the union, that every
employee had to sign this card ." He testified that she left
the card with him and came back for it 20 minutes later.
Patterson further testified he did not read any part of the
front or back of the card and that he was instructed to
check the membership portion of the card.
2. The strike
A strike began at the New York facility on 8 August.
Stephens testified that several days prior to the strike she
handed Patterson his "picket assignment." The picket as-
signment instructed Patterson when he was to appear on
the picket line. Stephens testified that Patterson did not
raise any objection concerning his picket duty. Patterson
similarly testified that Stephens gave him a slip of paper
which contained a "strike duty time" and that he did not
say anything to her concerning the assignment.
Stephens testified that she saw Patterson on the picket
line on the morning of 8 August for approximately 2
hours. She further testified that she saw him on the
picket line on the morning of 9 August and on 10 August
he crossed the picket line and entered the building. This
testimony was corroborated by O'Toole, who testified
that Patterson was on the picket line on the morning of 8
August until approximately 10 a.m . O'Toole also testified
that he saw Patterson on the picket line on 9 August be-
tween 8 and 9 am. Similarly , Lathan testified that she
saw Patterson on the picket line from 8 to 10 a.m. on 8
August and shortly after 8 a.m. on 9 August.
Patterson testified that he never appeared on the
picket line . He testified that on 8 August he left the
building after 10 minutes , that he played basketball that
afternoon with a friend, Robert Ince, and that he was to-
gether with Ince the entire day of 9 August. Ince testi-
fied that he was with Patterson the afternoon of 8
August, that he telephoned Patterson during the morning
of 9 August, that he met Patterson at 11 o 'clock that
morning and was with him the remainder of the day.
3. Concluding findings
Stephens appeared to me to be a credible witness. Her
answers were forthright and in some instances, even
though she was a union representative, her testimony
was detrimental to the Respondent 's position. Based on
the entire record and the demeanor of all the witnesses, I
find that in June Stephens approached the four summer
hires and told them that there was a closed shop and that
the employees had to sign the payroll deduction card.
Patterson questioned whether he was required to sign
the card since he was not required to do so during the
several prior summers that he worked for the Company.
After checking with the Union, Stephens advised Patter-
son that he had to sign the card. I credit Stephens' testi-
mony that she did not instruct him that he had to check
the membership box and that she saw him reading the
card. I fmd Patterson's testimony that he did not read
COMMUNICATIONS WORKERS LOCAL 1101 (NEW YORK TELEPHONE)
the card hard to believe in view of the fact that he had
almost completed his college education and considering
his concern as to whether he was required to sign a card.
Several weeks after signing the card, Patterson ap-
proached Stephens and told her that dues had not been
deducted . After inquiring from the Union , she ascer-
tained that the initial card may have been misplaced. Ac-
cordingly, she told Patterson to sign another card. Pat-
terson signed a second card and , again, Stephens did not
tell him which box to check.
Several days prior to the strike , Stephens handed Pat-
terson a picket duty assignment sheet . She testified, and
he did not controvert that testimony, that he did not
object to the picket duty assignment . I credit Stephens'
testimony that on the morning of 8 August Patterson ap-
peared on the picket line for approximately 2 hours. This
was corroborated by two additional witnesses . I also find
that Patterson was on the picket line around 8 a.m. on 9
August. Stephens, O'Toole, and Lathan so testified.
Ince's testimony did not contradict the possibility of Pat-
terson's having been on the picket line on both 8 and 9
August . Thus, Ince testified that he was with Patterson
the afternoon of 8 August and beginning 11 a.m. on 9
August . While Ince stated that he telephoned Patterson
during the morning of 9 August , he did not specify the
time of the telephone call . The call, therefore, could
have been placed just prior to his meeting Patterson.
Patterson crossed the picket line on 10 August and
was fined the sum of $591 . 50 by the Union.
C. Discussion
1. Union membership
The complaint alleges that in June the Union , acting
through Stephens, informed employees that they were
required to become union members. The collective-bar-
gaining agreement between the Company and the Union
contains an agency shop provision requiring that employ-
ees who enter the bargaining unit after the effective date
of the agreement must pay periodic dues on or after the
30th day following entrance into the unit. I have found
that in June Stephens approached the four summer hires
and told them that the "telephone company had a closed
shop," that if they wanted to "stay employed at the com-
pany" they would have to sign the Request for Payroll
Deduction, and that summer hires were required to be
members of the Union.
In Service Employees Local 680 (Leland Stanford Uni-
versity), 232 NLRB 326 (1977), enfd. 601 F .2d 980 (9th
Cir. 1979), the Board held that the union 's notification to
new employees that they were required to become full
members of the union as a condition of their employment
constituted a violation of Section 8(bx1XA). The Board
upheld the administrative law judge 's conclusion that
such notification "constituted an implied threat of repris-
al calculated to interfere with the employees' statutory
right to refrain from any and all union activities." 232
NLRB at 329 . As the Supreme Court stated in NLRB v.
General Motors Corp., 373 U.S. 734, 742 (1963):
It is permissible to condition employment upon
membership, but membership, insofar as it has sig-
417
nificance to employment rights , may in turn be con-
ditioned only upon payment of fees and dues.
"Membership" as a condition of employment is
whittled down to its financial core.
I find that Stephens ' statements to the four newly
hired summer employees constituted an "implied threat
of reprisal calculated to interfere" with the employees'
rights to refrain from union activities, in violation of Sec-
tion 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act. See also Franklin Convalescent
Center, 223 NLRB 1298, 1310 (1976).
2. Authorization cards
The complaint alleges that the Union unlawfully re-
quired the four summer hires to sign a Request for Pay-
roll Deduction authorizing the Company to deduct the
appropriate fees from their wages . General Counsel's Ex-
hibit 2, the Request for Payroll Deduction , is a dual-pur-
pose union membership and dues-checkoff authorization
card . The record is clear that Stephens told the four
summer hires that they were required to sign the cards.
The parties stipulated that Stephens did not advise Pat-
terson that he had the option of satisfying the payment
of his fees by making payments directly to the Union.
It is well-settled that employees have the right under
Section 7 of the Act to refuse to sign dues-checkoff au-
thorization cards . Metal Workers ' Alliance, 172 NLRB
815, 817 (1968). In Mine Workers District SO (Ruberoid
Co.), 173 NLRB 87 (1968), the Board stated that when a
dual-purpose checkoff card is the sole means by which an
employee may obtain union membership under a union-
security clause , "it deprives the employee of his right to
select the method by which he will pay his periodic
dues" and its use is therefore unlawful. The Board point-
ed out, however (id.):
If this same dual-purpose card were offered with
the option to cross out the the checkoff authoriza-
tion or were submitted along with another which
omitted the checkoff authorization and each em-
ployee had his uncoerced choice as to the manner
in which he would sign, it seems clear that no viola-
tion would be found.
Similarly, in Electrical Workers IUE Local 601 (Wes-
tinghouse Electric), 180 NLRB 1062 (1970), the only way
in which an employee was permitted to comply with his
obligation pursuant to a union-security clause was to exe-
cute a dues-checkoff authorization card . The Board held
that "any conduct , express or implied , which coerces an
employee in his attempt to exercise" his right under Sec-
tion 7 to refuse to sign a checkoff authorization card vio-
lates Section 8(b)(1XA).
The record is clear that Patterson was not given the
option to remit the appropriate fees other than by pay-
roll deduction . There is also no indication in the record
that the other three summer hires were given such an
option . Accordingly, I find that Stephens statements to
the four employees coercively denied their rights to
refuse to sign the checkoff authorization cards , in viola-
tion of Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act.
418 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
3. Policy concerning direct payment and motion for
reconsideration
The complaint alleges that the Union maintains the
policy of providing the employees with dues-checkoff
authorization cards as the sole means of satisfying their
obligations to remit the appropriate fees , without afford-
ing them the option of remitting such fees directly to the
Union. Gregory Tubby, secretary of the Union, testified
that he knows of employees who pay their dues or obli-
gations to the Union by hand. He testified specifically to
27 persons who paid their fees directly to the Union in
October 1983. He was able to recollect the names of the
27 persons after reviewing Respondent's Exhibit 2,
which is a list of union members . Respondent's Exhibit 2
had previously been made available to the General
Counsel.
The General Counsel has moved for reconsideration of
my ruling permitting Respondent 's Exhibit 2 and Gener-
al Counsel's Exhibit 14 to be admitted into evidence, on
the ground that these documents were not made avail-
able to the General Counsel pursuant to a subpoena
duces tecum . The determination whether evidence which
a party fails to produce pursuant to subpoena should be
excluded is a matter of discretion. Nice-Pak Products, 248
NLRB 1278, 1291 fn . 74 (1980). The record is clear that
Respondent's Exhibit 2 had previously been made avail-
able to the General Counsel (Tr. 499 and 503). Accord-
ingly, there being no basis for the exclusion of Respond-
ent Exhibit 2, I reaffirm my ruling of its admissibility.
General Counsel 's Exhibit 14 contains a summary of
the names of those individuals who Tubby claimed made
direct payments to the Union. On examination by the
General Counsel it appeared that the majority of the per-
sons named on General Counsel's Exhibit 14 did not, in
fact, make direct payments to the Union as originally tes-
tified to by Tubby. Accordingly, I have given no weight
to General Counsel Exhibit 14's and it is therefore un-
necessary that I decide the motion for reconsideration
with respect to that exhibit . I note , however, that the ex-
hibit was offered during the presentation of the General
Counsel's case and that counsel for the General Counsel
was given the opportunity to examine both General
Counsel's Exhibit 12 and General Counsel's Exhibit 14.
See Nice-Pak Products, 248 NLRB at 1291 fn. 74.
I find that the General Counsel has not proven by a
preponderance of the evidence that the Union main-
tained a policy of providing the dues-checkoff authoriza-
tion card as the sole means of remitting payments to the
Union. While I have found that such was the case with
respect- to the four summer hires , the General Counsel
has not shown that the policy existed generally. See
Brown Transport Corp., 239 NLRB 711 fn. 1 (1978).
Indeed, the testimony is uncontroverted that at least 27
persons remitted their fees directly to the Union. Ac-
cordingly, the allegation is dismissed.
4. Union fine
The complaint alleges that the Union unlawfully im-
posed a fine of $591 . 50 on Patterson because he crossed
the picket line and worked during the strike . In her brief,
counsel for the General Counsel argues that Patterson
"never manifested any intent to be a member" of the
Union . I find to the contrary. Patterson read the authori-
zation cards before signing them and was not told by
Stephens which box to check. When he received his
picket assignment sheet he did not object. He picketed
for approximately 2 hours on 8 August and appeared on
the picket line on 9 August . I conclude that Patterson
did manifest an intent to be a member of the Union and,
consequently, the Union did have the authority to disci-
pline him for crossing its picket line and returning to
work during the strike . See Potters (Macomb Pottery), 171
NLRB 565, 566 (1968); American Nurses' Assn., 250
NLRB 1324, 1326-1327 (1980). Accordingly, the allega-
tion is dismissed.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. New York Telephone Company is an employer en-
gaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2),
(6), and (7) of the Act.
2. The Union is a labor organization within the mean-
ing of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. By notifying employees that they were required to
become members of the Union , the Respondent engaged
in an unfair labor practice within the meaning of Section
8(bx1XA) of the Act.
4. By using a dual-purpose authorization card without
giving the employees the option to remit dues or fees by
a method other than checkoff, the Respondent engaged
in an unfair labor practice within the meaning of Section
8(b)(1)(A) of the Act.
5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices constitute unfair
labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning
of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
6. The Respondent did not violate the Act in any
other manner alleged in the complaint.
THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in
unfair labor practices , I fmd it necessary to order the Re-
spondent to cease and desist therefrom and to take cer-
tain affirmative action necessary to effectuate the policies
of the Act.
The Respondent, having unlawfully instructed employ-
ees Gooden, Woodridge, and Wong to execute the pay-
roll deduction card without affording an alternate means
for remitting the appropriate fees, 3 I shall order that the
Respondent reimburse them for the moneys deducted
from their pay pursuant to such checkoff authorization,
with interest thereon to be computed in the manner pre-
scribed in Florida Steel Corp., 231 NLRB 651 (1977), and
Isis Plumbing Co., 138 NLRB 716 (1962). See Brown
Transport Corp., 239 NLRB at 715.
[Recommended Order omitted from publication.]
' The record indicates that no dues or fees were deducted from Patter-
son's salary.