Machinists District Lodge 720

MACHINISTS DISRI' I IOD)i(;F 720 International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, Aeronautical Industrial District Ldge 720 (McDonnell Douglas Corporation) and Georgia C. Durrance and Ralph Crandall. Cases 31 ('B 2868 and 31 CB 2917 July 26, 1979 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN FANNING ANI) MFMB RS Ptl-I.tl () AND TRI.tSDAI.I On April 18, 1979. Administrative Law Judge Mar- tin S. Bennett issued the attached Decision in this proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent filed exceptions and a supporting brief, and the Charging Parties filed an answering brief. The Charging Parties also filed cross-exceptions and a brief in support of their cross- 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, cross-ex- ceptions, and briefs and has decided to affirm the rul- ings, findings, and conclusions' of the Administrative Law Judge and to adopt his recommended Order.2 ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Rela- tions Board adopts as its Order the recommended Or- der of the Administrative Law Judge and hereby or- ders that the Respondent. International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers. Aeronautical Industrial District Lodge 720, Torrance. California. its officers, agents, and representatives, shall take the action set forth in the said recommended Order. In affirming the Administrative Law Judge's Decision, we find it unnec- essary to relI upon. and thus do not adopt. his comments concerning Lxwal No. 171, Association of Western Pulp and Paper Workers (Roise (Cascade Cor poration), 165 NLRB 971 (1967. 2 In their cross-exceptions. the Charging Parties request that the Adminis- trative Law Judge's recommended remedy and Order he modified to give them the alternative. under art. V, sec l(f). of the goserning collective- bargaining agreement, of paying nothing to Respondent in satisfaction t their financial obligations to the Union during the months ot their unem- ployment. We find no merit in this contention The Administrative t.as Judge correctly tailored the remedy and Order to his finding that Respon- dent. under its constitution, unlawfully permitted union members, hut not nonmembers, to meet their unimon-securit obligations h paying Respondent 50 cents per month while unenplohed Neither alleged In the complaint nor litigated at the hearing was an) contention that Respondent siolated Sec 8(bX IXA) bh applying art V. sec l(f) of the contract to union members but not nonmembers. DEC(ISION SIAIIMINtlI t) ril (S1 MARII'. S. BI.' 111. Administratixe I.as Judge: Il his matter w as heard in Los Angeles. ('alifornia. on August 3. 1978.1 'he consolidated complaint. issued Ma,, 26. iand based upon charges filed bh Georgia ('. I)urrancc. an md- vidual in Case 31 CB 2868 on March 22. \lay 12. and Mlay 2. and b Ralph Crandall. an indiiidual, in Case 31 ('B 2917 on Nlay 3 alleges iolations of Section 8(b I ( A) A.' the National Labhor Relations Act. as amennded, h Re- spondent International Association of Machinists and Aerospace W'orkers. Aeronautical Industrial D)istrict Lodige 720. Briefs have been submitted by the parties and bh Na- tional Right to Work Legal Defense :tounidation. Inc Upon the entire record in the case, and rom m% obsern a- lion of the itnesses, I make the following: IlN)lN(iS 1 FAt I 1. JRISI)lt i )iN l i 1l'),II S Douglas Aircraft ('ompan. ;l component it' Mcl)onnlell D)ouglas Corporation. herein called the Emploc er. is a Maryland corporation with an office and place of business at Los Angeles. California. where it is engaged in the manu- facture and sale of militar 5 and commercial aircraift. It an- nually sells and ships goods and provides services :alued in excess of $50,000 directly to customers located outside the State of. California. I find that the operations of the m- ployer affect commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 11. ti ABOR OR(iANIZAIION INsV(I, ID) Respondent [inion. International Association of Machin- ists and Aerospace Workers. Aeronautical Industrial Dis- trict Lodge 720. is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 25) of the Act. 111. ItH: NI'AIR LABOR PRA(II( 1:S A. The Issue Whether Respondent Union by refusing to grant unem- ployment stamp benefits, which reduce the cost of ermplo- ees' dues obligation, to two nonmember dues equivalent fee payers thereby discriminated between union members and nonunion employees of the Employer in a manner affecting tenure of employ ment in violation of Section 8Xlb) 1)1A) of the Act. B. The Facts The relevant facts are neither complicated nor generall[' in dispute. A collective-bargaining agreement in effect at all t nles, ortherise st.ited. all dates ccurred I 197 243 NLRB No. 128 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD times material herein between the Employer and Respon- dent Union contains a union-shop provision providing in pertinent part in article v union security. section I con- ditions of employment, that: (a) An employee in the Bargaining Unit on the ef- fective date of this Agreement who is a member of the U;nion shall be required as a condition of continued employment to continue membership in the Union for the duration of this Agreement to the extent of tender- ing the membership dues uniformly required as a con- dition of retaining membership in the Union. (b) An employee in the Bargaining Unit who is not a member of the Union on the effective date of this Agreement shall be required, as a condition of contin- ued employment, to become a member of the Union within ten (10) calendar days after the thirtieth (30th) calendar day following the efective date of this Agree- ment, and shall remain a member of the Union to the extent of tendering an initiation/reinslatement fee where required and the membership dues normally re- quired as a condition of acquiring or retaining mem- bership in the Union for the duration of this Agree- ment. * 0() An employee who shall tender an original initi- ation fee (if not already a member) or reinstatement fees if required and the periodic dues uniformly re- quired as a condition of acquiring or retaining mem- bership shall be deemed to be a member of the Union for purposes of this Article. (k) Membership in the Union. hen used in this Agreement, is satisfied by the tender, either through a cheek-off authorization or directlv to the Union, of uni- formly required initiation or reinstatement fees and monthly dues. The signing by an employee of the Applica- tionfor Membership card is not a mandatory condition of emplqvment with the Company. Thus, pursuant to current law, the parties' union-shop provision, while requiring all employees to become "mem- bers" of the Union, defines "membership" for purposes of continued employment solely in terms of paying the equiv- alence of uniform union dues and fees required of all em- ployees. Under the agreement. if an employee's dues and fees, or their equivalence, become delinquent by not being paid for over 2 months, the employee is subject to a rein- statement fee, or the equivalence of a reinstatement fee, equal to 3 months' dues. Evidence shows that in 1977 dues equaled $15.70 per month and in the beginning of 1978 were raised to $17.20 per month. Pursuant to the parties' agreement, before an employee is terminated for failure to pay dues and fees or their equivalence, the Union is to notify the Employer of the delinquency in writing, the Em- ployer next notifies the employee of his delinquency, and the employee in turn has 48 hours to tender the dues or reinstatement fee before actual termination. The constitution of Respondent Union contains the fol- lowing provisions on page 127 thereof: ARTICLE G Unemployment Stamps Purpose SEt'. 1. Unemployment stamps are issued tor the purpose of aiding members to maintain their good standing. Eligihilit 3 SEC. 2. Unemployment stamps shall not be issued to members who are on vacation or engaged in any business or profession outside of the trade. Unemploy- ment stamps shall be issued to members pursuant to the provisions of Sec. 3 of this Art., at a minimum charge of fifty cents per month: twenty-five cents to be transmitted to the G.L. [Grand Lodge]. the remainder to be retained by the L.L. [Local Lodge]. Conditions of Issue SEC. 3. Members who are unemployed for the ma- jor portion of any month (the major portion of the month shall depend on the major portion of the regular working days in any month), and therefrom suffer a total or proportionate loss of earnings. due to separa- tion from employment, layoff or furlough, sickness or disability, are entitled to unemployment stamps for that month and are thereby excused from the payment of regular dues, upon complying with the following conditions relating thereto: They shall register their names and addresses in the out-of-work book or communicate with the F.S. [Fi- nancial Secretary], S.T. [Secretary-Treasurer], or busi- ness representative of the L.L. stating they are unem- ployed or sick or disabled, any time within a two- month period. The matter of reporting is entirely the member's responsibility. Commencing April 1, 1974. a member's monthly dues or special levies must be paid within the 2 months' limit provided for in Sec. 14. Art. I. The F.S. or S.T. shall place the unemployment stamp in the square of the month next following that of the month in which the last dues stamp was placed. Members who have received unemployment stamps shall, immediately upon securing employment, report to the F.S., S.T.. or business representative. Violations SEC. 4. Members who violate any of the provisions of this Art., or who obtain unemployment stamps by false pretenses, or misrepresentation of the facts, shall be guilty of misconduct and subject to charges, trial and penalty therefor as hereafter provided in Art. 1. of this Constitution. This provision allows members of the Union to obtain monthly unemployment stamps, fbr 50 cents each. which 698 r MA(CHINISTS DISTRICT I.ODG(i 720 can be used in lieu of regular dues in months where the employee is off the active pay roll fr the major part of the month because of layoff. sickness. or disability. Georgia I)urrance. herein called Durrance. has been em- ployed by the Employer since February 1966. She was a member of Respondent Union from that point until Febru- ary 21. 1975. when she resigned during a strike. She was fined $2,075 by Respondent Uinion fir strikehreaking ac- tivities. although the fine was later withdrawn. Since her resignation from Respondent in 1975. Durrance has been a dues and tees equivalence payer. On October 3, 1977, Durrance commenced an occupa- tional disability leave because of nerve damage and re- mained on leave until May i. 1978. During that leave pe- riod, she did not work and, not being on active employment, did not have deductions made b the Em- ployer pursuant to checkoff authorization. In the latter halt of December 1977, Durrance received from Respondent Union a notice entitled "Courtesy Notice of Arrearage": the intent of this is to advise an employee of the status and possibility of lapse of his or her "membership," which could subject him or her to the reinstatement requirements? Shortly after receiving the notice. Durrance went to the financial office of the Union in Torrance. California. where she spoke with a clerk named C. Curtis.' Durrance. as she testified, informed Curtis that she had received the above notice, that she was on sick leave and desired to pay 50 cents per month for sick leave dues in November and De- cember 1977. Curtis, when informed that Durrance was not a union member, refused to accept the tendered dollar on the ground that unemployment stamps were "only for members." In so refusing, Curtis turned to another clerical for corroboration and the latter replied, "Yes, only union members have the 50 cents. Nonunion members pay the full amount." Durrance stated she wanted to check into this, and Curtis mentioned that the clerical staffs Christmas vacation was imminent and that Durrance should pay her dues prior to the end of December so as to avoid a rein- statement fee. Shortly thereafter. Durrance and her husband. Richard Durrance, had occasion to speak about Durrance's dues to Dave Brooks. a union chairman.' Brooks stated his belief that "all employees should pay the same amount." Richard Durrance subsequently gave Brooks two checks dated De- cember 20. 1977, in the sum of $15.70 each to cover his wife's November and December dues. Brooks said he would go to the union hall and pay Durrance's dues. He said if he could get them to accept the $1 he would, and if not. he would get them the two checks. Brooks did the latter and received a receipt for $31.40 which he gave to 2 Ted Neima, Jr.. Respondent Union's secretary-treasurer. and an admil- ted agent of Respondent who was in charge of maintaining membership records and accounting for and processing finances of the District Lodge. testified that such notices of arrearage are uniformly sent to both delinquent members and nonmembers. Secretary-Treasurer Neima testified that one of the employees on his clerical staff who processed dues and other tenders of fees was named C Curtis. Neima also testified. albeit in a less than clear manner. that he in- structed Curtis to tell Durrance she was not qualified for the unemployment stamps. I therefore find that C. Curtis is an agent of the Respondent nion acting on its behalf ' A union chairman is a position similar to union seward Richard Durrance. telling him he was unable to see any one who could explain wh l)urrance could not get the unem- ployment stamps. On about FebruarN 27, Durrance acain recei . ed a notice of arrearage, this time in regard to her January and F:ebru- arv 1978 dues and. in response. sent a letter to Union Secre- tary-Treasurer Ted Neima. herein called Neima. adising that she as disabled t'r an indefinite period, had not worked in January or February and was. therefore. eligible under a recent bulletin the Lodge had posted' for the "un- employment dues." She enclosed a check tr $1 to cover January and FebruarN 1978 at the prescribed rate. On March 13. Durrance sent another letter to Neinma stating she had discovered she was not obligated to pas any dues while not actively emplo'ed and therefore. was re- questing Respondent Union to return her payments foir No- vember ($15.70). December ($15.70). January (50 cents), and February (50 cents), these totaline $32.40. B3 letter dated March 23. Neima responded that "Non- members are not entitled to the privileges specified under the IAM Constitution. Iherefore your request Ior unem- ployment stamps is denied and your check number 2073 dated February 27. 1978, in the amount of $ 00) is returned herewith," Durrance's November and December pa? ments were not returned, and Durrance paid no further dues dur- ing the period she was on disability. Durrance returned to work on May 1. commenced pasment of full dues, and, as of the date of the hearing. no adverse action had been taken against her by Respondent for any dues delinquent while she was disabled. T he Bulletin read as follows; TO At.l. MEMBERS OF IAM DISIRI(CT LODG(i 720 This notice s to nflrm sou of ai special benefit for members who are unemployed due to lasff. sickness. disahilits or termination 'hi hbene- fit shall not be granted Io members sho are on acation or engaged in any business or profession outside the trade Members who are unemploed the nu/r numhtr .,/ iAilng da., in .. month 50'q plus I I re eligible ,r pay unemploymeni dues at the rate ot 50c in lieu of regular dues ft;r that month Io qualif\ for this benefit. In addition to the ahboe a member must (a) Register his name and address n the out of work xbook or commu- nicate with the Secretar-Treasurer of the District Iodge stating he is unemplosed. sick or dlsabled (h) The application for "unemployment stamp" benefit must be made any time within a two month period which includes the nionth fIor which he is applying. Failure to appls and make payment within this period will void the eligibility of the member to appls lor this benefit The member will therefore lapse and be subject to a reinstatement ee All monthly dues and fees must be paid through thie month immediatelN prior to the month for which application is made (cl The matter of reporting is entirely the member's responsihlht As it is the policy of the Secretary-Treasurer's office to extend this benefit to all eligible members. we strongly urge you to make application and payment in a timely manner. If you have any questions concerning your eligibilits or require an assistance in making application. please call the Financial Office mme- diately Our courteous staff will be read) to offer any help sou mas need. International Assciatiln of Machinists and Aerospace Workers-Doi- trict Lodge 720 : Ted Neima Jr Ted Neima Jr SecretarN -Treasurer 699 I)(tlISIONS ()F NA1(t)NA I. LAB()R RELATIONS BOARD Ralph ('randall. herein called ('randall. commenced his employment with the lEmplover in 1966. lie was also a member of' Respondent Unl1ion until ebruary 21. 1975. when he withdrew during the afiorementioned strike. Since that time, he has been anll equivalence fee paver. On Febru- ary 16. 1978. Crandall went on personal leave ofl absence for medical illness. In April he received a "('ourtess Notice of Arrearage." as had [)urrance. (Crandall testified that in response he called the financial office of' Respondent Union and spoke with a clerical who was later identified by Neima as C. Curtis. Crandall testified without contradiction that he requested the "50 cents deduction." but after telling the clerical that he was not a union member, she responded that "You're not eligible ifor this 50 cents. You have to pay the seventeen twenty." That evening, by letter dated April 23. Crandall sent Respondent UJnion a check for $1 to cover 2 months' dues while he was on sick leave. Neima. in a letter dated May I, returned ('randall's check, stating that he was not "qualified" for the unemployment stamp "privi- lege." Since that time. Crandall has not returned to work. has paid no other dues. and has not suffered additional adverse action against him by Respondent. ('. ,4nal.sis and ('otnl'/.csionl, The General ('ounsel contends that by refusing to grant Durrance and Crandall's applications for unemployment stamps, and by requiring them to pay the full equivalency of regular monthly dues while they were on medical disabil- ity leave, Respondent Union has impermissibly discrimi- nated between union and nonunion members in a manner affecting their tenure of employment. Respondent answers that issuance of the unemployment stamp is a privilege of union membership that is permitted by the Act. It argues. also alternatively, that the Union correctly denied issuance of the unemployment stamps to Durrance and Crandall. as they failed to meet all the eligibility requirements for the stamps--specifically, that they failed to agree to subject themselves to internal union discipline as provided in article L of Respondent's constitution should they attempt to de- fraud the Union in obtaining the stamps. For the reasons set out below. I agree with the General Counsel that Re- spondent Union has violated Section 8(b)( I )(A) of the Act by its refusal to issue unemployment stamps to I)urrance and Crandall. Secretary-Treasurer Neima of Respondent testified that Durrance and Crandall were denied issuance of the unem- ployment stamps for two reasons: (I} because unemploy- ment stamps are a privilege granted to a union member to help him maintain his good standing in the Union so as to be eligible to participate in union activities such as attend- ing union meetings, voting, and running r and holding union office: and (2) because Durrance and ('randall after resigning from the Union had not agreed to subject them- selves to union disciplinary proceedings normally appli- cable to union members. The record further reveals that when Durrance and ('randall sought issuance of the unem- ployment stamps, they were independently told that they were not eligible because they were not union members. Thus, it is clear that Respondent Union conditioned issu- ance of its unemployment stamps at least in part upon union membership. In so doing. Respondent impermissible violated Section 8(h)( Il)(A) by discriminating between union and nonunion employees of the Employer in a man- ner affecting tenure of emplo inent.6 Respondent Utnion has advanced the position that this use of the unemployment stamps is a legitimate means to insure the eligibility of' its members for active participation in union activities and therefore the issuance of the stamp is a privilege of membership permitted under the Act: cur- rent Board doctrine suggests otherwise. In Hospital and Vursing lomen Lniplo'c'v ,lntion Lo al 13. A.l (/() (Mounds Park Ilospvital. 228 NLRB 15() ( 1977), a union contract granted members up to 90 days in which to pay delinquent tees and dues while nonmember agency fee pay- ers were restricted to a 10()-day grace period. 'I he Board, in affirming the Administrative l.a Judge's recommended Order, found that this was an impermissible discrimination in tenure of employment, as "[t he statute was designed to assure employees tree choice of whether to assume [thel obligations and reap [thel benefits of' union membership]." Again. in Prestige Bedding ('ompalv, Inc., 212 NLRB 690 (1974). where a union provided medical insurance to its members but not to nonmembers the Board found a viola- tion of Section 8(b)( 1)(A), as "the Union by participating in an insurance plan which was available only for members. thereby restrained unit employees in their right to reJrain /rom he(oting a unaioni mematler." [Emphasis added. Based on these cases I find that where, as here, a union provides benefits, such as unemployment stamps. only to members and not to nonmembers of a bargaining unit, and "[t]he only apparent purpose and effect of such discrimination is to encourage union membership,"' the Union is in violation of Section 8(bh( 1 )(A) of the Act. To the extent that L.ocal No. 171. A ssociation of Western Pulp and Paper YorAlerv (Boise ('aseadle (Corporation), 165 NlRB 971 (1967). relied on by Respondent, is inconsistent with this conclusion and premises a different result, I find that it should not he relied on. as the above-described cases seem lo more accu ratelv reflect current Board doctrine. Respondent, howexer, argues that it did not deny the unemployment stamps to [)urrance and Crandall simply because they were not union members but principally be- cause they did not agree to subject themselves to the inter- nal union disciplinary provisions found in article L of Re- spondent Union's constitution. Pointing to section 4 of the unemployment stamp article, it argues that submission to I While Respondent Union suggests the unemplo) ment stamps do not a- f'ct tenure of employment. as they are not dues but are rather a privilege or benefit of membership, this is merely a semaniic distinction Although Re- spondent', Secretar -I reasurer Neima later stated it was an error in charac- teritation. Neima himself at one point in the hearing described the stamps as "dues." This description is repeated in the Respondent's circulars to employ- ees. The practical effect of the unemployment stamps is to reduce the dues requirement oi eligible members to 50 cents per month in order to help them maintain gotd financial standing in the Union. As go.xd financial standing is a requisite for continued employment under the collective-bargaining agree- ment. the 50-cent stamp has a clear effect on the tenure of employment. This is true despite the fact that Respondent has not yet requested the dismissal of t)urrance and ('randall tr their failure to pay full dues during their unem- ployment. Neima testified that. in the past, employees had been discharged for an arrearage in dues. /7 Iji, and va ur ng in, Emiv uin I. ,oalt 1.. A FI.-('tO (,w% ii Par, Holspital. mipr, 700 MACtHINISIS I)ISTRI( I.()OD)(E 720 internal union disciplinary proceedings is a stated eligibility requirement for the unemployment stamps. Secretary-Trea- surer Neima testified that union membership did not auto- matically qualif a member for unemplon ment stamps. that all employees had to meet all eligihility requirements. and that union members in the past had been disqualified from receiving the stamps for failure to meet a ariet, of eligibil- ity requirements. Examination of the unemployment stamp article. how- ever, suggests that the internal disciplinary section is not an eligibility requirement. The eligibility requirements are clearly delineated in. and appear to he limited to. section 3 of the article entitled "Conditions of Issue," which sets forth both the absence requirements and the proper method for applying for the stamps. The disciplinary provisions are. on the other hand, found in section 4 of the article entitled "Violations" which, as the General Counsel points out. ap- pears to be an enforcement provision that becomes opera- tive only when the stamps have been fraudulently obtained. I therefore find that submittal to internal union disciplinary proceedings is not an eligibility requirement for issuance of the stamps. While Respondent would not he able to use section 4 against nonmembers to enforce the Conditions of Issue, it nonetheless could punish a nonmember employee. who had fraudulently obtained the stamps, b using the enforcement rights of the union-security provision in the collective-bargaining agreement, for the defrauding non- member would not have validly fulfilled his dues and fees equivalency obligation. Assuming arguendo that submittal to the internal disci- plinary provisions is a proper eligibility requirement for is- suance of the stamps. I would still find that Respondent has violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act, as it failed to inform Durrance or Crandall that this was a requirement of issu- ance. As discussed above. I have found that the unemploy- ment stamps clearly affect tenure of employment through their effect on maintenance of membership for purposes of employment. It is settled law that a union has a fiduciary duty toward represented employees to provide them notice of provisions relating to their membership obligations. This principle was originally laid down by the Board in the lead case of Philadelphia Sheraton Corporation 136 NL RB 888. 896 (1962). wherein the Board declared: In our view. when a union requires a new employee to perfect membership under a lawful union-security agreement, it has a duty to notify the employee, at some point, as to what his "membership" obligations are. To permit a union to lawfully request the dis- charge of an employee for failure to meet his dues- paying obligations. when the provisions relating to such obligations are not disclosed to the employee. would be grossly inequitable and contrary to the spirit of the Act. While Philadelphia Sheraton involved an atempt b a union to discharge an employee for failure to meet his dues obligation, and while Respondent has not sought the dis- charge of either charging party in this case. I do not find this diifference to be crucial. In enforcing the Board's Phila- delphia Sheraton order vuh no. N. L.R. B. v. Hotel, Motel andtl (lh L 'plv, -ce.s' nion. l.ocal .56. 4 -I. (10. 320 .2d 254, 258 (3rd (3rd (ir. 1963). the court of appeals explained the basis for the Board's rule ats fallosas: Ihe comprehensive authorits vested in Ihe union. as the exclusi e agent of the emploees. leads inevitablx to employee dependence on the labor organization. Ihere necessarilI arises out of this dependence a fidu- ci.ar' dilt that the union deal fatirls with employees. At the minimum, this duty requires that the union in- form the employee of his obligations in order that the employee may take whatever action is necessar'y to protect his job tenure. This rationale supports the existence of' al atfirmativte dut to disclose provisions relating to membership obligations apart from any demand for discharge. The Board has applied this doctrine both to the failure to inform the employees of their union membership obligation entirely and to the failure to inform the emploees of the specifics of the obligation. As the unemplo ment stalimps atffect tenure of employment. and eligibility requirements are a specific thereof. Respondent tinion was under ilan oh- ligation to inform Durrance and Crandall of the disciplin- ary provision's applicability to the conditions of issue. No e'idence was presented that Respondent intormed the Charging Parties that the principal reason fttor their ineligi- bility was the failure to submit themselves to section 4 of the stamp article. Indeed. Respondent. despite oral and written communications with both employees, noticeabhl\ failed to provide them with such information.' I therefore find that even if the disciplinary provision of section 4 can be considered a prerequisite for the unemploNment stamps. Respondent failed in its duty to so inform the Charging Parties. and therefore its failure to issue the unemplox ment stamps A ould still he violative of Section 8( )(1). ). Ulpon the hblsis of' the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record in the case. I make the following: r While hth einplosees ma ha;se known of' the existence oI setilon 4 l the unemploimeni stamp article and article I. of the union cnstltullon. there is no esidence the5 knew section 4 was an ehgibilits requirement for issuance o. the stamps. In an) esent. the Board and courts hase repeatedl held tha a union's fiduciar dul to notif' employees ot' their membership obligations will not he satisfied b, the fact the employees may hase indepen- dent knowledge of the existence of those obligalions. Internatiional 4sX-I ariun of Bridge. Srucrtural & Reinforced Iron Workers Union, Local .378'. f4 'L CIO (Judson Steel C(orporation 192 Nl.RB 1069 (1971), and cases cited therein: Produce, Reftrigerated & Processed x ods & Induiriol i,4orker, 1,c/ Vo 6,. Iniernational Brotherhtnd of Teamirter. (hauffi.uri Ware- housemrrn & HelperT of America Rualphr Groern (ormlponin 209 NI.RB 117. 124 ( 1974); and John J R-he & (Co. Inc. 231 NLRR 1082 ( 1977) ' For the same reason. I reject Respondent's claim that (randall did not properly .ippli for the stamps e.en if he is otherwise entitled to themi While Crandall's letter sending SI t the Respondent did not relcr expliititls t he unemploment stamps. hut rather spoke about being disabled trr a 2-month periodl. neither the bulletin to members announcing the stamps. nor the c- tual language of the unemplo)ment stamp article states thait peclfic reler- ence to the stamps is required upon application Both the bulletin and the article merels state that members must "register their names and aiddres.ses in the out-ol-work book or communicate with [Respondentil sintsng thee are unemplosed or sick or disabled. anytime within a two-month period " Craln dall's letter met these requirements. and there is no claim hb Respondent Ihai II did not know w hat prosision ('randall %as relerrin Ito 701 DE(ISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARI) C(()N(I l'SI()NS () LAV I. Douglas Aircraft Company, a component of McDon- nell Douglas C(orporation. is an employer engaged in con- merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 2. Respondent, International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers. Aeronautical Industrial Lodge 720 is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3. By maintaining a practice whereby members of Re- spondent working for Douglas Aircraft Company are per- mitted to purchase unemloyment stamps which greatly re- duce the cost of dues during periods when unemployed or disabled. whereas employees who are not members of Re- spondent are not entitled to said stamps and must pay their full dues obligations when unemployed or disabled. Re- spondent has restrained and coerced employees in the exer- cise of the rights guaranteed them in Section 7 and thereby has engaged in an unfair labor practice within the meaning of Section 8(b)( I )(A) of the Act. 4. The aforesaid unfair labor practice is an unfair labor practice within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. Tlin R tM l)Y Having found that International Association of Machin- ists and Aerospace Workers, Aeronautical Industrial Lodge 720 has engaged in an unfair labor practice by discriminat- ing in the administration of the unemployment stamp pro- vision found in its constitution. I shall recommend that it be ordered to cease and desist therefrom'0 and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. Respondent will be required to make whole employee Durrance for any monetary loss she has suffered by reason of Respondent's unfair labor practice and reimburse Dur- rance for each month of unemployment in which she paid an amount equivalent to regular monthly dues, amount with interest as prescribed in Florida Steel Corporation, 231 NLRB 651 (1977). Employees who are adversely affected by discriminatory provisions are entitled to all rights and privileges which would have accrued to them but for the discrimination. Thus, but for the discriminatory administra- tion of the unemployment stamp provision, both the tender of 50 cents per month by Durrance and Crandall for peri- ods of their unemployment would have been accepted. Durrance shall, therefore, have her financial obligation to Respondent Union fulfilled during months of unemploy- ment as defined in the stamp provision upon tender to Re- spondent Union of fees at the rate of 50 cents per month for each month of unemployment. Crandall shall similarly have his financial obligation to Respondent Union fulfilled upon the tender of 50 cents for each month he was unem- ployed, as defined in the stamp provision. in accord with a nondiscriminatory application of that provision. 10 Nothing in the recommended Order is to he construed as requiring Re- spondent to revoke or rescind the unemployment stamp benefit to union members under Respondent's cnstitution. Upon the foregoing findings of fact. conclusions of law, and upon the entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, I hereby issue the following recommended: ORDER" The Respondent, International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers. Aeronautical Industrial District Lodge 720, its officers, agents, and representatives, shall: I. ('ease and desist from: (a) Discriminating against any employee of Douglas Air- craft Company a component of McDonnell Douglas ('or- poration b requiring membership hb employees in Re- spondent Union in order to be eligible to receive unemployment stamps which reduce the amount of dues required to be paid to Respondent Union during months of unemployment or disability. Nothing contained herein shall be construed as requiring Respondent Union to revoke, re- scind or cancel unemployment stamp benefits currently granted to its members. (b) In any other like or related manner restraining or coercing employees in the exercise of their rights under Sec- tion 7 of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action which is deemed necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Make Georgia Durrance whole for any monetary loss she may have suffered by reason of the discrimination against her, and allow Georgia Durrance and Ralph Cran- dall to fulfill their dues obligations to Respondent in the manner set forth above in the section entitled "The Rem- edy." (b) Post at its business office and meeting halls, and at all places where notices to its members and other employees in the bargaining unit are customarily posted. copies of' the attached notice marked "Appendix." 2 Copies of said no- tice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Re- gion 31. after having been duly signed by Respondent Union's representative, shall be posted by it immediately upon receipt thereof, and maintained for 60 consecutive days thereafter in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to members are customarily posted. Respon- dent Union shall take reasonable steps to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (c) Furnish to the Regional Director for Region 31 cop- ies of the aforementioned notice for posting by Douglas Aircraft Company, a component of McDonnell Douglas Corporation, the latter willing, in places where notices to employees are customarily posted. H 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 b) the Board and become its findings, conclusions, and Order, and all objections thereto shall be deemed waived for all purposes. 12 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 Lahor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursuant to a Judg- ment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the Na- tional Labor Relations Board" 702 MAClINISI'S )ISTRICT I.O[)DG 720 (d) Notitl the Regional Director if'r Region 31, in vrit- ing. ithin 20 das from the date of this Order, what steps Respondent has taken to complh herewilh. APPENDIX No il( 1 l( M lNIHBiRS Po)siFI) BY ()Rl)R ( Ii NAIl()NAl LABOR R A lA()NS BOARI) An Agency of' the United States Go\ernment After a hearing in which all sides had the opportunit to present evidence and arguments. it has heen found that we violated the National Labor Relations Act. We hae heen ordered to post this notice and we intend to carr, out the Order ol' the Board. Wi: it Nol discriminate against any emplo)ee of Douglas Aircrat Company. a component of McDon- nell Douglas Corporation, or any other employer with whom we re under contract. by requiring membership in our union as a condition for eligibility to) receie unemployment stamps, as provided in our constitution. Wi: nit so I in any like or related manner restrain or coerce emplosees in the exercise of' rights guaran- teed them in Section 7 of the Act, except to the extent that such rights ma) be aflected by an agreelent re- quiring membership in a labor organization as a condi- tion of' employlment, as authorized in Section 8(a)(3) and as administered in a la tful nondiscrlminator\ manner. Wl illi make hole (;eorgia l)urrance l'r anls monetars loss she has suffered b reason ot' our dis- crinlination against her aId t s itl allo ( ieoria Durrance and Ralph ('randall, or an, other cosered employee to fulfill their dues obligations %%hile dis- abled b their tender and our receipt of dues obliga- tions in accordance with the provisions o the uneln- plo! nent stamlp article in our constitution. INII:RNAIIONAI AssO( IAIION ()I MV( IIINiSIS NI) AtR()SIPA(' I W()RKiRS, ARi)NNI I( Al INI)t s- IRIAI DISIRI( I i)(Ici 720