Los Angeles Paper Handlers Union No. 3

420 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Los Angeles Paper Handlers Union No. 3, Internation- al Printing Pressmen and Assistants' Union of North America, AFL-CIO (J. W. Clement, Pacific Press Division) and William F. Dauphine. Case 21-CB- 3568 February 5, 1971 DECISION AND ORDER By CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS FANNING AND BROWN On August 28, 1970, Trial Examiner George Chris- tensen issued his Decision in the above-entitled pro- ceeding, finding that Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices, and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the at- tached Trial Examiner's Decision. Thereafter, Re- spondent filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's De- cision and supporting 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 powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel. The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no preju- dicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial Examiner's Decision, the exceptions and brief, and the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner, as modified below. The Trial Examiner found that Respondent violat- ed Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act by its January 15, 1970, letter to Dauphine threatening to cause his em- ployer to discharge him, and violated Section 8(b)(2) by its February 4, 1970, request that his employer discharge him, because of his failure to pay to Res- pondent a sum purporting to the dues but to which, as the Trial Examiner found, Respondent was not entitled because it had not offered to restore Dau- phine to full good-standing membership. Respondent does not except to these findings, and they are adopt- ed pro forma. Respondent excepts only to that portion of the rem- edy requiring it to expunge or otherwise correct any records purporting to show any dues delinquencies against Dauphine for any months for which he tend- ered or tenders dues and any months he was or con- tinues to be denied full good-standing membership in Respondent and to withdraw its October 1969 and January 15, 1970, demands for dues. Respondent contends that these provisions of the remedy constitute an invasion of internal union af- fairs proscribed by the proviso to Section 8(b)(1)(A). We find no merit in this contention. By its terms, the proviso is limited to Section 8(b)(1)(A), and has no effect on the Board's power to formulate a proper remedy for a violation of Section 8(b)(2). Moreover, the proviso goes only to legitimate internal union af- fairs, not unfair labor practices such as those which have been found in this case and as to which the Respondent has not excepted.' Where such a remedy is necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act, the Board has exercised its authority to order matters expunged from union records.2 We are persuaded, however, that such a remedy is not necessary or appropriate in this case. In our view, these provisions go beyond the violations found, which will be adequately remedied by an order to cease and desist from the conduct found to be unlaw- ful and to withdraw Respondent's threat of, and re- quest for, Dauphine's discharge for failure to pay or tender monthly dues for any period during which he was or continues to be denied full good-standing un- ion membership. On the facts presented in this case, therefore, we find it unnecessary and inappropriate to require Respondent to change its internal records or withdraw its demands for dues . So long as Respon- dent takes no action affecting Dauphine's employ- ment for improperly claimed dues delinquencies during periods as described above, no policies of the Act will have been violated. Thus, our order has the effect of giving Respondent a choice between restor- ing Dauphine to full good-standing membership and relinquishing its right to condition his employment on payment of dues. We believe it unnecessary to force, as our colleague's proposed order would do, restora- tion of Dauphine to good-standing membership. 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 Order of the Trial Examiner as modified below and hereby orders that the Respondent , Los Angeles Pa- per Handlers .Union No. 3, International Printing Pressmen and Assistants' Union of North America, AFL-CIO, its officers, agents, successors, and repre- sentatives, shall take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order, as so modified: 1. Delete paragraph 3(a) of the Recommended Or- der. 2. Delete the old paragraph 3(b) of the Recom- mended Order and substitute the following as a new See San Francisco -Oakland Mailers' Union No. 18, ITU (Northwest Pub- lications, Inc.), 172 NLRB No. 252. 'San Francisco-Oakland Mailers' Union, supra, Toledo Locals Nos. 15-P and 272, Lithographers (Toledo Blade Co), 175 NLRB No 173; New Mexico Carpenters Council (A S. Horner), 176 NLRB No 105, 177 NLRB No 76; Sheet Metal Workers Local 49 (General Metal Products), 178 NLRB No 24, Dallas Mailers Union (Dow Jones Co), 181 NLRB No. 49. 188 NLRB No. 64 LOS ANGELES PAPER HANDLERS UNION NO. 3 paragraph 3(a) and reletter the remaining paragraph's accordingly. "(a) Inform Dauphine by letter of its withdrawal of its January 15, 1970, threat." 3. In footnote 12 of the Trial Examiner's Decision, substitute "20" for "10" days. 4. Substitute for the notice attached to the Trial Examiner's Decision the notice to members attached hereto. CHAIRMAN MILLER, dissenting in part: I do not agree that an expungement remedy is im- proper in this case. I find no legitimate reason for Respondent to continue to keep a record of clearly improper entries on its books. On the other hand, the record has shown that Res- pondent has evidenced a proclivity for utilizing such basis for illegal threats jeopardizing Dauphine's em- ployment. If we wish effectively to prevent further unlawful attacks of this kind, we should eliminate the instrumentality for the attacks. Respondent should, in my view, be required to expunge the improper entries from its records. APPENDIX NOTICE TO MEMBERS POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government After a trial at which all sides had the opportunity to present their evidence, the National Labor Relations Board found that we violated the law and ordered us not to do certain things, to do other things, and to post this Notice informing you of the Board's Order. We therefore wish to inform you that: WE WILL NOT threaten William M. Dauphine with discharge under our union-securaty agree- ment wit J. W. Clement, Pacific Press Division, for failing to pay dues, assessments, or fines which we are not entitled to receive covering pe- riods during which we denied him the rights and privileges of full goodstanding membership in our organization. WE WILL NOT attempt to cause, or cause, J. W. Clement, Pacific Press Division, to discharge Dauphine under that union-security agreement unless and until he becomes delinquent in dues payments for months following our reinstating him to full good-standing membership in our or- ganization, including releasing him from "Co- ventry" and restoring his rights to attend our meetings, participate in our discussions, votes, and elections, and associate and converse with our members. WE WILL inform Dauphine by letter of our withdrawal of our January 15, 1970, threat to 421 cause his discharge for not paying money to which we were not entitled; and WE WILL inform J. W. Clement, Pacific Press Division, by letter of our withdrawal of our February 4, 1970, request for Dauphine's discharge under our union-secu- rity agreement with it because of his failure to pay such sums. Los ANGELES PAPER HANDLERS UNION No. 3, INTERNATIONAL PRINTING PRESS- MEN AND ASSISTANTS' UNION OF AMERICA. AFL-CIO (Labor Organization) Dated By NORTH (Representative) (Title) This is an official notice and must not be defaced by anyone. This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. Any questions concerning this notice or compli- ance with its provisions may be directed to the Board's Office, Eastern Columbia Building, 849 South Broadway, Los Angeles, California 90014, Telephone 213-688-5200 TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE GEORGE CHRISTENSEN, Trial Examiner: On April 30, 1970, the Examiner held a hearing at Los Angeles, California, to try issues raised by a complaint issued on March 17, 1970, alleging that the Los Angeles Paper Handlers Union No. 3, International Printing Pressmen and Assistants' Union of North America, AFL-CIO,I violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) and (2) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended (Act), by threatening company employee Dauphine with dis- charge for failing or refusing to pay back dues and by at- tempting to cause J. W. Clement, Pacific Press Division,2 to discharge Dauphine for such failure or refusal. Service of the charge, the commerce facts and conclu- sions, qualification of Union as a labor organization under the Act, and the agency status at all pertinent times of the Union's president (Kenneth Murray, secretary-treasurer (George Woenschel), and chapel chairman at the Company (Louis H. Robles) are all conceded in the Union' s answer to the complaint. It is stipulated that at all times pertinent Dauphine was an employee of the Company in an appropri- ate unit covered by a union-shop agreement; that on Janu- ary 15, 1970, the Union formally notified Dauphine that the International on August 14, 1969, ruled that his April 1969 suspension from membership in the Union violated its con- stitution and bylaws and directed the Union to restore his 1 Hereafter Los Angeles Paper Handlers Union No 3 will be referred to as "the Union" and the International Union with which it is affiliated, International Punting Pressmen and Assistants Union of North America, AFL-CIO, will be called "the International " 2 Hereafter called the Company. 422 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD membership, requested that Dauphine remit dues for the months August 1969 through January 1970, and threatened Dauphine with a renewed suspension from membership and request for his discharge under the union-shop agreement unless such dues were paid by February 1, 1970; and that on February 4, 1970, the Union asked the Company to discharge Dauphine under the union-shop agreement on his failure to comply with its demand. For the most part the facts are not disputed; the major question is whether the Union's January 15, 1970, threat to Dauphine and February 4, 1970, request of the Company were unlawful under Section 8(b)(1)^A) and (2) of the Act. The General Counsel and the Union were afforded full opportunity at the hearing to present evidence and examine and cross-examine witnesses and to file briefs. Both have filed briefs. Based on his review of the entire record, observation of the witnesses, perusal of the briefs and research, the Exam- iner enters the following: FINDINGS OF FACT I JURISDICTION AND LABOR ORGANIZATION As noted heretofore, the jurisdictional and labor organi- zation allegations of the complaint were either admitted or stipulated; the Examiner therefore finds and concludes that at all times pertinent the Company was an employer en- gaged in commerce in a business affecting commerce and the Umon was a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(2), (5), (6), and (7) of the Act. II THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. The Union's Fine and Assessment Policies Dauphine was a member of the Union and an employee of the Company for several years preceding December 1968. Prior to that date, the Union levied an assessment on its members of $10 per month to support its strike against the Los Angeles Herald Examiner. It also prior to that date adopted-a policy to fine any member who failed or refused to report for assigned picket duty at the Herald Examiner- $5 for the first refusal and $10 for each subsequent refusal. Dues were $12 per month. The Union followed the policy of deducting any unpaid assessments and fines from any monies tendered to it by its members prior to applying such tenders to any unpaid dues. Apparently all its members, including Dauphine, tendered dues and any other payments directly to the Union because the contracts between the Union and the companies employing its members did not contain checkoff provisions. B. Dauphine's Fines, Misapplication of His Dues Tenders, and Suspension On December 9, 1968, Dauphine was fined $5 for failing or refusing to picket as assigned . On February 28, 1969, he was fined another $ 10 for the same offense. In each of the months of December 1968 and January, February, and March 1969, Dauphine followed his normal practice of sending a check to the Union in the amount of $22, $10 to cover the current assessment and $12 to cover current dues. The Union accepted and cashed each check tendered except the March check , which it returned, appar- ently on the ground the tender was insufficient in view of the $15 fine outstanding (the Union failed to state any re- ason with the return). On April 21, 1969, Dauphine received a written notice from the International that he had been suspended from membership for alleged nonpayment of dues for the months of December 1968 and January, Feb- ruary and March 1969 .' That same month (April) the Union asked the Company to discharge Dauphine for his alleged nonpayment of dues. Dauphine filed charges with Region 21 against the Union and the case was settled by the Union's agreement to with- draw its request. Dauphine also protested his suspension to the Interna- tional, taking the position that the picketing fines were un- lawfully imposed. Vice President Boland of the International Union conducted a special meeting of the Union's membership in July 1969 at which Dauphine voiced his protest to Boland. C. Further Union Retribution Against the Recalcitrants, Including Dauphine On August 8, 1969, Muarry, the Union's president, pub- lished an article in the Los Angeles Citizen stating: (1) four members of the Union were fined for failing or refusing to picket per assignment in the Herald-Examiner dispute;"- (2) rules of the Union require that all money tendered to the Union by a member must first be applied to unpaid fines and assessments ; (3) the application of that policy caused the four to fall behind in their dues and resulted in their suspension from membership ; (4) the four could reacquire good standing membership only by paying all back fines, assessments, and dues, submitting a new application for membership supported by three good standing members, and being elected to membership by the members of the Union; and (5) suggested that the four be placed in "coven- try," i.e., not be associated with or talked to. Two copies of Murray's article were placed on the Union's bulletin board at the Company's plant ; some unknown person wrote the names Dauphine and Prescott on one copy.5 After the posting of the above article Dauphine changed to a more isolated,lob and ceased to visit or frequent the area where the bulletin board was maintained , which was in an area where the employees took their coffebreaks and ate lunch. D. Reversal of the Union's Fine and Assessment Levies by the International On August 14, 1969, the president of the International directed a letter to Murray informing Murray that he had reviewed Boland's report concerning the picketing fines (plus other complaints) and had reached the decision that the Union had violated both its own and the International's constitution and bylaws by fining its members for failing or refusing to perform picket duty assigned by the Union in the course of the Herald-Examiner dispute, directed the Union to cease and desist from collecting such fines, and further directed the Union to restore to good standing members who lost their membership rights by reason of nonpayment of such fines. Murray interpreted the letter as an invalida- tion of the assessments as well, since neither policy was adopted by secret ballot. 3 Apparently the Union failed to forward the requisite portion of Dauphine's December, January, and February dues tendered to the Interna- tional Murray testified that five, not four, members of the Union were fined for failing or refusing to picket as assigned- Bud Robbins, Dennis Johnson, Bob Houles, Lee Prescott, and Dauphine 5 Robbins, Johnson, and Houles were not employed by the Company LOS ANGELES PAPER HANDLERS UNION NO. 3 423 E. The Union's "Compliance" With the International's Directives Murray took no action on the letter until the October 12, 1969, meeting of the Union, when he read it to the assem- bled membership. Following the meeting, Murray sent cop- ies of the letter to the Union's chapel chairmen for posting at the plants employing the five men who were suspended for failing or refusing to pay the fines. Sometime that same month , Murray visited the Company's plant and spoke with Robles, the Union's chap- el chairman at the plant. Robles told Murray that Dauphine wanted to see him. Murray sought out Dauphine . Dauphine expressed his desire to regain good standing membership in the Union, but said he could not understand how the inter- national arrived at its April 1969 position that he was in arrears in dues for the months of December 1968 and Janu- ary and February 1969, when he had tendered dues through February 1969 and had his cancelled checks to prove the Union's acceptance of them . Dauphine also expressed his concern over his "coventry" status, stating that many of his fellow employees did not associate with or talk to him. Murray promised to check into the mixup in the dues credits in the spring, informed Dauphine that the International Union had overruled the Union on the fines and the assess- ments in August and Dauphine owed dues at least from the month the decision issued (August), and suggested that if Dauphine wanted to get out of "coventry" he tender the back fines and assessments as well as the back dues charged against him. Murray stated'if Dauphine would make such full payment he (Murray) "would circulate this around, and he (Dauphine) would be re-established in the Union in good faith ... that (paying the fines and assessments) would put him in good light with his brother members , who had been paying the assessments all along , themselves ...." Dau- phine replied that he would think about it.6 Murray made similar contact with Robbins , Johnson and Houles, all of whom paid 7 and were restored to good standing. The re- cord does not disclose if Murray had any personal contact with Prescott ; however, it was conceded that as of the date of the hearing Prescott had not tendered any payments to the Union following his suspension from the Union in the spring of 1969 under the same circumstances as Dauphine and was continuously employed by the Company at all times since his suspension to and including the date of the hearing. Robles posted the International president's August 14 letter on the bulletin board at the plant on October 23, 1969. Robles and Dauphine discussed Dauphine's status with the Union several times thereafter. Robles urged Dauphine to pay the Union but when asked by Dauphine whether he actually had been reinstated to good standing by the Union, Robles responded that he didn t know-it could be-noth- ing was official. 6 The foregoing findings concerning the statments of Dauphine and Mur- ray are based on their uncontradicted testimony , with one exception Murray testified he told Dauphine of the International 's decision and that Dauphine owed dues from August 1969 on, Dauphine denied any knowledge of the International's decision or any demand for dues from August 1969 prior to his receipt of the January 15, 1970, letter from the Union so notifying him The Examiner credits Murray's testimony in this regard , as it appears unrea- sonable that Dauphine, having voiced his complaint to a vice president of the International and with a consequent interest in its disposition, would be entirely unaware of it over a 5-month period following its issuance He had no difficulty procuring a copy of the Internation president's ruling when he sought one from Oscar Townes, a member of the Union His testimony showed his isolation as a result of the "coventry" policy was not complete, Robles and Townes conversed with him and without doubt they and others discussed the International's ruling and directive to the Union, since it would be of general interest to the shop employees. r The record does not disclose what they paid F. The Union's Threat to Cause Dauphine's Discharge and Attempt to Cause Same Dauphine's next word from Murray was a letter dated January 15, 1970, formally notifying Dauphine that the In- ternational on August 15, 1969, ruled that any membership suspensions resulting from nonpayment of the fines for fail- ing or refusing to picket were unlawful and directed the Union to restore to good standing any member who had lost such standing by reason of nonpayment of such fines. The letter further demanded that Dauphine pay dues from Au- gust 1969 through January 1970 and threatened Dauphine with a renewed suspension and request for his discharge unless such payment was made by February 1, 1970. On Dauphine's failure to make the requested tender by the date set, the Union sent a letter to the Company dated February 4, 1970, requesting the discharge ofDauphine (and Prescott), stating that any member who had not tend- ered dues to the Union for 60 consecutive days was delin- quent under the Union's rules, that Dauphine and Prescott had not tendered dues for over 180 days preceding the date of its letter, and therefore their discharges were requested under the union-shop agreement between the Union and the Company. About February 6, 1970, Dauphine (and Prescott) were called to the offices of Jerry Maras, the Company's industri- al relations director, informed of the Union s letter, (Maras also had a copy of the January 15 letter), and told to secure a release from the Union or face discharge. In a second meeting with Maras about a week later, Dauphine and Pres- cott informed Maras that they were prepared to pay dues from the month the Union notified them personally and formally (by January 15, 1970, letters) of their entitlement to reinstatement, but not for the preceding months demand- ed by the Union. Maras offered under the circumstances to accept a tender from Dauphine and Prescott of dues for 2 months as an intermediary, for transmission to the Union. Dauphine and Prescott agreed and tendered the requisite sums ($24 each) to Maras. Maras then telephoned Murray and told Murray he had checks from Dauphine and Prescott for the Union covering 2 months dues and offered to turn them over to Murray. Murray stated that he would not accept the tender, that the two owed dues from August and must tender $72 each. He said he would check with his lawyer and contact Maras later. Maras continued to hold the checks thereafter but received no further word from Murray. G. Analysis and Conclusions It is clear that the Union caused the International to suspend Dauphin's good-standing membership in April 1969 apparently by failing to forward the requisite per cap- ita payments due to the International for the months of December 1968 and January and February 1969 from the dues payments made in each of those months by Dauphine and dues_ payments rejecting Dauphine's tender in March 1969 of his dues for th at month. It is further apparent that the Union did this to place itself in a position where it could threaten Dauphine ((and other members who failed or refused to picket) with loss of their jobs for such failure or refusal, thereby demonstrating its power effectively to discipline those who disobeyed its in- structions. It is reasonable to presume that some members would be reluctant to support the Union in a dispute with an employer other than their own, not only by paying a monthly assessment to support the employees of the struck employer, but also by spending part of their nonworking 424 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD time picketing such employer. Suspension from member- ship for nonpayment of fines and/ or assessments is a weak means for disciplining members who refuse to picket or to pay assessments or fines, inasmuch as this results in a loss of dues income as well. (A member suspended for nonpay- ment of fines or assessments-which is automatic in many unions after a limited period of time-is thereby relieved of any obligation to tender dues). Loss of employment, how- ever, is extremely effective. Inasmuch as the Act permits discharge under union-secu- rity agreements only for dues delinquency, the Union resort- ed to the simple device of forcing such delinquency in the case of Dauphine (plus Prescott, Robbins, Johnson, and Houles) by deliberate misapplication of their dues tenders. The Union's first (April 1969) attempt to effect such disci- pline was thwarted when Dauphine filed a charge with Re- gion 31, forcing the Union to withdraw its request to the Company for Dauphin's discharge. A second blow fell in August 1969 when the International ruled that the picketin fines (and assessments) were unlaw- ful under its internal laws. Understandably reluctant to implement the International's order directing the Union to restore any member to good standing who had lost such standing as a result of the Union's application of its picketing refusal fine policy, its president (Murray) delayed announcement of the ruling to the members until the Union's October 1969 meet- ing and did not post the order at shops employing its mem- bers until later that month. When he met with Dauphine, still in October, Murray sought to pressure Dauphine to pay the two fines and monthly assessments and dues all the way back to March 1969 to secure relase from "coventry: Met with cautious rejoinder from Dauphine (that he would "think about" this demand) and no tender of the substantial sum involved,8 in January 1970 Murray reduced the Union's price still further-to payment of $72 (to cover an alleged 6 months' dues delinquency from August 1969, the month the Union received the International's order). In his January 1969 communication, however, Murray still re- mained silent regarding Daupphire's request to be released from "coventry" and ignored-his request for an explanation of what happened to his December 1968 and January and February 1-969 dues tenders. Met with continued unrespon- siveness on Dauphine's part, Murray followed through on his January 1969 threat with a demand on the Company for Dauphine s discharge for failure to pay the money demand- ed. Dauphine was deprived of any opportunity to participate in the Union's affairs, to attend its meetings, to debate and vote on matters of concern to its members, to fraternize with his fellow employees, and to receive such other benefits as members derive from their membership in the Union from the date of his April 1969 suspension on. Neither in Murray's October 1969 conversation nor in his January 15, 1970, letter did Murray carry out the mandate of the Inter- national Union's August 1969 letter and offer Dauphinefull restoration to good standing; in the October conversation Murray implied that Dauphine would remain in "coventry" unless he paid $191 to the Union (as of that month); in January of 1970 he conditioned restoration of good stand- sAs of October 1969, $191-$96 for $12 per month dues and $80 for monthly assessments from March through October, plus $15 in fines for failure to picket. 9 The only meeting Dauphine attended during his suspension was the July 1969 special meeting; however, this meeting was held only for the purpose of giving Dauphine and members of the Union who had complained to the International about various actions of the Union an opportunity to present their grievances to Vice President Boland of the International ing on the payment of $72 and still failed to assure Dau- phine of a release from "coventry." It is difficult to perceive any valid basis for a wrongdoer (the Umon) to condition its compliance with the mandate of a superior body (the Inter- national) on payments by the wronged person for months in which such person suffered irremediable deprivations, as described above. When and if the Union unconditionally restores Dauphine to full good-standing membership, including release from "coventry," Dauphine will be obliged to tender dues to it and not before. That restoration has not occurred.1° The Examiner therefore finds that by its January 15, 1970, letter the Union threatened to cause the Company to discharge Dauphine for failure to pay a sum to which it was not entitled and without an accompanying offer of restoration of full good-standing membership and thus restrained and coerced Dauphine in the exercise of his ri ghts under Section 7 of the Act, thereby violating Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act. The Examiner further finds that by its February 4, 1970, request that the Com any discharge Dauphine , the Union attempted to cause the Company to discriminate against Dauphine while denying him full membership rights for reasons other than his failure to tender dues which it was entitled to receive and thereby violated Section 8(bX2) of the Act. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The Company is an employer engaged in commerce in a business affecting commerce and the Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(2), (5), (6) and (7) of the Act. 2. By its January 15, 1970, threat to cause the Company to discharge Dauphine unless he paid a sum to which it was not entitled and without unconditionally offering Dauphine restoration to full good-standing membership , the Union restrained and coerced Dauphine in the exercise of rights under Section 7 of the Act and violated Section 8(b)(IXA) of the}►ct. 3. By its February 4, 1970, request for Dauphine's dis- charge for failure to pay the aforementioned sum the Union attempted to cause the Company to discriminate against Dauphine while denying him full good-standing member- ship for reasons other than his failure to tender dues which it was entitled to receive and thereby violated Section 8(bX2) of the Act. 4. The above violations affect commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. THE REMEDY To remedy the violations recited above it shall be recom- mended that the Union cease and desist from threatening Dauphine with discharge under its union-security agree- ment with the Company for any reason other than his fail- ure to tender dues Tor months following its unconditional offer to restore Dauphine to full good-standing member- ship, including but not limited to restoration of his rights to attend any and all union meetings, participate in union 10 Murray clearly conveyed to Dauphine in October 1969 that he would remain in "coventry" until and unless he paid dues and assessments for each month from March 1969, plus $15 in fines for nonpicketing; in his January 1970 letter, Murray still conditioned reinstatement on payment of dues for each month from August 1969 and did not indicate that Dauphine would be released from "coventry," Dauphine could not effectively participate in dis- cussions of policy and other umon affairs if the Union's members persisted in refusing to speak to him or associate with him at union meetings. Thus the Union has yet to comply with the International Union's August 1969 order, and consequently Dauphine still has no duty to tender. LOS ANGELES PAPER HANDLERS UNION NO. 3 425 discussions, elections, and other affairs of the Union, his release from "coventry" (to enable him to converse and associate with members of the Union), etc. It shall be fur- ther recommended that the Union cease and desist from causing or attempting to cause the Company to discharge Dauphine except for the reason just set forth. In order to rectify the unfair labor practices herein found, it shall be recommended that the Union perform the following affirm- ative acts: (1) expunge or otherwise correct any records purporting to show any dues delinquencies against Dau- phine for any months for 1 which he tendered or tenders dues and any months he was or continues to be denied full good-standing membership in the Union; (2) send a letter to the Company withdrawing and revokin its February 4, 1970, demand for Dauphin's discharge; (3) send a letter to Dauphine withdrawing its October 169 and January 15, 1970, demands and threats; (4) post notices where notices to its members are customarily posted, including (but not limited to) the bulletin board at the Company's plant where notices to its members are customarily posted, in the form attached to this Decision marked "Appendix." RECOMMENDED ORDER against Dauphine except any dues delinquencies which may occur after he is offered fun good-standing membership as defined above. (b) Inform Dauphine by letter of its withdrawal of its October 1969 and January 15, 1970 , demands and threats. (c) Inform the Company by letter of its withdrawal of its February 4, 1970, request for Dauphine's discharge under the union-security agreement between the Union and the Company. (d) Post at its offices and meeting halls and all other places where notices to members are customarily posted, including the bulletin boards where such notices are posted at the Company's plant and other plants where its members are employed, in conspicuous places , copies of the attached notice marked "Appppendix."[ 1 Copies of the notice on forms provided by the 'Regional Director for Region 21, after being duly signed byy the Union's authorized representa- tives, shall be posted b it immediately upon receipt thereof and maintained for 60 consecutive days . Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Union to insure that such notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by other material. (e) Notify the Regional Director for Region 21, in writing, within 20 days from the receipt of this Decision, what steps the Union has taken to comply herewith.12 1. The Union, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns shall: (a) Cease and desist from threatening Dauphine with dis- charge under the union-security agreement between the Un- ion and the Company for any reason other than his failure to tender dues for months following its unconditional offer to restore Dauphine to full good-standing membership as that restoration is defined in "The Remedy." (b) Cease and desist from causing or attempting to cause the Company to discharge Dauphine under that agreement except for the reason just stated. 2. Take the following affirmative action which will effec- tuate the policies of the Act: (a) Expunge from or correct any records purporting to show any dues, assessment, or fine delinquency charged 11 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, recommendations , and Recommended Order herein shall, as provided in Sec. 102.48 of the Rules and Regulations, be adopted by the Board and become its findings , conclusions, and order, and all objections thereto shall be deemed waived for all purposes . In the event that the Board's Order is enforced by a judgment of a United States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by Order of the National Labor Rela- tions Board" shall be changed to read "Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board." 12 In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board, this provision shall be modified to read : "Notify the Regional Director for Re- gion 21, in writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps it has taken to comply herewith."