Versatile Services, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 30, 1981

258 N.L.R.B. 810 (N.L.R.B. 1981)

DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Versatile Services, Inc. and Michelle Francis Apley
National Maritime Union of America, AFL-CIO
and Michelle Francis Apley. Cases 11-CA-
8990 and 11-CB-914
September 30, 1981
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEIMBERS FANNING, JNKINS, AND
ZIMMF RMAN
On March 27, 1981, Administrative Law Judge
Thomas D. Johnston issued the attached Decision
in this proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent Em-
ployer and Respondent Union each filed exceptions
and a supporting brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au-
thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The National Labor Relations Board has consid-
ered the record and the attached Decision in light
of the exceptions and briefs and has decided to
affirm the rulings, findings,' and conclusions2 of the
Administrative Law Judge and to adopt his recom-
mended Order.3
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Re-
lations Board adopts as its Order, the recommend-
ed Order of the Administrative Law Judge and
hereby orders that the Respondent Company, Ver-
satile Services, Inc., Charleston, South Carolina, its
officers, agents, successors, and assigns, and the
Respondent Union, National Maritime Union of
America, AFL-CIO, Charleston, South Carolina,
its officers, agents, and representatives, shall take
the action set forth in the said recommended
Order.
1toth Respondents have excepted to certain credibilily findings made
by the Administrative Law Judge It is he Board's established polic not
to overrule an administrative law judge's resolutions with respect to
credibility unless the clear preponderance of all of the releanlit esidence
convinces us that the resolutiois are incorrect Standurd Dr, Wall Prod-
uctrs. Ic., 91 NLRIB 544 (1450). enfd. 188 F.2d 362 (3d Cir 1951) 'We
have carefully examined the record and finid no basis fr reersing his
findings
2 Although the Administrative Lass Judge fund that manager Ray-
mond Melo threatened his wife with discharge in a conversatioll the' had
while driving home from work on February 13. 1981), Member Fanning
would find it unnecessary to, and does not, pass (oi this issue, as ally vio-
lation found would be cumulative and aus the remedy would lot. in any
event, he affected. He sould find, however, that the statement constitutes
evidence that Beatrice Melo did not quit, as contended by Respondents.
but was unlawfully discharged for refusing to join he Ulnion without
being given a reasonable opportunity to comply with. or being properly
informed of her obligatlions under, the contraclual ulliol-securit provi-
sion.
:' In accordance with his dissent in Olvppic tedical Corporaeiti. 250
NLRB 146 (1980), Member Jenkins would award interest on the backpay
due based on the formula set filrth therein
DECISION
S It.Isk ir.N X l 0 1 Ili: C \SI
TIIOMAS D. JOHtNSION, Administrative Law Judge:
These consolidated cases were heard at North Charles-
ton, South Carolina, on October 14, 27, and 28, 1980,'
pursuant to amended charges filed on May 72 by Mi-
chelle Apley, an individual, against Versatile Services,
Inc. (herein referred to as the Respondent Company), in
Case I l1-CA-8990 and against the National Maritime
Union of America, AFL-CIO (herein referred to as the
Respondent Union), in Case I l-CB-914 and a complaint
issued on April 25.
The complaint, which was amended prior to and at
the hearing, alleges the Respondent Company violated
Section 8(a)(I) of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended (herein referred to as the Act), by threatening
employees with discharge if they did not join the Re-
spondent Union and violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of
the Act by discharging and refusing to reinstate Michelle
Apley, Joselito Encarnation, Eduardo Paule, Beatrice
Melo, and Fatima Farrar to encourage membership in
the Respondent Union. It alleges that the Respondent
Union violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act by threat-
ening employees with discharge if they did not join the
Respondent Union and violated Section 8(b)(l)(A) and
(2) of the Act by causing and attempting to cause the
Respondent Company to violate Section 8(a)(3) of the
Act by discriminatorily discharging Michelle Apley, Jo-
selito Encarnation, Eduardo Paule, Beatrice Melo, and
Fatima Farrar because they refused to join the Respond-
ent Union.
The Respondent Company in its answer dated May 8,
which was amended at the hearing, denies having violat-
ed the Act.
The Respondent Union in its answer dated May 7,
which was amended at the hearing, denies having violat-
ed the Act.
The issues involved are whether the Respondent Com-
pany violated Section 8(a)(l) and (3) of the Act as al-
leged by unlawfully threatening its employees and by
discriminatorily discharging and refusing to reinstate
Apley, Encarnation, Paule, Melo, and Farrar to encour-
age membership in the Respondent Union; and whether
the Respondent Union violated Section 8(b)(l)(A) and
(2) of the Act as alleged by unlawfully threatening its
employees and by causing or attempting to cause the Re-
spondent Company to violate Section 8(a)(3) of the Act
by discharging the aforesaid employees for refusing to
join the Respondent Union.
Upon the entire record in these cases and from my ob-
servations of the witnesses, and after due consideration
All dates referred to arc in 1980 unless others ise stated
-The original charges . crre filed on March 13
258 NLRB No. 109
XlO
VERSATILE SERVICI-S. INC
of the briefs: filed by the parties, I hereby make the fol-
lowing:4
FINDINGS Oi FACI
I. THE. BUSINESS 01 THE RSPONI)INT COMPANY
The Respondent Company, a North Carolina corpora-
tion, is engaged in the business of providing food serv-
ices for the Charleston Air Force Base located at
Charleston, South Carolina. These services are per-
formed pursuant to a contract valued in excess of
$400,000 with the United States Government, and during
the 12-month period preceding April 25 the Respondent
Company's annual income was in excess of $50,000. The
Respondent Company is an employer engaged in com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the
Act.
It. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOI.VEI)
National Maritime Union of America, AFL-CIO, is a
labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of
the Act.
111. THE UNFAIR ABOR PRACIICES
A. Background
The Respondent Company is engaged in the business
of providing food services at the Charleston Air Force
Base located at Charleston, South Carolina. Included
among its official and supervisory personnel were Presi-
dent Bobbie Hannon, Area Manager Jose Moreno, and
Project Manager Raymundo Melo. s Neither Moreno nor
Melo is still employed there. William Edwards serves as
a consultant and is the comptroller.
Its food service employees are represented by the In-
dustrial, Technical and Professional Employees Division
of the Respondent Union with which the Respondent
Company has a collective-bargaining agreement covering
them. This agreement, which was their initial collective-
bargaining agreement, by its terms was effective from
November 13, 1979, until November 12, 1981. However,
according to Comptroller Edwards and A. Duke Duarte,
who is a patrolman for the Respondent Union, the agree-
ment was not put into effect until January 1.
Included among the provisions contained in the collec-
tive-bargaining agreement is the following union-security
provision:
Section A.
It shall be a condition of employment that all em-
ployees of the Company covered by this Agreement
who are members of the Union in good standing on
' The General Counsel's motion, raised in a footnote of its brief. to
amend the amended complaint to allege that four of the discriminatees
were also discharged for engaging in protected concerted activities is
denied. This matter, contrary to the General Counsel's assertion, was not
fully litigated at the hearing and such motion iled after the close of the
hearing is untimely.
4 Unless otherwise indicated the findings are based on the pleadings.
admissions. stipulations, and undisputed evidence contained in the record
which I credit.
' These three individuals were supervisors under the Act.
the effective date of this Agreement shall remain
membecrs in good standing and those ,ho are not
mcmbers on the effective dale of this Agreement
shall on or after the thirtieth (30th) day following
the effective date of this Agreement or the execu-
tion date, whichever comes later, become or remain
members in good standing of the Union. It shall be
a condition of employment that all employees of the
Company covered by this Agreement and hired on
or after its effective date or execution date, which-
ever comes later, shall on or after the thirtieth
(30th) day following the beginning of such employ-
ment become and remain members in good standing
of the Union.
Besides Patrolman Duarte, the Respondent Union's
representatives also include Agent John Conley and Or-
ganizer John Tanner.6
According to President Hannon and Manager Melo
the Respondent Company did not inform the employees
about the collective-bargaining agreement or its terms.
While both Patrolman Duarte and Organizer Tanner tes-
tified that after the collective-bargaining agreement was
entered into they met with the employees individually or
in small groups to explain the agreement to them, Duarte
acknowledged he did not talk to all of the employees be-
cause he felt some were not interested. He specifically
denied informing Michelle Apley who specifically denied
talking to any officer of the Respondent Union prior to
February 13.
President Hannon, Comptroller Edwards, and Man-
ager Melo all claimed that prior to February 13 the Re-
spondent Company's position was that the union-security
provisions of the collective-bargaining agreement were
not applicable since South Carolina was a right-to-work
State and employees who inquired were to be so in-
formed. Both Hannon and Edwards further claim this
position remains unchanged. Comptroller Edwards testi-
fied that he informed Organizer Tanner they were not
going to enforce the union-security provisions until they
had an opportunity to get together with the employees
so everyone could understand exactly what their status
under the agreement would be.
Agent Conley sent President Hannon a letter dated
February 13 informing him that a sufficient number of
the Respondent Company's employees had not complet-
ed their union membership applications and pointing out
that, under article II, section A, of their collective-bar-
gaining agreement all employees covered by the agree-
ment and hired on or after the agreement became effec-
tive, shall, after 30 days of employment, become and
remain members in good standing of the Union. The
letter also requested Hannon to advise the employees
covered. Hannon denied that after receiving the letter he
advised the employees of this obligation.
On February 13 and 14, President Hannon met with
Agent Conley and Organizer Tanner. Hannon described
that the purpose of these meetings was to work out prob-
lems under the agreement about whether employees had
to join the Respondent Union.
' These three indix iduals are aIgent, under the Act
I I
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARI)
B. The Unlawful Threats and Discharges of Apley,
Encarnation, Paule, Melo, and Farrar
Michelle Apley, Joselito Encarnation, Eduardo Paule,
Beatrice Melo, 7 and Fatima Farrar, who are the discri-
minatees, were employed by the Respondent Company
as food service employees at the Charleston Air Force
Base and were members of the bargaining unit. Except
for Apley, who was hired and began work the end of
January, the other four employees had all worked there
more than 30 days as of February 13. None of them was
a member of the Respondent Union and Apley credibly
testified with denial that upon being hired Manager Melo
informed her she did not have to join the Respondent
Union if she did not want to.
Apley, Paule, Melo, and Farrar all testified that they
along with Encarnation8 attended a meeting held in the
dining hall about 2 p.m. on February 13 by the Respond-
ent Union's representatives, including Agent Conley and
Organizer Tanner, at which the Respondent Company's
representatives including President Hannon, Manager
Melo, and Manager Moreno were also present. Their tes-
timony establishes that they had just gotten off work and
were directed by either President Hannon or Manager
Melo to attend the meeting. During this meeting at
which Agent Conley discussed union benefits Melo
asked Conley what would happen if they had 30 people
there who did not want to join the Union, whereupon
Conley informed them that out the door they would go
and they would hire new help. According to Melo, she
also asked Organizer Tanner the same question and re-
ceived the same response.
Apley testified that during this meeting she asked
Conley how many days they had in which to join the
Union and he informed them they had 30 days from
when they were first employed or from when the con-
tract was signed, whichever date was later. However,
she denied that Conley explained there was a union-secu-
rity provision in the collective-bargaining agreement. Al-
though Farrar denied and Paule did not recall Apley
asking such a question or their being told how long they
had to join, Melo stated that she heard Conley mention
something about they had 30 days in which to join or be
terminated.
Both Apley and Melo testified that the meeting ended
with Conley saying they would return the following day.
Agent Conley and Organizer Tanner, while acknowl-
edging that they talked to several employees in the
dining hall about 2 p.m. on February 13 about the collec-
tive-bargaining agreement and fringe benefits, both
denied holding a meeting of employees or telling them
that those employees who did not join the Union would
be out the door and they would hire replacements. Ac-
cording to them a meeting was held with the employees
the following morning in the dining hall at which
Conley discussed the collective-bargaining agreement
and its benefits. They testified that at this February 14
meeting questions were raised by employees about the
' Although the Respondent Company contends that Beatrice Melo was
a supervisor under the Act, no evidence was proffered to establish that
she possessed any of the indicia enumerated in Sec. 2(1 I) of the Act to so
find I reject such contention.
'Encarnation did not testify.
requirements for joining the Union and included a ques-
tion by Melo about what would happen if a number of
employees did not want to join the Union at which time
they informed the employees about the union-security
provision in the collective-bargaining agreement. but told
them they would have 30 days from the date of that
meeting in which to join the union. Conley and Tanner
both denied telling the employees at this meeting that
those employees who did not join the Respondent Union
would be out and replacements would be hired.
Shop Steward Warren Sewell, called as a witness by
the Respondent Union, testified, contrary to the testimo-
ny of both Conley and Tanner, that the meeting was
held on February 13 instead of February 14. While
Sewell stated that Conley mentioned they had a 30-day
grace period to decide if they were going to join the
Union and denied that Conley said they would be out
the door if they did not join that day, he acknowledged
that he did not recall Melo asking what would happen if
some of the employees did not want to join the Union.
Sewell also, contrary to denials by both President
Hannon and Manager Melo, stated that Hannon also ex-
plained at the meeting that all employees would have to
join the Union.
President Hannon denied attending a meeting of the
employees held on February 13. While he stated that
President Conley and Organizer Tanner held a meeting
of the employees in the dining hall on February 14, he
denied listening to what they said and claimed he was in
and out of the room during the meeting. Under cross-ex-
amination, however, Hannon acknowledged giving an af-
fidavit to a Board agent in which he stated he sat in on
the union meeting and listened. Hannon also denied hear-
ing Conley tell the employees they had to join the Union
or be fired although he acknowledged having stated in
an affidavit given to a Board agent that one of the union
representatives may have made such a statement. While
Hannon first denied hearing Melo ask any questions
about why she had to join the Union, after being con-
fronted with his affidavit given to the Board agent he ad-
mitted hearing her ask such question.
Manager Melo, 9 who was called as a witness by the
General Counsel, corroborated the testimony of the Gen-
eral Counsel's witnesses concerning the date this meeting
was held and what transpired. He testified that he was
instructed by his office to inform the employees there
would be a union meeting held at 2 p.m. on February 13
which he did. Manager Melo stated he attended this
meeting along with Manager Moreno t° and President
Hannon during which his wife, Beatrice Melo, asked
Agent Conley if so many people did not want to join the
Union what would happen, whereupon Conley replied
"out the door" and they would hire other help.
I credit the testimony of Apley, Paule, Melo, and
Manager Melo rather than Agent Conley, Organizer
Tanner, and President Hannon and find that a meeting
was held at the dining hall on February 13 at which time
Agent Conley and Organizer Tanner in the presence of
President Hannon, Manager Melo, and Manager Moreno
'Manager Melo is the husband of Beatrice Melo.
"' Moreno did not testify.
R12
VERSATILE SERVICES. INC.
threatened Apley, Paule, Farrar., Melo, and Encarnation
that they would be discharged if they did not join the
Respondent Union and replacements would be hired. Be-
sides my observations of the witnesses in discrediting
Conley, Tanner, and Hannon they all gave testimony
which was not only contradictory but was neither per-
suasive nor convincing. Moreover, the Respondent
Union's February 13 letter to the Respondent Company
expressed its concern over the failure of employees to
join the Respondent Union as required, and the testimo-
ny of both Conley and Tanner was contradicted by the
Respondent Union's own witness, Shop Steward Sewell,
who himself admitted he did not hear Melo's question.
Following the meeting held on February 13, Melo tes-
tified that as she was returning home with her husband,
Manager Melo, she informed him she did not want to
join the Union because she worked hard for her money
and could not see giving her money to the Union. He
told her it was her decision to make and she had a mind
of her own but said if she did not join he would have to
let her go.
Manager Melo admitted having such a conversation
with his wife and based on her testimony, which I credit,
and his admission, I find that on February 13 Manager
Melo threatened Melo with discharge if she did not join
the Respondent Union.
That night Manager Melo stated that Manager Moreno
called and asked him if his wife, who was scheduled to
work the next day, was going to work. Upon informing
Moreno she was, Moreno told him not to let her work.
According to Manager Melo the only reason Moreno
gave was that Manager Melo himself did not need her.
He then informed his wife what Manager Moreno had
said.
Melo did not thereafter return to work. The reason
she gave, which I credit, was because everyone had been
told if they did not join the Respondent Union they were
out.
Apley, Farrar, and Paule all testified that on the morn-
ing of February 14 they were together in the dining hall
when Patrolman Duarte came over and asked them
whether they had signed forms for joining the Union.
Apley described these as registration forms she was to
sign to have union dues deducted. When they inquired
about having more time, Duarte informed them they had
either to sign or they were fired.
Apley, after informing Duarte she was going to ask
Manager Melo, stated that she then went over and asked
Manager Melo in the presence of Duarte whether she
had more time. Melo informed Duarte that Apley was
recently hired and had not been working there that long
and did not have to join at that time. Apley's testimony
was corroborated by Manager Melo.
Patrolman Duarte denied having any conversations
with Apley on either February 13 or 14 and testified he
did not recall telling any employees they would have to
join the Union that day or be fired.
I credit Apley, Farrar, and Paule instead of Patrolman
Duarte and find that on February 14 Duarte threatened
Apley, Farrar, and Paule with discharge if they did not
join the Respondent Union. Apart from my observations
of the witnesses in discrediting Duarte, his threat is con-
sistent with those made by Agent Conley and Organizer
Tanner.
After talking to Manager Melo, Apley stated that she
contacted Congressman Mendel Davis' office the same
day and was advised by his assistant that employees
could not be fired for refusing to join the Union because
South Carolina was a right-to-work State. She then in-
formed Paule and Farrar about what she had been told
and during their lunch period the three of them went to
the other dining hall and talked to an employee there
named Joven Vitan." Upon their return to their dining
hall Manager Moreno, who was standing outside on the
loading dock, asked them why they did not want to join
the Union. She asked Moreno why somebody in the Fed-
eral building had told them they could not be fired if
they did not join the Union. When Moreno did not reply
she put the same question to Patrolman Duarte who had
come out on the loading dock. Duarte then went and got
Organizer Tanner to explain. Apley testified that Tanner
showed her a court case which she did not read and
mentioned that Congressman Davis' assistant did not
know what would happen because it was a Federal en-
clave. Apley then told Moreno she was going to talk to
Manager Melo.
Both Farrar and Paule corroborated Apley's testimony
about what she had reported to them and about accom-
panying her to the other dining hall. I credit Apley's un-
denied testimony regarding her conversation with Man-
ager Moreno and find that on February 14 Manager
Moreno interrogated Apley, Paule, and Farrar concern-
ing their reasons for not joining the Respondent Union.
While Duarte denied talking to any employees on the
loading dock on February 14, Organizer Tanner ac-
knowledged that Apley mentioned to him on the loading
dock that she had contacted Congressman Davis' office
and had been informed by his assistant she did not have
to join the Union because it was a right-to-work State
and he had shown her a copy of a court decision. Ac-
cording to Tanner, Apley said he could not make her
join the union and nobody could tell her she had to join.
Tanner also testified that, while he was on the loading
dock where Moreno was talking to the employees, he
tried to talk to the employees including Apley and
Farrar into returning to work and warned them if they
walked off the job the Respondent Company could fire
them.
James Jackson, a former employee who testified as a
witness for the Respondent Union, stated he was also on
the loading dock where Moreno was talking to employ-
ees he could only identify as Joe, Eddy, Tessie, and
Joven when the Respondent Union's representatives in-
cluding Agent Conley, Organizer Tanner, and Patrolman
Duarte came to the loading dock. Jackson stated that
upon asking whether they had to join the Union that day
the representative whom (he described as having white
hair) said no, but said they would have to join the
Union. Jackson also stated that Moreno asked employees
why they did not want to join the Union and he told
" Vitan did not restify.
813
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
them the guy inside had said they did not have to join
the Union right then.
Agent Conley testified that on his way to the parking
lot some employees asked him if the people had to join
the Union right then, whereupon he told them no and to
go home and talk it over with their wives and husbands.
Although Conley stated he believed Apley was present
when his statement was made Apley credibly denied
hearing any such statement. Paule also credibly denied
hearing Organizer Tanner make any such statements on
the loading dock.
Apley, Paule, Farrar, and Encarnation, along with
Joven Vitan, then went to Manager Melo's office. Apley,
whose testimony was corroborated by Farrar and Paule,
stated that she asked Manager Melo whether they had to
join the Union. However, before Melo could reply Presi-
dent Hannon, who came up behind them, said "out, out,
out," either they signed and joined the Union, or they
were fired. When Farrar asked Hannon whether she
could take the papers home to let her husband see them
because she did not understand, Hannon repeated the
statement and asked who was going to wait on his
people. Under cross-examination Apley acknowledged
that Hannon also told them if they did not go back to
work at that time they would be fired. Farrar also stated
that, when she asked Hannon if she could take the
papers home to her husband and let him read them to
her, Hannon also told her if she did not go back to the
line she was fired and to get out.
President Hannon, who claimed that prior to this con-
versation Manager Moreno had informed him the em-
ployees were walking out, stated as he was going to
Manager Melo's office he observed the five employees in
there. According to him both he and Manager Melo
asked them if they were going to work and when they
did not reply he told them they were causing confusion
and if they were not going to work to get out of the
office because they could get into some problems. 12
Hannon then said that Manager Melo told him he was
going to work the cash register and left. He denied tell-
ing the employees they had to join the Union or they
would be fired; said he told Farrar she could go home
and talk it over with her husband.
Manager Melo acknowledged that the employees came
into his office and Apley asked whether they had to join
the Union, but before he could answer Hannon came in.
Melo, who left the office during the conversation, stated
that all he heard as he was leaving was Hannon tell them
if they do not want to work to get out.
Based on the testimony of Apley, Farrar, and Paule,
whom I credit rather than President Hannon for reasons
previously given, I find that on February 14 President
Hannon threatened Apley, Farrar, Paule, and Encarna-
tion with discharge for refusing to join the Respondent
Union.
Following this conversation Apley, Paule, Farrar, and
Encarnation left the facility and did not return to work
thereafter.
On February 21, Apley, Paule, Farrar, and Encarna-
tion returned to get their paychecks. According to
'2 Hannon first stated it was because they were going to have to gel
some people in to feed the troops.
Apley, Paule, and Melo, when they questioned Manager
Moreno about why money had been deducted from their
pay Moreno informed them part of it was for union dues.
While their check stubs reflect that money was withheld
under the category captioned "miscellaneous," Comp-
troller Edwards explained these deductions were for con-
tributions to the health and welfare and pension funds as
opposed to union dues. 13
While a meeting was arranged between Congressman
Davis' office and the Respondent Company for February
22 concerning the employment of the discriminatees,
such meeting did not occur.
C. Analysis and Conclusions
The General Counsel contends while both Respond-
ents deny that the Respondent Company violated Sec-
tion 8(a)(l) and (3) of the Act as alleged and that the Re-
spondent Union violated Section 8(b)(l)(A) and (2) of
the Act as alleged by unlawfully threatening employees
and by discriminatorily discharging or causing to be dis-
charged Apley, Encarnation, Paule, Melo, and Farrar be-
cause of their refusal to join the Respondent Union or to
encourage membership in the Respondent Union.4 The
Respondents assert that the discriminatees quit their jobs.
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act prohibits an employer from
interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees in
the exercise of their rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the
Act. Section 8(a)(3) of the Act provides in pertinent part:
(a) It shall be an unfair labor practice for an em-
ployer-
(3) by discrimination in regard to hire or tenure
of employment or any term or condition of employ-
ment to encourage or discourage membership in
any labor organization: Provided, That nothing in
this Act . .. .shall preclude an employer from
making an agreement with a labor organization . . .
to require as a condition of employment member-
ship therein on or after the thirtieth day following
the beginning of such employment or the effective
date of such agreement, whichever is the later . . .:
Provided further, That no employer shall justify any
discrimination against an employee for nonmember-
ship in a labor organization (A) if he has reasonable
grounds for believing that such membership was not
available to the employee on the same terms and
conditions generally applicable to other members,
or (B) if he has reasonable grounds for believing
that membership was denied or terminated for rea-
sons other than the failure of the employee to
tender the periodic dues and the initiation fees uni-
formily required as a condition of acquiring or re-
taining membership ....
':' There was no allegation that union dues were unlawfully deducted
and such evidence was proffered by the General Counsel solely on the
issue concerning the discharges.
" Certain other allegations of alleged threats made by representatives
of the Respondent Company and the Respondent Union were dismissed
at the hearing and warrant no further discussion
814
VERSATILE SERVICES, INC.
Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act prohibits a labor organi-
zation from restraining or coercing employees in the ex-
ercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
Section 8(b)(2) of the Act provides that it shall be an
unfair labor practice for a labor organization:
(2) to cause or attempt to cause an employer to
discriminate against an employee in violation of sub-
section (a)(3) or to discriminate against an employee
with respect to whom membership in such organi-
zation has been denied or terminated on some
ground other than his failure to tender the periodic
dues and the initiation fees uniformily required as a
condition of acquiring or retaining membership
The law is well established that before a union may
seek an employee's discharge for failure to comply with
union-security provisions it must afford the employee a
reasonable opportunity to comply with such provisions
and also inform the delinquent employee of the amount
owed, the method used to compute such amount, and the
manner in which the obligation may be satisfied. Chauf-
feurs, Teamsters and Helpers Union Local 150, affiliated
with the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauf-
feurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America (Delta
Lines), 242 NLRB 454 (1979).15
The findings, supra, establish that the Respondent
Company and Respondent Union were parties to a col-
lective-bargaining agreement which contained union-se-
curity provisions. On February 13 Respondent Union
Agent Conley sent Respondent Company President
Hannon a letter informing him employees had not com-
plied with those provisions and requested Hannon to
advise the employees of their obligations. That same day
the Respondent Union held a meeting of employees at
the dining hall of the Respondent Company which had
also arranged the meeting and required employees' at-
tendance. During this meeting Respondent Union Agent
Conley and Organizer Tanner, in the presence of Re-
spondent Company President Hannon, Tanner, Manager
Melo, and Manager Moreno, threatened employees in-
cluding the five discriminatees Apley, Paule, Farrar,
Melo, and Encarnation that they would be discharged if
they did not join the Respondent Union and replace-
ments would be hired.
Following this meeting, Manager Melo on that same
day threatened his wife Beatrice Melo with discharge if
she did not join the Respondent Union and that evening,
acting on instructions from Manager Moreno, Manager
Melo informed his wife, who was scheduled to work the
next day, that she could not work the next day. Melo did
not return to work thereafter, giving as a reason at the
hearing that it was because they had been told if they
did not join the Respondent Union they were out.
The evidence, supra, further establishes that on the
next day, February 14, Respondent Union Patrolman
'5 The amended complaint does not allege and the General Counsel
specifically disavowed any contention that the union-security provisions
contained in the collective-bargaining agreement were unlawful because
South Carolina is a right-to-work State. Accordingly, no finding reill he
made on this issue.
Duarte while at the dining hall threatened Apley, Farrar,
and Paule with discharge if they did not join the Re-
spondent Union. Later that day Manager Moreno inter-
rogated Apley, Paule, and Farrar concerning their rea-
sons for not joining the Union. When Apley. Paule,
Farrar, and Encarnation went to Manager Melo's office
on February 14 to see whether they had to join the Re-
spondent Union, President Hannon told them to get out,
that either they signed and joined the Union or they
were fired, whereupon the four of them left the premises
and did not return to work thereafter. None of the five
discriminatees ever informed anyone they were going to
quit their job.
The discharges of Melo on February 13 and of Apley,
Paule. Farrar, and Encarnation on February 14 all oc-
curred after they had been threatened with discharge if
they did not join the Respondent Union by officials, su-
pervisory personnel, or agents of both the Respondent
Company and the Respondent Union, which had also
made such threats in the presence of the Respondent
Company's official and supervisory personnel. These
threats and their discharges all occurred notwithstanding
that Apley had been employed by the Respondent Com-
pany for less than the 30-day period she was entitled to
under the Act before union-security provisions can be
lawfully invoked to require a noncomplying employee's
discharge and notwithstanding that neither Apley, Paule,
Farrar, Melo, nor Encarnation was afforded a reasonable
opportunity to comply with the union-security provisions
or informed of the amounts they owed, the method used
to compute such amounts, or the manner in which their
obligations could be satisfied.
Based on the foregoing evidence and for the reasons
discussed, I am persuaded and find that the Respondent
Company on February 13 and 14 violated Section 8(a)(l)
of the Act by interrogating Apley, Paule, and Farrar
concerning their reasons for not joining the Union and
unlawfully threatened Melo, Apley, Paule, Farrar, and
Encarnation with discharge for their refusal to join the
Union. It also violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act
by discharging Melo on February 13 and Apley, Paule,
Farrar, and Encarnation on February 14 under the
union-security provisions of the collective-bargaining
agreement with knowledge they had not been afforded a
reasonable opportunity in which to comply with or been
informed of their obligations under such provisions and
in the case of Apley she was also denied the 30-day
period required by the Act, and thereafter refused to re-
instate them, all of which conduct thereby encouraged
membership in the Respondent Union. I find that the Re-
spondent Union on February 13 and 14 violated Section
8(b)(1)(A) of the Act by unlawfully threatening employ-
ees with discharge and replacement for their refusal to
join the Union and that it violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) and
(2) of the Act by unlawfully causing the Respondent
Company in violation of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act to
discharge Melo on February 13 and Apley, Paule,
Farrar, and Encarnation on February 14 under the
union-security provisions without affording them a rea-
sonable opportunity in which to comply with or inform-
ing them of their obligations under such provisions, and
81S
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
in the case of Apley denying her the 30-day period re-
quired by the Act.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent Company and the
Respondent Union set forth in section III, above, occur-
ring in connection with the Respondent Company's oper-
ations described in section I, above, have a close, inti-
mate, 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 thereof.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Versatile Services, Inc., is an employer engaged in
commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of
the Act.
2. National Maritime Union of America, AFL-CIO, is
a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5)
of the Act.
3. By interrogating its employees concerning their rea-
sons for not joining the Union, and by unlawfully threat-
ening its employees with discharge for their refusal to
join the Union, the Respondent Company has interfered
with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exer-
cise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act and
has engaged in unfair labor practices in violation of Sec-
tion 8(a)(1) of the Act.
4. By unlawfully threatening employees with discharge
and replacements for their refusal to join the Union, the
Respondent Union has restrained and coerced employees
in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of
the Act and has engaged in unfair labor practices in vio-
lation of Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act.
5. By discharging Beatrice Melo on February 13 and
Michelle Apley, Joselito Encarnation, Eduardo Paule,
and Fatima Farrar on February 14 under the union-secu-
rity provisions of the collective-bargaining agreement de-
spite its knowledge they had not been afforded a reason-
able opportunity to comply with or been informed of
their obligations under such provisions and despite the
fact that Apley had not been allowed the statutory 30-
day period provided by the Act, the Respondent Compa-
ny has violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act.
6. By causing the Respondent Company to discharge
Beatrice Melo on February 13 and Michelle Apley, Jose-
lito Encarnation, Eduardo Paule, and Fatima Farrar on
February 14 under the union-security provisions of the
collective-bargaining agreement without affording them
a reasonable opportunity in which to comply with or in-
forming them of their obligations under such provisions,
and by denying Apley the statutory 30-day period pro-
vided by the Act, the Respondent Union has violated
Section 8(b)(1)(A) and (2) of the Act.
7. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent Company and the
Respondent Union have engaged in certain unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) and (3)
and Section 8(b)(1)(A) and (2) of the Act, respectively, I
shall recommend that they be ordered to cease and desist
therefrom and take certain affirmative action to effectu-
ate the policies of the Act.
Accordingly, the Respondent Company shall be or-
dered to offer immediate and full reinstatement to Be-
atrice Melo, Michelle Apley, Joselito Encarnation,
Eduardo Paule, and Fatima Farrar to their former jobs
or, if those jobs no longer exist, then to substantially
equivalent jobs, without prejudice to their seniority and
other rights and privileges. The Respondent Union shall
be ordered to notify the Respondent Company in writing
with copies to Beatrice Melo, Michelle Apley, Joselito
Encarnation, Eduardo Paule, and Fatima Farrar that it
withdraws its objections to the Respondent Company's
employment of said employees and to request the Re-
spondent Company to offer them reinstatement and res-
toration of all their rights and privileges as existed prior
to the dates of their discharges.
As I have found that both the Respondent Company
and the Respondent Union are responsible for the dis-
crimination suffered by Beatrice Melo, Michelle Apley,
Joselito Encarnation, Eduardo Paule, and Fatima Farrar,
they shall be ordered to jointly and severally make Be-
atrice Melo, Michelle Apley, Joselito Encarnation,
Eduardo Paule, and Fatima Farrar whole for any loss of
earnings and other compensation they may have suffered
as a result of the discrimination against them in their em-
ployment herein found by discharging Beatrice Melo on
February 13, 1980, and Michelle Apley, Joselito Encar-
nation, Eduardo Paule, and Fatima Farrar on February
14, 1980, and thereafter refusing to reinstate them. Back-
pay shall be computed in the manner prescribed by the
Board in F W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289
(1950), with interest thereon as prescribed in Florida Steel
Corporation, 231 NLRB 651 (1977).'6
Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of
law, and the entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c)
of the Act, I hereby issue the following recommended:
ORDER 17
The Respondent Company, Versatile Services, Inc.,
Charleston, South Carolina, its officers, agents, succes-
sors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Interrogating its employees concerning their rea-
sons for not joining the Union.
(b) Unlawfully threatening its employees with dis-
charge for their refusal to join the Union.
(c) Encouraging membership in the National Maritime
Union of North America, AFL-CIO, or any other labor
organization, by discharging employees under union-se-
curity provisions without affording them a reasonable
I6 See, generally. Iis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716 (1962).
" 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, and recommended Order herein shall, as provided
in Sec. 102.48 of the Rules and Regulations, he adopted by the Board and
become its findings. conclusions. and Order. and all objections thereto
shall he deemed waived for all purposes.
816
VERSATILE SERVICES. INC.
opportunity in which to comply with, or being informed
of their obligations under, such provisions and not allow-
ing employees the statutory period provided by Section
8(a)(3) of the Act before such provisions are invoked.
(d) In any like or related manner interfering with, re-
straining, or coercing employees in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed them under Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to
effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Offer immediate and full reinstatement to Beatrice
Melo, Michelle Apley, Joselito Encarnation, Eduardo
Paule, and Fatima Farrar to their former jobs or, if those
jobs no longer exist, then to substantially equivalent jobs
without prejudice to their seniority and other rights and
privileges.
(b) Jointly and severally with the National Maritime
Union of North America, AFL-CIO, make whole Be-
atrice Melo, Michelle Apley, Joselito Encarnation,
Eduardo Paule, and Fatima Farrar for any loss of earn-
ings and other compensation they may have suffered by
reason of the discrimination against them herein found
by discriminatorily discharging them on February 13 or
14, 1980, and thereafter refusing to reinstate them in the
manner set forth in that section of this Decision entitled
"The Remedy."
(c) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the
Board or its agents, for examination and copying, all
payroll records, social security payment records, time-
cards, personnel records and reports and all other re-
cords necessary to analyze and determine the amount of
backpay due under the terms of this Order.
(d) Post at its Charleston Air Force Base facility locat-
ed at Charleston, South Carolina, copies of the attached
notice marked "Appendix A." ' s Copies of said notice, on
forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 11,
after being duly signed by the Respondent Company's
authorized representative, shall be posted immediately
upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 con-
secutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including
all places where notices to employees are customarily
posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respond-
ent Company to insure that said notices are not altered,
defaced, or covered by any other material.
(e) Post at the same places and under the same condi-
tions as set forth in paragraph (d) above, as soon as for-
warded by the Regional Director for Region 11, copies
of the Respondent Union's attached notice marked "Ap-
pendix B."
(f) Sign and return by mail to the Regional Director
for Region 11, immediately upon receipt from him,
copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix A" for
posting by the Respondent Union.
(g) Notify the Regional Director for Region I 11, in
writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what
steps Respondent Company has taken to comply here-
with.
" In the event that this Order is enforced by a Judgment of a United
States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by
Order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursu-
ant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an
Order of the National Labor Relations Board."
B. The Respondent Union, National Maritime Union
of America, AFL-CIO, its officers, agents, and repre-
sentatives, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Unlawfully threatening employees with discharge
and replacement for their refusal to join the Union.
(b) Causing or attempting to cause Versatile Services,
Inc., to discharge or otherwise discriminate against Be-
atrice Melo, Michelle Apley, Joselito Encarnation,
Eduardo Paule, Fatima Farrar or any other employees
under union-security provisions by not affording them a
reasonable opportunity in which to comply with or in-
forming them of their obligations under such provisions
and not allowing the statutory period provided by Sec-
tion 8(a)(3) of the Act before such provisions are in-
voked.
(c) In any like or related manner restraining or coerc-
ing employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed
them under Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to
effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Notify Versatile Services, Inc., in writing, with
copies to Beatrice Melo, Michelle Apley, Joselito Encar-
nation, Eduardo Paule, and Fatima Farrar that it with-
draws its objections to their employment by Versatile
Services, Inc., and requests that Versatile Services, Inc.,
offer them reinstatement and the restoration of their
rights and privileges as existed prior to their discharges
on February 13 and 14, 1980, as herein found.
(b) Jointly and severally with Versatile Services, Inc.,
make whole Beatrice Melo, Michelle Apley, Joselito En-
carnation, Eduardo Paule, and Fatima Farrar for any loss
of earnings and other compensation they may have suf-
fered by reason of the discrimination against them herein
found by their discriminatory discharges on February 13
or 14, 1980, and refusals to reinstate them, in the manner
set forth in that section of this Decision entitled "The
Remedy."
(c) Post at its business office and at all other places
where it customarily posts notices to its members '9
copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix B."20
Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional
Director for Region 11, after being duly signed by the
Respondent Union's authorized representative, shall be
posted immediately upon receipt thereof, and be main-
tained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in con-
spicuous places, including all places where notices to
members are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall
be taken by the Respondent Union to insure that said no-
tices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other
material.
(d) Post at the same places and under the same condi-
tions as set forth in paragraph (c) above, as soon as for-
warded by the Regional Director for Region 11, copies
of the Respondent Company's attached notice marked
"Appendix A."
(e) Sign and mail to the Regional Director for Region
11, immediately upon receipt from him, copies of the at-
'9 The posting shall apply only to the Charleston. South Carolina. area.
including the Charleston Air Force Base.
2"' See fn 19. upra
817
I)E'CISI()NS OF NA'IONAL LABOR RELATI()NS BOARD
tached notice marked "Appendix B" for posting by the
Respondent Company.
(f) Notify the Regional Director for Region II, in
writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what
steps Respondent Union has taken to comply herewith.
IF IS FURII-ER ORI)FRHI) that the amended complaint
be, and it hereby is, dismissed insofar as it alleges unfair
labor practices not specifically found herein.
APPENDIX A
No-Tlcli To Esil.O' YIWiS
POSTI I) BY ORD) R 01 THil
NAT'IONAl LABOR R A tiONS BOARDI
An Agency of the United States Government
WI, Wit I NOt interrogate our employees con-
cerning their reasons for not joining the Union.
WE Wil. NOT unlawfully threaten our employees
with discharge for their refusal to join the Union.
WE wil. Nor encourage membership in the Na-
tional Maritime Union of America, AFL-CIO, or
any other labor organization, discharge any employ-
ees under union-security provisions who have not
been afforded a reasonable opportunity in which to
comply with, or been informed of their obligations
under, such provisions or not allowed the statutory
period as provided by Section 8(a)(3) of the Act
before such provisions are invoked.
WtE Wil.l. NOT in any like or related manner in-
terfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees in
the exercise of the rights guaranteed them in Sec-
tion 7 of the Act.
Wl wil.l. offer immediate and full reinstatement
to Beatrice Melo, Michelle Apley, Joselito Encarna-
tion, Eduardo Paule, and Fatima Farrar to their
former jobs or, if those jobs no longer exist, then to
substantially equivalent jobs, without prejudice to
their seniority and other rights and privileges and
We: Wt., jointly and severally with the National
Maritime Union of America, AFL-CIO, make them
whole for any loss of earnings and other compensa-
tion they may have suffered by reason of our dis-
crimination by discharging them, plus interest.
APPENDIX B
NoTlIC To MEMBIERS
PoSIt'lI) HY ORDI)R 01 IHE
NAIIONAI. LABOR REI.ATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WI: W I N unlawfully threaten employees of
Versatile Services. Inc., with discharge and replace-
ment for their refusal to join the Union.
Wl. WVil. NOT cause or attempt to cause Versa-
tile Services, Inc., to discharge or otherwise dis-
criminate against Beatrice Melo, Michelle Apley,
Joselito Encarnation, Eduardo Paule, and Fatima
Farrar, or any other employee under union-security
provisions by not affording them a reasonable op-
portunity in which to comply with or informing
them of their obligations under such provisions or
denying them the statutory period as provided by
Section 8(a)(3) of the Act before such provisions
are invoked.
Wt WILl NOT in any like or related manner re-
strain or coerce employees in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
WEt Wll. notify Versatile Services, Inc., in writ-
ing, that we withdraw our objections to the em-
ployment of Beatrice Melo, Michelle Apley, Jose-
lito Encarnation, Eduardo Paule, and Fatima Farrar
and request their reinstatement and restoration of
their rights and privileges as existed prior to their
discharges, with copies sent to each of said employ-
ees.
Wt wil.t jointly and severally with Versatile
Services, Inc., make Beatrice Melo, Michelle Apley,
Joselito Encarnation, Eduardo Paule, and Fatima
Farrar whole for any loss of earnings and other
compensation they may have suffered by reason of
our discrimination against them in causing their dis-
charges, with interest.
NArIONAI MARITIME UNION OF AMERICA,
AFL-CIO
VI:RSATII I:. S.RVICI:S, INC.
81X