Communications Workers of America and Communications Workers of America, Local 4309

National Labor Relations Board - Administrative Judge Opinions

Sep 17, 2012

08-CB-010487 (N.L.R.B. Sep. 17, 2012)

JD-49-12
Cleveland, OH
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
DIVISION OF JUDGES
COMMUNICATIONS WORKERS OF
AMERICA AND COMMUNICATIONS WORKERS
OF AMERICA, LOCAL 4309 (AT&T
TELEHOLDINGS, INC. d/b/a/ AT&T MIDWEST
AND THE OHIO BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY)
and Case 08–CB–010487
SANDA ILIAS, an Individual
Susan Fernandez, Esq., for the Acting General Counsel.
Theodore E. Meckler, Esq., of Cleveland, Ohio,
for the Respondent.
John C. Scully, Esq. (National Right to Work Legal
Defense Foundation), of Springfield, Virginia, for the
Charging Party.
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
JOHN T. CLARK, Administrative Law Judge. Pursuant to a charge filed by Sanda Ilias, the
Charging Party, on January 17, 2006, and an amended charge filed by her on January 30, 2006,
an amended compliant and notice of hearing was issued by the Regional Director for Region 8 of
the National Labor Relations Board (the Board), on August 21, 2008. The amended compliant
alleges that Communications Workers of America, and Communications Workers of America,
Local 4309 (individually referred to as Respondent CWA; Respondent Local 4309, and
collectively as Respondents), have been engaging in unfair labor practices in violation of Section
8(b)(1)(A) of the National Labor Relations Act (the Act) by informing employees subject to a
union-security provision that in order to become and remain a Beck objector, nonmember
bargaining unit employees must renew their objections annually during the month of May,
thereby violating the employees Section 7 rights and Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act. The
Respondent denies any violation of the Act.
This case was tried in Cleveland, Ohio, on October 27, 2008, before Administrative Law
Judge Wallace H. Nations. Judge Nations issued his decision on January 9, 2009. On October
26, 2011, the Board remanded this case to the chief administrative law judge to reassign it to
JD–49–12
2
another administrative law judge because of Judge Nations’ retirement. On October 27, 2011,
Chief Administrative Law Judge Robert A. Giannasi reassigned this case to me pursuant to the
Board’s remand. The parties’ subsequent attempt to settle this matter was unsuccessful.
The remand directs that I consider this case in light of Machinists Local 2777 (L–3 5
Communications), 355 NLRB 1062 (2010), and Auto Workers Local 376 (Colt’s Mfg. Co.,), 356
NLRB No. 164 (2011). The remand permits the parties to file supplemental briefs and further
orders that I prepare and serve on the parties a supplemental decision setting forth findings of
fact, conclusions of law, and a recommended Order.
10
On the entire record and after considering the briefs and supplemental briefs filed by
counsel for the Acting General Counsel, the Respondents, and the Charging Party, I make the
following
FINDINGS OF FACT15
I. JURISDICTION
AT&T Teleholdings, Inc. d/b/a/ AT & T Midwest a Delaware corporation and The Ohio
Bell Telephone Company, an Ohio corporation (the Employer), with an office and place of 20
business in Cleveland, Ohio, has been engaged in providing communications services. Annually,
the Employer, in conducting its business operations, derives gross revenues in excess of
$100,000. Additionally, the Employer, in conducting its business operations at its Cleveland,
Ohio facility, purchases and receives products, goods and materials valued in excess of $5000
directly from points located outside the State of Ohio. The Respondent admits, and I find that 25
the Employer has at all material times been engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section
2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act. The Respondents also admit that they have been labor organizations
within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
II. THE PROCEDURAL MATTER30
On May 9, 2011, the Respondent’s counsel filed a letter with the Board’s Executive
Secretary urging consideration of actions taken by the Respondents in light of the Board’s
decision in Machinists Local 2777 (L-3 Communications), above. There is no response from the
Executive Secretary’s Office in the formal file.35
The Board’s remand order only specifies that the parties be permitted to file supplemental
briefs. It does not direct a reopening of the trial and the parties agreed that a reopening was not
necessary. Nor does the remand order permit the admission of additional evidence.
Accordingly, I will only consider only those matters that are consistent with the Board’s remand 40
order. See Brown & Root Power & Mfg., 351 NLRB 168, 189 (2007) (citing Monark Boat Co.,
276 NLRB 1143, 1143 fn. 3 (1985), enfd. 800 F.2d 191 (8th Cir. 1986).
JD–49–12
3
III. ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE
A. The Stipulations
At the beginning of the trial the parties offered the following stipulations as Joint Exhibit 5
1:
1. This stipulation (paragraph no. 1) is being entered simply to provide background
information for the hearing in this case: Charging Party, Sanda Ilias (Ilias) filed a
previous unfair labor practice charge against Respondents CWA (CWA) and CWA Local
4309 (Local 4309) on December 13, 2004, which charge was assigned Case No. 8-CB-10
10252. Thereafter, the charge was amended on January 18, 2005 and February 8, 2005.
Among other allegations, Ilias alleged that after she resigned from membership and
objected to paying full dues on about September 30, 2004, the Respondents continued to
charge her full dues and did not provide her with the information that is owed a Beck
objector, including a breakdown of representational and non-representational 15
expenditures.
2. This stipulation (paragraph no. 2) is being entered simply to provide background
information for the hearing in this case: On July 27, 2005 Frederick J. Calatrello,
Regional Director, Region 8, approved the terms of a bilateral informal settlement 20
agreement in Case No. 8-CB-10252. Respondents fully complied with the terms of the
settlement agreement. In so doing they provided Ilias with post-objection information
including a breakdown of representational and non-representational expenditures and a
check in the amount of $136.85, reimbursing Ilias for non-representational expenditures
for the 2004-2005 fiscal objector years.25
3. CWA’s objector year begins on July 1 and ends on June 30 of the following year.
4. CWA is primarily responsible for formulating and administering Respondent’s Beck
policy and practices. These policy and practices apply to all bargaining unit members 30
represented by Local 4309 as well as all other CWA Locals.
5. For all years relevant to this proceeding, CWA annually publishes a notice describing
its Beck policy in the March/April edition of the CWA News, a newsletter that is routinely
sent to bargaining unit employees nationwide. The notice of its Beck policy, as published 35
in the CWA News, has remained unchanged since at least 2004, when the charge was filed
in Case No. 8-CB-10252.
6. CWA provides Beck objectors with an advance reduction, reimbursing the objector
for non-representational expenditures during the objector year in which the objection is 40
made.
7. Brenda Mallory (Mallory) held the position of President of Local 4309 from at least as
early as December 1, 2002 to December 1, 2005. Pam Wynn (Wynn) is currently the
Local President and has held that position since December 1, 2005. When they held (or 45
in Wynn’s case continues to hold) the office of President, both Mallory and Wynn were
JD–49–12
4
agents of Local 4309 within the meaning of Section 2(13) of the National Labor
Relations Act (the Act).
B. Factual Background
5
The CWA represent about 400,000 private sector employees, approximately 1500
of which are Beck objectors. Respondent Local 4309 represent about 700 employees at
the AT&T facilities involved in this case. CWA is primarily responsible for formulating
and administering the Respondent’s Beck policy and practices. These policy and
practices apply to all bargaining unit members represented by Local 4309 as well as all 10
other CWA Locals. “Beck” refers to Communication Workers v. Beck, 487 U.S. 735
(1988). Helen Gibson is CWA’s administrator of special programs. One of the special
programs that she is responsible for is the procedures for Beck objectors and agency fee
payers.
15
Gibson testified that the CWA’s Beck policy requires that Beck objectors renew
their objections on an annual basis. The CWA objector year begins July 1 and ends June
30 of the following year. In order for an objector to receive an advanced refund of their
dues for the entire objector year the objector must file their objection during May of each
year.20
Gibson testified that in order to notify new employees and members who have
resigned and have become agency fee payers Respondent CWA mails each employee a
pamphlet entitled, “Your rights with respect to union representation, union security
agreements and agency fee objections.” Respondent CWA also publishes a notice 25
describing its Beck policy annually in the March/April edition of the CWA News, a
newsletter that is routinely sent to bargaining unit employees nationwide. The published
notice has remained unchanged since 2004, when Charging Party Ilias resigned and
objected to paying full dues. Gibson also testified regarding some exceptions to the
policy. CWA will accept objections received in April, objections postmarked June 1, and 30
objections filed by new hires. Individual reminders are not sent to current Beck objectors.
Gibson also testified that of the 400,000 private sector represented employees
13,000 are agency fee payers and about 1500 are agency fee objectors. (Tr. 101.) Gibson
estimated that she receives between 1800 to 2000 letters a year requesting objector status. 35
(Tr. 76.) She was unaware of the breakdown between new and renewing objectors. By
far the majority of the letters arrive during the May window period. Only Beck objectors
have the nonrepresentational portion of their fee in lieu of dues refunded to them and
only they must renew their status annually. Aside from the foregoing exceptions, CWA’s
Beck policy requires that Beck objectors renew their objector status annually during the 40
month of May. Failure to do so results in the employee not being classified as an
objector for the next year and being charged full dues for that year.
Upon receiving a timely objection letter it is read by a CWA clerical employee.
According to Gibson, the employee is looking for key words or phrases, i.e., “object,” 45
“objector,” “pay reduced dues,” or “don’t want to pay for politics,” in order to determine
that the sender wants to be an objector. If there are no key words or phrases present then
JD–49–12
5
Gibson reads the letter to see if she can ascertain the writer’s intent. She always errs “on
the side of it being a letter of objection.” (Tr. 77.)
C. Respondent CWA’s Justifications for
its Annual Renewal Requirement5
Gibson claims that Respondent CWA must use an annual objection renewal because the
employees who read the objection letters do not have sufficient judgment to make the distinction
between a “continuing” objector and a “regular” objector. According to Gibson, allowing for
continuing objectors would slow down the process and require Respondent CWA to use 10
individuals with a higher skill level. (Tr. 78–79, 114.)
Gibson also notes that Respondent CWA has acted in reliance on court decisions, a Board
decision, and General Counsel memorandum, in maintaining its annual renewal requirements.
(Tr. 80–82.)15
Gibson also testified that part of the reason for requiring annual renewal is to keep the
address list for the objectors up to date. Although the employer provides the current addresses to
Respondent CWA there is a 4-to 6-week lag time. Gibson stressed that it was important to have
the correct address because Beck objectors had to be notified of their right to object. Respondent 20
CWA was also required to send Beck objectors a rebate check as well as the calculations used to
determine the amount of the check. (Tr. 84, 113–114.)
The Respondents also claim that the annual renewal is used also as a barometer to
indicate locals that have employees who are unhappy with their union representation. After 25
Respondent CWA receives the objector letters, that information is forwarded to the appropriate
local and regional officers to address the cause of the problem. (Tr. 84–85, 99.)
D. The Charging Party’s Experience with the
Respondent’s Beck Policy and Practices30
Charging Party Sanda Ilias is employed by AT&T at its Cleveland, Ohio facility. She
was hired in 1997 as a full-time customer service representative, and she has remained in that
position for most of her employment. She was a member of Respondent CWA Local 4309 from
2003 until September 4, 2004. On that date, she sent a letter to Respondent CWA Local 4309 35
resigning her membership and objecting to paying dues for nonrepresentational purposes. Ilias
pays her dues through automatic checkoff. Respondent CWA Local 4309 continued to collect
full union dues and Ilias filed an unfair labor practice charge. That case was settled on July 27,
2005, as the result of a bilateral informal settlement agreement. Ilias received $136.85 for
nonrepresentational expenditures for the 2004–2005 objector years as a result of the settlement. 40
In addition to the refund, the Respondents provided her with a breakdown of representational and
nonrepresentational expenditures for the 2004–2005 objector years.
Respondent CWA does not recognize any bargaining unit employees in Local 4309 as
Beck objectors. Consequently, Ilias is still paying dues of $30.13, the full amount, every 2 45
weeks.
JD–49–12
6
Ilias stated that she is no longer receiving the CWA News. She did testify that she
received copies of the CWA News after May 2004, but they were not read and thus she was
unaware of Respondent CWA’s annual renewal requirement. Ilias also said that when her
objection for the 2004–2005 year was about to expire in May 2005 she did not receive any
notification from either of the Respondents that she needed to renew her Beck objection for the 5
2005–2006 year.
Ilias was uncertain as to whether she had renewed her objection for the 2005–2006 Beck
objector years. She testified that after she received a second check in April 2006 from
Respondent CWA, for $159.34, she thought it was for her original objection. That was the last 10
refund she received. She has not received an advance dues refund check for the objector years
2006–2007 or 2007–2008. Gibson testified that the April 2006 check was sent in response to an
objection letter Ilias sent dated January 11, 2006. That letter was not entered into evidence. The
amended charge filed with the Board on January 30, 2006, clearly references the Respondent’s
policy that nonmembers must file annual objections. (GC Exh. 1 (c) at 2.) Similarly, the letter 15
signed by Gibson and containing a check for $159.34, makes clear that the Respondent’s policy
requires that all objections for subsequent July through June periods be in writing and mailed in
time to arrive during the preceding May. (R. Exh. 1.)
E. Respondent’s 10(b) Defense20
In their post hearing brief to Judge Nations that the Respondents argue that the Charging
Party knew of the Respondent’s annual renewal practice more than 6 months before filling the
charge in this case. In an attempt to prove that contention, the Respondents attached several
documents of factual material to their brief. On December 12, 2008, the counsel for the General 25
Counsel filed a motion to strike the attachments as well as all factual assertions and legal
arguments based on them because they were not placed in evidence during the hearing. Judge
Nations granted the motion in full and concluded that without the alleged evidence the
Respondent’s 10(b) argument must fail.
30
Judge Nations also relied on the counsel for the General Counsel’s assertion that Section
10(b) does not preclude a finding that the annual renewal requirement violates the Act. Judge
Nations’ notes that “[t]he Board has found that the continued maintenance of a rule is unlawful
even though the rule was enacted outside the 10(b) period; if the rule is found to be unlawful on
its face or is presumptively unlawful. Judge Nations cites Control Services, Inc., 305 NLRB 435 35
fn. 2, 442 (1991), enfd. mem. 961 F.2d 1568 (3d Cir. 1992) (continued maintenance of facially
unlawful rule originally promulgated outside 10(b) period, not time-barred), as an example of
this reasoning as applied to solicitation policies.. Judge Nations also observed that the
administrative law judge in Auto Workers Local 376 (Colt’s Mfg. Co.), 356 NLRB No. 164
(2011), also rejected the Unions’ 10(b) defense. (Id., slip op. at 10.) Judge Nations did not have 40
the benefit of the Board’s decision in Colt’s Mfg. Co., where the Board noted that “the Unions’
do not pursue that defense before the Board.” (Id., slip op. at 2 fn. 7.) It does not appear that the
Respondents have pursued their 10(b) defense in their supplemental brief. In the interest of
administrative finality, I am in complete agreement with Judge Nations’ rejection of the
Respondent’s 10(b) defense and I adopt it as my own.45
JD–49–12
7
IV. ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION
Pursuant to the Board’s remand order, I will follow the principles set out in the Board’s
decision in Machinists Local 2777 (L-3 Communications), 355 NLRB 1062 (2010), as applied in
Auto Workers Local 376 (Colt’s Mfg. Co.), 356 NLRB No. 164 (2011). In Machinists Local 5
2777 (L–3 Communications), the Board found an annual renewal rule unlawful. In so doing the
Board emphasized that they would evaluate such requirements on a case-by-case basis to
determine “whether the Union has demonstrated a legitimate justification for an annual renewal
requirement or otherwise minimized the burden it imposes on potential objectors.” Id.. at 1062.
10
L–3 Communications reaffirmed that the Board applies the duty-of-fair representation
standard in Beck cases. (355 NLRB 1063). A union breaches that duty if its actions affecting
employees whom it represents are “arbitrary, discriminatory, or in bad faith.” Id. at 1063. An
action is arbitrary, in turn, “only if, in light of the factual and legal landscape at the time of the
union’s actions, the union’s behavior is so far outside a ‘wide range of reasonableness’ as to be 15
irrational.” Id., quoting Airline Pilots Assn. v. O’Neill, 499 U.S. 65, 67 (1991). As L–3
Communications and Colt’s Mfg., supra, at 1063, illustrate, if the burden imposed on employees
by an annual renewal requirement is more than de minimis, the Board evaluates a union’s
proffered justifications for the requirement considered in the context of the particular Beck
procedures involved.20
It is clear that the annual renewal requirement here, like that in L–3 Communications, and
unlike that in Colt’s Mfg., imposes more than de minimis burden on objectors. In the instant
case, as in L–3 Communications, an objector must remember to mail a statement of renewed
objection to Respondent CWA each year during a designated 1-month period specified in the 25
Respondent’s procedure. In this case it is the month of May. Failure to send a timely renewal
results in the loss of opportunity to receive a dues reduction for 11 months, until the renewal
period recurs. Nor does the Respondent’s Beck procedure in this case provide the objectors with
multiple notices and a reminder of the annual renewal requirement, as does the Beck procedure in
Colt’s Mfg.30
The Board also found that the fact that an objection could be filed at any time under the
Beck procedure in Colt’s Mfg., was “[e]qually [as] important” as the notices and the remainder.
The absence of a fixed filing period greatly reduces the consequences of a failure to renew.
Unlike the instant case and L–3 Communications, an employee subject to the annual renewal 35
procedure set forth in Colt’s Mfg., could regain objector status by filing an objection as soon as
the objector learned of the omission. Thus, an objector who acts promptly would only have to
pay full dues for a brief period. Objectors who miss the filing during the limited window period
in L–3 Communications and the Respondent’s procedure are required to pay full dues for another
11 months. Moreover, under procedure used in Colt’s Mfg., an objector who fails to renew on 40
time, promptly receives a remainder of the need to act in order to regain objector status. That
procedure stands in stark contrast to a once-a-year notice published in the house magazine—the
method used by the respondents in L–3 Communications and the Respondents in the instant case.
There is one aspect of the Respondent’s objection procedure that appears to differ from 45
that in L–3 Communications. After an objector files a timely objection or renewal, Respondent
JD–49–12
8
CWA provides the objector with an advance reduction, reimbursing the objector for
nonrepresentational expenditures during the objector year in which the objection is made.
Based on the foregoing, I find that the Respondents have not implemented any
procedures to minimize the burden imposed on Beck objectors similar to those in Colt’s Mfg. 5
Thus, it is necessary to weigh the Respondent’s proffered justifications for the requirement.
Machinists Local 2777 (L-3 Communications), 355 NLRB, above at 1062.
Most of the justifications argued by the Respondents in defense of its requirement were
rejected in L–3 Communications. The Respondents argue, as did the unions in L–3 10
Communications, that the annual renewal was the best way for the Respondents to obtain the
current addresses of each objector. The employers electronically send Respondent CWA a
monthly list of the dues paid by the employees along with the employees’ addresses. Gibson
testified that after she gets the list she verifies it with the Locals. She states that she checks with
the Locals because the computerized list that comes from the employers takes 4 to 6 weeks to get 15
to Respondent CWA’s offices in the District of Columbia. The Respondent’s counsel solicited
the following testimony from Gibson regarding the lists provided by the employers:
Q. Have you come to learn that that’s (the list) not always up-to-date and accurate?
A. That’s correct.20
Q. Okay. What have you found, from practice, is the most direct and accurate way of
getting addresses, mailing addresses of bargaining unit members?
A. When we hear from them directly, with their home address on the letter or envelope.
[Tr. 83.]
25
I do not find Gibson’s generalized testimony persuasive. The Respondents adduced no
evidence as to the frequency of returned mail that was sent to the wrong address because the
objector failed to notify the Respondents of the correct address. The Respondents also did not
explain why an address that was on an objection letter mailed in May would be considered more
reliable than an address from an employer list compiled in June. Nor did the Respondents offer 30
any reason why an electronically mailed computerized list would take 4 to 6 weeks to arrive at
its destination. In L–3 Communications, the Board noted that the respondents, “as the joint
exclusive representative of all employees in the bargaining unit, have a right to obtain the
addresses of all unit employees from their employer.” 355 NLRB 1064. (citation omitted.)
Moreover, “[a]n employer must respond to the information request in a timely manner.” E.g., 35
Amersig Graphics, Inc., 334 NLRB 880, 885 (2000). The justification also appears to be
counterintuitive. A result of filing a timely Beck objection is to receive a rebate check in the
mail. That said, it would appear that objectors would make certain that the Respondents had the
correct address. Based on the foregoing, I find that this justification does not provide a
legitimate rationale for the Respondent’s annual Beck renewal requirements. See 355 NLRB, 40
above at 1062.
The Respondents also offer as a justification for their annual renewal requirement the fact
that the Respondents would need to use employees with better judgment than the current
employees who read the objection letters. Gibson claims this is necessary so that the employees 45
are able to make the distinction between a “continuing” objector and a “regular” objector. Thus,
according to Gibson, allowing for continuing objectors “would slow down the process” (Tr. 78),
JD–49–12
9
or “take more time” (Tr. 114), and require Respondent CWA to employ individuals with higher
skill levels. To the extent that Respondents in their brief characterize this testimony as an
“administrative burden” that would “significantly” increase the need to “far more carefully
scrutinize the objection letters.” (R. Br. at 24.) I reject that characterization. I also note that
Gibson admitted that if all objectors were viewed as continuing objectors it would require less 5
clerical help. (Tr. 100.) Once again I find the evidence to support this justification to be general
and unconvincing.
The Respondents have made no attempt to minimize the burden on employees by
providing them with clear instructions concerning what they need to say to object and, 10
alternatively, to make a continuing objection. As an example, the Board offers an annual notice
presented to employees covered by the Railway Labor Act. The notice informs the employees
that they had “the following choice: (1) they may follow the annual renewal procedure, or (2)
they may indicate in their [objection] letter . . . that they want their objection to be treated as
continuing in nature.” Id. at 1067 and fn. 28.15
Gibson testified that the employees assigned to read the objection letters are trained to
look for key words and phrases, such as “objector” and “pay reduced dues.” The Respondents
offer no explanation why adding a few other key words or phrases such as “continue,”
“continuing,” or “year-to-year,” would not enable the readers of the letters to determine the 20
intentions of the employees.
It is also significant that in L–3 Communications, the Board made clear that:
Our holding today does not suggest that the Unions would have violated their 25
duty of fair representation in this case if they had limited employees’ options to three:
making no objection, making a simple objection(which would be understood as
continuing until the next annual notice), and making a continuing objection. The duty of
fair representation does not require unions to honor objections for any period specified by
a nonmember. Nor does the duty require that unions assume that a nonmember desires an 30
objection to be continuing if, after being given clear instructions concerning how to
express a continuing objection, the employee does not do so.
[Id. at 1067. (Citation omitted.)]
In this case, the Charging Party never requested a continuing objection, nor did the 35
Respondents ever make reference to a continuing objection. Moreover, Gibson acknowledged
that Respondent CWA did not recognize continuing objections. (Tr. 91.) Based on the
foregoing, I find that this justification does not provide a legitimate rationale for the
Respondent’s annual Beck renewal requirements.
40
Gibson testified that the use of the annual renewal provides “an excellent barometer of
unhappiness.” The annual renewal “points out pockets of decent.” (Tr. 84.) Gibson also agreed
that the use of continuing objections would not interfere in the functioning of the “barometer.”
Accordingly, this justification does not provide a legitimate rationale for the Respondent’s
annual Beck renewal requirements.45
JD–49–12
10
The Respondents here, as did the unions in L–3 Communications, contend that they were
justified in relying on prior court and Board cases as well as GC Memorandum in maintaining
the annual renewal requirement. Regarding the Respondents reliance on California Saw & Knife
Works, 320 NLRB 224 (1995), the Board observed that the General Counsel’s choice not to
argue that an annual renewal requirement was unlawful did not insulate such requirements from 5
subsequent Board scrutiny. The Board went on to state that the court cases relied on by the
Unions, to which the Board was not a party, did not preclude the Board’s independent
assessment of the issue presented. The Board emphasized that it had the primary responsibility
for establishing national labor policy. NLRB v. Curtin Matheson Scientific, Inc., 494 U.S. 775,
786 (1990) (footnote omitted). The foregoing is fully applicable to the instant case and I 10
therefore find that this justification does not provide a legitimate rationale for the Respondent’s
annual Beck renewal requirement.
For all the foregoing reasons, I find that the Respondents have failed to establish a
reasonable basis for the annual Beck requirement. Because the requirement is arbitrary, it 15
violates the Respondents duty of fair representation and Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act.
Although in this case there was no request for a continuing objection the following
synopsis is set forth in L–3 Communications and would be of guidance for the parties going
forward:20
[A]bsent a more compelling rationale or other procedures that minimize the burden of
annual objection not present in this case, a union violates its duty of fair representation if
it declines to honor nonmember employees’ express, written statement to the union that
they object on a continuing basis to supporting union activities not related to collective 25
bargaining and contract administration. If a union provides a written explanation of the
consequences of submitting a simple objection in contrast to a continuing objection, the
union does not violate its duty by honoring simple objections for only 1 year. In addition,
a union need not honor requests to object for periods of time other than 1 year and
continuously.30
L–3 Communications, supra at 1069.
In L–3 Communications, the Board granted prospective remedial reliefs because the
unions could reasonable have believed that their requirement was lawful in light of court 35
approval of the requirement. Id., at 1069. Thus, the Board ordered the unions to rescind their
annual renewal requirement, but did not order make-whole relief, and directed the unions to
recognize the charging party only–not all Beck objectors represented by the unions nationwide–
as a continuing objector.
40
Accordingly, the counsel for the Acting General Counsel and the Charging
Party’s request for a make-whole remedy is inconsistent with L–3 Communications, where the
Board specifically declined to give retroactive application to its ruling. Similarly, the Charging
Party’s request that remedial relief be extended to all nonmembers represented by the
Respondents exceeds the limited prospective relief granted in L–3 Communications.45
JD–49–12
11
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. AT&T Teleholdings, Inc. d/b/a/ AT&T Midwest and the Ohio Bell Telephone
Company is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7)
of the Act.5
2. Communications Workers of America and Communications Workers of America,
Local 4309 are labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. By requiring Beck objectors to renew their objections on an annual basis under the 10
Respondents existing annual renewal procedure, the Respondents have violated Section
8(b)(1)(A) of the Act.
REMEDY
15
Having found that the Respondents have engaged in certain unfair labor practices, I shall
order them to cease and desist therefrom and to take certain affirmative action designed to
effectuate the policies of the Act. I shall order that the Respondents rescind their requirement
that Beck objectors renew their objections on an annual basis. I shall also order that the
Respondents notify its existing Beck objectors that the existing annual renewal requirement for 20
objections to payment of dues and fees for nonrepresentational activities has been rescinded, and
publish a revised policy in the Respondent’s magazine.
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on the entire record, I issue the
following recommended125
ORDER
The Respondents, Communications Workers of America and Communications Workers
of America, Local 4309, Cleveland, Ohio, their officers, agents, and representatives, shall30
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Requiring nonmember employees, who are covered by a collective-bargaining
agreement containing a union-security clause and who object to the payment of dues and fees for 35
nonrepresentational activities, to renew their objections on an annual basis.
(b) In any like or related manner restraining or coercing employees in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act.
40
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act.

1 If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the Board’s Rules and Regulations, the
findings, conclusions, and recommended Order shall, as provided in Sec. 102.48 of the Rules, be adopted
by the Board and all objections to them shall be deemed waived for all purposes.
JD–49–12
12
(a) Rescind the requirement that objecting nonmember employees renew their objection
on an annual basis.
(b) Notify nonmember employees who are subject to a union-security clause, that the
existing annual renewal requirement for objections to payment of dues and fees for 5
nonrepresentational activities has been rescinded, and publish a revised policy in the CWA News.
(c) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at its union office in Cleveland,
Ohio, copies of the attached notice marked “Appendix.”2 Copies of the notice, on forms
provided by the Regional Director for Region 8, after being signed by the Respondent’s 10
authorized representative, shall be posted by the Respondent Local 4309 and maintained for 60
consecutive days in conspicuous places including all places where notices to employees and
members are customarily posted. In addition to physical posting of paper notices, the notices
shall be distributed electronically, such as by email, posting on an intranet or an internet site,
and/or other electronic means, if Respondent Local 4309 customarily communicates with its 15
employees and members by such means. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent
Local 4309 to ensure that the notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(d) Sign and return to the Regional Director sufficient copies of the notice for physical
and/or electronic posting by AT&T Teleholdings, Inc. d/b/a/ AT&T Midwest and the Ohio Bell20
Telephone Company, if willing, at all places or in the same manner as notices to employees are
customarily posted.
(e) Within 21 days after service by the Region, file with the Regional Director a sworn
certification of a responsible official on a form provided by the Region attesting to the steps that 25
the Respondents have taken to comply.
Dated, Washington, D.C., September 17, 2012.
30
____________________
JOHN T. CLARK
Administrative Law Judge
35

2 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 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.”
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES AND MEMBERS
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 Federal labor law and has
ordered us to post and obey this notice.
FEDERAL LAW GIVES YOU THE RIGHT TO
Form, join, or assist a union
Choose representatives to bargain on your behalf with your employer
Act together with other employees for your benefit and protection
Choose not to engage in any of these protected activities.
WE WILL NOT require nonmember employees, who are covered by a collective-bargaining
agreement containing a union-security clause and who object to the payment of dues and fees for
nonrepresentational activities, to renew their objections on an annual basis.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner restrain or coerce you in the exercise of the rights
guaranteed you by Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL rescind the requirement that objecting nonmember employees renew their objection
on an annual basis.
WE WILL notify nonmember employees who are subject to a union-security clause, that the
existing annual renewal requirement for objections to payment of dues and fees for
nonrepresentational activities has been rescinded, and publish a revised policy in the CWA News.
COMMUNICATIONS WORKERS OF
AMERICA AND COMMUNICATIONS
WORKERS OF AMERICA, LOCAL 4309
(Labor Organization)
Dated By
(Representative) (Title)
The National Labor Relations Board is an independent Federal agency created in 1935 to enforce the
National Labor Relations Act. It conducts secret-ballot elections to determine whether employees want
union representation and it investigates and remedies unfair labor practices by employers and unions. To
find out more about your rights under the Act and how to file a charge or election petition, you may speak
confidentially to any agent with the Board’s Regional Office set forth below. You may also obtain
information from the Board’s website: www.nlrb.gov.
1240 East 9th Street, Room 1695, Cleveland, OH 44199-2086
(216) 522-3715, Hours: 8:15 a.m. to 4:45 p.m.
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 DIRECTED TO THE ABOVE REGIONAL OFFICE’S
COMPLIANCE OFFICER, (216) 522-3740.