Teamsters, Local 525

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 20, 1973

202 N.L.R.B. 572 (N.L.R.B. 1973)

572 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Chauffeurs, Teamsters and Helpers Local 525, affiliat-
ed with International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs , Warehousemen and Helpers of Ameri-
ca (American Colloid Company)and John Daley,
James F. Owens , William E. Barnes, and Lester
Johnson . Case 14-CB-2467 (1-4)
Administrative Law Judge's recommended Order
and reletter the existing subparagraph 1(c) as 1(d):
"(c) Refusing to represent members or otherwise
discriminating against them because they have filed
charges with the National Labor Relations Board."
2. Substitute the attached notice for the Adminis-
trative Law Judge's notice.
March 20, 1973
DECISION AND ORDER
By MEMBERS FANNING, JENKINS, AND
PENELLO
On September 21, 1972, Administrative Law Judge
Thomas S. Wilson issued the attached Decision in
this proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent and the
General Counsel filed exceptions, and Respondent
filed a brief in support of its exceptions.
Pursuant to Section 3(b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board has delegated its authority in this
proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the record and the
attached Decision in light of the exceptions and the
brief and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings,'
and conclusions2 of the Administrative Law Judge
and to adopt his recommended Order, as modified
herein.3
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board adopts as its Order the recommend-
ed Order of the Administrative Law Judge, as
modified below, and hereby orders that Respondent,
Chauffeurs, Teamsters, and Helpers, Local Union
No. 525, affiliated with the International Brother-
hood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and
Helpers of America, their officers, agents, and
representatives, shall take the action set forth in the
Administrative Law Judge's recommended Order, as
herein modified:
1. Add the following as subparagraph 1(c) of the
' The Respondent has excepted to certain credibility findings made by
the Administrative Law Judge. It is the Board's established policy not to
overrule an Administrative Law Judge' s resolutions with respect to
credibility unless the clear preponderance of all of the relevant evidence
convinces us that the resolutions were incorrect . Standard Dry Wall
Products, Inc., 91 NLRB 544, enfd . 188 F.2d 362 (C.A. 3). We have carefully
examined the record and find no basis for reversing his findings.
2 In reaching our conclusion herein, we do not adopt the Administrative
Law Judge' s gratuitous statement in fn. 2 of his Decision that Business
Agent McDuffy's statements suggest "a sort of 'sweetheart ' collective-
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO MEMBERS
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT cause or attempt to cause
American Colloid Company to discriminate
against John Daley, James F. Owens, William E.
Barnes, Lester Johnson, Everett Pierce, Charles
Barbe, and Gerald Broussard or any other
employee in violation of Section 8(a)(3) of the
Act.
WE WILL NOT refuse to represent members or
otherwise discriminate against them because they
have filed charges with the National Labor
Relations Board.
WE WILL notify the aforenamed individuals
and American Colloid Company, in writing, that
we withdraw our objection to the employment of
the aforementioned individuals and request their
reinstatement with restoration of full seniority
and other rights and privileges of each as they
existed on May 4, 1972, the date of the discrimi-
nation against them.
WE WILL make John Daley, James F. Owens,
William E. Barnes, Lester Johnson, Everett
Pierce, Charles Barbe, and Gerald Broussard, and
each of them, whole for any loss of pay suffered
because of the discrimination against him with
interest thereon at 6 percent per annum.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner
restrain or coerce employees in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, except
to the extent that such rights may be affected by
an agreement requiring membership in a labor
organization as a condition of employment.
bargaining agreement," or for that matter the other similar characterizations
that appear in the Decision. 1
3 The Administrative Law Judge found, and we agree, that Respondent
violated Sec. 8(bxlXA) of the Act in threatening to and withdrawing aid
and support from employee-members who had filed charges with the Board.
We agree, however , with the General Counsel's exception to the Adminis-
trative Law Judge's Decision requesting that a specific and adequate
remedy for the Respondent's violation of Sec . 8(b)(1)(A) be added.
Accordingly, we have included the above modifications in our Order.
202 NLRB No. 89
TEAMSTERS , LOCAL 525 573
CHAUFFEURS, TEAMSTERS
AND HELPERS LOCAL
525, AFFILIATED WITH
INTERNATIONAL
BROTHERHOOD OF
TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS,
WAREHOUSEMEN AND
HELPERS OF AMERICA
(Labor Organization)
Dated By
(Representative) (Title)
This is an official notice and must not be defaced
by anyone.
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive
days from the date of posting and must not be
altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
Any questions concerning this notice or compli-
ance with its provisions may be directed to the
Board's Office, 210 North 12th Boulevard, Room
448, St. Louis, Missouri 63101, Telephone
314-622-4167.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
THOMAS S. WILSON, Administrative Law Judge: Upon
charges duly filed on May 4, 1972, by John Daley, James
F. Owens, William E. Barnes, and Lester Johnson,
individually, herein referred to by name or as the Charging
Parties, the General Counsel of the National Labor
Relations Board, herein referred to as the General
Counsel' and the Board, respectively, by the Regional
Director for Region 14 (St. Louis, Missouri), issued its
complaint dated June 23, 1972, against Chauffeurs,
Teamsters and Helpers Local 525, affiliated with Interna-
tional Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehouse-
men and Helpers of America, herein referred to as the
Respondent or Local 525.
The complaint herein alleged that Respondent had
engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices
affecting commerce within the meaning of Section
8(b)(1)(A) and (2) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Labor
Management Relations Act, 1947, as amended, herein
referred to as the Act.
Respondent duly filed an answer admitting certain
allegations of the complaint but denying the commission of
any unfair labor practices.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing thereon was held in St.
Louis, Missouri, on July 20, 1972, before me. All parties
appeared at the hearing, were represented by counsel, and
were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to produce and
cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence materi-
al and pertinent to the issues. At the conclusion of the
hearing, oral argument was waived. A brief was received
from General Counsel on August 17, 1972. No brief was
received from Respondent.
Upon the entire record in the case and from my
observation of the witnesses, I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. BUSINESS OF AMERICAN COLLOID COMPANY
American Colloid Company is, and had been at all times
material herein, a corporation duly organized under, and
existing by virtue of, the laws of the State of Delaware. At
all times material herein, American Colloid Company has
maintained its principal office and place of business at
5100 Suffield Court in the City of Skokie, State of Illinois,
and maintains other facilities in the State of Illinois.
American Colloid Company is, and has been at all times
material herein, engaged in the processing and distribution
of foundry sand and related products. The American
Colloid Company facility located at Granite City, Illinois,
is the only facility involved in this proceeding. During the
year ending December 31, 1971, which period is represent-
ative of its operations during all times material herein,
American Colloid Company, in the course and conduct of
its business operations, processed and distributed at its
Granite City, Illinois, facility, products valued in excess of
$50,000, of which products valued in excess of $50,000
were shipped from said facility directly to points located
outside the State of Illinois.
Accordingly, I find that American Colloid Company is
now and has been at all times material herein an employer
engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6)
and (7) of the Act.
II. THE RESPONDENT
Chauffeurs, Teamsters and Helpers Local 525, affiliated
with International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen and Helpers of America, is a labor
organization admitting to membership employees of the
American Colloid Company.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The Facts
At all times during the years 1970 and 1971, Local 525
and American Colloid Company were parties to a
collective-bargaining agreement which by its terms was to
expire on March 1, 1972, covering an appropriate unit
consisting of the Charging Parties here. This contract
admittedly contained a legal union-security clause but no
checkoff clause.
Marshall McDuffy, Local 525 union business agent
charged with the duty of servicing the aforementioned
contract, described the origin of the contract as follows:
THE WITNESS: We originally organized this Compa-
ny and it had three employees. It was a plant set up for
three employees. They processed sand. They ship it in
from Arabia and different places, and were a little bit
leery of the area as far as labor was concerned. We
I This term specifically includes the attorney appeanng for the General
Counsel at the hearing
574 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
were interested in any management , any company
coming into our area to work that we could get. We
assured these people that we were fair and that we felt
that they could find good working employees , and that
we would do everything , and tell our members to do a
honest day 's work for a honest day 's pay. This was our
first contract , and we bent over backwards with
this-the rate is a very low rate . I think the employees,
I don 't know how they could raise their families on
what they are making . We attempted to work with
these people every way that we could, and we put off
and put off and put off , didn't want to knock these
people off the job , because they were all good people,
and during the course of this sand , there seemed to be a
little different change in the plants that they supply,
and they can only supply x amount, because that plant
in the area could only use so much, they had no place,
and that's one of the reasons that the market is low.
They try to work into another commodity processing
deal so that they could get more employees , and the
employees working there , Lester (Johnson), and at that
time Dave Greenhouse and some others, very good
employees , done them a good job, and we were
successful in getting more people on. So, in all, not only
the Union, but the employees who worked there done
everything that they possibly could to make it a good
place to work and also try to get as much money as we
possibly could get , and that's the reason that we
hesitated all this time , because everybody was suspend-
ed, and I 'm sure that there is no one who would like to
see a plant with no employees overnight, even though
they are capable of sending it in from other plants, but
this doesn 't do our people here any good. That's my
reason , or our reason. We discussed it many times, and
I think that the employees have to agree that when their
backs are to the wall that we helped them anyway that
we possibly could as far as giving them a little more
time and so on on the money . Originally the people
paid up , and then after they go 2 years, and they make
efforts in between this, and every time that we even
talked to the Company down at the shop we took the
steward or one of the employees , their grievances were
processed throught the steward, and to his satisfaction,
and the employees ' satisfaction , so in an all-around
thing we were just merely trying to keep these people
on, and maybe we were wrong in doing it . Maybe the
proper way to do it is to send that bump letter
immediately instead of discussing it and giving them
any leniency.2
It is undisputed , and indeed admitted , that during 1970
and 1971 all of the employees in the appropriate unit
became delinquent in the payment of union dues. One
reason for this, according to the testimony of the
employees , was that the Union was providing little , if any,
2 This description volunteered by McDuffy would seem to suggest a sort
of "sweetheart" collective-bargaining agreement.
S McDuffy acknowledged receiving the message from Daley. McDuffy
attempted to explain his failure on this occasion on the grounds: (1) that he
knew Daley could not collect the dues because he was not "bonded" and (2)
Daley had left no telephone number so that McDuffy could not return his
call. However, McDuffy was able to reach Daley by phone, according to his
service to the employees. McDuffy became difficult for the
men to reach by telephone.
Until April 1971, Respondent did little, if anything,
about the admitted dues delinquencies. Sometime in April
1971, the Union did sent its steward, John Daley, and
apparently the Company, a list of delinquent members
together with the amount of the delinquency of each.
About this same time, McDuffy suggested to Steward
Daley that if on payday Daley would collect $16 from each
member he, McDuffy, would come to the plant and pick
up the dues payments so that the delinquencies could be
paid. Pursuant to this suggestion, Daley did collect $16 (2
months' dues) from each of the members in the appropriate
unit. Daley then telephoned union headquarters and asked
for McDuffy. McDuffy was not there so Daley left a
message that he had collected the dues and that McDuffy
should come pick the money up. When McDuffy failed to
appear, Daley repeated the call. McDuffy was not there.
The telephone operator informed Daley that McDuffy had
been given his message of a few days before. Thereafter,
when McDuffy still failed to appear or return the call,
Daley returned the payments to the employees some 4 or 5
days later. McDuffy never did appear. Thus ended the
1971 attempt to pay the delinquent dues.3
However about July4 1971 employee-member William E.
Barnes received a visit at home from Plant Superintendent
McMasters, who showed Barnes a list of the delinquent
members which showed Barnes' own delinquency to
amount to $68. McMasters then told Barnes, "If you want
to keep your job, go out and get [the delinquency] paid.
Just keep quiet and don't say nothing to nobody else.
When they [the Union] kick them out, then I can hire who
I want to." 5
Thereafter, recognizing his own self-interest, Barnes did
promptly pay up his $68 delinquency to the Union and
even mailed in dues payments for a couple of months.
However, when nothing happened and the men in the unit
continued to get no service from the Union, Barnes
reverted to form and became delinquent in dues again.
On January 10, 1972, according to McDuffy's testimony
and notes, McDuffy telephoned Steward Daley and set up
a meeting with all the unit employees for February 28 to
discuss with them the changes and improvements they
would want in the renewal contract for the agreement then
scheduled to expire the next day, March 1, 1972.
That meeting was held as scheduled on February 28
between McDuffy and the unit employees at union
headquarters in Alton, Illinois.
McDuffy met with the Company on March 1, when it
was apparently agreed that whatever changes were agreed
upon in the new contract would be retroactive to March 1,
1972.6
The next day, March 2, at another meeting at union
headquarters in Alton, McDuffy reported to the employees
on the progress of the negotiations and especially that it
own testimony, on a subsequent occasion.
4 Barnes testified that he thought this occurred in July, but it might well
be part of the April episode.
5 This also smacks of collaboration.
8 The record fails to disclose if McDuffy had a union committee with
him at the negotiations.
TEAMSTERS , LOCAL 525 575
had been agreed that the new contract would be retroactive
to March 1. At this meeting, as at the meeting of February
28, McDuffy reminded the members that they were all
delinquent in their dues, that they should pay up this
delinquency "right away" and that, after the contract was
signed, he would make "arrangements" by which these
delinquencies could be paid.
On March 14, McDuffy next met with the unit
employees at the plant. There still was no contract. But
McDuffy again reiterated that the men were delinquent in
dues, that they should pay up "immediately" and that,
after the contract was signed, he would make "arrange-
ments" for such payment.
By March 22, when next McDuffy met with the men,
they were becoming restive over the lack of a contract.
About this time, McDuffy suggested that he would get a
dues-deduction clause in the contract as that would make it
easier for the men to pay their dues because when they did
not get the money, they would not miss it so much. About
this same time, the men suggested that, when the contract
was signed, they would have some "retroactive backpay"
coming which they could use to pay the delinquencies.
Once again McDuffy reiterated the necessity for the men
to pay their dues right away but once again stated that he
would make "arrangements" for that when the contract
was signed.
Finally, on March 23, at another meeting at the plant
with McDuffy, the men voted to strike because of their
dissatisfaction over the lack of progress in the negotiations.
McDuffy remarked that apparently the men preferred to
walk than to work. The men inquired if they would receive
strike benefits. McDuffy did not know but would find out.
Again McDuffy reminded them of the necessity of paying
up their dues and that arrangements would be made
therefor. It was suggested by the men that their delinquen-
cies could be paid out of their strike benefits.
On Monday, March 26, the men all went out on strike
with picket signs supplied them by McDuffy. At or about
this time, McDuffy informed them that they would not be
eligible for strike benefits because they were suspended for
being delinquent in dues. McDuffy again reiterated the
necessity for payment.
On April 9, still no contract in prospect, the men voted to
return to work. One man was recalled the next day and
four on April 11. Steward Daley was recalled on April 21.
At the April 9 meeting, McDuffy again reminded the
men that they were behind in the dues "and just as soon as
they got this new contract straightened out where we were
going back to work, he [McDuffy] would make arrange-
ments with us to get caught up on dues." Steward Daley
told McDuffy that, "if he [McDuffy] would fill out a form
giving somebody a specific time to catch up on their dues
and bring it down and have each and every man sign it,
and if they didn't do it they would be terminated and there
wouldn't be no question asked about it." McDuffy
answered that he would take care of that just as soon as he
could get this new contract straightened out. However, the
evidence shows that McDuffy did nothing further in regard
to this suggestion.
On April 21, the Company and McDuffy finally signed a
renewal agreement. The contract is not in evidence so we
cannot judge McDuffy's ability as an negotiator, but it was
stipulated that this renewal agreement contained both the
same legal union-security clause and a regular dues-
checkoff clause.
Very soon thereafter, a rumor reached the men that the
Company was not going to pay them their retroactive
backpay due. One of the men telephoned McDuffy and
informed him of this rumor. McDuffy states that he would
find out and report back to the men. The men heard
nothing from McDuffy.7
Neither McDuffy nor the Union ever supplied the
necessary dues-deduction authorization forms for use by
the unit personnel. Nor after April 1971 was any employee
in the unit ever notified by McDuffy or the Union of the
amounts of employees' dues delinquencies. Nor was any
notification of the date by which such deficiencies had to
be paid ever made by McDuffy or Local 525. '
On May 4, 1972, the Company handed each of the unit
employees the following letter dated the previous day:
Mr. [Name] Granite City, Illinois
Dear Mr . [Name]
Attached you will find a copy of a letter from Local
#525 of the Teamsters , Chauffeurs & Helpers Union
of the I . B.T.W. exercising their right under the terms of
the working agreement between the Union and
American Colloid Company
We have no choice but to comply with this request and
regret to inform you that your employment is,hereby
terminated with the Company effective May 4, 1972.
Your final check is attached.
Very truly yours,
s/M.D. Brooks
M.D. Brooks
Director of Personnel
Attached to the above letter , in addition to the final
paycheck , was a copy of a letter on the letterhead of Local
525 -dated May 4, 1972, addressed to American Colloid
Company reading as follows:
American Colloid Company
Dear Sir:
Under the terms and provisions of the union security
clause of the collective bargaining agreement presently
in effect between your company and this labor
organization , it is required that all employees falling
within the scope of the collective bargaining unit
maintain their union membership in good standing to
the extent of the payment of the periodic dues of our
union.
I regret to inform you that [Name] has become
delinquent in the payment of our periodic dues and has
r However McDuffy testified that he checked the rumor and let the men
know-although he could not recall how, when, or to whom.
576 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
for that reason failed to maintain his union member-
ship in good standing.
Under those circumstances , and in accordance with
the terms of the contract , we ask that you discharge
Mr. [Name ] forthwith.
effective way of limiting potential liability in cases such as
this where there is conflicting evidence. This Local Union
has maintained and still maintains that is (it) has
committed no unfair labor practices against any of
these employees . [Emphasis supplied.]
Very truly yours
Teamster , Local No. 525
William Doty
SECRETARY- TREASURER AND
BUSINESS REPRESENTATIVE
On May 4, after the terminations , the Charging Parties
filed charges with the St . Louis Regional Office of the
Board.
Steward Daley telephoned McDuffy and told him of the
fact that they had been terminated . McDuffy stated that he
would try to see what could be done, but that he did not
have any knowledge that the men had been terminated.
A few days thereafter , Daley telephoned McDuffy and
asked McDuffy if he had found out anything. McDuffy
answered that he had received a letter from the National
Labor Relations Board stating that the men had filed
charges against him and that he "wasn 't going to do a
damn thing" for the men and , as far as he was concerned,
"we could all get screwed" and hung up the telephone after
adding that if the men had not filed charges he "would get
our jobs back for us, but since we did he wasn ' t going to."
Employee Barnes also succeeded in getting in touch with
McDuffy on the phone a day or two after the charges had
been filed. In the conversation , McDuffy said, "I wasn't
aware you guys was getting fired like that . . . well, I heard
you guys went to the Labor Relations Board on me ... .
Well, if you hadn't have went over there onto me like that
I might have could have helped you and got your jobs
back . . . . I don't know whether I could or not, but I
probably could have, but-other than that-since you
went over there, I wash my hands with it."
Thus were John Daley, James F. Owens, William E.
Barnes, Lester Johnson , Everett Pierce , Charles Barbe, and
Gerald Broussard discharged . None have since been
reinstated.
However , under date of June 26 , 1972, over the
signatures of William Doty and Marshall McDuffy, Local
525 sent the Colloid Company the following letter:
Gentlemen:
This is to notify you that this Local Union has no
objection to reinstatement of John Daley , James F.
Owens, William E. Barnes, Lester Johnson , Everett
Pierce , Charles Barbe , Richard Milton and Gerald
Broussard , and we request their reinstatement to their
former or substantially equivalent positions , without
prejudice to their seniority or other rights and privi-
leges. A copy of this letter is being mailed this date to
each of those eight (8) named employees.
Nothing in this letter shall constitute an admission,
expressed or implied that this Local Union has engaged
in any unfair labor practices as alleged in charges filed
in Cases No. 13-CB-2467 (1-4), and this notice and
request is being given only because there is no other
B. Conclusions
The facts proved here are such as to cause the staunchest
advocate of organized labor to cringe.
The complaint herein alleges that Respondent Local 525
failed and refused to fulfill its fiduciary "duty to deal
fairly" with the employees, its members. If the quoted
phase were not used in the sense of words of art, this
statement would constitute the understatement of the year.
In common parlance it would be more accurate to say that
Local 525 "doublecrossed" the employees it was purport-
ing to represent.
Admittedly, the Charging Parties and the other unit
employees affected were delinquent in the payment of their
dues-and had been all during the years 1970, 1971, and
that part of 1972 material here , with the possible exception
of employee Barnes for a short period of time.
On those few occasions during the aforementioned years
when McDuffy, who was charged with the servicing of the
Colloid contract, was in touch with the Colloid employees
he was supposedly representing , he reminded them that
they were delinquent in their dues payment and requested
them to pay up.
In fact in April 1971, for the first and only time during
this whole period, Local 525 notified each employee of the
amount of his delinquency. The employees prepared to pay
up their delinquencies . In fact it was agreed that Steward
Daley would collect 2 months' dues from each employee
and that thereafter Business Agent McDuffy would then
collect those dues payments from Daley until the men were
current . Daley did his part and collected $16 from each
man and notified McDuffy to come get the money.
McDuffy failed to perform his part of the bargain as he
never appeared as promised to collect the money from
Daley. McDuffy purported to explain this failure on his
part on the ground that Daley was not "bonded" and,
besides, Daley had not left his telephone number. The
employees had performed-Local 525 had not.
About a year later on April 9, 1972, Daley agreed that, if
Local 525 would notify each employee of his delinquency
along with a date by which that delinquency had to be
paid, then each man would sign the statement and if,
thereafter, the employee failed to pay within the time limit,
nobody would complain if he were discharged . No such
notification was ever provided by Local 525. Again Local
525 and McDuffy failed.
However at that time , March and April 1972, Local 525
and McDuffy had need that the Charging Parties and the
other employees involved remain employees of Colloid in
order that Local 525 remain the collective-bargaining agent
for those employees so as to enjoy the right to negotiate the
renewal agreement for the contract which by its terms was
to expire on March 1, 1972. So at this time , while McDuffy
was still urging the employees to pay up their dues "right
away," he was also telling them he would make "arrange-
ments" for such payment to be made as soon as the
TEAMSTERS, LOCAL 525
contract was signed. Allegedly to make such payments
easier for the employees, McDuffy successfully negotiated
a dues-checkoff clause in the renewal agreement.
But, once that renewal agreement with Colloid had been
signed, Local 525 had its contract and, more importantly,
no further need for the then employees. Once again
McDuffy failed to perform as promised. Not only did he
fail to "make arrangements" for the payment of dues after
the signing of the contract, but he even failed to provide
checkoff authorization forms for employees to sign in
order to take advantage of the easier method of payment
through the checkoff clause.8
McDuffy's explanation for this strange behavior on the
part of Local 525 was that when, according to McDuffy, he
"immediately" phoned Steward Daley after reaching
agreement on the checkoff clause with Colloid, Daley
refused the checkoff authorization forms because the
employees had decided to pay off their delinquencies on
their own first and thereafter sign up for the checkoff. That
was McDuffy's story. In the first place this so-called
explanation does not make sense because, even as
McDuffy himself had previously explained to the employ-
ees, the checkoff made it easier for the men to pay up the
delinquency because one misses money one never sees less
than after having seen it. And secondly, and even more
important, Daley credibly denied ever having such a phone
conversation with McDuffy-who on a previous occasion
had claimed not even to have Daley's phone number
available.9
McDuffy's own description of the original contract with
Colloid as providing such a "very low rate" of pay that he
did not know how the employees "could raise their families
on what they were making" raises an interesting, but
peripheral, question as to just who Local 525 had actually
been representing throughout this whole collaboration.
The Charging Parties' last payday was April 28, 1972.
Rumors reached the employees that Colloid was not going
to pay their accumulated backpay which, for any increase
in pay negotiated, was supposed to be retroactive to March
1. McDuffy was advised as to this rumor. He promised to
check and let the men know. He never did. McDuffy knew
that the men had been counting on this retroactive
backpay to help pay their deficiencies.
As found above, on May 4, the Charging Parties received
their termination notices dated May 3 from Colloid with
the union request therefor dated May 2 attached.
According to McDuffy's original testimony, the girls in
the unior}, office "automatically" sent out these "bump
letters" whenever a member became delinquent in his dues
payments. In the light of the experience of these employees
delinquent all through the years 1970, 1971, and 1972
without a single bump letter, it is obvious that this
testimony was untrue. So, according to McDuffy, these
It is informative to note that the evidence here shows that McDuffy did
succeed in providing these deduction authorization forms for those
employees who replaced the Charging Parties after their terminations.
9 At the hearing, McDuffy was a very well-dressed union business agent
but not a very candid or honest witness . Daley, on the other hand, was an
apparently honest witness whose testimony I believe. Also, Daley's
testimony was in large part corroborated in numerous instances whereas
McDuffy's was not, especially as much of his testimony consisted of
attempted alibis for his own acknowledged failures to perform.
10 Philadelphia Sheraton Corporation, 136 NLRB 888, 896; Rocket Guided
577
bump letters became "automatic" only after the girls had
received orders from Local 525 Secretary-Treasurer Wil-
liam Doty. And finally, McDuffy acknowledged that on
May 2, the date of the bump letters, he had been conferring
with Doty on the Colloid members just before Doty gave
the orders to the girls which made the sending of the bump
letters "automatic." In effect, therefore, McDuffy, who was
at the time supposed to be making "arrangements" for the
payment of these deficiencies by the employees, was
instead responsible for the sending out of the bump letters
which cost the Charging Parties their jobs.
Thus, at no time after April 1971, did Local 525 or its
agent, McDuffy, ever inform these Charging Parties or the
other unit employees of the amounts of their deficiencies in
dues payments, notify any of them as to when such
deficiencies must be paid or give any of them warning that
they would become subject to discharge for failure to pay
such deficiencies. Furthermore, McDuffy, having lulled the
employees into the feeling of security that he was making
"arrangements" for the payment of such deficiencies, never
did so. Nor, in fact, did he or Local 525 ever supply the
legally required dues-deduction authorization forms so that
the unit employees could take advantage of the newly
negotiated dues-deduction clause for making such pay-
ments. But in lieu thereof Local 525 with McDuffy's aid
and assistance sent out the "bump letters" without any
warning thereof and thereby caused these employees to
lose their employment with Colloid. By reason of these
failures and doublecrosses by Local 525, I find that Local
525 thereby failed and refused to fulfill its fiduciary duty to
deal fairly with these unit employees including the
Charging Parties in violation of Section 8(b)(1)(A) and (2)
of the Act.1o
It is now well established Horn Book law that a union
member, just like all other individuals, has the right to file
charges with the Board and to enjoy access to the processes
of the Board. So, when a union attempts by restraint or
coercion to prevent or hamper that member's access to the
Board or to prevent him from filing charges, even against
that union, with the Board, it violates Section 8(b)(1)(A) of
the Act.11 Likewise where a union retaliates or takes
reprisals against a union member for having filed such
charges against his union, it also violates Section 8(b)(1)(A)
of the Act.
Hence there is, and can be, no doubt but that Local 525
violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) when its agent, McDuffy, over
the telephone withdrew all union aid and support for the
dischargees here because they had filed charges with the
Board against Local 525 and McDuffy. I so find.12
Missile Lodge 946, International Association of Machinist and Aerospace
Workers, AFL-CIO, 189 NLRB No. 77, and cases there cited.
11 Compare Communications Workers of America, Lodge 6306. 198
NLRB No. 157
12 I make this finding despite McDuffy's denial of that portion of those
admitted telephone conversations because this reprisal was the real
consummation of his obvious doublecross of the individuals involved here.
Here, as elsewhere , I was unable to credit McDuffy for the same reasons as
heretofore noted.
578 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE
UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent set forth in section III,
above, occurring in connection with the operation of
American Colloid Company described in section 1, above,
have a close, intimate, and substantial relationship to
trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States and
tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing
commerce and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that by the aforementioned conduct
Respondent Local 525 has violated Section 8(b)(2) and
(1)(A) of the Act, I shall recommend that it cease and
desist from engaging in such conduct in the future and
affirmatively take such action as will dissipate the effects of
its unfair labor practices.
I shall order Respondent Union to notify American
Colloid Company, in writing, with a copy to the individu-
als hereinafter mentioned, that it withdraws its objections
to Colloid's employment of John Daley, James F. Owens,
William E. Barnes , Lester Johnson, Everett Pierce, Charles
Barbe, and Gerald Broussard and request it to offer each
of them reinstatement to his former, or substantially
equivalent, job with the restoration of his seniority and
other rights and privileges as they existed on the date of the
discharge of each.
I shall order Respondent to make John Daley, James F.
Owens, William E. Barnes, Lester Johnson, Everett Pierce,
Charles Barbe, and Gerald Broussard and each of them
whole for any loss of pay suffered by reason of the
discrimination against him by payment to each a sum of
money equal to the amount he would normally have
earned as wages from the date of his discharge to the date
of his reinstatement by American Colloid to his former or
substantially equivalent job or to the date that Respondent
Local 525 secures him employment substantially equal to
that which he formerly had with American Colloid
Company with some other employer, less his net earnings
during this period the loss of earnings shall be computed in
the manner prescribed in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90
NLRB 289, with interest on the backpay due in accordance
with Board policy set out in Isis Plumbing & Heating Co.,
138 NLRB 716.
In providing the above alternative remedies of reinstate-
ment or employment for the discriminatees here, I
recognize that under date of June 26, 1972, Local 525
notified American Colloid Company and the individuals
involved by letter, supra, that it had "no objection to
reinstatement" of the discriminatees. The letter also
contained a disclaimer of any liability. However, in
addition, Local 525 added "and this notice and request is
being given only because there is no other effective way of
limiting potential liability in cases such as this where there
is conflicting evidence." As between parties such as Local
525 and American Colloid Company, who have been in
13 77 Fed. Supp. 563.
14 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the
Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board , the findings,
conclusions, recommendations, and recommended Order herein shall, as
such proven, close collaboration for such a long period of
time, this last quotation can be no more or less than an
example of the famous "a nod or a wink or a code"
mentioned in the famous United Mine Workers contempt
case.13 I therefore do not consider the letter to be effective
for its ostensible purpose. Local 525 chose to illegally
secure the discharge of these discriminatees from employ-
ment for its own purposes and thus, in order to restore the
status quo or close thereto as possible, still owes these
discriminatees employment or backpay until that employ-
ment is secured.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. American Colloid Company is an employer engaged
in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of
the Act.
2. Chauffeurs, Teamsters and Helpers Local 525,
affiliated with International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, is a
labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of
the Act.
3. By causing American Colloid Company to discharge
John Daley, James F. Owens, William E. Barnes, Lester
Johnson, Everett Pierce, Charles Barbe, and Gerald
Broussard for reasons other than their failure to tend to
periodic dues and initiation fees and by failing and
refusing to fulfill its fiduciary duty to deal fairly with the
aforementioned employees, Respondent Union violated
Section 8(b)(2) and (1)(A) of the Act.
4. By restraining and coercing the above-named em-
ployees because they filed charges against Respondent
Union with the National Labor Relations Board, Respon-
dent Union violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act.
5. The aforementioned unfair labor practices are unfair
labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
On the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and
conclusions of law, and upon the entire record in this case,
I hereby issue the following recommended: 14
ORDER
Respondent Chauffeurs, Teamsters and Helpers Local
525, affiliated with International Brotherhood of Team-
sters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America,
Alton, Illinois , its officers , agents , successors, and assigns,
shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Causing or attempting to cause American Colloid
Company to discriminate against any of its employees in
violation of Section 8(aX3) of the Act.
(b) Failing or refusing to fulfill its fidicuary duty to deal
fairly with the employees and/or its members.
(c) In any like or related manner restraining or coercing
employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in
Section 7 of the Act, except to the extent that such rights
maybe affected by an agreement requiring membership in
provided in Sec . 102.48 of the Rules and Regulations , be adopted by the
Board and become its findings , conclusions, and Order , and all objections
thereto shall be deemed waived for all purposes.
TEAMSTERS , LOCAL 525 579
a labor organization as a condition of employment, as
authorized by Section 8(a)(3) of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action, which I find
will effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Make whole John Daley, James F. Owens, William E.
Barnes, Lester Johnson, Everett Pierce, Charles Barbe, and
Gerald Broussard for any loss of pay each of them may
have suffered as a result of the discrimination against him
in the manner set forth in the section entitled "The
Remedy."
(b) Notify American Colloid Company and each of the
aforementioned discriminatees, in writing, that it with-
draws its objections to the employment of any of the
above-named, and requests American Colloid Company to
offer each of them reinstatement and the restoration of his
full seniority and other rights and privileges as they existed
on March 4, 1972.
(c) Notify the above-named individuals, if presently
serving in the Armed Forces of the United States, of his
right to full reinstatement, upon application, in accordance
with the Selective Service Act and the Universal Military
Training and Service Act, as amended, after discharge
from the Armed Forces.
(d) Post at its business office and at all other places
where notices to members are customarily posted copies of
the attached notice marked "Appendix." 15 Copies of said
notice on forms provided by the Regional Director for
Region 14, after being duly signed by the Union's
representative and business agent , Marshall McDuffy,
shall be posted by the Union immediately upon receipt
thereof and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days
thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places
where notices to members are customarily posted. Reason-
able steps shall be taken by Respondent Union to insure
that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by
other material.
(e) Forward signed copies of the Appendix to the
Regional Director for Region 14, for posting by the
American Colloid Company at its place of business near
Granite City, Illinois, in places where notices to employees
are customarily posted, if the Employer is willing to do so.
(f) Notify the Regional Director for Region 14, in
writing, within 20 days from the receipt of this Decision,
what steps have been taken to comply herewith.
IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that, unless Respondent
notifies said Regional Director within 20 days from the
receipt hereof, that it will take the action here ordered that
the Board issue an order directing Respondent Union to
take the action here ordered.
11 In the event that the Board 's Order is enforced by a Judgment of a
United States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by
Order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursuant
to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of
the National Labor Relations Board."