Peoria Newspaper Guild, Local 86

88 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Peoria Newspaper Guild, Local 86 and Peoria Jour- nal Star. Case 33-CB-1236 March 3, 1980 DECISION AND ORDER BY MEMBERS JENKINS, PENELLO, AND TRUESDALE On November 16, 1979, Administrative Law Judge Platonia P. Kirkwood issued the attached Decision in this proceeding. Thereafter, Respon- dent filed exceptions and a supporting brief, and the General Counsel and the Charging Party filed briefs in opposition to Respondent's exceptions.' 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 Board has considered the record and the at- tached Decision in light of the exceptions and briefs and has decided to affirm the rulings, find- ings, 2 and conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge and to adopt her recommended Order. 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 recommended Order of the Administrative Law Judge and hereby orders that the Respondent, Peoria News- paper Guild, Local 86, Peoria, Illinois, its officers, agents, and representatives, shall take the action set forth in the said recommended Order. I The Charging Party moved to strike Respondent's exceptions for fail- ure to comply with the provisions of Sec. 102.46(b) of the National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations, Series 8, as amended. We find that Respondent's exceptions sufficiently designate the portions of the Decision that Respondent claimed were erroneous. Accordingly, the Charging Party's motion to strike is denied. 2 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 credi- bility unless the clear preponderance of all of the relevant evidence con vinces us that the resolutions are incorrect Slandard Dry Wall Products, Inc. , 91 NLRB 544 (1950), enfd. 188 F.2d 362 (3d Cir. 1951) We have carefully examined the record and find no basis for reversing her find ings. DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE PLATONIA P. KIRKWOOD, Administrative Law Judge: This case, heard before me on December 5, 1978, pursu- ant to a charge filed by the Peoria Journal Star, herein called the Employer, on August 9, 1978, and a com- plaint, issued on September 8, and amended on Novem- ber 21, 1978, presents essentially the question of whether Peoria Newspaper Guild, the Respondent in this pro- ceeding (also referred to herein as the Guild) violated 248 NLRB No. 28 Section 8(b)(1)(A) and 8(b)(2) of the Act by engaging in the following conduct since on or about June 13, 1978: threatening employee James Bushong with discharge, and attempting to cause the Employer to discharge him because of his failure to maintain his membership in and/ or his failure to tender and pay dues to Respondent. The complaint alleges in substance, and Respondent in its answer denies, that Respondent violated the Act by en- gaging in the aforesaid conduct because Bushong was not, at that time, under any legal obligation to maintain his membership in or pay dues to Respondent. Upon the entire record in this case, my consideration of the post-hearing briefs submitted by the General Counsel, Respondent, and the Charging Party, respec- tively, and from my observation of the witnesses, I make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER INVOLVED The Employer, Peoria Journal Star, is an Illinois cor- poration, which is engaged at Peoria, Illinois, in the busi- ness of publishing, printing, and distributing newspapers. During the 12-month period preceding the issuance of the complaint, a representative period, the Employer purchased goods valued in excess of $50,000 directly from suppliers outside the State of Illinois. The com- plaint alleges, all parties admit, and I find that the Em- ployer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act. II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED The Respondent, Peoria Newspaper Guild, Local 86, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended. Ill. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. The Relevant Facts 1. The contractual union-security provisions The Guild is the exclusive bargaining agent of the Em- ployer's employees in the editorial and outside circula- tion departments. Jim Bushong, who had been employed in the bargaining unit since December 1974, became a member of the Guild in February or March 1975. The 1974-77 collective-bargaining contract between the Em- ployer and the Guild, then in force, contained a mainte- nance-of-membership union-security provision which, inter alia , required employees who were or became members of the Guild to maintain their membership in the Guild for the duration of the contract. The term of the 1974-77 collective-bargaining contract expired on November 15, 1977. Negotiations between the Employer and the Guild for a new contract, which began earlier, failed to produce a new agreement before the expiring contract's termination date. The Employer and the Guild at no time agreed to continue in effect the terms of the 1974-77 contract's union-security clause beyond that contract's November 15, 1977, expiration date. PEORIA NEWSPAPER GUILD, LOCAL 86 89 On the night of December 13, 1977, the Employer and the Guild reached a tentative agreement on the terms of the new contract. The terms of the agreement were sub- ject to ratification by the members of Respondent in the bargaining unit. I The new contract was, in fact, ratified by the Guild at a meeting held December 16, 1977, at I a.m. The new contract, made for a term expiring on De- cember 14, 1980, was executed on December 21, 1977, and is so dated at its foot. The contract recites in its pre- amble that it was to be "effective December 14, 1977" except for the section thereof treating with salaries which was to go into effect December 1, 1977. The new contract was executed on December 21, 1977. It contains a union-security clause identical in lan- guage to the one that had appeared in the prior contract, reading as follows: All present employees covered by this Agreement, who are on the date hereof or who during the term of this Agreement shall become, members of the Guild, shall maintain their membership for the duration of this Agreement. All employees covered by this Agree- ment, who are newly employed subsequent to the effective date of this Agreement, shall, on or before the sixtieth (60th) day worked by them after the be- ginning of the employment, become members of the Guild and maintain their membership for the dura- tion of this Agreement. The failure of a present em- ployee who is or becomes a member of the Guild to maintain his membership, or the failure of a new employee to become a member of the Guild and maintain his membership, all as required above, shall, upon notice in writing to the Publisher by the Guild, constitute cause for dismissal. Present employ- ees covered by this Agreement, who are not members of the Guild on the date hereof. are not required as a condition of employment to join the Guild or maintain membership therein. [Emphasis supplied.] 2. Bushong's resignation from the Guild On December 13, 1977, several hours before the Em- ployer and the Guild (on that same day) reached an agreement on the terms of a new contract, Bushong mailed a letter to Jerry McDowell, then president of the Guild, reading as follows: 1, Jim Bushong, hereby submit my resignation to- from the International Newspaper Guild No. 86 to be effective immediately. On that same day, Bushong mailed a copy of that letter to the Employer. Both the letter and the copy were sent via certified mail, return receipt requested. The resignation letter directed to McDowell was ad- dressed to him at a post office box number. It was stipu- lated that notice of mail arrival or attempted delivery, return receipt requested, referring to Bushong's letter of resignation, was served on McDowell on December 14, 1977. It was further stipulated that an authorized agent of McDowell picked up Bushong's resignation letter i Such ratification was mandated by the Guild's constitution from the post office on December 15, 1977, and hand-de- livered it to McDowell, who read it before the ratifica- tion vote on the new contract was taken at the Decem- ber 16 ratification meeting. 2 On December 13, 1977, when he submitted his resigna- tion, Bushong, as appears from his credited testimony, was current in the payment of his Guild dues through the month of November 1977. In January 1978, Bushong tendered to Lloyd Frederk- ing, the bargaining unit employee who was the Guild's dues collector at the time, his dues for the month of De- cember 1977. Bushong explained at the hearing that he paid his December dues even though he considered his union resignation to have been effective December 13, 1977, because he had been a member of the Guild for part of that month and wanted to "square himself" with the Guild, and, also, because he had represented in his income tax return that he had paid dues for the entire year. Following his payment in January 1978 of his De- cember 1977 dues, Bushong paid no further dues to the Guild. 3 3. The Guild issuance of a warning of discharge of Bushong and its subsequent attempt to cause Bushong's discharge Under date of June 13, 1978, the Guild addressed a letter to Bushong informing him that his record showed that he was "5 months in arrears" in his dues 4 and warn- ing him that if he did not clear up his dues delinquency within 7 days Respondent would demand his discharge 2 Although the Guild's constitution imposes certain restrictions on res- ignation by its members, their consideration is not material to the resolu- tion of the issues in this case. At the hearing, the Guild expressly dis- claimed that it was making any contention in this case that Bushong's res- ignation was invalid or ineffective because of any failure on his part to conform to its constitutional procedural requirements or restrictions relat- ing to resignation. 3 At the hearing, the Guild sought to establish that Bushong, following his December 13, 1977, resignation, paid dues that accrued after the month in which he resigned. The Guild's witness, Lloyd Frederking, tes- tified that he collected dues from Bushong, not only for the month of December 1977, but also-some time in the spring of 1978-for the month of January 1978 as well. As will be shown below (fn. 4, infra) Fre- derking's testimony that Bushong paid dues for the month of January 1977 is in apparent conflict with a letter written by the Guild's president to Bushong on June 13, 1978. That letter indicated that, as of June 13, 1978, Bushong had paid dues only through the month of December 1977. Frederking purported to support his testimony in large part on dues col- lection records kept by him and by Respondent. As was demonstrated in his cross-examination by the Charging Party, those records were riddled with inconsistencies and were unreliable in material respects. The unrelia- bility of Frederking's testimony that Bushong paid dues for the month of January is undisputedly confirmed by Respondent's admission in its brief that Frederking was "in error" in this respect, and that the Guild's re- cords show his last dues payment was for the month of December 1977. Although the Guild now asserts that Bushong paid his November dues in December and his December dues in January 1978, its revised position in this respect is also not clearly supported by the evidence, To the extent that Bushong's testimony conflicts with that of Frederking, I credit Bu- shong 4 Since, as the record shows, the Guild's monthly dues were payable at any time during the month in which they were owed, the Guild would not have considered Bushong's June dues payment to "have been 5 months in arrears" until at least July I Thus, the Guild's assertion in its letter to Bushong that on June 13, 1978, Bushong's dues account was 5 months past due corroborates Bushong's testimony that his last union dues payment was for December 1977--and not for January 1978-as Frederking testified 90 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD under the union-security clause in its contract with the Employer. Bushong, so far as appears, did not respond. On June 20, 1978, Respondent wrote to the Employer stating that Bushong had fallen far behind in his payment of union dues and demaning Bushong's discharge pursu- ant to the union-security clause in its contract with the Employer. Responding, the Employer rejected the Guild's demand. It explained that Bushong had resigned from the Guild on December 13, 1977, and, therefore, "was under no obligation to continue his union member- ship." Thereafter, the Guild filed a grievance with the Employer charging the Employer with violating the con- tractual union-security clause by not discharging Bu- shong. The grievance was rejected. Thereafter, the Guild served notice on the Employer of an attempt to take the grievance to arbitration. Meanwhile, on September 8, 1978, the General Counsel issued the instant complaint. Accordingly, on September 25, 1978, the Employer ad- vised the Guild of its unwillingness to proceed to arbitra- tion because of the pendency of the instant unfair labor practice proceeding. And this is where the matter rested at the time of the hearing in this case. B. Analysis and Concluding Findings Under the Act a union may lawfully demand that an employee pay union dues as a condition of an employ- ment only where there is an express contractual obliga- tion, permissible under the proviso to Section 8(a)( 3), re- quiring that he do so. 5 Prior to the expiration of the 1974-77 collective-bargaining contract, Bushong, by virtue of his then membership in the Guild, had been subject to such a contractual obligation under the union- security provision of that contract. However, Bushong's compulsory union-membership obligations under that contract lapsed on November 15, 1977, when the con- tract expired without any agreement by the parties for its extension.6 Accordingly, Bushong could not thereafter be required to remain a member of the Guild or pay dues to it as a condition of continued employment unless and until he later again became bound by a contractual and statutorily permissible union-security obligation to do so. The primary question presented in this case is whether Bushong was subjected to such a renewed obligation under the union-security clause of the 1977-78 contract which the Employer and the Guild executed on Decem- ber 21, 1977. All parties to this proceeding agree that the determination in this case of whether, as alleged in the complaint, the Guild violated Section 8(b)(l) and 8(b)(2) of the Act, by threatening Bushong with discharge and by attempting to cause his discharge for nonpayment of dues, turns principally on the answer to that question. Basically, it is the General Counsel's position that on December 21, 1977, the execution date of the 1977-80 contract, Bushong, having theretofore resigned from the Guild, occupied the status of a nonmember, and, as such, was exempt under the union-security clause of that con- 6 See, e.g., Trico Products Corp., 238 NLRB No. 184 (1978). 6 It is well settled that "a]lthough most terms and conditions of em- ployment continue during the hiatus period after the expiration of a col- lective-bargaining agreement, a union-security clause does not survive absent a contractual provision continuing the agreement." Trico Producrs Corporation, supra, sl, op., p. 8. tract from any obligation to join, maintain membership in, or pay dues to the Guild as a condition of employ- ment. The Guild takes issue with the General Counsel's assertion that Bushong occupied such an exempt status. Pointing to the recital in the preamble of the 1977-80 contract that the contract was to be "effective December 14, 1977," the Guild insists that Bushong's membership status on that date, rather than on the contract's execu- tion date, controls the applicability to him of the union- security clause's maintenance-of-membership provision. The Guild argues that as Bushong's resignation was not submitted to it until December 15, 1977, he was still a member of the Guild on the December 14, 1977, "effec- tive" date of the contract and, accordingly, he must be found to fall within the ambit of the contract's mainte- nance-of-membership provision. Alternatively, the Guild argues that even if the December 21 execution date is found to be controlling, Bushong, by paying to the Guild, after that date, union dues for the month of De- cember 1977 must be found to have in effect canceled or rescinded by his earlier resignation, thereby justifying Respondent in taking the position that he remained a member of the Guild subject to the maintenance-of-mem- bership obligation set out by the 1977-80 contract. For the reasons stated below, I find that the facts of this case and the law applicable thereto support the Gen- eral Counsel's position and require rejection of the Guild's opposing contentions. To begin with, the language of the union-security clause does not support Respondent's contention that membership in Respondent on the contract's retroactive "effective" date, rather than its execution date, controls the applicability of the maintenance-of-membership re- quirement. As appears from a reading of the union-secu- rity clause, which has been set forth in full above, only employees covered by the agreement "who are on the date hereof; or who during the term of this Agreement shall become members of the Guild," are required to maintain membership in the Guild. (Emphasis supplied.) And in its closing sentence, the union-security clause de- clares the obverse of that requirement in the following specific terms: "Present employees covered by this Agreement who are not members of the Guild on the date hereof, are not required as a condition of employ- ment to join the Guild or maintain membership therein." (Emphasis supplied.) As found above the 1977-80 con- tract was not only executed on December 21, 1977, but is specifically so dated at the foot thereof. Given its usual and dictionary meaning, the phrase "the date hereof' can reasonably be interpreted only as having references to the date the document bears. There is no evidence in this record that the contracting parties intended to give that phrase a different meaning. Nor is there any necessary inconsistency between having other contract terms made retroactively effective and yet tying the contractual maintenance-of-membership requirement to membership in the Guild on the contract's execution date. In constru- ing the parties' contractual attempt, I find no compelling reason in this case for deviating from the literal meaning of the wording used in the union-security clause. Ac- cordingly, I am satisfied and find in agreement with the General Counsel that the contractual maintenance-of- --- PEORIA NEWSPAPER GUILD, LOCAL 86 91 membership requirement here in question is fairly to be read as being confined to employees who were members of the Guild on the execution date of the contract or who later became such members. 7 To give the maintenance-of-membership provision here in question a different construction would not aid the Guild at all. It would only serve to render that provision invalid, at least as it relates to Bushong, and would thus only lead to the same end result in this case. It has long been established that the Act does not sanction the retro- active application of a union-security clause and that the date of a contract's execution, and not its retroactive "ef- fective" date, must govern the validity of such a clause even where the contract expressly provides otherwise. 8 The Board has not limited the application of that princi- ple to situations in which a union has invoked such a ret- roactive provision to enforce the payment of dues that accrued during a time prior to the contract's execution date when no contractual union-security obligation was in force. The Board has also held that principle to be ap- plicable in cases, such as the one at hand, where the ret- roactive maintenance-of-membership provision was in- voked to enforce the payment of dues accruing after the contract's execution date against employees who, al- though members of the union on the contract's retroac- tive effective date, were no longer so on its execution date, having effectively resigned from the Union during the intervening period.9 The Guild, in its brief, acknowledges the existence of the precedents on which counsel for the General Coun- sel rests her case. But it urges that this case should be treated differently because the parties here had already reached a tentative agreement on the terms of the 1977- 80 contract before the Guild received Bushong's resigna- tion; because the maintenance-of-membership provision here in question operated prospectively from the date of that tentative agreement; because the agreement was then ratified and executed without change; and because, in this factual setting, the Board, by permitting "dissident members" to escape from the financial obligations of union membership after the negotiators reached a meet- ing of the minds at the bargaining table on the terms of the contract, would be impairing the "right" accorded by the Act to a unit to protect itself, through collective bargaining, against "free riders." 10 Regardless of any I Although the union's security clause also required "newly employed" employees-defined as those hired subsequent to "the effective date of this Agreement"-to become members of Respondent within 60 days of their employment and thereafter to maintain their membership in Respon- dent, it is undisputed that Bushong was not a newly hired employee sub- ject to that provision. 8 See, for example, International Chemical Workers Union, Local No. 112. AFL-CIO, CLC (America Cyanamid Company), 237 NLRB 864 (1978); Cleveland Typographical Union, Local 53, affiliated with Internation- al Typographical Union. AFL-CIO (Plain Dealer Publishing Co.). 225 NLRB 1281 (1976). enfd. 575 F.2d 1196 (6th Cir. 1978); Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers Union. AFL-CIO and its Local 8- 718 (United Nuclear Corporation Fuels Division), 148 NLRB 629, 630, 636 (1964); May Depart- ment Stores, Inc.. Kaufmann Division, 133 NLRB 1096, 1109 (1961): Co- lonie Fiber Co., 71 NLRB 354 (1946). 9 See Oil. Chemical and Atomic Workers Union (United Nuclear Corp.). supra at 630, 636; May Department Stores, Inc., Kaufmann Division. supra at 1096, 1109; Colonie Fiber Co., supra, and see also Nordberg Selah Fruit. Inc., ordberg-Wesbrook Fruit, Inc., 126 NLRB 714, 715 (1960). 'o The words in quotes in this paragraph are from the Guild's brief have, the short answer to it is that it cannot be recon- ciled with the strictly limited authority the statute grants employers and unions contractually to restrict employees in the normal exercise of their Section 7 right to refrain from membership in or support of a union. Under the Act employees may be subjected by contract to the obli- gation of paying union dues as a condition of employ- ment only if either they are already members of the con- tracting union when the contract achieves binding effect,"' or they are allowed at least a 30-day grace period to become members of the Union. Here neither of these prerequisites was met in the case of Bushong. The tentative agreement reached by the parties on the night of December 13 was not a final one but was conditioned upon its ratification by the Guild's membership. It did not become an effective contract binding on Bushong until its execution by the parties on December 21,12 or at the very earliest, arguably, on December 16, 1977, when it was ratified by the Guild's membership. Bushong's res- ignation, however, was submitted to the Guild and became effective priorto the contract's ratification. At that time, his status vis-a-vis the Guild was precisely the same as that of an employee who had never been a member of the Guild and who, under the statute, could not be subjected to a union-security obligation without being accorded the statutory grace period-a grace period for which the union-security clause here involved made no provision for employees in Bushong's category. Left for consideration is the Guild's contention that Bushong's payment of union dues after he resigned oper- ated in effect as a cancellation or recision of his earlier resignation, thereby justifying the Guild treating him as an employee subject to the contract's maintenance-of- membership provision. As found above, Bushong, fol- lowing his resignation, paid dues to the Guild for only I month-the month of December 1977. Bushong's expla- nation for paying his dues for that month was that he had been a member of the Guild for part of that month and wanted to "square" his account with the Guild. That explanation cannot be rejected as inherently incredible. Bushong's resignation notice to the Guild in his letter of December 13 was clear and unequivocal; and, except for his action in paying his December dues, there is no evi- dence in the record that he ever indicated by words or conduct an intent or desire to repudiate his resignation. His refusal to pay dues beyond the month of December serves to show that he regarded his resignation as a firm one. On all relevant evidence, I am satisfied and find that Bushong's post-resignation payment of his December dues was not inconsistent with and did not impair the ef- fectiveness of his resignation. Accordingly, I reject the Guild's contention in this respect as wanting in merit. To summarize, I conclude and find that Bushong re- signed his membership in the Guild at a time when no " See Krause Milling Co., 97 NLRB 536, 539 (1951). See also Anderson Express. Ltd., 126 NLRB 798, 802-803 (1960). t2 In Anderson Express Co., supra, the Board, in passing on the validity of a union-shop and maintenance-of-membership clause contained in a contract bearing a "retroactive effective date" which did not go back beyond the date on which the contracting employer had made a commit- ment about the very contract terms it ultimately executed, ruled that the contract became "actually effective" on its execution date, and not, as the parties had contended, on its "retroactive effective date." 92 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD contract binding him to continued membership was in force; that he did not renew his membership thereafter; that he was not obligated by the union-security clause in the Guild's 1977-80 contract with the Employer to main- tain membership in or to pay dues to the Guild as a con- dition of employment; and that the Guild therefore en- gaged in conduct violative of Section 8(b)(1)(A) and 8(b)(2) of the Act by threatening him with discharge and by attempting to cause the Employer to discharge him for nonpayment of dues. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The Employer, Peoria Journal Star, is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 2. Respondent, Peoria Newspaper Guild, Local 80, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3. By threatening James Bushong with discharge and by attempting to cause the Employer to discharge Bu- shong because of his failure to pay union dues that he was under no legal obligation to pay as a condition of employment, Respondent engaged in unfair labor prac- tices within the meaning of Section 8(b)(1)(A) and (2) of the Act. 4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Sec- tion 2(6) and (7) of the Act. THE REMEDY Having found that the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in certain unfair labor practices, I shall rec- ommend that it be required to cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law, and the entire record in this case and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, I hereby issue the following recommended: ORDER ' 3 The Respondent, Peoria Newspaper Guild, Local 86, Peoria, Illinois, its officers, agents, successors, and as- signs, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Threatening to or attempting to cause the Employ- er, Peoria Journal Star, to discharge James Bushong or any other employee of the Employer pursuant to the maintenance-of-membership clause of its 1977-80 collec- tive-bargaining contract with the Employer in order to exact payment of dues for months within the term of the contract from Bushong or any other employee hired by the Employer before December 14, 1977, who was not a member of the Union on December 21, 1977, when the aforesaid contract was executed. 13 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, be adopted by the Board and become its findings, conclusions, and Order, and all objections thereto shall be deemed waived for all purposes. (b) In any like or related manner restraining or coerc- ing employees in the exercise of their rights under Sec- tion 7 of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action which is found necessary to effectuate the purposes of the Act: (a) Notify James Bushong, in writing, that he is under no obligation under the terms of the union-security clause of its collective-bargaining agreement with the Employer, as executed on December 21, 1977, to main- tain membership in the Union and/or to pay dues to the Union as a condition of employment and that it will not threaten or attempt to cause the Employer to discharge him for nonmembership in the Union and/or for failing to pay dues to the Union. (b) Post at its business office and all meeting halls copies of the notice marked "Appendix. " 4 Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 33, after being duly signed by an authorized representative, shall be posted by it immediately upon re- ceipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to members are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (c) Mail to the Regional Director for Region 33, signed copies of the notice for posting by the Employer, Employer being willing, in places where notices to its employees are customarily posted. (d) Notify the Regional Director for Region 33, in writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith. 14 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." APPENDIX NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES AND MEMBERS POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government WE WILL NOT threaten or attempt to cause the Employer, Peoria Journal Star, to discharge James Bushong, or any other employee of the Employer pursuant to the maintenance-of-membership clauses of our 1977-80 collective-bargaining contract with the Employer in order to exact payment of dues for months within the term of the contract from Bu- shong or any other employee hired by the Employ- er before December 14, 1977, who was not a member of our Union on December 21, 1977, when the said contract was executed. WE WI.I. NOT threaten to cause the Employer to discharge James Bushong for nonmembership in our Union and/or failing to pay dues to our Union. PEORIA NEWSPAPER GUILD, LOCAL 86 93 WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner re- strain or coerce employees in the exercise of their rights under Section 7 of the Act. WE WILL notify James Bushong, in writing, that he is under no obligation under the terms of the union-security clause of our collective-bargaining agreement with the Employer, as executed on De- cember 21, 1977, to maintain membership in our union and/or to pay dues to our union as a condi- tion of employment. PEORIA NEWSPAPER GUILD, LOCAL 86