General Teamsters, Local Union No. 298

DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD General Teamsters, Chauffeurs and Helpers Local Union No. 298, a/w International Brotherhood of Teamsters Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America and Schumacher Electric Corporation. Cases 25-CB-2844, 25-CB-2748, 25-CB 2664, and 25-CB-2664-2 May 25, 1978 DECISION AND ORDER BY MEMBERS PENEt.I.O. MURPHY. AND TRUESDAI E On January 10, 1978, Administrative Law Judge William F. Jacobs issued the attached Decision in this proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent filed excep- tions and a supporting brief, the General Counsel filed limited exceptions and a brief in support of the Administrative Law Judge's Decision, and the Charging Party filed cross-exceptions and a support- ing 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 Board has considered the record and the at- tached Decision in light of the exceptions and briefs and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings, and conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge, to modify his remedy,' and to adopt his recommended Order, as modified herein. 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, as modified below, and hereby orders that Respondent, General Teamsters, Chauffeurs and Helpers Local Union No. 298 a/w International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, Michigan City, Indiana, its officers, agents, and rep- resentatives, shall take the action set forth in the said recommended Order, as so modified: 1. Insert the following as paragraph l(d): "(d) In any like or related manner restraining or coercing its employees in the exercise of their rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act." 2. Delete from paragraph 2(a) the words "comput- ed at the rate of 7 percent per annum." 3. Substitute the following for the first sentence of paragraph 2(d): "(d) Post at its offices and meetings halls, and at the location of each bulletin board it maintains at the Rensselaer, Indiana, premises of Schumacher Elec- tric Corporation, copies of the attached notice marked 'Appendix.' 17" 'The Administrative Law Judge inadvertently specified interest to be paid at 7 percent: however, interest will be calculated according to the "adjusted prime rate" used by the U.S. Internal Revenue Service for interest on tax payments. as prescribed in Florida Steel Corporation, 231 NLRB 651 (1977). DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE WILLIAM F JACOBS. Administrative Law Judge: This case was heard before me on February 23-25 and March 8-1 1, 1977, at Remington, Indiana. Complaints with appropriate orders consolidating cases and notices of hearing issued on July 28 and 30, and ' November 16, 1976,2 and January 19, 1977. 3 The consolidated complaints allege that Respondent General Teamsters, Chauffeurs and Helpers Local Union No. 298, a/w International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, here- after called the Union, coerced and restrained employees of Schumacher Electric Company, hereafter called the Company, in violation of Section 8(b)(l)(A) of the Na- tional Labor Relations Act, as amended. The Union filed answers on August 9, 1976, December 13, 1976, and Febru- ary 7, 1977, which in relevant part, denied the commission of unfair labor practices. All parties appeared at the hearing and were afforded full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence and argument. Upon the entire record 4 in this case, from my observa- tion of the witnesses, and after due consideration of the briefs filed by the parties, I make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT I. JURISDICTION AND LABOR ORGANIZATION The complaint alleged, the Union admitted, and I find that at all times material the Company was and is an em- ployer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act and the Union was and is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. II. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES The issues concern whether the Union violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) negotiations toward reaching a new agreement On this date an order consolidating (ases 25 C(B 2664 and 25 -(CB 2664 2 with Case 25 CA-7994 issued. 2On this date an order severing Case 25 CA 7994 from Cases 25 CB 2664, 25 CB-2664-2, and 25 C B-2748 issued. Charges upon which these complaints issued were filed on the follow ing dates: Cases 25 CA 7994 June i 1976, 25 (B 2664 June 16, 1976. 25- ('B 2664 2 July 9, 1976. 25 CB 2748 July 16. 1976, and 25-C B 2844 December 16 1976. 4 Errors in the transcript have been noted and corrected. 236 NLRB No. 49 428 GENERAL TEAMETSERS, LOCAL UNION NO. 298 but were unsuccessful. On May 21, 1976, therefore, the Union called a strike which continued through August 13, 1976, attended by picketing at the Company's premises. At different times during the course of the strike, a num- ber of employees submitted resignations to the Union and subsequently passed through the picket line and returned to work. The names of these employees and the dates of the receipt of their resignations and of their return to work are as follows: Date Picket Date Line Name Joseph Clark Parrish Lois Dawson Betty Jean Platt Suk Hyang Platt Mildred Sanders Eileen Mauck Evelyn Respecke Margaret Warran Annie L. Shipley Elizabeth A. Beeching Edna Leman Alberta McCormick Irene Allen Bonnie Ricks Alice Doyle Fern North Tammy Hesson Alice Yost Jennifer Hornbeck E. Joan Streitmatter Edith Streitmatter Tom Engels Shirley Nagel Bessie Buckley Mildred Stephenson Larry Howard Betty Bierma Resigned Crossed 6/09/76 6/09/76 6/09/76 6/09/76 6/09/ 76 6/09/76 6/11/76 6/14 76 6/24/76 6/11/76 6/24/76 6/18/76 6/17/76 6/17/76 6/17/76 6/17/76 6/18/76 6/18/76 6/21/76 6/21/76 6/21/76 6/19/76 6/23/76 6/26/76 7/07/76 7/1 3/76 7/20/76 6/04/76 6/04/76 6/04/76 6/04/76 6/04/76 6/04/76 6/10/76 6/i0/76 6/10/76 6/10/76 6/15/76 6/1 5/76 6/15/76 6/15/76 6/15/76 6/15/76 6/16/76 6/16/76 6/16/76 6/16/76 6/16/76 6/17/76 6/21/76 6/23/76 6/30/76 6/09/76 6/13/76 The Union learned, prior to their doing so, that several of the above-named individuals intended to resign and cross the picket line and advised the members on the picket line through their picket captains that they could bring charges against those who crossed. Subsequentlb, on June 9, 1976, when the first six of these employees crossed the picket line, charges were drawn up by the picket captain on duty and signed by members who were on picket dut,. 5 'The empiovecs who crossed the picket litne on June 9 "ere: loseph Clark Parrish Suk ls.ran Platt I.ois Dawson MlWdred Sanders Betts Platt Eileen Ntauck The written charges were delivered later that day to the union office in Michigan City. On June 146 the Union notified the six employees of the charges and of the fact that a hearing date would later be scheduled. On June 21 the charges were submitted to the executive board of the Union and July 6 was set for the hearing date. The six charged individuals were notified of the hearing date on June 22. On July 6 and 12 the executive board met and decided upon a $200 fine to be levied against each of the six individuals who had crossed the picket line on June 9. None of the charged individuals attended the hearing. By letter dated July 15, the six charged individuals were ad- vised of the decision of the executive board. Attached to each letter was a copy of the minutes of the hearing con- taining the reasoning on which the decision was reached, namely that the Union maintained jurisdiction over the charged individuals because their attempted resignations were not validly in accordance with the requirements of the International constitution.7 and their crossing of the picket line therefore occurred prior to their resignations, while they were still members.' In consideration of the merits of the charge. the decision of the Board was that the charged individuals had crossed the picket line on June 9 in viola- tion of art. XIX, sec. 6. subpar. 9 of the International constitution. Following the crossing of the picket line on June 9 by the original six employees, others subsequently followed suit. Therefore, on Jul), 20, charges were filed by members of the Union against 21 additional employees for crossing the picket line.' The basis for the filing of the charges against All dales refer to 197t unless itherwise indicated Art, II. sec. 2. .ubhpali h th) No nmember mal resign from his memibrship in the International t nion or ain subordinate body hefore he has paid all dues, assess- mrenlt, fines i nd oither obhligatrns owing it the International Union and all its uboirdin;lte bodies. and nio resignation shall become effec- tive until such pas.ment Ihe t nlons, executise board interpreted and applied this provision in suh .I Viai As to require potentlitll r[cslgnee It) have their dues paid in full as of the IlirC the% alhnmil Itheir resignations in order for their resignations to hI l iii InaLsmiuch ai the six indisiduals i ho submitted their resignaiions in June 14 h.d nrll p:d Iheir June dues hb thila date, their resignations were ,onsldei ed ini ld iand Ihes wcre therefore still rconsidered members of the l'ntol. ibhucol to !is jurisdiction as of June 9. the day they crossed the pi keL hrine The I on did not, hrowever. aidvise the individuals who had submlitied their ro lignattins either that their resignations were invalid or that due, for Ihc cirlent Ilolinlh itust be pai d before resignations would he a;ccepteld Ihe Inlern.ilona.il constltution provides in art X sec. 5(l): ll members paiing due i, I. ocal UInioins must pas them on or hefore the I;st hubllirss dai iof the current nilonth Ihe I oca 1 constitutlion, tho ugh spccIfifc lls silent on the subject, Insorpo- [.leI the .l ..ll is) I[ the Interltn.irtnal constitution by reference At the (Conlpani. there had been a c;heckoff provision in the expired co.itrticr I he dues checked off iii complhance with that provision were cus- toi.erld; dediluted frll the seiond paisheck each month and remitted to the t nison each mlninth diiring the week In which the 25th das of the month fell I he I ni on ti.. k the i'rs illurn thtn the situalion concerning the resignees s15 s nalllous to thaii oh.f mrenmbers eekilg withdrawal cards, This argument u.ts so-nsideted lnd telccted ini 11 ied! PtlpersorAer)s International finion. L cal o. -725. 4 I1. ( 10 (Boise Southemrn Cmpnran r. 220 N I.RB 81 2 197 5 and 1s Ijectle hele hl, eain or i ti rd therein. i lihese 21 eiriploees esle I selkii R es scL Mtarre,~!ie 'iS ,rrasi Alice N'ost Jennifer Hornbeck ( 'onrinued 429 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD these employees was the same as for the charges filed against the first six. On September 3, these 21 employees were advised of the charges filed against them and on Sep- tember 23 were informed of the October I I hearing date set for consideration of the charges. On October II at the Executive Board meeting, testimony was taken from a number of witnesses including picket captains, concerning the dates the named individuals crossed the picket line. None of the accused appeared at the hearing. The execu- tive board decided at the October 11 hearing to fine six additional individuals and at another meeting on Novem- ber 18, this decision was finalized. On January 28, 1977, the six additional individuals found guilty were advised that they had been fined $200 each.'0 According to Kenneth Buhle, secretary-treasurer of the Union, the basis for the fining of these six individuals was the same as for the fining of the original six individuals that crossed the picket line on June 9, namely, that at the time of their resignations and their crossing of the picket line, their June dues had not yet been received by the Union.t Buhle testified that the remaining 15 employees were not fined because either they were paid up at the time of their resignation or there was insufficient evidence to prove that they had not paid their dues at the time they resigned and crossed the picket line. These individuals were never advised that charges against them would not be processed further. As noted above, the International constitution, article X, section 5(c), provides that members must pay dues before the last business day of the current month and, custom- arily, in accordance with the checkoff provision of the con- tract, dues were deducted from employees' paychecks for the second pay period of the month and remitted to the Union by the 25th day of the same month. Dues for June were therefore not due until June 25th, and for July not until July 25. Inasmuch as each employee fined by the Union, in the absence of checkoff, submitted his monthly dues long before the 25th of that month, I find that each fully complied with the requirements of the constitution in that as of the resignation date each was fully paid up.' 2 Annie Shipley E. Joan Streitmatter [Elizabeth Beeching Edith Streitnlatter Alberta McC(ormick Bessie Buckles Irene Allen Tom Engels Bonnie Ricks Edna L eman Alice Doyle Shirley Nagel Fern North Mildred Stevenson Tammy liesson LarrN Howard Betty Bierma t' lhe six additional employees were: Evelyn Respecke Elizabeth Beeching Bonnie Ricks Alberta H. McCormick Fern North Alice Doyle I Buhle testified that as of June 9 no dues had been received in check fornl and he did not attempt thereafter to document when checks vere received because he did not consider that fact to be relevant. Inasmuch as the Union neglected to record the dates that dues were receiveJ. I find that then were in fact received within I or 2 days of the dates they were mailed. i? The dates on which dues were submitted bs fined employees are as follows: Joseph ( lark Parrish Lois Dawson Beti,, Platt June 1I June II June II Therefore. the resignations were effective and the Union's attempt to fine these employees was clearly in error. Signif- icantly, union members who neither resigned nor pulled picket duty were permitted to fall into arrears in their dues payment without the Union taking action against them. Since the Union had historically and customarily only required payment by the 25th of each month, and its const- itution did not require payment until the end of the month, its attempt to require employees who resigned their mem- bership to pay their dues at an earlier date than those who chose to remain members was clearly a discriminatory ap- plication of the dues provision of its constitution, motivat- ed by a desire to keep those individuals who were de- termined to exercise their Section 7 rights from doing so under threat of fine." The subsequent fining of those indi- viduals who chose to resign their membership and thereaf- ter refrain from participating in the strike was in violation of Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act. N.L.R.B. v. Granite State Joint Board, Textile Workers Union of America, Local 1029, AFL-CIO [International Paper Box Machine Co.], 409 U.S. 213 (1972). Once having effectively resigned, the Union's power over the resignees is at an end, and its attempt to discipline them through the levying of fines is violative of the Act.14 Granite State Joint Board, supra. Suk Hyang Platt June 4 Mildred Sanders June II Eileen Mauck June 7 Evelyn Respecke June II Elizabeth Beeching June 8 Alberta McCormick June 14 Bonnie Ricks June 14 Alice Doyle June 14 Fern North June 14 1 Cf. Hospital and Nursing Home Emplovees Union Local 113, AFL CIO (,tounds Park Hospital), 228 NLRB 1500 (19771. 14 The levying of fines against the resignees based on the discriminatory application of the dues and resignation provisions of the constitution makes it unnecessary, at this time, to render a decision on the ultimate question of whether it is a reasonable restraint on a member's freedom to resign to require him to be fully current in his financial obligations to the Union at the time his resignation is submitted, assuming said requirements are not discriminatorily applied or motivated Moreover, the record is replete with evidence that the Union had de- termined not to process any resignations until after the strike. Therefore the constitutional restriction that no member could resign until his dues were paid up for the current month was not being tested. for the Union made it clear that, whether or not members were paid up, their resignation would not be considered for the duration of the strike. The procedure, prescribed for effective resignation, i.e., payment of dues on resignation, being a futili- I), compliance therewith is unnecessary, for the law does not require a futile act. Local Union No 12.13, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of 4merica (Polk (Consiruction Co.. Inc). 231 NLRB 756 (1977). Finally. the record indicates clearly that several individuals were fined even though their current month's dues had been paid before they crossed the picket line. This indicates that timely payment of dues had nothing to do with whether resignations would be considered effective. that anyone who attempted to resign and cross the picket line might be fined, and that the Union permitted no certain effective means of resigning without fear of possible fine. The procedure adopted by the Union when faced with the resignations of its membership during the cnritical strike period was to rele- gate to its executive board the duty of considering resignations already received, while refusing for the duration of the strike to accept and process further resignations. The executive board, by indiscriminately fining both those who had submitted dues before crossing the picket line. (Suk Hyang Platt. Eileen Mauck. Elizabeth Beeching, Bonnie Ricks. Alice Doyle. Alber- ta McCormick, and Fern North) as well as those who submitted dues short- ly thereafter, acted in such an invidious manner upon these resignations so as to warrant the conclusion that the constitutional restriction requiring current dues payment was not a consideration in their decisions, but that 430 GENERAL TEAMETSERS. I.OCAL UNION NO. 298 Inasmuch as the charges were solicited upon advice of union officers and agents and processed through the union executive board at a time when the employees charged were no longer members of the Union, I find the filing and the processing of the charges under the circumstances herein to be likewise violative of the Act since the), were discriminatorily motivated, clearly coercive. and tended to restrain those charged in the exercise of their Section 7 rights.' B. Picket Line Incidents The strike began on May 21 and continued through Au- gust 13. On May 21, Kenneth Buhle was asked by people on the picket line what would happen if a union member crossed the picket line. He advised them that the) could be charged, found guilty, and fined. According to Buhle there were at the time in excess of a hundred individuals who were present, although he may have been addressing onlN 20 or 30 people standing around him. All of the stewards were in the general vicinity at the time. Ruth Greshaw was among those present. Evelyn Respecke asked him what would happen if she went to work for Schumacher in Chicago. Buhle replied that he "did not think the Union would look too favorably on it." According to Evelyn Respecke, on May 21, the morning the strike began, Joseph Caradonna and Kenneth Buhle, president and secretary-treasurer of the Union. respective- ly, were present on the picket line. Caradonna at this time stated that anybody that crossed the picket line and went back to work would be fined $500.16 1 credit Respecke's testimony with regard to this matter 7 and find that the the sole purpose of finding the resignations ineffective and fining these employees was to thwart the attempts of these employees to exercise their Sec. 7 rights. The applic.tion of the constitutional restriction under these circumstances is therefore not controlling ( oast I allet 7 7'ppographi. al Union Local 650 (The Daili Breeze, Diiston {f C( ,pht Prc.I, In. 22" NLRB 1048 (1975). t The instituting of disciplinary proceedings against members hecause they refuse to honor a picket line. like the fines themselses. is violatie of Sec. 8(h) 1 (A) where, as here. the motivation is contrar, to the purposes of the Act. International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Emplovees IRKO General, Inc, F OR-TVI Diulsiwnj, 223 NLRB 959 (1976). Moreoer, Respondent's argument that the bringing of charges is a protected right under the abor- Management Reporting and Disclosure Act is not relevant to Ihe instant facts where those charged are not members but former members and thus no more subject to union discipline or charges than "the man In the street " Granite State Joint Board. rupra Respondent's reliance on HiolkhirLders Union Lnocal 05 l(Interstaic Book tfanufa/iurers. Ins i. 203 NL RB 732 (1971), is misplaced in that the quotation cited in its brief refers to charges. the purpose of which was to secure the lawful expulsion of a member rather than the unlawful fining of a former member oi This incident, though not alleged, was fulls litigated at the hearing aind discussed in the briefs It is therefore subject to a finding herein .i, Gria- Edrson Compan s N. I? R., 419 F. 2d 67 72 (CA 8, 1969) ' Joseph (Caradonna was not called as a witness because of serious ill- ness An affidavit taken from Caradonna by a Board agent was offered in lieu of testimon). The affidavit was rejected as hearsas I stand bh that ruling. the nature of C(aradonna's illness was not discussed w Ith .ins parinu- larits at the hearing and I am not at all convinced that his tesimrons could not have been obtained either at a later date or bh means of depoilton A here opportunity for full cross-examination could be afforded (Generall Couinsel iiand the C(h:rging Part! Respecke's testimons was supported albeit Indirectls and perhaps Inadvertentit hb Marie Barton who stated that pickets shouted it Indisiduals crossing the picket line, "}lavse s., 1 ,it $5siO threat of fine was made just as she stated. As of Mas 21. however. those individuals being addressed bh Buhle and Caradonna were full union members, subject to lawful in- ternal union rules and concomitant obligatimons. As a mat- ter of laws, the Union could, in fact, fine any of those mem- bers addressed Buhle and (aradonna on May 21 and the notification to them that such was the case, in the absence of ans discussion concerning resignation, was not in viola- tion of the statute. .L.R. B v. v.4 /i.s-Chalmers .Vanul/acrur- tng (o.. et al., 388 U.S. 175 (1967). particularly footnote 30: 1 .(oal Ctnion No. 1233, LUnied Brotlhrhood of Carpen- ters and Joiners of Ameirica (Polk Construction Co., Inc.). s.pra. According to employee James Minick, he was told on one occasion during the first 2 weeks of the strike hby picket captain Nettie Beliles that anyone who resigned to cross the picket line would be fined. I do not, however, credit Minick with regard to his description of the alleged inci- dent. He was vague as to dates, stated specifically that he could not remember what was said, and testified to the events only upon being furnished complete details through the leading questions of the examining attorney. I find Minick's testimony concerning this incident without evi- dentiary value. According to employee James Butler, in early June l, while on the picket line, he asked picket captain Nettie Beliles what would happen to the people who had resigned from the Union and she replied that they would be brought before the executive board of the Union and fined $500. On this day. Bellies brought around a petition requesting that charges be brought against those employees who had crossed the picket line and asked Butler to sign the peti- tion. As a steward, member of the bargaining committee and picket captain. Beliles was clearly an agent of respon- dent (Inlernatrional Longshoremen'.s and Warehousemen's Union, (C10 er al. (Sunset Line and Tswine Companv), 79 NLRB 1487 (1948) and the Union is responsible for her acts, where committed within the scope of general authori- ty and employment. Teansters Local l115, International Brotherhood of Teanmsters, Chauiffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of .4merica. Independent IE. J. Lavino & (',npanovl 157 NL RB 1637 (1966): eatmnsters Local 860, International Brotherhood of Teaimters, ( hauffeurs. Warehousemen and Helpers olf America (Delta Lines. Inc.), 229 NLRB 993 (1977). Therefore, when Beliles stated that employees who resigned from the Union would be brought before the exec- utive board and fined $500. the Union thereby threatened to impose court collectible fines on former members who had tendered valid resignations for conduct following their resignations, an act which has been found in violation of I hope sou h.ixe goit Sici ( Ielrti, then must hase ohtained that p.iarliUlar figure fr.im silnleone and I find,l in iaccirdance with Respecke ', tetimonns that it was froi ( iaradolnna.i hi (hariic Part .aicues ,.r at least iniplihs that C arad,,nna haid .a d ts o adxlsc those prese ththat tihes u.ll 1oit he sihlect !1i suth fine If hes! effectels resiened flion the I nlion But aiismu h a. the iuhiblectf Icslin.a- tioI i.sia nost kindel dissussi o at the lintle. I find that (a.r.adonTIL hid nT i.hblg.ailOn i, inlrodtilc this riilier f l l ionlderatil.n Belile c ull ii 1t1 rc.1il il hlis 1e Ihlf n.ll.lritiis1 is11it HuBllel I relit Butler l tlel nii l. i iakenis testified lhat the ouinscrsatioIn o tsilred ii t1he fwCi c.eek iT) .Julie sheCre.as his tes[itltlsl, 1h l it i ,, tie¢ .. ie tile sanle dis [i.il the petiteit 5 il s t11 t uht d .i rlc I t ,iiurcd n lr hkels , JunelI 0 431 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Section 8(b)(1)(A). Local Lodge No. 1994, International As- sociation of Machinists anti Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO (O.K. Tool Company', Inc.), 215 NLRB 651 (1974). The sub- sequent circulation of the petition by Beliles to bring charges against those individuals who had chosen to exer- cise their Section 7 rights by resigning from the Union and who thereafter refused to participate in the strike was clear- ly coercive not only against those former members who had already resigned but also against those who might be considering exercising those rights in the future. N.L.R.B. v. Granite State Joint Board, supra. About a week after his discussion with Beliles, about the second week in June. while on the picket line, Butler asked picket captain Glenn Irwin what would happen to the peo- ple who had resigned from the Union and Irwin replied that a member could send in a resignation but it would not be valid until after the strike and that people who crossed the picket line would be fined $500. Irwin testified that he could recall a discussion with one or more individuals, al- though he could not remember who they were, wherein he had expressed his own personal opinion that, if a member attempted to resign the resignation would not be valid until it was accepted by the executive board. He advised the individual that this was only his opinion and that he really did not know. Later Irwin found out that he had been mistaken in this belief. Irwin denied mentioning fines dur- ing his conversation. With regard to this incident I credit the testimony of Butler as opposed to that of Irwin where there is conflict between the two. Irwin, as picket captain and steward, was acting as the agent of the Union and his statement that resignees who crossed the picket line would be fined was coercive and violative of Section 8(b)(1)(A). Local lodge No. 1994, Machinists. supra. and Granite State Joint Board, supra. Similarly, Butler testified that in early June, while at the picket line, he heard Buhle state that if anyone resigned he could be fined and that it would be up to the Union's executive board to set the amount of the fine. Buhle testi- fied in a fairly similar fashion.2 ) According to Butler, Buhle added that resignations would be held up until after the strike. About the same time, Butler asked picket captain Greshaw if members could resign and cross the picket line and Greshaw replied that the Union was not accepting res- ignations. 2 1 Greshaw was asked a similar question by Min- ick and, according to Minick, he too was told that the Union was not accepting resignations at that time. For reasons stated above, I find the threat to fine resig- nees for crossing the picket line, as made by Buhle, an admitted union agent, violative of Section 8(b)( )(A). I also find the statements of Buhle and Greshaw, that resigna- tions would not be processed, indicative of the Union's desire to interfere with the rights of its members to pursue their Section 7 rights, and evidence that the Union intend- ed to prevent their resignation regardless of whether their :" Where Ihthlc's ICstillnon . is nlconsllent Iwith Butler's. the latter is crediied. 1 Butler's testlrlron, is cledited Io the extent that (ireshlaw's testimllnl is in Lonflhc with h lli of Bltler. (;resh'lJ's is rejected. I found (ireshiua to he .1 lict]p:llt, eC.%Ivc Wit JlCs, dues payments were current or in arrears, thus proving that the Union's reliance on the restriction in its constitution requiring current dues payment was pretextual in that it had no bearing on the Union's considerations in determin- ing to fine former members for crossing the picket line. On June 9 the first six employees returned to work. That evening, about 9 o'clock, several of them left the plant in an automobile owned and driven by Plant Manager Joseph Prietula. As they drove out the gate, picket captain Chris Tanner 22 shouted at them, swearing and warning Prietula that he "had better watch his house." At the time there were 35 to 40 people at the gate along with Tanner, includ- ing picket captain Ruth Greshaw and Glenn Irwin. Tanner's threat, as picket captain, is imputable to the Union and, inasmuch as it was uttered in the presence of rank-and-file employees, is violative of Section 8(b)(1)(A). For, where an authorized union representative such as a picket captain participates or is present at the time midcon- duct occurs, the Board will not hesitate to find that the Union is responsible. Teamsters Local 860, supra; Team- sters Local #115, supra. An express threat of physical vio- lence, calculated to intimidate strikebreakers from continu- ing to work is violative of Section 8(b)(l)(A). International Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's Union, CIO (Sunset Line and Twine Company), supra. On or about June 9 employee Alice Doyle learned that certain other employees had returned to work. Since she too desired to return to work, she contacted Nettie Beliles and asked her how she could go about resigning so she could return to work. Beliles told Doyle not to resign be- cause , if she did, the Union would fine her $500 and would take her to court and she would go to jail. Beliles advised Doyle to tell this to the other employees. Doyle called Beliles a second time, 2 days later, and told her that she understood that employees were returning to work but Beliles once again told Doyle that she should stay away, that she would be making the biggest mistake [to cross the picket line and return to work], and to tell the other employees not to resign because, if they did, they would be fined $500. She added that the first six employees that had crossed the picket line would be fined. Beliles then told Doyle that the Union would take her to court, that Buhle would have her fired, and that the Company would not do anything to help her. She also told Doyle that she would not have any rights for (within?) the Union (if she resigned and returned to work through the picket line], and that the Union would not support her once she resigned.2 3 For the reasons stated, based on cases cited above, I find Beliles' threat that Doyle would be fined for resigning and crossing the picket line violative of Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act. Beliles' statement that Doyle would not have an)y rights within the Union, that Buhle would have her fired (or more likely, that he would do nothing for her, if she were fired), and that the Union would not support her once she resigned, amounts, at the very least, to a threat that, if Doyle should resign, the Union would not represent her as diligently as they would if she did not resign. I find this threat violative. Highway and Local Motor Freight Employ- - alailer was not called to testiif B Beliles denied h. ing any conxersations with D)o.le concerning resigna- tions I credit [)osle. 432 GENERAL TEAMETSERS. LOCAL UNION NO. 298 ees Local Union No. 667, affiliated with the International Brotherhood of Teamsters. Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America (Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corporation), 228 NLRB 398 (1977). On or about June II or 12, employees Jennifer Horn- beck and Betty Burns engaged picket captain Ruth Gresh- aw in conversation while they were situated across the street from the plant. Hornbeck mentioned that she intend- ed to resign and cross the picket line and asked Greshaw if she would be fined if she resigned. Greshaw replied affir- matively and mentioned the specific sum of $500. Horn- beck then stated that she did not believe this to be true since she had been told otherwise by employee Betty Platt. According to Hornbeck, Greshaw thereupon made a piece of paper available bearing the names of six employees. 24 She told Hornbeck that the six would be fined because the way they had crossed the picket line had been illegal. She told Hornbeck that Clark Parrish and Suk Hyang Platt, among others, would be fined. Employee Betty Bierma was present during this discussion and picket captain Nettie Beliles was also nearby but not involved in the conversa- tion. Bierma recalled that, when she and Hornbeck asked Greshaw what would happen if they crossed the picket line, Greshaw replied that there was a possibility that they could get fined if they crossed the picket line. She then elaborated by stating that. if they resigned but did not cross the picket line, nothing would happen, but if after resigning they did cross the picket line, they would prob- ably or would possibly get fined. Bierma supported Hornbeck's testimony by corroborating the fact that, dur- ing this conversation, Greshaw showed Hornbeck and Bi- erma a piece of paper from the union office in Michigan City bearing the names of the six people who had initially crossed the picket line and stating that charges had been brought against them. Bierma could not, however, recall any particular amount of money being mentioned on the document. Greshaw denied discussing resignations with ans of the charged parties but admitted discussing with pickets what she believed could happen to those employees who had resigned and crossed the picket line. On these occasions, according to Greshaw, she stated that hopefully these em- ployees would be fined. Greshaw also acknowledged that she showed to Bierma a copy of a letter which she had received from Buhle announcing that charges had been filed against the six employees who had crossed the picket line of June 9.25 ' Hornbeck testified thal the paper alluded to a $500 fine. I find that Hornbeck was In error on this point hut thal her credihilits is nor therebc generally affected 2 Respondent argues, in brief. that there are substantiall differenice he- tween the statements that employees "could" be fined and statements that they "would" be fined. emphasizing that the formner is not coercive I do not agree, for, if a member effectivel) resigns membership and thereafter crosses the picket line. that individual should not be threatened With po-ible conse- quences any more than with definite repercussions In either cas ihe rtate- ment is coercive in nature and a restraint on the individual who is lassfull) pursuing or contemplating pursuing the rights guaranteed hb SeC 7 of the Act Similarl.s I find. under the clrcumstiances present herein, tlir thi e lithical "to bring chairges" as opposed to the threat "to fine" is a distinctioni 'ih ltl a malerial difference since the tenden.s It ictr:lin is :ppairenlt it either case I find Greshaw's statement to Hornbeck and Bierma that they would be fined if they resigned violative of the Act for reasons enunciated above in my treatment of simi- lar previous incidents. Similarly, I find her statement that the six individuals who had previously resigned would be fined, likewise in violation of the Act inasmuch as their resignations, contrary to Greshaw's statement, were valid. On the evening of June II employee Jennifer Hornbeck and her husband left their car parked in a lot across the street from the plant for about an hour. When they re- turned they found that one of the tires on the car had its valve stem pulled out and the tire flat. While Douglas Hornbeck repaired the tire. Jennifer Hornbeck and Betty Bierma noticed picket captain Glenn Irwin about half a block away, so the) approached him and engaged him in a conversation. Jennifer asked Irwin if he had flattened the tire or knew who had. He replied negatively and stated that anyone, kids or pickets, could have done it. Despite Irwin's denial, the Hornbecks suspected that he had damaged the tire. Jennifer Hornbeck told Irwin at this point that she had resigned from the Union and was going to cross the picket line. She and Bierma added that "it was something like this [meaning the damaging of the tire] that makes a person want to resign from the Union." Irwin told them not to cross the picket line because, if she did, she would be fined just as the others who had already crossed the picket line were going to be fined. At this point Douglas Hornbeck. who had bh this time finished working on the tire, came over and asked Irwin if he had damaged the tire. Irwin again replied that he had not, but that anybody there might have flattened it. Then Irwin added that the damage to the tire might only he the beginning of what could happen if Hornbeck did cross the picket line. Irwin was then asked what he meant and he replied, "Like broken window, and stuff like that." Irwin told Jennifer Hornbeck that she had a choice: that she could cross the picket line and get her windows shot out or not cross it, in which case "everything would he okay." He told her to call up Betty Platt and have her ( Hornbeck's) name withdrawn from the resignation let- ter which she had signed along with certain other employ- ees. Bierma then asked Irwin if the Union would continue to process grievances for her and Hornbeck if they resigned. He replied that he would, but he would not help them as much as he would help a union member and that Horn- beck and Bierma would have to pay $50 to get back in the Union. Irwin acknowledged having a conversation with Horn- beck and Bierma wherein the former accused him and ior the pickets of flattening her tire. He testified that she was angry at the time and stated that she had already placed her name on a resignation letter and intended to cross the picket line. However, he ascribed to Bierma, rather than to himself, the statement that the flattening of the tire was only the beginning. When Jennifer Hornbeck asked Irwin what would happen if she crossed the picket line. Irwin stated that he would file charges against her. According to Irwin. after some discussion Hornbeck calmed down and 2' Blerll denie a tiknA I this xthticllent and attributed It to Irlri. as had tbornbeck 433 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD stated that she would have her name removed from the resignation letter.27 With regard to processing grievances. Irwin testified that the subject was not discussed but that he did tell Hornbeck that, if she resigned but did not cross the picket line, he would do everything he could to help her, and by this he meant keeping the other employees from calling her a "scab" and things of that nature. He denied that his offer had anything to do with processing grievances." Irwin's threat of fine, like similar threats previously dis- cussed, was violative of Section 8(a)(1)(A). His statement that the damage to Hornbeck's tire might only be the be- ginning of what could happen, and his example of "broken windows, and stuff like that" in the context of these con- versations, as well as his threat concerning the shooting out of Hornbeck's windows if she crossed the picket line, are all violative of Section 8(b)( )(A) inasmuch as these threats would clearly tend, and in fact, did restrain, Hornbeck in her right to choose not to honor the picket line.29 Local 918, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, 'Ware- houscemen and Helpers of America (Tale-Lord Manufactut ing Company, Inc.), 206 NLRB 382 (1973). Irwin's statement to Bierma that he would not process grievances for those who resigned with the same diligence that he would for members is at complete variance with that portion of the Act which guarantees that once a labor organization enters into a collective-bargaining relation- ship with an employer it is bound to represent the employ- ees in the unit fairly and equally, regardless of their mem- bership or nonmembership in the Union. The statement by Irwin, a steward, that he would not represent Bierma and Hornbeck as well as he would members once they resigned, is a threat to breach that duty of equal representation and is violative of Section 8(b)(1)(A) in that it was clearly a coercive attempt to restrain Bierma and Hornbeck in their rights to be free to resign their membership and to work as former members. The threat to represent resignees in a less effective manner than full members has been held viola- tive. Highway and Local Motor Freight Employees Local Union No. 667, supra. Where the objective behind the threat of discriminatory representation is itself in conflict with the ultimate purposes of the Act, as in the instant case, the threat is all the more condemnable. International Brotherhood of Teamsters, General Drivers, Chauffeurs and Helpers Local Union No. 886 (Lee Way Motor Freight, Inc.), 229 NLRB 832 (1977). On Saturday, June 12, employee Joseph Parrish drove to work with a carload of employees and entered the compa- ny property via its south gate."0 Employee Paul Dawson drove in behind him with additional employees. When they 2 Hornbeck testified that she did, in fact, state that she soiuld hase her name removed from the resignation letter but maintained that it was he- cause of the threats that she decided to do so 2I find that the inclident occurred hasically as described bh Biernia and the Hornhecks Where Irwin's testimony is at variance with theirs. I credit Bierma and the iHornbecks. 24 Hornheck. subsequent to this discussion with Irwin. removed her narine from the letter of resignation (I Fhe description of this incident is based on the credited testimiony if Joseph and Sharon Parrish, Betty Platt. Eileen Mauck. Paul Dawsin. and the stipula ted testimoni of L ois Dawson. arrived at the gate, there were two or three pickets present. One of them, Hilda Agnew, had rocks in her hand as the cars approached. As Parrish turned into the driveway, Ag- new threw a rock which struck the side of Parrish's car and put a 6- to 8-inch dent in its door. Parrish stopped his car, leaned out, and shouted to Dawson to call the police. As Dawson pulled away, Agnew threw a second rock at Dawson's car which broke the rear window. Dawson con- tinued down the street to call the police. According to Joseph Parrish, picket captain Glenn Irwin was standing 75 to 100 yards away, watching the incident through binoculars. He did not come over to where the incident occurred, but remained where he was.3i Respondent takes the position that this incident is too insubstantial and isolated to require a remedial order and that in any event Respondent was not responsible for Agnew's acts, the nearest picket captain being 100 yards away and unaware of the incident. I find, however, that the incident was neither insubstantial nor isolated, for, as not- ed above, Irwin had, just the day before, warned employees Hornbeck and Bierma that employees who crossed the picket line could expect violence. Moreover, as discussed infra, additional incidents of violence occurred following the Agnew incident, and those occurred in the immediate presence of picket captains who either participated directly in the acts of violence or passively stood by while they were being committed. The earlier threats of violence and the later participation in other violent acts on the picket line indicate Respondent's acquiesence in the violent activity of its pickets and requires a finding that said activity is imput- able to the Union and is violative of Section 8(b)(l)(A). For, under the law, a union's responsibility for activity on a picket line, such as the acts described herein, giving rise to certain of the 8(b)(1)(A) allegations contained in the complaint, is judged in accordance with the "ordinary law of agency" and it is liable for the acts of an agent "within the scope of the agent's general authority" even though the Union has not specifically authorized or may have specifi- cally forbidden the act in question. International Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's Union, CIO, supra; Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Helpers & Taxicab Drivers Local Union 327, affiliated with International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America (Coca-Cola Bottling Works of Nashville), 184 NLRB 84 (1970). It has further been held that, in authorized strikes, unions are normally responsible for the acts of authorized pickets or even individuals not particularly so authorized but who voluntarily act in concert with them. Teamsters Local 695 and its Agents James Marketti, et al. (Wisconsin Supply Corporation), 204 NLRB 866 (1973); Local 612, In- ternational Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Ware- housemen and Helpers of America (Deaton Truck Line, Inc.), 146 NLRB 498 (1964). Since threats and the employment of force on a picket line may reasonably be expected to occur, they fall within the scope of employment of pickets, and the labor organization authorizing the picketing is re- sponsible for those acts of the pickets which may be ad- judged in violation of the Act. Teamsters, Local Union 327, supra. Consequently, the violent acts perpetrated by Agnew "l Irwin denied ans knowledge of the incident. I credit Parrish. 434 GENERAL TEAMETSERS, LOCAL UNION NO. 298 while serving on the Union's authorized picket line are at- tributable to the Union and said acts are clearly in viola- tion of Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act. Union de Empleados de la Industria del Enlatado de Pescado v Ramas Anexas de Puerto Rico and its agent. Domingo Rivera Rosado (National Packing Company), 192 NLRB 700 (1971). On the morning of June 14 Joseph Parrish approached the front gate of the plant in his automobile. carrying sev- eral employees to work.32 Once again he was followed by Paul Dawson in his automobile carrying additional em- ployees. When they arrived they observed 20 to 35 pickets present, approximately 15 of whom were milling around in the driveway in such a manner as to require the automobile to slow down considerably. The pickets did not, with any alacrity, move out of the way of the automobiles coming through the gate, so that the automobiles carrying the em- ployees were forced to creep slowly through the pickets in order to gain entrance to the plant. Picket captain Greshaw and Tanner were present. As the automobiles passed through the pickets, the pickets banged and pushed against the car and its windows and driver Joseph Parrish observed Chris Tanner kick the door of his car and damage it. Dawson's car also was slowed considerably in entering plant grounds and was pounded, pushed, rocked, and also kicked and dented by Chris Tanner. Greshaw, who was standing nearby observing the situation, merely shrugged when asked by Dawson to do something. It took the cars about 3 minutes to get through the picket line and onto the plant grounds. more than three times the length of time required ordinarily. Respondent would have allegations concerning this inci- dent dismissed as insignificant. I do not find it so. Rather. I find the activity of the pickets and picket captains on this picket line, for reasons stated previously, directly attribut- able to the Union, and clearly violative of the Act. Team- sters, Local Union 327, supra; International Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's Union (Sunset Line and Twine Compa- nr), supra. Shortly after the incidents of June 12 and 14 a temporary restraining order was granted to the Company and on June 23 a permanent injunction issued based on a stipulation reached by the parties governing future conduct of the Union and its agents during the strike. Some weeks after the first six employees crossed the picket line, employee Betty Bierma engaged picket captain Beliles in conversation and asked her what would happen to those six employees. Beliles replied that they would probably be fined. Bierma then asked if they would be fined even if they followed proper procedures by paying their dues and having everything in order and Beliles re- plied affirmatively.3 3 As found above, and for reasons stat- ed, the Union thereby violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act. On or about June 15, the Union held a meeting in Rens- 1" The description of this incident is hased on the credited testinmons of Joseph and Sharon Parrish. Betir Plait. Eileen Mauck, Paul Daiv.on. ind the stipulated testimony of Lois Dawson (ireshav's testimnion. where at variance with that of General C(ounsel's ,ltnesses. is rejecled " Beliles testified that she had heard from other pickets Ihat emplosees who resigned and crossed the picket line could he fired hut could not recall telling this to Bierma or ansone else I credit Bierma. selaer at which business agent Harold Schutte presided. At this meeting employee James Butler asked Schutte what would happen to the people who had resigned from the Ulnion and crossed the picket line. Schutte replied that he would not say what would happen to them but that they would not like what would happen to them and they would be brought before the executive board. According to the testimony of James Minick. when Schutte was asked, dur- ing this meeting. if it was legall b permissible to resign and then cross the picket line, he replied that people who re- signed and crossed the picket line could be fined and that it was up to the executive board to determine the amount of the fines. He added that the Union was not accepting resignations until after the strike. Once again, for reasons enumerated above, the Union on this occasion, as well as previous ones, violated Section 8(b)(l)(A) by stating, through its admitted agent Harold Schutte that employees who had validly resigned membership in the Union could be fined for crossing the picket line thereafter. In summary. I find that Respondent Union violated Sec- tion 8(b) I )(A) of the National Labor Relations Act, by the following conduct: I(a) On or about June 9. 1976, bringing charges and thereafter processing said charges against the following employees for violating the Union's constitution by cross- ing its picket line though said employees had previously effectively resigned their membership in Respondent's union: Joseph Clark Parrish Betty Platt Eileen Mauck Lois Dawson Suk Hyang Platt Mildred Sanders (b) On or about Jul, 12, 1976, finding said employees guilty of said charges and fining them $200 each. based upon the June 9. 1976. charges. 2(a) On or about July 20, 1976.4 bringing charges against and thereafter processing said charges against the following employees for violating the Union's constitution bh crossing its picket line though said employees had previ- ouslv effectively resigned their membership in Respon- dent's union: Fern North Betty Bierma Jennifer Hornbeck Elizabeth Beeching Edith Streitmatter Alberta McCormick Alice Do le Edna Leman Shirley Nagel Bessie Buckley Mildred Stephenson Tamara Hesson Alice Yost Joan Streitmatter Annie Shipley Margaret Warran Evelyn Respecke Bonnie Ricks Thomas Engels Irene Allen L arry Howard (b) On or about November 18, 1976. finding the fol- lowing employees guilt? of said charges and fining them $200 each based upon the July 20, 1976, charges: Evelyn Respecke Bonnie Ricks Fern North Elizabeth Beeching Alberta H. McCormick Alice Doyle C(h.arge mallo d t to .rchLred itisllduis on September . 1 1'76 435 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 3(a) On or about the following dates, by Respondent Union's officers and agents, listed opposite said dates, while at or near the site of the picketing, threatening to fine employees of the employer who resign and thereafter cross Respondent's Union's picket line: Nettie Beliles Glenn Irwin Kenneth Buhle Ruth Greshaw Harold Schutte June 9 (2 occasions) June 11 Mid-June Early June June II Early June June II June 15 (b) On or about June 9, 1976, by Chris Tanner's threat directed at Plant Manager Joseph Prietula, in the presence of rank-and-file employees that he "had better watch his house." (c) On or about June 11, 1976, by Glenn Irwin's threat to harm the property of and to cause unspecified reprisals against Jennifer Hornbeck and other employees who re- fused or failed to observe Respondent's picket line. (d) On or about June 11, 1976, by Glenn Irwin's and Nette Beliles' threats that the Union would not process the grievances of nonmembers as diligently as those of mem- bers or represent nonmembers as well as they would mem- bers. (e) On or about June 12, 1976, by Hulga Agnew's dam- aging the automobiles of employees attempting to pass through Respondent Union's picket line. (f) On or about June 14, 1976, by pickets blocking the ingress of employees as they passed through Respondent Union's picket line into the facility and by Chris Tanner's damaging the automobiles of employees attempting to en- ter plant grounds. Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and the entire record in the case, I make the following: CON(I it SIONS OF LAW 1. Schumacher Electric Corporation is an employer within the meaning of Section 2(2) of the Act and is en- gaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 2. Respondent Union is, and has been at all times mate- rial herein, a labor organization within the meaning of Sec- tion 2(5) of the Act. 3. By bringing and processing charges against the fol- lowing for crossing the Union's picket line after they effec- tively resigned their membership, Respondent Union re- strained and coerced said employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act and en- gaged in unfair labor practices violative of Section 8(b)( I)(A) of the Act: Joseph Clark Parrish Betty Platt Eileen Mauck Lois Dawson Suk Hyang Platt Edna Leman Shirley Nagel Bessie Buckley Larry Howard Tamara Hesson Mildred Sanders Fern North Betty Bierma Jennifer Hornbeck Elizabeth Beeching Edith Streitmatter Alberta McCormick Alice Doyle Alice Yost Joan Streitmatter Annie Shipley Margaret Warran Evelyn Respecke Bonnie Ricks Thomas Engels Irene Allen Mildred Stephenson 4. By bringing to trial and thereafter levying fines on the following, based upon charges filed against them for crossing the Union's picket line after they had effectively resigned their membership, Respondent Union re- strained and coerced said employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act and en- gaged in unfair labor practices violative of Section 8(b)(l)(A) of the Act: Joseph Clark Parrish Betty Platt Eileen Mauck Lois Dawson Suk Hyang Platt Mildred Sanders Evelyn Respecke Bonnie Ricks Fern North Elizabeth Beeching Alberta H. McCormick Alice Doyle 5. By threatening to fine employees of Schumacher Electric Corporation who resign their membership in Re- spondent Union and thereafter cross Respondent Union's picket line, Respondent Union restrained and coerced said employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act and engaged in unfair labor practices violative of Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act. 6. By threatening Joseph Prietula, a member of manage- ment, in the presence of rank-and-file employees with damage to his property for crossing Respondent Union's picket line, Respondent Union restrained and coerced said employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act and engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(b)(l)(A) of the Act. 7. By threatening Jennifer Hornbeck, Betty Bierma, and other employees and their families with property damage and other unspecified reprisals for crossing Respondent Union's picket line, Respondent Union restrained and coerced said employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act and engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(b)(l)(A) of the Act. 8. By threatening Alice Doyle, Jennifer Hornbeck, and Betty Bierma that their grievances and the grievances of other nonmembers would not be processed as diligently as those of members and that nonmembers would not be rep- resented as well as members, Respondent Union restrained and coerced said employees in the exercise of rights guar- anteed them by Section 7 of the Act and engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(b)( 1 )(A) of the Act. 9. By damaging the automobiles of employees attempt- ing to pass through Respondent Union's picket line, Re- spondent Union restrained and coerced employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act and engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of 436 GENFRAL TEAMETSERS, IOCAI. UNION NO. 298 Section 8(b)(l)(A) of the Act. 10. By blocking the ingress of employees attempting to enter the plant grounds through Respondent Union's pick- et line Respondent Union restrained and coerced employ- ees in the exercise of rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act and engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(bh(l)(A) of the Act. 11. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. THF REMEDY Having found that Respondent Union has engaged in certain unfair labor practices, I shall recommend that it be required to cease and desist therefrom. In order to effectu- ate the purposes of the Act, I shall also recommend that Respondent Union be required to rescind the unlawful fines, and to refund any money paid to it as a result of the fines, with interest computed at 7 percent per annum,"3 to expunge from its records all references to charges unlaw- fully filed and processed and to the unlawfully levied fines. to notify employees of the employer that all of its members are free to resign from Respondent Union without fear of fine or other unlawful coercion based upon said resigna- tions, to notify each and every employee herein found to be a discriminatee that all intraunion charges filed against them relating to the crossing of the picket lines of the Re- spondent Union at the Employer's facility have been dis- missed, to notify each of said discriminatees that Respon- dent Union will strive to protect the rights of all employees in the collective-bargaining unit represented by it at the Employer's facility equally and without regard to their membership in the Union or their support of or opposition to Respondent Union, and to post an appropriate notice. Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and con- clusions of law, and the entire record herein, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, I hereby issue the following recommended: ORDER 36 Respondent General Teamsters, Chauffeurs and Helpers Local Union No. 298, a/w International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, its officers, agents, and representatives. shall: I. Cease and desist from: (a) Restraining or coercing employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act. by bringing and processing charges against: Joseph Clark Parrish Edna Leman " Interest to he computed In the manner prescribed i F it II ( ,npal,. 90 NLRB 289 (1950, an.d fIhirda SrI(l ( orp, ralrin 211 NI RB 651 (1977). Also see. generall,. liii Plumbing a hl& H wmrin (,, 118 Nl RB "16 ( 1962). 31 In the event no exceptions are filed as prosided h, Sec. 10246 of the Rules and Regulations of the National I.abhor Relations Board, the findiiirs. conclusions. and recommended Order herein shall. as pr., ided III Sr 102.48 of the Rules and Regulatimn,. he adopted br lhe Board and hem rile its findings, conclusions, and Order. ;lid a;ll o hjectlion, thereto hA1l hbc deemed waived for all purposes Bett' Platt Eileen Mauck Lois Dawson Suk tlyang Platt Mildred Sanders Fern North Bettm Bierma Jennifer Hornbeck Elizabeth Beeching Edith Streitmatter Alberta McCormick Alice Doyle Shirley Nagel Bessie Buckley Larry Howard Tamara Hesson Alice Yost Joan Streitmatter Annie Shipley Margaret Warran Evelyn Respecke Bonnie Ricks Thomas Engels Irene Allen Mildred Stephenson for crossing the Union's picket line after they effectively resigned their membership in said union. (b) Restraining and coercing employees in the exer- cise of rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act by bringing to trial and thereafter levying fines against: Joseph Clark Parrish Betty Platt Eileen Matuck Lois Dawson Suk Hyang Platt Mildred Sanders Evelyn Respecke Bonnie Ricks Fern North Elizabeth Beeching Alberta H. McCormick Alice Doyle based upon charges filed against them for crossing the Union's picket line after they had effectively resigned their membership in said union. (cl Restraining and coercing employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act by: i. Threatening to fine employees who resign their mem- bership in Respondent Union and thereafter cross Respon- dent Union's picket line. ii. Threatening Joseph Prietula while in the presence of rank-and-file employees with damage to his property for crossing Respondent Union's picket line. iii. Threatening Jennifer Hornbeck, Betty Bierma. and other employees and their families with property damage and other unspecified reprisals for crossing Respondent Union's picket line. iv. Threatening Alice Doyle. Jennifer Hornbeck and Betty Bierma that their grievances and the grievances of other nonmembers will not be processed as diligently as those of members of Respondent Union and that they will not be represented by Respondent Union as well as mem- bers. v. Damaging the automobiles of employees attempting to pass through Respondent Union's picket line. vi. Blocking the ingress of employees attempting to en- ter the plant grounds through Respondent Union's picket line. 2. Take the following affirmative action designed and found necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Rescind the fines le ied against: Joseph Clark Parrish Bettys Plait Eileen Maiuck L.ois DaIson Suk Hyang Platt Mildred Sanders Ev elyn Respecke Bonnie Ricks Fern North Elizabeth Beeching Alherta H. McCormick Alice l)oyle 437 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD which fines are based upon charges filed against them for crossing the Union's picket line after they had effectively resigned their membership in Respondent Union, and re- fund to them any money they may have paid as a result of said fine, with interest computed at the rate of 7-percent per annum in accordance with the Section herein entitled "The Remied." (b) Expunge from Respondent Union's records all refer- ences to charges unlawfully filed and processed against the following employees as well as all references to fines un- lawfully levied against them. Joseph Clark Parrish Betty Platt Eileen Mauck Lois Dl)a son Suk ttyang Platt Mildred Sanders Fern North Betty Bierma Jennifer Hlornbeck Elizabeth Beeching Edith Streitmatter Alberta McCormick Alice Doyle Edna Leman Shirley Nagel Bessie Buckley Larry Howard Tamara Hesson Alice Yost Joan Streitmatter Annie Shipley Margaret Warran Evelyn Respecke Bonnie Ricks Thomas Engels Irene Allen Mildred Stephenson (c) Notify the employees of the employer that: i. All of Respondent Union's members are free to re- sign their membership without fear of fine or other un- lawful coercion based upon said resignation. ii. Each and every employee herein found to be a dis- criminatee has had all intraunion charges filed against them relating to the crossing of the picket lines of the Respondent Union at the Employer's facility dismissed. iii. Respondent Union will strive to protect equally the rights of all employees in the collective-bargaining unit represented by it at the Employer's facility without regard to their membership in the Union or their support of or their opposition to Respondent Union. (d) Post at its offices and meeting halls copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix." 37 Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 25, after being duly signed by its 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 are customarily posted. Rea- sonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered. defaced, or covered by any other material. (e) Promptly, upon receipt of copies of the aforesaid notice from the Regional Director for Region 25, return to said Regional Director such number of said copies of said notices as he may request for posting by Schumach- er Electric Corporation at its premises in Rensselaer, In- diana, said Employer being willing, at all places where said Emp toyer posts notices to its employees. ' In the event thilt this Order is enforced by a Judgment of a I tlted Stales ( ourt of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted bh Order of the Natlonal I.sabor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursuantlr t a Judgment of the tlnited States Court of Appeals I nforcing anl Order of the Nationail Iahor Relations Board." (f) Notify the Regional Director, in writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps it has taken to comply herewith. APPENDIX Nol ICE To MEMBERS Posrl D BY ORDER OF [HE- NATIONAL L.ABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government After a hearing in which both sides had the opportunity to present evidence, the National Labor Relations Board has found that we violated the National Labor Relations Act and orders us to post this notice and abide by its terms. WE WILL NOT bring charges against: Joseph Clark Parrish Betty Platt Eileen Mauck Lois Dawson Suk Hyang Platt Mildred Sanders Fern North Betty Bierma Jennifer Hornbeck Elizabeth Beeching Edith Streitmatter Alberta McCormick Alice Doyle Mildred SI charges and process said Edna Leman Shirley Nagel Bessie Buckley Larry Howard Tamara Hesson Alice Yost Joan Streitmatter Annie Shipley Margaret Warran Evelyn Respecke Bonnie Ricks Thomas Engels Irene Allen tephenson for crossing the Union's picket line after they have effectively resigned their membership in this union. WE WILL. NO bring to trial and levy fines against: Joseph Clark Parrish Betty Platt Eileen Mauck Lois Dawson Suk Hyang Platt Mildred Sanders Evelyn Respecke Bonnie Ricks Fern North Elizabeth Beeching Alberta H. McCormick Alice Doyle based upon charges filed against them for crossing the Union's picket line after they have effectively resigned their membership. WE WiL.L NOT threaten to fine employees who resign their membership in this Union and thereafter cross our picket line. WE WILL. NOT threaten Joseph Prietula. while in the presence of rank-and-file employees, with damage to his property for crossing our picket line. WE WILL NOT threaten Jennifer Hornbeck, Betty Bi- erma, and/or other employees and/or their families with property damage and other reprisals for crossing our picket lines. WE WILL NOT threaten Alice Doyle. Jennifer Horn- beck, or Betty Bierma that their grievances and the grievances of other nonmembers will not be processed 438 GENERAL TEAMETSERS, LOCAL UINION NO. 298 as diligently as those of members of this Union or that they will not be represented as effectively as members of this Union. WE WILL NOT damage the automobiles of employees attempting to enter the plant grounds through our picket line. WE WILL NOT block the ingress of employees at- tempting to enter the plant grounds through our picket line. WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner restrain or coerce employees in the exercise of the rights guar- anteed them in Section 7 of the National Labor Rela- tions Act. WE WILL rescind all fines levied against: Joseph Clark Parrish Betty Platt Eileen Mauck Lois Dawson Suk Hyang Platt Mildred Sanders Evelyn Respecks Bonnie Ricks Fern North Elizabeth Beeching Alberta H. McCormick Alice Doyle which fines were based upon charges filed against them for crossing our picket line after they effectively resigned their membership in this Union. WE WILL refund to the above-named individuals any money they may have paid as a result of said fines. with interest. WE WILL expunge from records all references to charges unlawfully filed and processed against the fol- lowing employees as well as all references to fines un- lawfully levied against them: Joseph Clark Parrish Edna Leman Betty Platt Shirley Nagel Eileen Mauck Bessie Buckle) Lois Dawson Larry Howard Suk Hyang Platt Tamara Hesson Mildred Sanders Alice Yost FKern North Joan Streitmatter Betty Bierma Annie Shipley Jennifer Hornbeck Margaret Warran Elizabeth Beeching Evelyn Respecke Edith Streitimatter Bonnie Ricks Alberta McCormick Thomas Engels Alice D)otle Irene Allen Mildred Stephenson WE Awi.. forthwith notif), in writing, all employ- ees that members of this Union are free to resign their membership without fear of fine or other un- lawful coercion based upon said resignations. Wi- WltL forthwith notify each and every employ- ee listed immediately above that all intraunion charges filed against them relating to the crossing of our picket line at Schumacher Electric Corporation have been dismissed. WiE wii.t. strive equally to protect the rights of all employees in the collective-bargaining unit repre- sented by us at Schumacher Electric Corporation without regard to their membership in this Union or their support of or opposition to this Union. GNLERAL TEAMSIERS. CHAUFFEURS AND HELPERS L(X'AL UNION No 298, a/w INTERNATIONAL BROIHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEIRS, sARFHOLCSEMEN AND HELPERS OF AMERICA 439