Machinists, Oakland Lodge 284

208 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD International Association of Machinists, Oakland Lodge No. 284, International Association of Ma- chinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO and Morton Salt Company. Case 20-CB-1776 April 30, 1971 DECISION AND ORDER BY MEMBERS FANNING, BROWN, AND JENKINS Upon a charge duly filed on December 18, 1967, by Morton Salt Company, and thereafter amended on January 30, 1968, the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board, by the Acting Regional Direc- tor of Region 20, issued a complaint and notice of hearing on August 26, 1968, against International As- sociation of Machinists, Oakland Lodge No. 284, Inter- national Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO, hereinafter called Respondent. The complaint alleged that Respondent 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 a fine of $1,- 000 each on six union members and a fine of $250' on another union member because they had crossed the picket lines of another union at the Morton Salt Com- pany. On August 29, 1968, Resondent filed an answer denying the commission of any unfair labor practices. On February 20, 1969, the parties executed a stipula- tion of facts and on February 28, 1969, filed a motion to transfer the above-entitled proceeding to the Board by which the parties waived a hearing before a Trial Examiner and the issuance of a Trial Examiner's Deci- sion 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 thereto. On March 4, 1969, 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 filed a brief, a motion to strike answering brief for Respondent,' a reply brief, and an opposition to Charging Party's motion to amend the complaint; the Charging Party filed a brief, a motion to amend complaint to conform to the evi- dence, a response to Respondent's answering brief and to the latter's opposition to its motion to amend com- plaint, and a memorandum in opposition to General Counsel's opposition to its motion to amend the com- ' As the stipulated facts show that the amount of Kormos' fine was $275 rather than $250 as stated in the complaint, the General Counsel' s motion to amend the complaint to conform with the proof is hereby granted. ' By direction of the Board on July 8, 1969, the Board's Associate Execu- tive Secretary ordered that the General Counsel's motion to strike answer- ing brief for Respondent be denied and that the General Counsel's request to submit a response to Resondent's answering brief be granted. plaint; and Respondent filed a brief, an answering brief and oppostion to motion to amend complaint, and an opposition to motion to strike its answering 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 Ts 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 1. JURISDICTION Morton Salt Company, whose principal office is in Chicago, Illinois, is a Delaware corporation which maintains a place of business in Newark, California. At all times material herein, the Company has been en- gaged in the business of refining, packaging, and selling salt. In the course and conduct of its business opera- tions, the Company annually ships goods valued in excess of $50,000 from its Newark, California, plant directly to customers located outside the State of Cali- fornia. The parties stipulated, and we find, that Morton Salt Company 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 The parties stipulated, and we find, that Interna- tional Association of Machinists, Oakland Lodge No. 284, International Association of Machinists and Aero- space Workers, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Facts The pertinent facts are as follows. For a number of years, and at all times material herein, employees at the Newark, California, location of Morton Salt Company have been represented for the purpose of collective bar- gaining in two separate collective-bargaining units. One unit is a warehouse and production unit, whose mem- bers are represented by the Warehousemen's Local 853, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America, herein called Teamsters. The other unit of machinist employees who are represented by Respondent. Respondent and Team- ' As the stipulated record and briefs adequately present the issues and the positions of the parties, Respondent's request for oral argument is hereby denied. 190 NLRB No. 32 MACHINISTS, OAKLAND LODGE 284 209 stern negotiate separate collective-bargaining agree- ments for the employees whom each represents. The Teamsters agreement with the Company expired on June 30, 1967. The latest agreement between the Com- pany and Respondent was negotiated in 1966 and had an expiration date of June 30, 1969. On July 20, 1967, Teamsters struck and picketed the Newark location of the Company in order to obtain a new collective-bargaining agreement . The strike and picketing continued until December 10, 1967, when Teamsters and the Company reached a new collective- bargaining agreement. On July 20, 1967, members of Respondent working at the Company's Newark plant were informed by Re- spondent's shop steward, Lou Holliday, that they were to honor the Teamsters picket line and were not to report to work after that day. Accordingly, the Com- pany's machinist employees, who are represented by Respondent, except for employee August Kormos, honored the Teamsters picket line. Kormos was approached by Edward J. Logue, one of Respondent's business representatives, on the second day of the strike. Logue told him that Respondent observed legally sanctioned picket lines. Kormos con- tinued to work behind the Teamsters picket line for approximately 6 weeks, at which time he took other employment. About August 22, 1967, Respondent im- posed a fine of $275 on Kormos and prohibited him from holding union office for 5 years for crossing the Teamsters picket line. The fine and ban on holding office were subsequently ratified by Respondent's mem- bership and no appeal was taken from this action. After honoring the Teamsters picket line for about 11 weeks, employees Joseph Brazil, Graham Wright, William Gibson, George Reitz, William Clark, and La Verne Miller, who had each earlier indicated a desire to return to work, finally did so on October 3, 1967. Respondent then filed charges against all six of these individuals. Each of the six was notified by letter that he had been formally charged with "Conduct Unbe- coming a Member ... for crossing a `legal' picket line established by ... Teamster ... at the Morton Salt Company plant." In the same letter, each of the six named individuals was instructed to appear before a trial committee of Respondent on October 17, 1967. The date was later changed to October 24, 1967, and each of the six persons was so informed. On October 24, 1967, the six employees appeared before Respondent's trial committee with their attor- ney. Upon learning that their attorney could not repre- sent them because he was not a member of Respondent, all six employees left the trial. They were tried in ab- sentia and found guilty. The trial committee recom- mended a $1,000 fine and expulsion from Respondent. At Respondent's next regular meeting, on December 5, 1967, the results of the trial committee's findings were read to the members present who then voted to concur with the recommendations. The six individuals were notified of the membership action by a letter dated December 12, 1967, that each was fined $1,000 and expelled from Respondent's membership. On January 12, 1968, each of the six employees appealed Respond- ent's action to Respondent's Internation president, P. L. Siemiller. On January 17, 1968, Siemiller acknowl- edged their appeals by letters to each of the employees. On June 21, 1968, Respondent's International upheld the penalties imposed against the six employees and so notified the employees by letter. B. Contentions of the Parties The General Counsel and the Charging Party con- tend that Respondent coerced and restrained the named employees who were union members in viola- tion of Section 8(b)(1)(A) by the imposition of six $1,000 fines and one $275 fine for crossing a picket line of another union as the fines were "unreasonable" in amount. The Charging Party also argues that Respond- ent's imposition of fines upon the named employees was in violation of a no-strike provision in Respondent's contract with the Charging Party and therefore further violative of Section 8(b)(1)(A) on the authority of Local 12419, International Union of District 50, United Mine Workers of America (National Grinding Wheel Com- pany, Inc.), 176 NLRB No. 89. Respondent denies the validity of these contentions. C. Conclusion We are persuaded that the complaint as it stands and the record now before us raise the issue whether Re- spondent's imposition of fines were penalties for refus- ing to participate in a work stoppage in violation of the no-strike clause in Respondent's contract with the Charging Party. We therefore find it unnessary to amend the complaint and accordingly deny the Charg- ing Party's motion to do so to conform the pleadings to the evidence. However, we find, for the reasons set forth below, that Respondent 's conduct was not in vio- lation of the Act and, contrary to the Charging Party's contention, we believe the instant case is clearly distin- guishable from National Grinding Wheel. The contract provision , which the Charging Party asserts to have been violated by the fines reads as fol- lows: SECTION 3.1. NO STRIKE-NO LOCKOUT.- During the life of this Agreement, the Union will not cause a strike or production stoppage of any kind, nor will any employee or employees take part in a strike, intentionally slow down the rate of production or in any manner cause interference 210 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD with or stoppage of the Employer's work, pro- vided the Employer follows the grievance proce- dure for which provision is made herein. Likewise, the Employer agrees that there shall be no lock- outs during the life of this Agreement provided the Union follows the grievance procedure for which provision is made herein. It shall not be considered a violation of this Agreement if employees of the Employer fail to report for work by reason of a legitimate, authorized picket line by another Union which has a collective bargaining agreement with the Employer, and sanctioned by the Bay Cities Metal Trades Council or the Central Labor Coun- cil having jurisdiction. [Emphasis supplied.] As can be seen the no-strike clause in the underscored portion specifically exempts individual employees from any violation of the agreement by their individual hon- oring of the Teamsters picket line. In National Grinding Wheel there was no such im- munity for individual employees from breaching the no-strike clause of their contract if they honored the picket line of another union on strike against their employer. The clause there read as follows: During the term of this agreement, the Company will not conduct a lockout at its plant, and the Union or Local Union will not cause or permit its members to cause any strike or slowdown, total or partial, of work at the Company's plant. The Board agreed with the Trial Examiner that the fines in that case imposed by respondent on its mem- bers who crossed the picket line of a sister local at their plant were penalties for refusing to participate in a work stoppage which was clearly in violation of the no-strike clause of respondent's contract. Stating that the internal character of the discipline does not clothe it with immunity where the reason for the discipline contravenes public policy, the Trial Examiner con- cluded that, in a collective-bargaining context, contract adherence is a sufficiently weighty public policy so that a rule applied "to compel the violation of a no-strike provision overreaches the bounds of legitimacy." In the instant case, as noted above, since the em- ployees were not being compelled by the fines to partici- pate in a violation of the no-strike clause, as they were protected from such a breach by the terms of the clause, the fines merely served to induce conduct on the part of the individual employees which they could engage in with impunity under the terms of the contract as well as under Section 7 of the Act in the absence of any restrictive covenant in the parties' contract. Moreover, apart from the specific immunity granted employees under the terms of the contract, we think that Re- spondent's no-strike commitment was not intended to apply to the instant case. Thus, the no-strike obligation is limited in terms to cases where "the Employer fol- lows the grievance procedure." The import of that phrase is that the no-strike clause is tied only to dis- putes that can arise under the contract and thus are amenable to the grievance procedure of the contract. Obviously, a dispute of that nature must relate to some breach of a term and condition of employment. The conduct sought to be induced, however, was not in support of a dispute arising under the employees' own terms and conditions of employment and thus would not be subject to the grievance machinery provided by Respondent's contract. We therefore find that. Re- spondent's no-strike commitment did not extend to the instant dispute and that Respondent had not waived the statutory right of its members to observe a picket line of another union at the Charging Party's plant.' In these circumstances, we conclude that Respondent's levying fines on the named employees for crossing the. picket line did not tend to compel a breach of the no-strike prohibition in contravention of the Act's poli- cies. Finally, we also conclude that the validity of Re- spondent's fines upon its members, which we have found to be otherwise lawful, is not affected by the amount of the fine.' Accordingly, we shall dismiss the complaint in its entirety. ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Re- lations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the complaint herein be, and it hereby is, dismissed in its entirety. Hoffman Beverage Company, 163 NLRB 981. Booster Lodge No. 405, International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (The Boeing Company), 185 NLRB No. 23; Interna- tional Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO, Local Lodge No. 504 (Arrow Development Co.), 185 NLRB No. 22.