Mechanical and Allied Production Workers, Local 444

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 25, 1968

173 N.L.R.B. 325 (N.L.R.B. 1968)

MECHANICAL AND ALLIED PRODUCTION WORKERS, LOCAL 444
Mechanical and Allied Production Workers Union,
Local 444, AFL-CIO its New England Joint
Board , AFL-CIO and R. W. D. S . U., AFL-CIO
(Pneumatic Scale Corporation , Ltd.) and Arthur
L. Saccoach . Case 1-CB-1332
October 25, 1968
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS
FANNING AND ZAGORIA
On May 10, 1968, 'Trial Examiner Stanley N.
Ohlbaum issued his Decision in the above-entitled
proceeding, finding that the Respondent had engaged
in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices
and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom
and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the
attached Trial Examiner's Decision. Thereafter, the
Respondent filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's
Decision and a supporting brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
powers in connection with this case to a three-
member panel.
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial
Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no
prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are
hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial
Examiner's Decision, the exceptions, the briefs, and
the entire record in this case, and hereby adopts the
findings,' conclusions, and recommendations of the
Trial Examiner.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board hereby adopts as its Order the
Recommended Order of the Trial Examiner, as
modified herein, and orders that the Respondent,
Mechanical and Allied Productions Workers Union,
Local 444, AFL-CIO, its New England Joint Board
AFL-CIO, and R. W. D. S. U., AFL-CIO, Boston,
Massachusetts, their officers, agents, and represen-
tatives, shall take the action set forth in the Trial
Examiner's Recommended Order, as modified below:
Delete from paragraph 2(d) of the Trial Examiner's
Recommended Order that part thereof which reads
"to be furnished" and substitute therefor "on forms
provided...."
I In view of our agreement with the Trial Examiner 's finding that
employee Saccoach effectively resigned from membership in the
Respondent before the August 29 governing date fixed in the new
contract , we deem it unnecessary to consider any alternative theory
proposed . We therefore do not adopt the Trial Examiner's comments
concerning the "fiduciary obligations " of the Respondent to post the
contractual "escape period " provisions.
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
325
STANLEY N. OHLBAUM, Trial Examiner: This proceeding
under the National Labor Relations Act as amended, 29 U.S.C.
Sec. 151, et seq. ("Act"), brought on by complaint issued
through the National Labor Relations Board's First Regional
Director on March 25, 1968, based upon a charge filed on
December 26, 1967,' by Arthur Saccoach, was heard before
me in Boston, Massachusetts, on April 1, 1968. All parties
participated throughout by counsel, who were given full
opportunity to present evidence and contentions, proposed
findings and conclusions, and briefs Subsequent to the
hearing, briefs were received, which, together with the evi-
dence, have been carefully considered.
Upon the entire record2 and my observation of the
witnesses, I make the following.
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
1. PARTIES, JURISDICTION
At all material times, Respondent has been and is a labor
organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act,
with its principal office and place of business in Boston,
Massachusetts. At all of those times, Pneumatic Scale Corpora-
tion, Ltd. ("Pneumatic," "Employer," "Company") has been
and is a Massachusetts corporation with principal office and
place of business in Quincy, Massachusetts, engaged in
manufacture, sale, and distribution of packaging and bottling
machinery and related products. Within the 12-month
representative period immediately preceding issuance of the
complaint, in the course and conduct of its said business,
Pneumatic purchased and caused to be transported directly in
interstate commerce to its Quincy plant from points outside of
Massachusetts, substantial quantities of metal for use in its
Quincy manufacturing operations, and during the same period
Pneumatic shipped directly in interstate commerce from its
Quincy plant to points outside of Massachusetts, goods valued
at over $50,000. Arthur L. Saccoach, the Charging Party, is an
individual who was in the employ of Pneumatic until Decem-
ber 22 I find that all material times Pneumatic has been and is
an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act, and that assertion of
jurisdiction herein is proper.
II. ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Issues
The issues presented are whether Respondent Union vio-
lated: (1) Section 8(b)(1)(A) and (2) of the Act by restraining
and coercing employees of Pneumatic in exercise of rights
guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act through compelling
Pneumatic to discriminate against Saccoach in his employment
because of his nonmembership in Respondent Union by
causing him to be discharged and not rehired; (2) Section
8(b)(2), by causing Pneumatic to discharge and not rehire
Saccoach.
' Hereafter all dates are 1967 unless otherwise specified.
2 Hearing transcript as corrected by April 23, 1968, order on notice.
173 NLRB No. 58
326 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
B. Facts as Found
The material facts are substantially undisputed. Saccoach,
from 1958 until his discharge on December 22, 1967, an
employee of Pneumatic, joined Respondent Union in 1958 and
continued a member (and for a time on the local executive
board) thereof until June 9, 1967, when he resigned and
withdrew from membership because of dissatisfaction with the
way the Union was being run. More specifically, Pneumatic
had had a collective agreement with the Union from June 10,
1965, to June 8, 1967. Although the agreement did not
require employees to join the Union, it did contain a
maintenance-of-membership and Union dues checkoff provi-
sion, under which dues of Saccoach and other Union members
were withheld from their pay and transmitted by Pneumatic to
Respondent Union. This collective agreement came up for
renegotiation in 1967. The new contract proposals were
discussed at a Union meeting on June 7, presided over by
Union President Sophrs and attended by some 175 employees
of the 300 in the bargaining unit. Saccoach, among others, was
opposed to the proposed new contract, which was voted down
by an open vote of the membership. However, another meeting
was hastily convoked on June 8 to reconsider the matter,
resulting in a vote to accept the proposed contract Saccoach,
continuing to be opposed, so indicated to Sophis the following
day, June 9, in a discussion in which Saccoach expressed
general dissatisfaction with the way the Union was being
operated. At the conclusion of the discussion, Saccoach
indicated to Sophis that he was resigning from the Union, and
he crumpled up and threw his Union card into a waste basket
as he told Sophis, "I quit." There is no evidence or claim
(unexplainedly Sophis did not testify) that Sophis told
Saccoach he could not resign at this time or in this way. At
this time, Saccoach was in layoff status, having been fur-
loughed in May, up to when his Union dues had been regularly
checked off. It is conceded that under the Union constitution
dues are waived for members on layoff
Subsequently a new collective agreement was concluded
between Pneumatic and the Union covering the period June 9,
1967, to June 9, 1969. The agreement, which is dated August
14, 1967,3 like the preceding agreement, contains no require-
ment that employees be members of the Union, but has a
maintenance-of-membership and checkoff provision for such
3 A brief handwritten "subject to ratification" memorandum
covering only wages and other economic matters had been signed on
June 7 It does not contain any "escape " provision , nor is there any
indication that that subject was even mentioned at the June 7 or June 8
Union meeting or, indeed , at any time prior to the August 14
agreement
4 Subsequent to Saccoach's recall to Pneumatic employment in
September and after expiration of the "escape " period, he was (perhaps
in October or in November) tendered a printed copy of the new
collective agreement then being distributed . He declined it, stating he
was not a Union member.
5 At a Union Executive Board meeting which Saccoach attended in
mid-November at the request of the Union, he declined to withdraw his
resignation, reiterating his consistent position both orally and in writing
(G.C. Exh . 8) prior thereto that he had resigned from the Union on
June 9 when he told Union President Sophis so and that he wished to
remain out of the Union . Respondent 's witnesses Doyle and Nelson,
both Union officials , conceded being told by Sophis or having learned
of Saccoach 's resignation on June 9 as described General Counsel
employees as are or become Union members. It also required
that the main tenan ce-of-membership and checkoff provision
be posted on the Employer's bulletin boards from August 14
to August 29, 1967 It is conceded that it was not then or at
any time so or otherwise posted, that the Union made no
request that it be posted, and that employees were not notified
of this provision by the Union or by the Employer. Saccoach,
who had already resigned from the Union as indicated, was in
layoff status and received no notice of this August 14-29
"escape" provision or period (whether or not it was applicable
to him under the described circumstances) 4
Saccoach was recalled to the employ of Pneumatic on
September 19. When he discovered that $1 25 weekly Union
dues had been withheld from his first week's pay, he asked
Sophis to return the money since he was no longer a Union
member. Sophrs said he was and referred him to the
Company's personnel manager to execute a form discontinuing
the checkoff. The Company personnel manager told Saccoach
there was no such form and instructed him to write the
Company a letter. Saccoach did so on October 2 and about
two weeks later the Company stopped deducting Union dues
from his pay. On December 12, the Union wrote Pneumatic
"that Mr. Arthur Saccoach .... is delinquent in the payment
of his union dues as of this day, and is no longer a member in
good standing with this organization, despite our many
requests," and, after calling attention to the maintenance-of-
membership and Union dues checkoff provision of the existing
(August 14, 1967) collective agreement, "we request that you
discharge Mr. Arthur Saccoach as of December 16, l967.i5
Pneumatic complied with this request and discharged Saccoach
for that reason on December 22 and has not given him
employment since.
It is conceded that no applicable collective agreement
contains any requirement of joining the Union as a condition
of employment; but that there is a requirement of mainte-
nance of membership and dues checkoff for Union members
during the contractual period, that at no time6 was any notice
given to Union members as to the "escape" period of August
14-29 under the August 1967 collective agreement,7 and that
at no time8 after June 9 did Saccoach withdraw his Union
resignation of that date. There is no material Union constitu-
tional provision governing resignations.9
rebuttal witness Bernard Saccoach (brother of the Charging Party), a
Union official , also so testified . Sophis did not testify nor was his failure
to do so in any way explained . Under the circumstances , I fully credit
Saccoach 's testimony as to his resignation from the Union on June 9.
6 Testimony of Union Chief Shop Steward Nelson as Respondent's
witness.
7 Credited testimony of General Counsel witness Conlon (Respond-
ent's Personnel Assistant ) and of Respondent's witness Doyle (Union
Recording Secretary ) establishes that at no time since 1950 has such an
"escape" provision been posted on the Company bulletin board.
Apparently it was customary to distribute to Union members copies of
collective agreements at some time subsequent to their effective date,
when printed , in 1967, this apparently was in October or November,
after expiration of the "escape" period (August).
8 Testimony of Union Chief Shop Steward Nelson as Respondent's
witness.
9 Cf. art. VIII (Resp Exh 5 ) and art . IX (Resp. Exh 6), neither of
which proscribes withdrawal or resignation in the manner here effected
by Saccoach on June 9 This Union has no bylaws
MECHANICAL AND ALLIED PRODUCTION WORKERS, LOCAL 444 327
C Determination and Rationale
As indicated, neither the 1965-67 nor the 1967-69 collec-
tive agreement called for a union shop,' o while requiring
maintenance of membership and dues checkoff for such
employees as elected to be Union members Saccoach's Union
dues were concededly checked off at all times until his layoff,
and, also concededly, under the Union constitution there is no
dues obligation by members in layoff status. It is undisputed
that on June 9 Saccoach discarded his membership card in the
presence of Union President Sophis as he told Sophis he was
quitting the Union. It is difficult to imagine a more unequiv-
ocal manner of resigning from an organization than to mangle
and discard one's membership card before the president and
announce to him that one is quitting the organization The
Union constitution here does not proscribe this, nor mandate
any other, manner of resigning.
The question remains as to the effect, if any, upon
Saccoach of the maintenance-of-membership and dues check-
off provision of the 1965-1967 and 1967-1969 collective
agreements. Under the earlier of these, it may well be that
Saccoach's Union membership continued to be effective at
least for certain purposes until the expiration of that agree-
ment, and that his dues checkoff authonzation would certainly
have been effective for that period had he been on the payroll
and not excused from dues obligation (through checkoff or
otherwise) because he was on layoff.
Although, under the circumstances here presented, I would
be inclined to regard Saccoach's June 9 action in any event as
an effective notification of resignation since the existing
collective agreement had already expired on the preceding day
(i.e., June 8), there is the further conceded fact that at no time
was Saccoach informed or placed on notice (questionable as
the effect of that nnght in any event have been, in view of his
being in layoff status) through bulletin board posting as
expressly required by the contract terms, of the existence of
any "escape" period from August 14-29 for resigning from the
Union, so that he could take such action at that time, assuming
it to be required in his case. It is no answer for the Union to
insist, as it does, that the obligation to post the "escape"
notice was upon the Employer. The Union was also a party to
the contract and had fiduciary obligations to the bargaining
unit employees (Union nonmembers as well as members) on
whose behalf it was entering into collective agreement
Although the Union could readily have assured or required the
posting of the "escape" notice in compliance with the express
contract provision to that effect, it chose not to do so, let
alone to take any step to bring the provision to the attention
of furloughed or otherwise absent employees not knowing
about it There could be said to be a double obhgation, so to
speak, upon a fiduciary such as a union, to insure that such an
"escape" provision is brought to the attention of a person-
especially where on furlough-who the union knows has
unequivocally indicated withdrawal from the union, in the
event the union intends to take the position that the
withdrawal is regarded as technically imperfect. It ill befits the
Union in fiduciary garb to attempt in effect to impose
membership by default upon those it is supposed to represent
fairly and who were under the contract required to be afforded
opportunity to exercise a choice as to membership, when the
Union failed to carry out or police the contractual requirement
to provide the opportunity for that choice Employees may
not fairly be regarded as in default under a "requirement" of
which they are ignorant through no fault on their part,
particularly where the "default" is claimed by their interested
fiduciary (the Union) itself at fault in failing to comply or
require compliance (by the Employer) with a simple shop
bulletin board posting provision, such failure (by the Union)
being the basis for the absent employee's claimed "default." It
is additionally observed that the main tenan ce-of-membership
(so-called "escape") provision of the 1967-1969 collective
agreement (G.C Exh. 4, art. III) merely provides that "All
employees who on the 29th of August, 1967 are members of
the Union in good standing or any employees hereafter who
become members of the Union shall as a condition of their
employment maintain their membership in good standing in
the Union" (emphasis supplied). It is difficult to understand
how a person who has resigned or given notice of resignation
from th^. Union in June must nonetheless be considered to be a
"member[s] of the Union in good standing" in August (even
though, or simply because, not delinquent in dues in view of
being on layoff).
While not disputing Saccoach's actions on June 9, the
Union insists that he absolutely could not withdraw from the
Union except during the period of August 14-29, and that, if
he resigned on June 9, it was essential for him to do so again
between August 14 and 29. Under the circumstances shown, I
do not agree. Saccoach made his intention to resign perfectly
apparent on June 9 In the situation described, his notice of
resignation, concededly never withdraw, was effective then and
thereafter. 11 Even if this were not so, there arose no obliga-
tion on Saccoach's part to give notification of his intention to
"escape" under a provision of a new (August 4, 1967) collec-
tive agreement of which he received no notice and had no
knowledge notwithstanding express posting requirement
therein concededly never complied with Nor did there arise
any obligation for Saccoach to join or rejoin the Union under
the new (August 14, 1967) agreement after his recall to em-
ployment in September, since the agreement concededly does
not require an employee to loin the Union but merely to main-
tain membership during the contract period. It does not
require an employee to "maintain" a membership he no longer
has.
Respondent concededly caused Saccoach's discharge from
the employment of Pneumatic on December 22 and the denial
of employment to him there at all times since then. As stated
in Respondent's letter of December 12 to Pneumatic, its
10 Notwithstanding the fact that Article III of each of these
agreements is captioned "Union Shop -Check-Off," they clearly are
not union shop provisions since they do not require an employee to join
the Union as a condition of employment , but merely require mainte-
nance of Union membership by employees "who become members of
the Union ." Union shop contracts are lawful in Massachusetts.
I i There is reason to believe the Union itself so regarded it
According to testimony of its Recording Secretary Doyle , the mid-
November Union Executive Board meeting was called to "ask[ed] him
[Saccoachl to reconsider " his having "gotten out . [ m] June."
However, the Union officials did not succeed in talking Saccoach out of
withdrawing his resignation , since (as testified by Doyle) Saccoach
insisted "nobody was going to change his mind."
328 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
reason for seeking Saccoach's discharge was his alleged failure -
to maintain union membership and his alleged dues delin-
quency under the checkoff provision of the subsisting (August,
1967) collective agreement. Since, however, Saccoach was then
under obligation neither to "maintain" a Union membership
which he had previously relinquished, nor to join the Union,
payment of Union dues could not lawfully be required of him,
there existed no dues delinquency on his part, and the
contractual check-off provision was inapplicable to him. By
asserting the right to require Union membership on Saccoach's
part and by causing his discharge and continued nonemploy-
ment by Pneumatic for nonpayment of Union dues under the
described circumstances, Respondent restrained and coerced
Saccoach and other employees in the exercise of rights
guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act-viz, the right to refrain
from union membership-in violation of Section 8(b)(1)(A) of
the Act, and by causing Saccoach's discharge and continued
nonemployment by Pneumatic, Respondent also caused and is
continuing to cause Employer discrimination against Saccoach
and other employees in regard to hire and tenure of
employment-thereby encouraging Union membership-in
violation of Section 8(b)(2) of the Act. Cf. International
Union of Electrical, R. & M. Workers, Local 801 (General
Motors Corporation, Frigidaire Division) v. N.L.R.B , 307 F.2d
679 (C.A.D.C.), cert. denied 371 U.S. 936,enfg 129 NLRB
1379, and 130 NLRB 1286, N.L.R.B. v International Union,
United Automobile Workers (John I. Paulding, Inc.), 320 F.2d
12 (C.A. 1), May Department Stores, Inc., Kaufmann Division,
133 NLRB 1096; Marlin Rockwell Corporation, 114 NLRB
553
Upon the foregoing findings and the entire record, I state
the following
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Mechanical and Allied Production Workers Union, Local
444, AFL-CIO, its New England Joint Board, AFL-CIO, and
R.W.D S U., AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
2. Pneumatic Scale Corporation, Ltd. is an employer
engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6),
and (7) of the Act.
3. By attempting to cause and causing Pneumatic Scale
Corporation, Ltd. to discriminate against employees and
prospective employees in regard to hire or tenure of employ-
ment, or other terms or conditions of employment, through
requiring said Employer to discharge Arthur L. Saccoach from
its employ on December 22, 1967, and thereafter to exclude
him from its employ, Respondent has interfered with, re-
strained and coerced, and is interfering with, restraining and
coercing, employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed by
Section 7 of the Act, and has thereby engaged and is engaging
in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section
8(b)(1)(A) of the Act.
4. By causing Pneumatic Scale Corporation, Ltd. to
discriminate against Arthur L. Saccoach in the hire and tenure
of his employment, or terms or conditions of his employment
through discharging Saccoach from its employ on December
22, 1967, and thereafter excluding him from its employ,
Respondent has engaged and is engaging in unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 8(b)(2) of the Act
5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices and each of them
affect commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of
the Act.
REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has engaged in unfair labor
practices, I shall recommend that it be required to cease and
desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action designed
to effectuate the policies of the Act. I shall recommend that
Respondent be required to notify Saccoach and Pneumatic in
writing that Respondent has withdrawn its objections to
Saccoach's employment by Pneumatic. I shall further recom-
mend that Respondent be required to make Saccoach whole
for any loss of pay he may have suffered by reason of
Respondent's unlawful conduct, by payment to him of a sum
of money equal to that which he would normally have earned
as wages from Pneumatic but for his discharge in consequence
of Respondent's request, less his net earnings if any during said
period, plus any unrefunded Union dues unauthorizedly
withheld from his wages by Pneumatic in September-October
1967, with interest on all of the foregoing, computed in
accordance with F. W. Woolworth Co., 90 NLRB 289, and Isis
Plumbing & Heating Co , 138 NLRB 716. Respondent should
also be required to make Saccoach whole for any loss of rights
and incidents of his employment relationship with Pneumatic
which he may have suffered by reason of Respondent's
unlawful conduct. Respondent should further be required to
make available such records for the computation of the
foregoing amounts and the ascertainment of the foregoing
matters as may be in its possession or control.
I shall also recommend that Respondent be required to post
an appropriate Notice, which may also be posted by Pneumatic
if desired. Unless they together maintain and occupy joint
offices, the posting requirement shall extend to each of the
organizations named and referred to as Respondent in the
complaint.
Upon the foregoing findings and conclusions and upon the
entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, I make
the following
RECOMMENDED ORDER
It is hereby ordered, that Respondent , Mechanical and
Allied Production Workers Union , Local 444, AFL-CIO, its
New England Joint Board, AFL-CIO, and R .W.D.S.U., AFL-
CIO, and their respective officers , representatives , and agents,
shall;
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Causing or attempting to cause Pneumatic Scale
Corporation , Ltd to discriminate against any employee within
the meaning of Section 8(b)(1)(A) and 8 (b)(2) of the Act.
(b) In any like or related manner restraining or coercing
employees of Pneumatic Scale Corporation , Ltd., in the
exercise of 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 in Section 8(a)(3) and Section 8(f)
of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action, which is necessary
to effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Forthwith notify Arthur L. Saccoach and Pneumatic
Scale Corporation , Ltd. in writing that Respondent withdraws
its objections to Saccoach 's employment by Pneumatic and
does not oppose his reinstatement or the restoration of his
seniority as it existed on December 22, 1967 (the date of his
discharge).
MECHANICAL AND ALLIED PRODUCTION WORKERS, LOCAL 444
(b) Make whole Arthur L. Saccoach for any loss of pay
suffered as a result of the discrimination against him, in the
manner set forth in the "Remedy" section of this decision.
(c) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the Board
or its agents, for examination and copying, all such records,
reports, and documents as may be in its possession, custody or
control, necessary or appropriate to analyze the amount of
backpay and other sums or accruals due under the terms of
this decision.
(d) Post at the business offices and meeting places of
Respondent in Quincy and at 665 Washington Street, Boston,
Massachusetts, copies of the notice attached hereto marked
"Appendix." 12 Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the
Regional Director for Region 1, shall be duly signed and
posted immediately upon receipt thereof, and maintained for
60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, includ-
ing all places where notices to members are customarily
posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken to insure that such
notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other
material.
(e) Return to the Regional Director for Region 1, for
posting by Pneumatic Scale Corporation, Ltd., if willing,
copies of the notice signed as aforesaid.
(f) Notify the Regional Director for Region 1, in writing,
within 20 days from receipt of this Decision, what steps have
been taken to comply therewith .13
12 In the event that this Recommended Order be adopted by the
Board , the words "a Decision and Order" shall be substituted for the
words "a Decision and Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner" in the
Notice In the further event that the Board 's Order be enforced by a
decree of a United States Court of Appeals, the words "a Decree of the
United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted
for the words "a Decision and Order."
13 In the event that this Recommended Order be adopted by the
Board , this provision shall be modified to read : "Notify said Regional
Director, in writing , within 10 days from the date of this Order, what
steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith."
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL MEMBERS OF MECHANICAL AND ALLIED
PRODUCTION WORKERS UNION, LOCAL 444, AFL-CIO, ITS
NEW ENGLAND JOINT BOARD, AFL-CIO, AND R.W.D.S.U.,
AFL-CIO AND TO ALL EMPLOYEES OF PNEUMATIC SCALE
CORPOR ATION, LTD.
Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner of
the National Labor Relations Board and in order to effectuate
the policies of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended,
we hereby notify you that-
329
WE WILL NOT cause or attempt to cause Pneumatic
Scale Corporation, Ltd. to discriminate against Arthur L.
Saccoach or any other employee in violation of Section
8(b)(1)(A), 8(b)(2), or 8(a)(3) of the Act.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner restrain or
coerce any employee of Pneumatic Scale Corporation, Ltd.
in the exercise of 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 in Section 8(a)(3)
and 8(f) of the Act, as modified by the Labor-Management
Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959.
WE WILL notify Arthur L. Saccoach and Pneumatic
Scale Corporation, Ltd., in writing, that we withdraw our
objection to Saccoach's employment by Pneumatic and
have no objection to his reinstatement with full seniority.
WE WILL make Arthur L. Saccoach whole for any loss
of earnings and other employment accruals suffered by
reason of the discrimination against him when and since he
was discharged on December 22, 1967, by Pneumatic Scale
Corporation, Ltd at our request
Dated
Dated
MECHANICAL AND ALLIED,
PRODUCTION WORKERS UNION,
LOCAL 444, AFL-CIO, ITS
NEW ENGLAND JOINT BOARD,
AFL-CIO, AND R .W.D.S.U.,
AFL-CIO
(Labor Organization)
By
By
Dated By
(Representative ) (Title)
(Representative) (Title)
(Representative ) (Title)
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
If members have any question concerning this Notice or
compliance with its provisions, they may communicate
directly with the Board's Regional Office, John F. Kennedy
Federal Building, Boston, Massachusetts 02203, Telephone
223-3300.