Local 9418, CWA

LOCAL 9418, CWA 291 Local No. 9418, Communications Workers of America, AFL-CIO (Pacific Telephone and Telegraph Com- pany) and Dorothy E. Hansen and Nancy M. Essel- man. Case 20-CB-2043 January 30, 1971 DECISION AND ORDER BY MEMBERS FANNING, BROWN , AND JENKINS Upon a charge duly filed on June 23, 1969, by Dorothy E. Hansen and Nancy M. Esselman, herein called Hansen and Esselman, respectively, the Gener- al Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board, by the Acting Regional Director of Region 20, issued a Complaint and Notice of Hearing on December 29, 1969, against Local No. 9418, Communications Workers of America, AFL-CIO. The complaint alleg- ed that Respondent Union had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, by imposing excessive and arbitrary fines of $299 on nine employees who had worked during Respondent's strike, and thereafter obtained judgments in civil suits and attached the wages of the employees. On January 2, 1970, Respondent filed an answer denying the commission of any unfair labor practices. On various dates between March 31, 1970, and April 15, 1970, the parties executed a stipulation of facts and a motion to transfer proceeding to the Board by which they waived a hearing before a Trial Exam- iner and the issuance of a Trial Examiner's Decision and Recommended Order and agreed to submit the case to the Board for findings of fact, conclusions of law, and an order, based upon a record consisting of the stipulation of facts and the exhibits attached ther- eto. On April 21, 1970, the Board approved the stipula- tion of the parties and ordered the case transferred to the Board, granting permission for the filing of briefs. Thereafter, the General Counsel and Respondent filed briefs. 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 powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel. Upon the basis of the stipulation, the briefs, and the entire record in this case, the Board makes the follow- ing: FINDINGS OF FACT I JURISDICTION Pacific Telephone and Telegraph Company, herein called P.T. & T., is a California corporation with an office located in Modesto, California, where it is en- gaged in the business of providing telephone and oth- er communications service. During the past calendar year, in the course and conduct of its business opera- tions, P.T. & T. received gross revenue in excess of $100,000. In the same period P.T. & T. purchased and received goods and materials valued in excess of $50, 000 directly from suppliers located outside the State of California. We find that P.T. & T. is, and at all times material herein has been, an employer engaged in commerce and in operations affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. II THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED Local 9418, Communications Workers of America, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Facts Respondent has been the exclusive representative of a unit of traffic department employees of P.T. & T. at its Modesto, California, operation. The most recent collective-bargaining agreement was operative through October 16, 1969.' Beginning in March 1968, the Bell System operating companies, including P.T. & T., Respondent, and other communications unions, including the Communications Workers of America, herein called CWA, engaged in contract ne- gotiations with a view toward reaching new agree- ments under wage reopener provisions in their then current agreements. In April 1968 various communi- cations unions, including CWA, began a nationwide strike to gain their demands. On April 18, 1968, cer- tain employees in the unit went out on strike and picketed in support of wage demands made by Res- pondent. The strike and picketing continued until May 5, 1968, when Respondent and P.T. & T. reached an amended collective-bargaining agreement effec- tive as of May 1, 1968, to April 30, 1971. Prior to the strike by the unit employees in support of Respondent's demands, two employees resigned from membership in Respondent, A.T. (Sue) Cosetino on April 14, 1968, and Nancy Esselman on April 15, Respondent's agreement provided for "maintenance of membership " 188 NLRB No. 49 292 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 1968. On the day the employees struck, April 18, two employees resigned from Respondent, Dorothy Han- sen and Donna Mathews. The following employees resigned from membership in Respondent during the strike: Norma Wright on April 19, Sharon Pole on April 21, Opaline Liles on April 22, Virginia Adams on April 22, and Janet Dunn on April 27, 1968. All of the employees who resigned their membership in Res- pondent crossed the picket line and worked through the duration of the strike, but continued to pay monthly dues. Their gross wages during the strike were as follows: Virginia Adams, $209; A.T. (Sue) Cosetino, $285; Janet Dunn, $126.70; Nancy Essel- man, $251.20; Dorothy Hansen, $304; Opaline Liles, $231; Donna Mathews, $294.50; Sharon Pole, $149. 60; and Norma Wright, $220.50. On May 28, 1968, Respondent wrote each of the aforementioned employees who had crossed the pick- et line and worked, that charges had been filed against them with the "trials court" of Respondent asserting that they had violated Respondent's bylaws and the constitution of the CWA 2 The trials court, on June 11, 1968, imposed fines in the amount of $299 on each of the employees because they had worked behind Respondent's authorized picket line. On June 12, 1968, Respondent notified the employees by letter of the results of the trial court action. Respondent brought suits in California Small Claims Court to collect the fines imposed on the em- ployees by Respondent, and on April 30, 1969, judg- ments were rendered.' Thereafter, beginning May 19, 1969, Respondent agreed to accept monthly payments from Pole; it collected the full amount of the judg- ments from Adams, Liles, and Mathews; it attached the wages of Cosetino, Dunn, and Wright; and al- though Respondent requested that Hansen and Essel- man pay the amount of the Judgments against them, they have declined to pay. nance of membership clause contained in Respondent's contract with P.T. & T. It is further urged that Respondent had no supportable basis upon which to fine the employees, since Respondent fined the employees on a contract theory, and their con- duct, upon which Respondent sought to impose fines, took place after their contractual obligations were ter- minated. The General Counsel also argues that the fines were arbitrary and unreasonable since the sum exceeded the net earnings of all the employees in- volved. Finally General Counsel urges that the facts herein differ fundamentally from those in Local Lodge 1424 v. N.L.R.B. [Bryan Mfg. Co.], 362 U.S. 411, where all of the operative facts necessary to find a violation occurred outside the 10(b) period. Here the unlawful conduct of Respondent did not cease once the fines were imposed since Respondent engaged in further unlawful acts by instituting court actions to collect the fines and by collecting the fines based on these actions. Respondent contends that the complaint is barred by the 6-month statute of limitations in Section 10(b) and that the vice, if any in this case, was the imposi- tion of the fines for crossing the picket lines, and that, concededly, the fines were imposed more than 6 months prior to the filing of the charges. All that occurred within the limitations period herein was the institution of legal proceedings to collect the fines, and that was not an unlawful act. Respondent also contends that it had the right to fine members who resigned in anticipation of or during an economic strike and then crossed a lawful picket line, and that it can institute legal action to collect those fines. Fi- nally, Respondent contends that the fines were rea- sonable and that the proviso to Section 8(b)(1)(A) precludes interference with the internal affairs of a union. Conclusion B. Contentions of the Parties General Counsel contends that Respondent's insti- tution of court enforcement action to collect fines imposed on employees who crossed its picket line af- ter resigning from Respondent and its continuing ef- forts to collect the fines violated Section 8(b)(1)(A). It is urged that the employees herein had voluntarily become members of Respondent and that they were required to remain members by virtue of the mainte- 2 Neither the Local bylaws nor the constitution contain references relative to members resigning from Respondent. 3 Virginia Adams, $150 plus $7.10 costs; AT. (Sue) Cosetino, $200 plus $5.10 costs ; Janet Dunn, $75 plus $ 12 costs; Nancy Esselman, $ 180 plus $7.10 costs; Dorothy Hansen, $200 plus $790 costs, Opahne Liles, $150 plus $7.10 costs, Donna Mathews, $200 plus $10.30 costs; Sharon Pole, $150 plus $6.40 costs, Norma Wright, $ 180 plus $7 10 costs. We need not, in this case, reach the underlying issues of law, for we conclude that even were we to decide those issued in accord with the theories ad- vanced by the General Counsel, the complaint is time- barred! In International Association of Machinists andAeros- pace Workers (Union Carbide) 5 the Board dismissed the complaint because all of the operative facts neces- sary to make out the claimed violation, i.e., resigna- tion of memberships, crossing of picket lines, and unlawful fines occurred more than 6 months prior to 4 Section 10(b) of the Act reads, in pertinent part: Provided . . . no complaint shall issue based upon any unfair labor practice occurring more than six months prior to the filing of the charge with the Board and the service of a copy thereof upon the person against whom such charge is made . . 180 NLRB No. 135. LOCAL 9418, CWA 293 the filing of charges. The Board relied on Bryan Man- ufacturing Co. 6 where the Supreme Court held that Section 10(b) precludes the Board from finding a vio- lation of the Act in those cases in which conduct occurring within the limitations period can be charged to be an unfair labor practice only through reliance on an earlier unfair labor practice. Moreover, the Board specifically found that, as herein, all that occurred within the limitations period was the institu- tion of legal proceedings to collect the fines, and there is nothing unlawful in this act in and of itself. On November 27, 1970, the Board issued a Supple- mental Decision in Union Carbide '' in which it re- affirmed, upon reconsideration, its Order dismissing the complaint because it was time-barred under Sec- tion 10(b) of the Act. Accordingly, in these circumstances , we must dis- miss the complaint. ORDER It is hereby ordered that the complaint herein be, and it hereby is, dismissed in its entirety. 6 Supra. 7 lnternanonal Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, 186 NLRB No. 138.