Teamsters Local 845 (Stone Container)

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 15, 1991

302 N.L.R.B. 957 (N.L.R.B. 1991)

957
302 NLRB No. 139
TEAMSTERS LOCAL 845 (STONE CONTAINER)
1 Art. 2.6 of both agreements provides:
The Employer will deduct Union dues (consisting of initiation fees and
monthly dues) each month from the earnings of an employee who author-
izes such deductions by signing the authorization card currently in use by
the Union. A signed copy of which has been furnished to the Employer
and such deductions shall be made in accordance with provisions of said
authorization form, provided it is in conformance with applicable law.
Prior to the fifth (5th) day of each month, the Union shall furnish the
Employer a list of employees from whose earnings deductions are to be
made for such dues and the amounts to be deducted. The Employer will
deduct said amounts from the first payroll period after receiving said list
of deductions and remit to the Local Union’s Secretary-Treasurer within
seven (7) days after the deduction is made, together with a list of the
names of the employees for whom deductions have been made and the
respective amounts of such deductions.
If the dues of an employee cannot be checked off in any month be-
cause his wages are insufficient, the Employer will deduct such whenever
that employee’s earnings permit.
The Union agrees that it will indemnify and save the Employer harm-
less from any and all liability, claim responsibility, damage or suit which
may arise out of any action taken by the Employer in accordance with
the terms of this Article or in reliance upon the authorization mentioned
herein.
2 The checkoff authorization signed by Walker reads:
Continued
General Drivers, Warehousemen and Helpers Local
Union 745, affiliated with International Broth-
erhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehouse-
men and Helpers of America, AFL–CIO (Stone
Container Corporation, Corrugated Container
Division) and John H. Walker, Jr. Case 16–CB–
3335
May 15, 1991
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN STEPHENS AND MEMBERS
CRACRAFT AND DEVANEY
Upon a charge filed by John H. Walker Jr., on April
18, 1989, the General Counsel of the National Labor
Relations Board issued a complaint on May 19, 1989,
against the General Drivers, Warehousemen and Help-
ers Local 745, affiliated with International Brotherhood
of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers
of America, AFL–CIO, the Respondent, alleging that
the Respondent violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) and (2) of
the National Labor Relations Act. Copies of the charge
and complaint and notice of hearing were served on
the parties. Thereafter, the Respondent filed an answer
denying the commission of any unfair labor practices.
On August 2, 1989, the parties filed a stipulation of
facts and a motion to transfer the case to the Board.
The parties agreed that the stipulation of facts and at-
tached exhibits shall constitute the entire record in this
case, and that no oral testimony is necessary or desired
by any of the parties. The parties further waived a
hearing before an administrative law judge, the
issuance of an administrative law judge’s decision, and
indicated their desire to submit the case directly to the
Board for findings of fact, conclusions of law, and an
Order.
On September 28, 1989, the Board issued its order
approving the stipulation and transferring the pro-
ceeding to the Board. Thereafter, the General Counsel
and the Respondent filed briefs.
The National Labor Relations Board has delegated
its authority in this proceeding to a three-member
panel.
On the entire record in the case, the Board makes
the following
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. JURISDICTION
Stone Container Corporation (the Employer), a Dela-
ware corporation with a principal place of business in
Grand Prairie, Texas, is engaged in the manufacture of
corrugated paperboard containers and packaging mate-
rial. During the 12 months preceding the execution of
the stipulation of facts, a representative period, the
Employer, in the course and conduct of its business
operations, purchased and received at its Grand Prairie
facility goods, materials, equipment, and supplies val-
ued in excess of $50,000 directly from points located
outside the State of Texas. We find that the Employer
is an employer engaged in commerce within the mean-
ing of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. We further find
that the Respondent is a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
II. ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
The chief issue presented in this case is whether the
Respondent violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) and (2) by re-
fusing to honor the request of Charging Party Walker
to revoke his previously executed dues-checkoff au-
thorization on his resignation from the Respondent.
A. Facts
The Employer and the Respondent have had a col-
lective-bargaining relationship since 1979 when the
Respondent was certified. Pursuant to that relationship,
the parties entered into a collective-bargaining agree-
ment effective from December 30, 1985, through De-
cember 1, 1988, which was succeeded by a new con-
tract effective from December 2, 1988, through De-
cember 31, 1991. Neither contract contains a provision
requiring union membership but both permit employ-
ees to have the Employer deduct initiation fees and
monthly dues from their wages and remit them to the
Respondent.1 Dues-checkoff authorizations, which are
revocable as provided for in the checkoff authorization,
are utilized by the Respondent to collect monthly de-
ductions from the employees. On August 3, 1988,
Walker signed a checkoff authorization agreement au-
thorizing the Employer to deduct and remit to the Re-
spondent every month ‘‘union dues consisting of initi-
ation fees, monthly fees, and uniform assessments
owing to such Local Union as a result of membership
therein . . . .’’2 Pursuant to this authorization, month-
958 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
I, the undersigned member of Local 745 of the International Brother-
hood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America
herewith authorize my employer to deduct from my wages each and every
month my union dues consisting of initiation fees, monthly fees, and uni-
form assessments owing to such Local Union as a result of membership
therein, and direct that such amounts so deducted be sent to the Secretary-
Treasurer of such Local Union for and on my behalf.
This authorization and assignment shall be irrevocable for the term of
applicable contract between the Union and the Company, or for one year,
whichever is the lesser, and shall automatically renew itself for successive
yearly or applicable contract periods thereafter, whichever is the lesser,
unless I give written notice to the Company and the Union at least 60
days and not more than 75 days before any periodic renewal date of this
authorization and assignment of my desire to revoke the same.
3 302 NLRB 322 (1991).
4 See NLRB v. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 1195 (6th Cir. 1987); NLRB v. Post-
al Service, 827 F.2d 548 (9th Cir. 1987).
ly deductions of union dues from Walker’s wages
commenced in November 1988.
February 21, 1989, Walker notified the Respondent
by certified letter that he wished to resign his union
membership and discontinue the deductions of dues
from his paycheck. The Respondent granted Walker’s
request to resign his membership, in that it removed
him from its membership rolls on March 1, 1989, as
a result of that letter. However, the Respondent did not
respond to the letter or otherwise inform Walker that
his request had been granted until 4 months later in
July. The Respondent did not, however, honor Walk-
er’s request to cease dues deductions because it consid-
ered his request untimely under the terms of his pre-
viously executed checkoff authorization. Since the time
of Walker’s request to revoke his checkoff authoriza-
tion, the Respondent has continued to accept dues
which have been deducted from his wages every
month.
B. Contentions of the Parties
The General Counsel offers three alternative theories
on which to base a violation of Section 8(b)(1)(A) and
(2). First, applying the principles of Pattern Makers
League v. NLRB, 473 U.S. 95 (1985), the General
Counsel contends that the Respondent’s refusal to rec-
ognize Walker’s revocation of his dues-checkoff au-
thorization was an unlawful restriction on his Section
7 right to resign union membership. Second, the Gen-
eral Counsel urges the adoption of the view taken by
former Member Johansen in Postal Service (Dalton),
279 NLRB 40, 42 (1986), enf. denied 827 F.2d 548
(9th Cir. 1987), decision on remand 302 NLRB No. 50
(Mar. 29, 1991). Under that view, the General Counsel
submits that even if Walker’s request to revoke his
dues-checkoff authorization was untimely, as claimed
by the Respondent, his resignation from membership,
which the Respondent admittedly accepted, reduced his
dues obligation to zero. Thus, according to this theory,
the Respondent violated the Act by continuing to ac-
cept and causing the Employer to deduct from Walk-
er’s paycheck any amount greater than zero. Finally,
the General Counsel contends that the Respondent’s
conduct was unlawful under Machinists Local 2045
(Eagle Signal), 268 NLRB 635, 637 (1984), in which
the Board held that resignation of union membership
will revoke a checkoff authorization, even if the res-
ignation does not occur during the allowable revoca-
tion period, where the authorization itself makes pay-
ment of dues a ‘‘quid pro quo’’ for union membership.
The General Counsel contends that the language of the
checkoff authorization signed by Walker provides that
payment of dues is a quid pro quo for union member-
ship.
The Respondent contends that the checkoff author-
ization that Walker voluntarily signed is a contract en-
titled to full force and effect unless revoked in accord-
ance with the provisions set forth therein, and because
he did not comply with those provisions which pro-
hibit revocations except during certain identifiable an-
nual periods or at the expiration of the bargaining
agreement, his revocation was untimely and, therefore,
he lawfully could be required to continue paying dues.
The Respondent further contends that nothing in this
case restricts Walker’s right to resign and that it is
‘‘nonsensical’’ to say that he is coerced or restricted
by the voluntary act he undertook in selecting to pay
his dues, through checkoff, for at least a 1-year period.
In addition, the Respondent contends that Section 302
of the Act affirmatively authorizes checkoff authoriza-
tions, like the one Walker signed, to be irrevocable for
up to 1 year and, anticipating the General Counsel’s
quid pro quo theory of violation, states that the lan-
guage of Walker’s authorization does not state that it
is in consideration of union membership. Thus, the Re-
spondent, in effect, takes the position that, even apply-
ing Eagle Signal, it acted lawfully in rejecting Walk-
er’s revocation request. Finally, the Respondent argues
that the charge herein is time-barred by Section 10(b)
of the Act and that the complaint must be dismissed.
Discussion
In Electrical Workers IBEW Local 2088 (Lockheed
Space Operations),3 the Board acknowledged judicial
criticism of the Eagle Signal analysis4 and set forth a
new test for determining the effect of an employee’s
resignation from union membership on that employee’s
dues-checkoff authorization. The Board in Lockheed
found that an employee may voluntarily agree to con-
tinue paying dues pursuant to a checkoff authorization
even after resignation of union membership. In fash-
ioning a test to determine whether an employee has in
fact agreed to do so, the Board recognized the funda-
mental policies under the Act guaranteeing employees
the right to refrain from belonging to and assisting a
union, as well as the principle set forth by the Su-
preme Court that waiver of such statutory rights must
959TEAMSTERS LOCAL 845 (STONE CONTAINER)
5 Metropolitan Edison Co. v. NLRB, 460 U.S. 693, 708 (1983).
6 In Lockheed, the Board left open the question of whether this test would
be applicable in the context of a lawful union-security provision. In the ab-
sence of a union-security clause requiring union membership here, the Lock-
heed test is applicable to this case.
7 We find no record evidence to support the complaint allegation that the
Respondent caused the Employer to continue deducting Walker’s membership
dues after he resigned from the Union. Therefore, we dismiss the 8(b)(2) alle-
gation of the complaint. Further, in light of the parties’ stipulation that the Re-
spondent granted Walker’s request to resign his union membership, removed
him from its rolls on March 1, 1989, and in the absence of any evidence that
it otherwise subsequently treated Walker as if he were still a member, we shall
also dismiss the complaint allegation that the Respondent violated Sec.
8(b)(1)(A) by refusing to honor his request to resign.
We reject the Respondent’s contention that the 10(b) limitations period com-
menced on August 3, 1988, when Walker signed his checkoff and that his
April 18, 1989 unfair labor practice charge was thus untimely filed. Rather,
we find that the 10(b) period began when Walker learned in March 1989, that
the Respondent refused to honor his February 21, 1989 request to revoke his
checkoff authorization. Pennsylvania Energy Corp., 274 NLRB 1153, 1155–
1156 (1985); Burgess Construction, 227 NLRB 765, 766 (1977).
be clear and unmistakable.5 In order to give full effect
to these fundamental labor policies, the Board stated
that it would:
construe language relating to a checkoff author-
ization’s irrevocability—i.e., language specifying
an irrevocable duration for either 1 year from the
date of the authorization’s execution or on the ex-
piration of the existing collective bargaining
agreement—as pertaining only to the method by
which dues payments will be made so long as
dues payments are properly owing. We shall not
read it as, by itself, a promise to pay dues beyond
the term in which an employee is liable for dues
on some other basis. Explicit language within the
checkoff authorization clearly setting forth an ob-
ligation to pay dues even in the absence of union
membership will be required to establish that the
employee has bound himself or herself to pay the
dues even after resignation of membership. If an
authorization contains such language, dues may
properly continue to be deducted from the em-
ployee’s earnings and turned over to the union
during the entire agreed-upon period of irrevo-
cability, even if the employee states he or she has
had a change of heart and wants to revoke the au-
thorization. [Id. at 328–329.]6
Applying the analysis of Lockheed to the stipulated
facts in this case, we find that in signing the checkoff
authorization at issue here, Walker did not clearly and
unmistakably waive his right to refrain from assisting
the Respondent Union for periods when he was not a
member. As in Lockheed, all Walker clearly agreed to
do was to allow certain sums to be deducted from his
wages and remitted to the Respondent for payment of
his ‘‘union dues consisting of initiation fees, monthly
fees, and uniform assessments . . . .’’ He did not
clearly agree to have deductions made even after he
had submitted his resignation from union membership.
We thus find that the partial wage assignment made by
Walker was conditioned on his union membership and
was revoked when he ceased being a union member.
We therefore find that the Respondent’s refusal to ac-
cept Walker’s revocation request restrained and co-
erced him in the exercise of his Section 7 rights. Ac-
cordingly, we find that the Respondent violated Sec-
tion 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act.7
CONCLUSION OF LAW
By refusing to honor the revocation of dues-checkoff
authorization previously executed by John H. Walker
Jr., after he resigned membership in the Union, where
the terms of the voluntarily executed checkoff author-
ization did not clearly and explicitly impose any
postresignation dues obligation on him, the Respondent
has restrained and coerced Walker in the exercise of
his Section 7 rights and has violated Section
8(b)(1)(A) of the Act.
REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in
the unfair labor practice described above, we shall
order it to cease and desist and to take certain affirma-
tive action designed to effectuate the policies of the
Act.
The Respondent must give full force and effect to
Walker’s revocation of his checkoff authorization. The
Respondent shall also make him whole for any moneys
deducted from his wages for the period following his
resignation of union membership, with interest to be
computed in the manner prescribed in New Horizons
for the Retarded, 283 NLRB 1173 (1987).
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board orders that the
Respondent, General Drivers, Warehousemen and
Helpers Local Union 745, affiliated with International
Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen
and Helpers of America, AFL–CIO, Dallas, Texas, its
officers, agents, and representatives, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Refusing to honor any employee’s revocation of
dues-checkoff authorization after the employee has re-
signed membership in the Union, where the terms of
the executed checkoff authorization does not clearly
and explicitly impose any postresignation dues obliga-
tion on the employee and where there is no valid
union-security clause in effect.
(b) In any like or related manner restraining or co-
ercing employees in the exercise of the rights guaran-
teed them by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to
effectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Make whole employee John H. Walker Jr., for
any moneys deducted from his wages for the period
following his resignation from union membership, with
960 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
8 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 Rela-
tions Board’’ shall read ‘‘Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of the United States
Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board.’’
interest as set forth in the remedy section of this deci-
sion.
(b) Post at its offices and meeting halls in Dallas,
Texas, copies of the attached notice marked ‘‘Appen-
dix.’’8 Copies of the notice, on forms provided by the
Regional Director for Region 16, after being signed by
the Respondent’s authorized representative, shall be
posted by the Respondent immediately upon receipt
and maintained for 60 consecutive days in conspicuous
places including all places where notices to members
are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken
by the Respondent to ensure that the notices are not
altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(c) Sign and return to the Regional Director suffi-
cient copies of the notice for posting by the Employer,
if willing, at all places where notices to employees are
customarily posted.
(d) Notify the Regional Director in writing within
20 days from the date of this Order what steps the Re-
spondent has taken to comply.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint is dis-
missed insofar as it alleges unfair labor practices not
found herein.
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO 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 the National Labor Relations Act and has or-
dered us to post and abide by this notice.
WE WILL NOT refuse to honor any employee’s rev-
ocation of his dues-checkoff authorization after the em-
ployee has resigned membership in the where the
terms of the voluntarily executed checkoff authoriza-
tion does not clearly and explicitly impose any
postresignation dues obligation on the employee and
where there is no valid union-security clause in effect.
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 make whole employee John H. Walker Jr.,
for any moneys deducted from his wages for the pe-
riod following his resignation from union membership,
with interest.
GENERAL DRIVERS, WAREHOUSEMEN
AND HELPERS LOCAL 745, AFFILIATED
WITH INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD
OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, WARE-
HOUSEMEN AND HELPERS OF AMERICA,
AFL–CIO