Columbia Typographical Union No. 101

(COI.UMBIA T'YPO(iRAPHICAI. UNION NO. 101 Columbia Typographical Union No. 101, a/w Interna- tional Typographical Union, AFL-CIO and Photo- Typography, Inc. Case 5-CB 2675 Julys 24. 1979 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN FANNING AND) M1 MB RS JNKINS AND MURPIIY Upon a charge filed on May 26, 1978. b Photo- Typography. Inc., the General Counsel of the Na- tional Labor Relations Board, by the Regional Direc- tor for Region 5, issued a complaint and notice of hearing on July 25. 1978, against Columbia Typo- graphical Union No. 101. a/w International Typo- graphical Union, AFL CIO, herein Respondent. The complaint alleged that Respondent had engaged in, and was engaging in, unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(b)( I )(A) of the Act. Respondent filed an answer to the complaint in which it admitted certain allegations of the complaint and denied oth- ers, including the commission of' any unfair labor practices. On March 6, 1979, the parties executed a stipula- tion of facts. They waived a hearing before an admin- istrative law judge, the making of findings of fact and conclusions of law, and the issuance of an administra- tive law judge's decision, and agreed, in lieu thereof, that the case be transferred to the Board for findings of fact, conclusions of law, and the entry of an appro- priate Order by the Board based on a record consist- ing solely of the stipulation of facts and exhibits at- tached thereto. On April 5, 1979, the Board approved the stipula- tion, ordered the case transferred to the Board. and set a date for the filing of briefs. Thereafter, the Gen- eral Counsel, Photo-Typography., and Respondent filed briefs. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(h) 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. Upon the basis of the stipulation, the briefs, and the entire record in this case, the Board makes the following: FINDINGS OE FACT I. THE BUSINESS OF HE EMPI.LOYER Photo-Typography, Inc., is a Maryland corpora- tion engaged in the printing and typesetting business. Its office and place of business is located at 35 K Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. During the preceding 12 months. a representative period, it purchased and received, in interstate commerce, materials and sup- plies valued in excess of $50,000 from points located outside the District of Columbia. The parties stipu- lated. and we find, that at all times material Photo- Typography has been an employer engaged in com- merce and in operations affecting commerce as de- fined in Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act, and that it will effectuate the policies of the Act to assert juris- diction. 1I. IlE L.ABOR ()R(;ANIZA1I)N Respondent is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 111. THE I NIFAIR I.ABOR PRA( IES Photo-Typography, through its membership in multiemployer bargaining group, was signatory to a collective-bargaining agreement with Respondent which expired on February 10. 1977.' During nego- tiations for a new agreement. Respondent, on June 29, engaged in a strike against some of the members of the multiemployer group. On July 1,. Photo-Typog- raphy and other nonstruck members of the employer group locked out their employees. During the weekend of July 1, Photo-Typography moved three machines used for the production of coldtpe from its plant to the Harwood, Maryland, home of one of its officials. Thereafter, from the week ending July 10 to the week ending July 31, employees Henry S. Coe, Melvin 1,. Kaplan. Stephen J. Smith. and Stephen P. Wimberly, all members of Respon- dent, performed bargaining-unit work at the Har- wood location. Between Juls 21 and 29, all four em- ployees mailed resignations to Respondent. In addition,. employee Joseph Loch, who had not been performing struck work. mailed a resignation to Re- spondent on August 8. However. Respondent, by let- ter, advised each that he could not resign in "such manner" and directed each to article XIV, sections 1. 2, 3, 4, and 5, of the bylaws of the International Ty- pographical Union. Between August I and 18, Coe. Kaplan, imberly, Smith, and Loch crossed Respondent's picket line and returned to work at Photo-Typography's District of Columbia plant. On November 28, each employee was notified that he had been found guilty of a charge filed by William Boarman, Respondent's president. and was fined $5,000. The General Counsel and Photo-Typography con- tend that Respondent violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) by fining the employees for the work each performed af- 'All dates are in 1977 243 NLRB No. 111 675 DEC(ISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARI) ter tendering a valid resignation to Respondent. Re- spondent contends that the resignations did not com- ply with its bylaws, and therefore, that it could lawfully fine each as a member for violating internal union rules against strikebreaking. Respondent also contends that, even assuming that the five employees tendered valid resignations, there is no evidence that the fines were imposed for work each performed after he resigned as opposed to work each performed while a member. We agree with the General Counsel. Article XIV, section 4, of the bylaws of the Interna- tional Typographical Union governs resignations from Respondent and states that: A member performing any work over which the ITU has jurisdiction shall not be issued a with- drawal card. No member may resign except upon written application, stating the reasons therefor, addressed to the local union of which he is a member, and with consent of the local union. Any action by the local union upon such application may be appealed to the Executive Council as herein provided. In a recent decision2 involving Respondent, the Board held that this provision did not bar resignations since it conditions resignation on the consent of the local union, without setting an objective standard. In the absence of a valid provision governing resignation, the five employees were free to resign their member- ship at will, and their resignations were effective upon receipt. Union discipline of former members for exer- cising their Section 7 right to return to work during a strike following resignation violates Section 8(b)(l)(A). 3 The only remaining issue is whether the fines imposed on the former members were for post- resignation conduct and, therefore, in these circum- stances, unlawful. Respondent received Loch's resignation on August 10 but, as its November 28 notice to Loch states, fined him on the basis of a charge filed by President Boarman. That charge, dated August 30, alleged that Loch performed unit work "on or about August I, 1977, and thereafter." Since the parties stipulated that Loch, in fact, performed no unit work until August 15, Loch's fine necessarily relates to work he per- formed after resigning and thereby violates Section 8(b)(1)(A).4 2 TKB International Corporation r/a Hendricks-Miller Typographical Com- pany. 240 NLRB 1082 (1979). See also Coast Valleys Typographical Union Local 650 (The Daily Breeze, Division ofCoplev Press. Inc.). 221 NLRB 1048 (1975). 3N.L.R B. v. Granite State Joint Board. Textile Workers Union of America, Local 1029 AFL-CIO International Paper Bor Machine Coa1 409 U.S 213 (1972). 4 Ibid Coe, Kaplan, Wimberly, and Smith, unlike Loch, each performed unit work before resigning from Re- spondent. Respondent received Smith's resignation on July 26, Kaplan's on July 27. Coe's on July 28. and Wimberly's on July 29. Thereafter, two charges were filed against each. The first charge was filed by member Robert Porter on August 8 and alleged that each employee had worked since the start of the lock- out. The second charge, filed by President Boarman on August 30. alleged that each employee had per- formed unit work "on or about August 1, 1977, and thereafter." However, the four employees were not fined on the basis of Porter's charge. Rather, each employee was tried on President Boarman's charges and, on November 28, each was notified that he had been found guilty of that charge, was expelled from Respondent, and was fined $5,000. Since the employ- ees were fined for performing unit work "on or about August 1, 1977, and thereafter," and each employee's resignation was effective before August I, the fines are for the postresignation exercise of a Section 7 right and thereby violate Section 8(b)(1)(A). REMEDY Having found that Respondent has engaged in cer- tain unfair labor practices. we shall order it to cease and desist therefrom. To effectuate the policies of the Act, we shall order Respondent to rescind the unlaw- ful fines, to refund any money which may have been paid to it as a result of the fines, with interest thereon to be computed in accordance with the formula set forth in Florida Steel Corporation, 231 NLRB 651 (1977),6 and to post notices. ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Rela- tions Board hereby orders that the Respondent, Co- lumbia Typographical Union No. 101, a/w Interna- tional Typographical Union, AFL-CIO, Washington, D.C., its officers, agents, and representatives, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Restraining or coercing employees who have resigned from, and are no longer members of, Re- spondent, in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act by imposing fines on employees because of their post-resignation conduct 'Letters to the employees, dated October 25, advised them that Respon- dent's membership had voted to proceed to trial on the charges filed by Boarman. Contrary to Respondent, those letters and the November 28 noti- fication of the fines to the employees, are not only sufficient evidence, but the best evidence, that the employees were, in fact, fined solely on the basis of Boarman's charge. 6See. generally, Isis Plumbing & Heauing Co., 138 NLRB 716 (1962). 676 (OLUMBIA IYP(XiRAPH(AIAL UNION NO. 101 in working at Photo-Typography, Inc., during the lockout which began on July 1. 1977. (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 designed to effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Rescind the fines levied against Henry S. Coe, Melvin L. Kaplan, Stephen J. Smith. Stephen P. Wimberly, and Joseph Loch because of their postres- ignation work for Photo-Typography, Inc.. during the lockout which began on July 1. 1977, and refund any money which may have been paid as a result of such fines, plus interest. (b) Post at its business office and meeting halls copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix."7 Copies of said notice, on forms provided b the Re- gional Director for Region 5. after being duly signed by Respondent's authorized representative, shall be posted by Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to members customarily are posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respon- dent to insure that said notices are not altered, de- faced, or covered by any other material. (c) Mail to the Regional Director for Region 5, signed copies of said notice for posting at Photo-Ty- pography, Inc.. if the Company be willing, in places where notices to employees customarily are posted. Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional I In the event that this Order is enforced bh a Judgment of a I. nited States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by Order oif the National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board." Director, after being duly signed by Respondent's au- thorized representative, shall be returned forthwith to the Regional Director. (d) Notify the Regional Director for Region 5, in writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith. APPENDIX N()Oll( To EMPI ()YEES AND MEMBERS P()OSl-I) BY ORI)i.R ()I Ill. NAIIO)NA L LAB()R RIi.AIIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government WI1 WILL. NOI restrain or coerce employees who have resigned from our Union and who, in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, work after their resignation at Pho- to-Typography. Inc., during the lockout which began July I., 1977. by imposing fines on them lbr working after their resignation. WF, WILL NOr. in any like or related manner. restrain or coerce employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act. WE wi.lt. rescind the fines levied against Hen- ry S. Coe, Melvin L. Kaplan, Stephen J. Smith, Stephen P. Wimberly. and Joseph Loch for working for Photo-Typography. Inc.. after their resignations from our Union during the lockout which began July 1, 1977, and WE WILL refund any money paid as a result of such fines. plus interest. CO() MBIA TYPOG(;RAPHI(AL UNION N(). 101, AII.IAIEI) W}IIH INrERNAIONAI. TY- P(iRAPII( AI. UlNION. AFL-CIO 677